Bjorn Lomborg Profile picture
Aug 22, 2020 22 tweets 9 min read Read on X
Peter Birch Sørensen anmelder min bog negativt i Politiken

Han baserer sig mest på studie, der ekstremt manipulerer data

Urimeligt verden skal spilde mere end $1000 milliarder baseret på alarmistiske gæt, fjernt fra mainstream økonomi

politiken.dk/kultur/boger/b…
Jeg bruger Nobelpristageren William Nordhaus' model for optimal klimapolitik

PBS hævder, at "stigende antal klimaøkonomer" er uenige

Men dette er misvisende — jo, altid nogen uenighed blandt økonomer, men de tre store modeller giver næsten samme resultater (næste tweet) Image
Her er de tre store IAM, som også Obama brugte til at estimere klima-skader, FUND, PAGE og DICE (Nordhaus)

De har meget ens estimater

Jeg bruger den sorte linie

(Og estimaterne burde om noget være *mindre negative* fordi dynamisk mere realistisk)
sciencedirect.com/science/articl… Image
Jeg bruger Nordhaus til at estimere skaderne ved ingen klimapolitik i 2100 til 3.6% af BNP.

Fun fact, 1.5°C rapporten fra FNs Klimapanel i 2018 (som alarmister kalder "domedagsrapporten"), vurderer det *mindre negativt* til 2,6%

p256, ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/c… Image
Men PBS vil meget gerne at 2°C er fornuftigt, så han bliver sur over, at jeg kritiserer denne artikel:

nature.com/articles/s4155…

Lad os se, hvor godt PBS har det med artiklens antagelser Image
Her er mainstream estimaterne på klimaskader fra de tre mainstream modeller

Disse baseret på FNs klimapanel (p690, ipcc.ch/site/assets/up…)

Cirklerne viser alle peer-reviewed studier, med størrelsen afhængig af kvaliteten af studiet, nber.org/papers/w23646 Image
Næsten hele resultat fra Nature artiklen kommer fra *drastisk* forøgelse af skaderne ifht mainstream (FUND, PAGE og DICE)

De bruger kun denne artikel: link.springer.com/article/10.100…

Den bruger næsten de samme referencer

*men tilføjer 11 ikke-videnskabeligt publicerede estimater* Image
Politiken valgte at udelade denne pointe, da de renskrev mit interview med mig for søndagsavisen

— selvom jeg insisterede over 3 gange

(Overstreget kom ikke med)

politiken.dk/debat/art78754… Image
Nordhaus' mainstream resultat viser, at omkostningen ved 4°C er 2.9% af BNP

Den nye artikel eksploderer det tal til 11.9%

— 4-dobling af mainstream estimatet Image
Man kan selvfølgelig gøre en hvilken som helst politik økonomisk fornuftig, hvis man bare må eksplodere omkostningen ved at gøre intet:

"En bro til Samsø er omkostningseffektiv, hvis ikke-at-bygge-en-bro vil koste Danmark 11.9% af BNP"
Artiklen inkluderer blot tre nye estimater, der er højere end Nordhaus' højeste

Det laveste er Burke et al 2015, der estimerer 23% omkostning ved 4.3°C (nature.com/articles/natur…)

Studiet helt ærlige om, at det falder *langt* udenfor mainstream Image
Studiet antager at verden *ikke* vil tilpasse sig over 80 år, på trods af, at deres data faktisk viser, at verden *mere* end tilpassede sig fra 1960-2010

Hvis man bare baserer sig på deres *egne* data, giver det ikke -23% men +1,100%
sciencedirect.com/science/articl… Image
Deres studie er allerede falsificeret for udviklede økonomier (link.springer.com/article/10.100…)

Det betyder, at det ikke er -23% men -3% (Altså ligesom Nordhaus finder)
Et andet paper viser, at Burke et al er meget sårbart overfor mis-specifikation rff.org/publications/w…

De finder resultater fra -48% til +157%

Det mest sandsynlige outcome er minus 1-2% (ligesom Nordhaus)
Og endelig består Burke et al simpelthen ikke fnise-testen

Hvis man vil bruge deres resultater, skal man acceptere, at Island bliver verdens rigeste land (web.stanford.edu/~mburke/climat…), 16x rigere end USA

Og Mongoliet bliver verdens 7. rigeste land

— fordi det er så koldt Image
De to absolut højeste estimater på skader er end ikke videnskabeligt publicerede

Husk, Nordhaus/FNs samling af datapunkter er alle seriøse, videnskabelige studier, der typisk har brugt måneder og år til at finde de bedste estimater
De to top tal, der eksploderer omkostningerne ved klima stammer fra et ikke-videnskabeligt publiceret 2010 paper (nber.org/papers/w16136)

Forfatteren gætter bare ærligt på to tal: 6°C->-50% og 12°C->-99%

*Ingen data*

bare "arbitrary" and "iconic" Image
Forfatteren siger helt ærligt, at når han kalibrerer de to tal, der altså betyder allermest for den artikel, som PBS så godt kan lide, så er de helt frit gættet:

CITAT: "anybody's guess here is as good as mine" Image
Dette er ikke god videnskab
Dette er ikke okay
At eksplodere mainstream omkostningsestimaterne for at berettige en meget omtalt målsætning på 2°C er politisk bekvemt, men det er ikke god videnskab

Jeg ville gerne vide fra PBS, om han virkelig synes, det ovenstående er ok?
Så nej, Politiken havde ikke ret, da de skrev at studiet var på basis af "ny viden fra klimaforskere" — det er på basis af et estimat fra 2015, der kræver, at verden ikke vil tilpasse sig (selvom deres egne tal modbeviser det) og to "arbitrære" gæt fra 2010 Image
Det bør siges klart:

Det er ikke okay at menneskeheden skal bruge tusinder af milliarder dollar for meget på klima, baseret på mind-blowingly dårlig forskning, som baserer sig på "enhvers gæt er så godt som mit"

— specielt ikke når vi har enormt mange andre, vigtige udfordinger
PBS har også en del positive punkter (tak)

Men medierne overdriver ikke kun "undertiden" om klima (ellers ville 48% af verdens befolkning ikke tro, klima vil lede til menneskehedens udslettelse)

Og jeg har skrevet til fordel for en CO₂ afgift i mindst 13 år (Cool It fra 2007) Image

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Bjorn Lomborg

Bjorn Lomborg Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @BjornLomborg

Aug 3
Fake news doesn't just come from foreign enemies

Friday, WHO claimed that 175,000 Europeans died from extreme heat

I pointed out that was untrue, almost 4x exaggerated

Saturday morning, WHO admitted this in the smallest possible way — they simply changed their website (and address) and had some online publications delete "extreme"

But, of course, by then the story had already made its intended impact across the world

WHO believes "Climate change is the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century" — which is just laughable and one of the reasons it was caught off-guard by Covid

This belief colors the 'findings' of WHO. In their Friday statement, the WHO Europe director explicitly worries about the "climate crisis" and expressed his support for climate action costing $1,000s of trillions (1.5oC target), so he obviously would like a dramatic and large number to make it around the world

Summary: WHO told us extreme heat kills 175K+, a number they've now admitted is almost 4x exaggerated. And they don't tell you that cold deaths at 657K are almost 4x bigger than all heat deaths. This is not informing you well

Journalists have to realize that when e.g. WHO says something, it also needs to be fact-checked

Friday claim:

Saturday update:

My tweet to ask for correction (which the director hasn't replied to):

The actual problem put in context:

WHO climate biggest challenge: web.archive.org/web/2024080206…
who.int/europe/news/it…


web.archive.org/web/2015100811…Image
WHO wrongly claimed that 175,000 Europeans die from extreme heat every year

This scary but wrong story got all the headlines

When called out, WHO acknowledged it by simply changing their website (and some online publications)

— but by then, all the scary stories had already had their impact

Friday claim:
Their update:

My tweet to ask for correction (which the director hasn't replied to):
The actual problem put in context: web.archive.org/web/2024080206…
who.int/europe/news/it…

Image
This is what WHO should tell you (because it is true):

Moderate cold is the biggest killer in Europe, followed by moderate heat, extreme cold, and only lastly by the smallest killer, extreme heat

But that doesn't fit the narrative

Image
Read 5 tweets
Jul 17
Another environmental scare debunked:

Acid rain killing all forests was the main environmental scare in the 1980s

A new half-century study shows acid rain doesn't kill trees

— actually, trees grow more with acid rain!

sciencedirect.com/science/articl…Image
Acid rain scare in the 1980s delivered full-on panic

No more so than in Germany, where papers claimed "the forest is dying," called it an "ecological Hiroshima" and claimed ‘‘the dying of the forests will have a greater impact on our country than World War II’’

All falseImage
The 1980s Acid Rain scare we know now was mostly false

New study: acid rain actually makes trees grow faster

Yet, a majority of Germans in 1985 believed "all forests will be dead by 2000" because of acid rain

We were misled


bibliothek.wzb.eu/pdf/1986/iiug-…
sauerlaender-verlag.com/CMS/uploads/me…Image
Read 7 tweets
Jul 6
Today, the Great Barrier Reef is better than ever

But 12 years ago, we were told about the "Great Reef Catastrophe"

and how the reef would be almost gone today

Moral of the story: Don't always believe the scare stories

Refs in🧵
Here is the 2012 article telling us about the terrible state of the Great Barrier Reef

and about how it will almost halve again by 2022 to 5-10%

pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pn…

Image
Image
Read 4 tweets
Jul 2
Doesn't fit the narrative, but

2024 record coral cover for Great Barrier Reef

Based on official data for all 11 sectors of GBR,

Last three years, 2022-2024, have been unprecedented

Data: apps.aims.gov.au/reef-monitorin…Image
Official, reef-wide average widely published as the Great Barrier Reef got worse

But when it got better, official average stopped

Here is the optimal average (least-square) based on their 11 published sectors,

Last official reef-wide average: apps.aims.gov.au/reef-monitorin…
aims.gov.au/reef-monitorin…Image
In 2014, the eco-worried Guardian wrote the obituary of the Great Barrier Reef

Last three years, the Great Barrier Reef has been better than ever since records started in 1986

Moral: Don't believe all scare stories theguardian.com/environment/ng…Image
Read 4 tweets
Jun 26
Misinformation:

New York Times tells you that heat is “the deadliest of all extreme weather events”

But NYTimes simply ignore their own data, which shows

Cold is 9x deadlier

But, of course, this doesn't fit the climate narrative

NYTimes:
WMO:
Data from Lancet: nytimes.com/2024/06/21/cli…
library.wmo.int/viewer/68500/d…
thelancet.com/journals/lanpl…Image
Not just the New York Times misinforming on heat deaths:

The Guardian misinforms and misdirects, trying to avoid telling you that cold deaths vastly outweigh heat deaths


Image
Not just the New York Times misinforming on heat deaths:

Bloomberg tosses and turns to avoid telling you that cold deaths vastly outweigh heat deaths


Image
Read 6 tweets
Feb 20
Climate alarmists are annoyed that global climate-related disaster deaths have declined dramatically

Then they discovered how to cherry-pick deaths to look like they’re increasing

— just (indefensibly) remove the top 50 most deadly mega-disasters and rig the scales

🧵+refsImage
After manipulating their stats, they have the temerity to claim “Misinterpreting statistics could be harmful if it supports a discourse minimizing the importance of climate action”

I’m pretty sure misinterpreting statistics is wrong no matter what

, p7cred.be/sites/default/…Image
They show low death numbers from 1900s and 1910s, but these are likely wrong ()

They have left out at least two major catastrophes, likely missing at least 20-25 million deaths from the Chinese flood in 1906, leading to famine in 1906-07, and at least 2-10 million deaths from the Persian drought leading to famine in 1917-19


sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_f…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_f…Image
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(