Also, I would suggest you take up some reading on evolution – extinction is commonly associated with global climate changes. And if current scenario is not fixed and the temperature rises to 3 degree, humans are going to be extinct. Almost all models that predict the global climate changes predict that. Also, you are ignoring the fact that humans can survive only if we have a earth that provides for us – we need water, crops, animals that graze etc. In other words, we need other species for our survival – both plant and animal life. If you cant get that – there is nothing I can say other than read up on biology – particularly ecology and conservation. Then you just might get why it is important to consider the Earth as a whole and not just about humans.

And lastly, if Lomborg made mistakes on climate science and biology – why the heck would one take his word about economics? He is not an economist and in matters that I dont know about, I do rely on EXPERTS in the field. But that is just how I function.

PS -I would suggest that before you comment, you do actually read the report. Because you keep bringing up points that are flawed and make me suspect your understanding of Global Warming.

@Sakshi,
Let me start by a nit-pick, lest it comes back to haunt me. I would pick “cure for cancer” over biodiversity (not “cancer”). Let’s move on. You think human race would get extinct because of the current GW, I think not. And I doubt if any serious model claims it. Can you please quote the source of your degree-by-degree analysis of GW. I would want to know better before I reason on it. Specifically I am interested in the physics used in the research. I don’t see how a six (or even ten) degree rise can melt the glaciers that are -50 deg now. I believe that you are referring to “irreversible melting” in immediate temporal sense, because if the history of earth has taught anything, nothing is permanent. One thing we all agree upon is that the money we have is finite and we have to decide what is the best way to invest it. But it so happens that most of us are so immune to the stories of malnutrition deaths, that we don’t even take it as a tragedy anymore (irrespective of its importance for human welfare). On the next point, there is a fundamental difference in the way we think. I put human welfare before any other species. You do not. This being a subjective issue, there is nothing I can say that can convince you otherwise, and probably nothing you can say that will convince me otherwise. So I am not even going to tread on it. I thought my silence on this issue would be sufficient, but looks like you want me to say it. Very well. I do believe that Lomborg went wrong on many of this issues and the experts corrected him. But I still stand by his other argument on human welfare from cost-benefit analysis point of view, because I agree with his analysis and reasoning (on cost-benefit analysis). I didn’t require him to be an expert on an issue to see that it makes sense, and I also don’t go with assumption that if someone’s one argument is wrong, it means all his arguments are wrong. PPS: Do read the book. It is aside all topics we are discussing here and is really fun to read and unputdownable.

Nana patekar in Tiranga.

But frankly speaking, if you choose glaciers and biodiversity over cure for Malaria, AIDS and cancer, there is little I can say in a constructive argument.

It was to these statements that I wrote the long response to. Your statements sound as if given a choice, you would pick cancer over biodiversity.

You still dont see why your A/C comment was in error? It was not elitist but just flawed understanding of the difference between rise in Earth’s temperature Vs. Local climate effect.

I left out your cognitive dissonance statement because I thought you did not get the meaning. Well since you assure us that you do let me tackle it -
You say its better to find a cure for cancer (and no one is stopping that research at all) because it is more painful. How many people die of cancer every year on the globe? A million? more?
Now compare that to entire species getting extinct – including us. That is billions and billions of creatures. Dying miserable deaths.
Who is suffering from cognitive dissonance here? Not me at all.

You know about the past glacial periods – then you know that these ages are mostly coupled with mass extinction. This is not just about biodiversity but about our very survival. Mammals are not going to come out of the next one with flying colors.

And you keep quoting Lomborg believes in this too – I gave you a link where people have shown what underhanded means Lomborg uses. It is because people like him get traction that seriousness of GW needs to be told each time to a non-believer – its waste of time and energy – the exact reason why Sagarika Ghose had to be called out this time. Better nip it in the bud.

Now, to the final part -let me recap the effect of each degree of rise in temperature –
1 deg = Ice on Kilimanjaro melts.
2 deg = Greenland ice caps will tip into IRREVERSIBLE melt.
3 deg = Amazon ecosystem killed, Himalayan glaciers retract.
4 deg = All glaciers in Alps disappear
5 deg =Earth will be hotter than it has been in ~50 million years and methane hydrate is released from underneath the ocean bed resulting in gigantic tsunamis.
6 deg =Massive extinction of species, volcanoes – and likely death of human kind.

Again this is going to happen under current conditions – there is scientific consensus on it.
Yes, a 2 degree rise in EARTH’s temperature will result in irreversible meltdown of glaciers. If you are current on GW, you should have come across these figures. There are multiple papers that cite something similar (I gave the bare minimum summary).

You assure me of course man kind is going to stop this.
Tell me if you dont want money to be spent to do exactly that, how the heck are we supposed to solve the problem? If we have finite resources and since the current problem is going to affect all of us at a very fundamental level (survival)- where should the money go?

You are not ready to sacrifice 10% of world’s population – we are losing more than that in terms of Earth’s population every day due to change in climate. Or dont you consider non-humans in that number?
Just look up the state of the now famous face of glacier melt – polar bears.

PS -And btw, Lomborg has done some seriously wrong math on extinction – wrong enough that several biologist called him out on it – publicly in reputed journals. I have yet to see him defend that one. Just like he has yet to defend most of his criticism. His main response is to say “my critics are emotionally charged and so….nothing.. no substance to defend his stance.” Do you see why people who do understand some of this get upset when he is bought up? Infact, I notice that you dont say anything about why his critics are wrong either except to say Lomborg is not an expert on these matters. But he is not an economist either. So why agree to his economic stand?

And PPS – I have not read Scott Adams’ book. Will look into it.

That’s why I wondered whether you really thought what you wrote earlier.

It is all well to say “ad hominem”, but I did not attack you personally in any way (unlike your first response to Sakshi, wherein you wrote that she was “getting emotional” – that, Sir, was ad hominem). I merely pointed out that your “argument from authority” (or just a quote/pointer to someone on a certain issue) has a rather weak authority behind it. Whether it is Climate Change or Cognitive Dissonance, he is not an expert in either. You could’ve talked about cognitive dissonance without taking the trouble to quote someone who is not even an authority figure. And yes, when it comes to technical/complex matters, the expertise of the authority matters. If we started arguing seriously about the views expressed by everyone on an issue, we’d never get anything done (XKCD is funny, but not that accurate – we don’t really correct everyone who is wrong on the internet).

So, why am I posting on this thread even though Sagarika Ghose is no more an expert than Scott Adams? For the simple reason that Sagarika Ghose is a journalist/TV-anchor. Her ignorance today threatens to make ignorants out of hundreds of thousands of people tomorrow (plus, she is annoying as heck, and it is fun, and I have commented on this blog for a while). Scott Adams writes a blog primarily read by fans of his comic strip/books (God’s Debris was a good one, sure). He writes it with his tongue-firmly-in-cheek while taking pains to point out in every other post that he should generally not be taken seriously on complex issues.

Now specifically addressing replies:

@Overlord,
When I was talking about “easy”, it was in a comparative sense. If a person is not hydrated enough, it is easier to satiate his/her thirst as compared to a person who is writhing in pain from cancer. Perhaps my quoting on A/Cs left a bad taste (may have made you all see me as elitist, which I can assure I am not). I did not quote Scott Adams as a climate change expert, but rather a person who opined how cognitive dissonance prevents people from seeing the other side of the argument. He has a Bachelor in Economics (which puts thing into context). Not to say it matters. We should take arguments at face value, rather than ponder who it comes from (Ad Hominem). If you really think the person who is making the argument matters while judging the merits of the argument, you shouldn’t be even commenting here. After all, Sagarika Ghose is NOT an expert on Global Warming. Why take her seriously? Regarding your “PS”, if it were left to me, I would indeed put the lion’s share of money towards fighting malnutrition. Even Copenhagen Consenses (which Lomborg is associated with) recommends fighting malnutrition as humankind’s top priority. Do I take it that we both are on the same side now?

@Sakshi,
Whoaaa…I never said Glaciers and biodiversity are not important. They are, and AFAIK, even Lomborg agrees with it. It is the comparative assessment that I was talking about. You wasted a lot of metaphorical ink arguing where there was no difference of opinion. Yes, Global Warming is serious, very much real, and man-made. We all agree on it. But I digress on your argument that it is not at the expense of other things like cancer and AIDS research. We do not have infinite amount of money. We can only choose where and how to spend it. I care for biodiversity. Please re-read the previous argument of mine again. I also agree that malnutrition is even more serious problem. Even Lomborg agrees to that.

Saying the same thing I told Overlord, if you don’t care what Scott Adams thinks, then why do you care what Sagarika thinks (she’s no expert)? Or what I think (the long reply proves you take me seriously)? The last time I checked, I had a degree in Mechanical Engineering and I never claimed otherwise. We comment here because we all believe in XKCD. Again, Scott talked about Lomborg’s arguments, but that was besides the point. The center of his blog piece was Cognitive Dissonance. BTW, have you read God’s Debris by Scott Adams. It is one of my favorite books, and it is neither comics nor economics.

I am no expert of Geology either, but as far as I know, we have had at least three glacial periods since then, with global temperatures varying over 10 degrees in each. A 2 degree rise will melt a lot of ice caps, but are you implying that it will melt all of it where the mean maximum temperature rarely exceeds -50 degrees? Also, a 3 degree rise will not mean end of water in India. What makes you believe people will not do anything about it? What about the excess precipitation due to Global Warming? We would need all the people we have to engineer solution to world problems. So yes, being cancer-free will help (This was a rhetorical answer). Yes, I have pondered long and hard. It deserves serious consideration (I never claimed otherwise). But there is a reality I know: We do not have infinite resources. If stopping the Global Warming required sacrificing a tenth of world population, is this an option you would consider? I wouldn’t.

@BoP,
Thanks for understanding my so-called arguments. Even I agree that Kyoto Protocol and Earth Hour are gimmicks that don’t guarantee any substantial benefits. It doesn’t make Lomborg right. No one ever claimed this is how the argument went. Again, I know the statistics you quoted is region-specific, but does that invalidate the argument?

And yes, Lomborg is not an Economist. The reason Scott made that mistake is because he was introduced as an Economist in the show. Scott has later pointed out the error in one of his later blogs.

BTW, Cognitive Dissonance is a psychological condition, an “uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously”, and has nothing to do with the specific issue at hand. But yes, I do keep myself updated with issue of GW. And again, I know it is real, humans caused it, what we are doing is not enough to make a dent and we need to do something more seriously about it. This is a stance I have always had, and will continue to have unless you convince me otherwise.

Firstly, let’s get this out of the way: we are not arguing here about the effectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol (not sure how effective its implementation will be), hollow efforts such as Earth Hour etc.

However, that does not make Lomborg’s position any right.

Now, since you suggested the Scott Adams article, I read it (all the while trying to figure out what a cartoonist with an MBA degree can illuminate us on science and economics). I had to pause on reaching this:
When considering the problems that global warming will cause, we shouldn’t ignore the benefits of global warming, such as fewer deaths from cold.

Do you realize this is based only on stats from European countries. No word on how many more deaths from abnormally high temperatures in places like India (where unfortunately, most people can’t just flip on an AC, or drink water). Also, Lomborg’s information comes from deaths causes by seasonal variations, not necessarily “cold weather”-related deaths.

———-

I will give you this: Maher can often be an ass – his recent tirade on H1N1 vaccines is an example. So I would not hold him as a guiding light on environmental concerns.

(Btw, since when did Lomborg become a ‘Economist’ ? He’s a political scientist who dabbles in statistics. )

Finally (for now), for your sake and for the sake of your understanding of what ‘cognitive dissonance’ implies, I hope you are reading actual scientific articles that shed light on the GW issue. Picking up the latest issue of Nature could be a good start.

Glaciars melt –> no water for most of rivers. No more drinking water. Increased sea level.

Increased sealevel -> most of the coastal regions of the world submerged under water. More tsunamis. More storms.

Increased temperatures –> more droughts.Less crops. Less water to drink.

Increased temperatures –> mass extinctions.

Does that explain why people dont think global warming should be taken lightly?

This is not at the expense of cancer research. Or AIDS research. Or most epidemics that trouble us. You are building up false analogy – climate research at the expense of cancer. And that is simply not the case.

And frankly, if you dont care about glaciers and biodiversity – mankind’s days are numbered – we need the ecosystem balanced to survive – last I checked we cant make water and food out of nothing. And dying of thirst and starvation is a much horrid death than cancer – ask any person in Somalia.

Secondly, I dont care what Scott Adams says, he is a cartoonist and not an expert (on climate or biology). When it comes to science, I tend to go with what the experts in the field say – just like I dont go to the butcher to take my appendix out.

Experts in the subject have thoroughly discredited Lomborg’s point of view, pointed his methodology as flawed and showed how his views can not be sustained. I have read both Lomborg’s book and the Danish scientists paper on why and where he is wrong. What he did was what we call in science as “cherry picking and misrepresentation of data.” I would suggest you look those terms up and then go and re-read his book along with what some credible people had to say about his work (Read these for starters)

I hope that helps because your blase answer about using A/C leads me to believe that you have no idea about implications of global warming. I dont think you realize that Earth’s temperature rising by two degrees is not the same as two degree rise in your locality.

Let me put it in perspective – the last time a six degree rise in Earth’s temperature happened was at the end of the Permian period – guess what else happened then? Mass extinction of 90% of earth species.
Even two degree rise in EARTH’s temperature will melt greenland’s ice caps, increasing sea level and submerging all coastal masses on earth. Three degree is end of water in India. Is this where you think being cancer free will help us? (that was a rhetorical question)

Ponder on this. The thought about living without water and food on a hostile earth deserves some serious consideration, right?