Jul 19, 2021
seen from China
seen from Canada
seen from United States
seen from Norway
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from Germany
seen from China
seen from Türkiye
seen from China
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from Netherlands
seen from United States
seen from Trinidad & Tobago
seen from Mexico
seen from Germany
seen from Malaysia
BOSTON (AP) — Exxon Mobil has been ordered to hand over documents related to a state investigation into whether it misled the public about the impact of fossil fuels on the climate.
Compare the pair:
Remember Bjorn Lomborg, one-time climate sceptic, now best known for arguing that poverty alleviation should trump action on climate change. Fair enough, but what, pray tell, does Lomborg consider “poverty alleviation”?
University of Western Australia announces the establishment of the new Australia Consensus Centre:
The new centre will focus on applying an economic lens to proposals to achieve good for Australia, the region and the world, prioritising those initiatives which produce the most social value per dollar spent.
The Monthly Essay, Spreadsheets of Power by Richard Denniss
Most economic modellers do not assume that all human lives are equal. Bjorn Lomborg, for example, one of the world’s most famous climate sceptics, uses modelling that assumes the lives of people in developing countries are worth a lot less than the lives of Australians or Americans. While the US Declaration of Independence may declare that all men are created equal, most economic models assume that all men (and women) are worth a figure based on the GDP per capita of their country.
Late last year, Bjorn Lomborg asked to meet me, and I wondered whether talking to him would be good fun or a waste of time. It was neither: it was scary and illuminating. After 15 years as the smiling face of climate inactivists, Lomborg had raised his sights. His new mission was to ensure that governments also deliver inaction on global poverty alleviation, public health and gender inequality.
When we met, Lomborg proceeded to explain how his team of economists at the Copenhagen Consensus Center had decided that a number of the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals weren’t worth pursuing. His tool of choice for defending such a position? Economic modelling.
[...] His cost–benefit analyses had found that more effort should be put into free trade and less money spent on tackling poverty and climate change.
This is why, until proven otherwise, I will not trust anyone trying to make a moral argument based on economics.
Top 5 Climate Sceptic Arguments & How to Respond to Them
hey lefties, if globl warming is 'real' then how do u explain SCIENTIGIC PROOF like this? http://tinyurl.com/mlbxmyb
Australian gets it wrong on science journalism
The Australian this morning made science journalist baby Jesus cry. Thankfully, the Guardian has done the best part of the necessary analysis of this for me, because clearly like News Corp websites, no one is coming to Tumblr for science exposition. Thankfully. Journalism struggles with technical fields. It seems like as the resources for print and investigative journalism have declined, the level of expertise required to cover the science and technology beats has only increased. For the average punter, this means a higher proportion of press-releases making it barely altered into the mass media, it means more break-through stories about obscure foods curing cancer, and it means more science debate/proclamation by media release. It means more thinly-veiled advertorial. Science journalism also suffers from the infliction of journalistic ideals which are appropriate only for other beats. I want objectivity in my news and current affairs. I want equal time given to equally weighted but alternate viewpoints. We don't, however, need to get a flat-earther on the program every time we make the point that the Earth is spherical in the pursuit of mythical balance. Being objective in a scientific field means being able to adhere to the scientific method, considering the weight of peer-reviewed evidence, and coming to a view informed by these things. The Australian today suffered more from agenda than ignorance. We know this because frankly, even the under-resourced science beat writers know citing the Daily Mail as your source for some kind of credible science analysis is a crude circle-jerk of ignorance. "The IPCC was forced to deny it was locked in crisis talks" - because it wasn't in crisis talks. This is the journalistic equivalent of beating your sister with her own fist, shrieking gleefully "stop hitting yourself, why are you hitting yourself!?" The writer of the Oz article is presumably forced to deny his paper is made predominantly from the excrement of rabid swine mixed with the leavings of mining magnates, or he would be if I put this question to him and it was not in fact the case. If you didn't go there at the start of this article, go read what the 97% have to say about the tropes of climate denialism that have been on rampant display in failed science journalism across the globe this week, crudely and uncritically rehashed by the Australian.
