So your claiming that if claimed in his book that his dog has five legs (without adding the minor point about his opinion on tails) it wouldn’t be factual error ?
I would disagree strongly. Coal plants do remove a large portion of those pollutants. Its not to say that there isn’t some left, but the quote does not deserve teh attack you made upon it.
I’ve been a skeptic for quite some time, and what I have noticed is that the claim of “this is the tactic that creationists use” is often used by the pseudointellectual woowoo community rather than scientific community. It is a hand waving distraction attempt to cover a serious shortcoming in able criticisms. So instead what is done is that the comparison is made between skeptics and creationists, as if to claim that the evidence level for whatever bit of woowoo-ism (psi-powers, ghosts, whatevah) is equal to the level of evolutionary study. It is a sign of intellectual laziness and an insult to boot. Spare me.
You claim that Lomborg is "cherry-picking’ the data, but that accusation often runs both ways and Lomborg is a lot more restrained, his data is often from more reliable sources as well. I know there’s mistakes in Lomborg’s work (no book is perfect) but the attempts to smear him, as you have tried above, are weak and desperate.
World electricity production in 1980 was 8,282,174 gigawatt hours, in 1999 it was 14,815,102, more than a 78% increase. If nothing had been done to reduce emissions, I’ll assume they would have gone up 78% to 28.6 million tons of SO2. Since the emissions were at 12.4 million tons, a 56% decrease, I think that this qualifies for the term “vast”. My main point is that where there were errors, such as 20% should have been 10% for nuclear power, I don’t think they affected the conclusions that he presents. I don’t see anyone successfully discrediting his conclusions.
Lomborg:
** griffin77** tried to imply that Lomborg stated that the vast part of annual SO2 emissions have been removed. Either ** griffin77** is incapable of understanding what is plainly written, or else he is trying to construct a strawman.
Lomborg clearly states that he is referring to emissions today using ‘low-sulfur coal, scrubbers and other air-pollution control devices’ compared to emissions in developing countries or in the past not using low-sulfur coal, scrubbers and other air-pollution control devices
When I pointed this out griffin77 changed his position. No longer was he interested in “the reduction” in “million tons of SO2 annually”. Now he started claiming
It does mean the ‘vast part’ of emissions full stop.
http://www.epa.gov/oar/emtrnd94/poll_sox.html
By 1994, the electric utility companies had installed emission controls and/or switched to low sulfur fuels, reducing their emissions to under 15 million short tons
1970 coal use 320 Emissions 15.8 = 1 short ton emission/ 20 tonne coal.
2000 coal use 982 Emissions 10.7 = 1 short ton emmision/ 91 ton coal.
That means that 78% of the SO2 emmissions of 1970 produced by burning high-sulfur coal, without scrubbers and other air-pollution control devices has been removed. That is the vast part. No disputing that fact.
This is precisely what Lomborg claims, and it perfectly accurate.
** griffin77** of course has done what all of Lomborg’s critics have done and tried to pick fault with what he wanted Lomborg to say rather than what he qiute clearly did say.
A classic strawman and oh so typical.
<quote>
http://www.epa.gov/oar/emtrnd94/poll_sox.html
By 1994, the electric utility companies had installed emission controls and/or switched to low sulfur fuels, reducing their emissions to under 15 million short tons
</quote>
What this this report actually says is:
<quote>
by the 1970s, SO2 emissions from electric utilities had increased sevenfold and dominated the national total at 56 percent (17 million short tons). By 1994, the electric utility companies had installed emission controls and/or switched to low sulfur fuels, reducing their emissions to under 15 million short tons
</quote>
So the “vast part” of sulfur dioxide emissions that have been removed by low-sulfur coal, scrubbers and other air-pollution control devices is about %20 (the actual 1994 figure is 13.5 million short tons), again not what I’d call really a “vast amount”…
Accounting for the increase in Electrical usage, it certainly is. You seem to be dancing around this detail. Look at Charlee’s post.
griffin77 you still don’t understand that fairly simple passge do you? Read it again.
Lomborg states quite clearly that there are two scenrios he is comparing: present day developed economies which have switched to low-sulfur coal, scrubbers and other air-pollution control devices, and past or developing ecomomies which have not switched to low-sulfur coal, scrubbers and other air-pollution control devices.
In past or developing ecomomies which have not switched to low-sulfur coal, scrubbers and other air-pollution control devices coal burning produced 1 short ton emission/ 20 ton coal.
In present day developed economies which have switched to low-sulfur coal, scrubbers and other air-pollution control devices coal burning produced 1 short ton emission/ 91 ton coal.
Some direct questions griffin77:
What would be the total emmisions full stop for 2000 coal use if emmision production levels were at the 1970 pre-low-sulfur coal, pre-scrubbers and pre-other air-pollution control level?
What is the actual total emmisions full stop for 2000 coal use now that we have have switched to low-sulfur coal, scrubbers and other air-pollution control devices?
What percentage of the 1970-level 2000 emmisons total is the the actual 2000 emmisions total?
What amount of SO2/ton have have present day developed economies which have switched to low-sulfur coal, scrubbers and other air-pollution control devices coal removed?
What percentage is this?
You have told us that the net emmisions reduction is 20%. Was Lomborg talking about net emmisions reductions in that paragraph?
If he wasn’t then doesn’t that make this a blatant strawman?
Was he talking about the fraction of emmisions reduced from coal burning stations in developed economies that have switched to low-sulfur coal, scrubbers and other air-pollution control devices?
You have proven our point very clearly. this type of blatant and provable strawman criticim is all that the criticsms of omborg amount to.
He isn’t dancing around the detail, he is ignoring what Lomborg siad and trying to attack what he wants him to say.
Classic strawman.
Lomborg clearly talked about total emmision removal full stop from burning a given quantity of coal. Not net emmission. No mention of net emmisons is made.
Lomborg only talks about modern develped economies’ techniques using low-sulfur coal, scrubbers and other air-pollution control devices. The only possible alternative is of course past or developing ecomomies which have not switched to low-sulfur coal, scrubbers and other air-pollution control devices.
There is no room here for discussing net emmisions. We can only compare emmisions ton for ton, unit production for unit production or plant/plant.
So come on griffin77 and tell us, ton for ton, unit production for unit production or or plant/plant what percentage reduction has been acheived?
jshore said:
Oops, so I did. I think I was confused by Blake’s quoting without attributions, but I should have checked the original. I’m sorry.
I agree with Mr. Miskatonic over the comparisons to creationists. Whether or not creationists use the tactics does not bear on the acceptability of the tactic. If the method is bad, it is bad no matter who uses it, and mentioning creationists is only an attempt to color the current target with the same brush. Identify the bad method, describe why and how it is bad. There’s no need to bring creationists into the discussion.
Have I hit another dead-end? Doesn’t anyone else find it curious that high concentrations of ozone only appear around the Antarctic region when the “ozone hole” occurs? Doesn’t this suggest that there just may be another as yet unknown explanation why lower levels of ozone occur over Antarctica? I have no vested interest or agenda in questioning the current theories. I just want to know the truth.
The following is from the web page of James Howard Kunstler. You can link to it at http://www.kunstler.com/mags_diary7.html.
I think one person’s income would do fine to support one 1500 Sqft house with no air conditioning, one bathroom, small fridge you manually defrost, and single pane windows. One long distance telephone call a month with your mother standing there with a timer in her hand. Vacation is a drive to your Uncle’s where you share a bed with your cousin who farts. One small black and white TV that you have to get up to change. Eating out once or twice a year for “special occasions”.
Ow! My head!—Damn sky…
Well, I think it is pretty clear that very selective use of evidence and arguments to support your thesis is bad, especially when you are purporting to present a balanced scientific view.
The point of making the analogy to creationists is that analogies are often useful in helping people to understand things. Admittedly, each person has to decide for themselves how good the analogy seems to be. My own personal opinion is that the analogy between Lomberg and creationists is about as good as any analogy can be.
Making this analogy helps people to understand such phenomena as:
(1) How an argument can persist so long in the general public when it is already basically settled in the peer-reviewed scientific community.
(2) How arguments that are scientifically unsound can seem compelling when presented by someone who very selectively uses scientific data or evidence to support their case.
And so on.
As for “the sky is falling” statement by the last poster. — Actually, that cuts both ways. Usually, those arguing against environmental regulation also use “sky is falling” arguments, but in this case involving the economic costs. These arguments have traditionally turned out to be way-exagerated. In fact, this article suggests that when, say, industry is arguing it will cost X and the EPA is arguing it will only cost Y, the true answer is not somewhere in the middle but is in fact that both are overestimating the regulatory costs. Already, the experience of companies such as BP, which has met a slightly-stronger than Kyoto target for the company 8 years early and at a claimed net savings (on the order of a few hundred million dollars as I recall), seem to imply that the same thing is happening on the global warming issue.
I have yet to see adequete proof that this has been established. The one sample we’ve seen given as “proof” (i.e. electrical consupmtion and emmission) was shown to be sadly wanting.
AS you say it is your opinion. It is in my opinion a very poorly conceived cheap shot, and not an opinion based in reality whatsoever.
[
So Jshore you still can’t provide any evidence of factual errors despite claimng repeatedly that you know they exist. Instead we see more of the same. Vague, unsubstantiated allegations of some sort of sloppiness in the work or criticism of what he should have morally done in response to use of his data. Not even a hint of what actual facts that are wrong, despite persistent assertions that such exist.
Your repeated assertion of factual errors in Lomborg’s work doesn’t convince me. Nor does your posting that he is ‘cavalier’ convince me of the existence of factual error.
I’m funny like that.
I can only assume that someone calling him cavalier has convinced you that there are factual errors in his work. If that is the case then I can only conclude that you didn’t take much convincing.
Well, Blake, you may set the bar so low that if Lomberg doesn’t claim that 1+1 = 3 then he is engaging in good science. However, others of us think that the things that I have mentioned (and given cites for further explanations of) such as the selective use of evidence from the scientific literature (and often not what is considered the current best evidence) to support his thesis are examples of poor science and poor scholarship (although they may be just fine as rhetorical debating techniques, which is what you seem focussed on). What Lomberg has produced is simply a polemic, not a scientific work, and this is why he was chastised by that Danish scientific council.
ACtually, no. You gave quotes from sources that strongly disagree with Lomberg, but do not point out any factual errors. The fact these people who strongly disagree with Lomberg have some vested insterest in argueing his work doesn’t help your case any.
[QUOTE}
What Lomberg has produced is simply a polemic, not a scientific work, and this is why he was chastised by that Danish scientific council. **[/QUOTE]
That was basicly a witchhunt. They couldn’t even say for what he was being chastised. They made a mockery of themselves over this issue.
I’ll say it again, there’s plenty to argue against in Lomberg’s book, but the hysterical reactionary arguements have fallen waaaay short.
So **Jshore[b/] you still can’t provide any evidence of factual errors despite claimng repeatedly that you know they exist. You didn’t claim that he used selective evidence. You loudly and repeatedly made the ignorant claim of factual errors. Now you can’t support thsoe assertions.
Instead we see more of the same. Vague, unsubstantiated allegations of some sort of sloppiness in the work or criticism of what he should have morally done in response to use of his data. Not even a hint of what actual facts that are wrong, despite persistent assertions that such exist.
Your repeated assertion of factual errors in Lomborg’s work doesn’t convince me. Nor does your posting that he is ‘cavalier’ convince me of the existence of factual error.
I’m funny like that.
I can only assume that someone calling him cavalier has convinced you that there are factual errors in his work. If that is the case then I can only conclude that you didn’t take much convincing.
Either cite or get off the pot jshore.
Blake:
Since learning that your definition of “factual errors” seems to correspond to something along the lines of “2+2=5” and knowing that proving such factual errors tends to be rather difficult outside of mathematics (becoming more and more difficult as one moves away from the hardest sciences like physics toward the others), I have been content to point out that the Lomborg book is poor science and scholarship…misrepresenting the state of the science…whether or not there are instances that rise to the height of what you consider to be a “factual error”. I have given you several cites that note cases where the science is represented poorly.
You can continue to cling to your “no factual errors” canard if you so desire. Fine, by your definition, we have not found any factual errors in Lomborg’s work. I am sure we can also fail to find any in a lot of other shining examples of poor science. Your definition is of little utility in distinguishing good and bad science.