'Skeptical Environmentalist' Bjorn Lomborg sets fire to the scourge of 'unbridled climate alarmism'

Fear’s a great motivator, right? So what better way to motivate people to care about climate change than to scare the crap out of them? Even if you have to leave out some details to do it?

New York Magazine climate columnist David Wallace-Wells seems to be a student at the School of We’re Hurtling Toward Global Environmental Catastrophe and We’re All Gonna Die. Last night, he shared a short piece by James Dyke, a senior lecturer in global systems at the University of Exeter, explaining some of the horrible things humanity is in for:

’”Oh, I think we’re heading towards 3°C at least,” he said. “But what about the many millions of people directly threatened,” I went on. He gave a sigh. “They will die.”’ https://t.co/CRiHEza6wg

— David Wallace-Wells (@dwallacewells) June 3, 2019

“I was born in the early 1970s. This means in my lifetime the number of people on Earth has doubled, while the size of wild animal populations has been reduced by 60%. Humanity has swung a wrecking ball through the biosphere.”

— David Wallace-Wells (@dwallacewells) June 3, 2019

“The most effective guard against climate breakdown may not be technological, but a fundamental reimagining of what constitutes a good life on this planet. … So far our response to the challenge of climate change exposes a fundamental failure of collective imagination.”

— David Wallace-Wells (@dwallacewells) June 3, 2019

Speaking of fundamental failures of the imagination, if climate change is such a serious threat, why do climate change alarmists insist on addressing it in such unserious ways? Author and “Skeptical Environmentalist” Bjorn Lomborg, for one, is fed up with the fearmongering, and

Unbridled climate alarmism:
"But what about the many millions of people directly threatened, living in low-lying nations?"
"They will die"

Sorry, no:
1) Over 81 years, they will move, not die
2) Adaptation means almost none will move

Unfounded terror scaring people needlessly https://t.co/fMdJqja2tN

— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) June 3, 2019

Take this new alarmist paper, which made the rounds in the last weeks. It talks about 187 million people displaced — not flooded, not killed.

Obviously, people will not stay and drown.https://t.co/aB2sYpoEfQ, I wrote about how badly wrong this is here: https://t.co/bIQhgowdGQ pic.twitter.com/2XDWa5fYRk

— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) June 3, 2019

But notice their reference for the 187 million (#38)
Here is the paper.
It says the following in the abstract:
187 million, but can be avoided by paying 0.02% of GDP

Should reporters not be responsible for pointing this out, so people don't get so scared?https://t.co/HYNe9dM0PI pic.twitter.com/DD4VGKONSx

— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) June 3, 2019

Will adaptation happen — absolutely:
Everyone will accept paying <0.02% to avoid >5% of GDP costs

And then, instead of 187,000,000 displaced, you have less than 305,000 (at least 600x less)

Shouldn't reporters be obliged to tell people that?
Or okay to just scare them silly? pic.twitter.com/bFGqRBHRvN

— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) June 3, 2019

Claim: Millions will die from rising seas
Fact: They won't die, and almost none have to move

The outcome of this climate alarmism porn is to frighten children and many adults needlessly

How is such outrageous scare campaigning okay?

— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) June 3, 2019

It’s not. At least it shouldn’t be.

PS. I only analyzed first part of scare:

'many millions directly threatened: low-lying nations farmers affected by abrupt changes in weather, kids exposed to new diseases?”

Others similar: 5.4 million kids die from entirely well-known, easily curable diseases, not new ones

— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) June 3, 2019

Dispelling the faulty “science” behind climate change alarmism is no easy task, but Lomborg is up to the challenge:

Eh, you may want to read all the way to the middle of the first tweet: "Adaptation means almost none will move"

No mass immigration

But thanks for making my point of how climate alarmism takes a bit of unscary truth and turns it into Armageddon

— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) June 3, 2019

Adaptation. Well good luck with that!! I don't currently see Mozambique adapting very well…

— ?Felix Doran? (@felixd0r) June 3, 2019

Maybe because of blinkered prejudice of Mozambique?
According to the UN's middle-of-road climate scenario (SSP2), the average person in Mozambique will at $42,000 be as rich as a Dutchman today
(and adaptation will cost 0.02% of that)https://t.co/pEht1X27dG pic.twitter.com/UWB7NkyV8q

— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) June 3, 2019

At what certainty can you predict "adaptation" when this is the first time humans will live in a planet warmer than 1.5 or 2 or 3C? Genuine question. Armageddon only happens once.

— ?Felix Doran? (@felixd0r) June 3, 2019

Because humanity has many times before handled relative sea level rise, e.g. from massive land movement from water extraction (5 meters in Jakarta) or from earthquakes (1 meter for Tubigon in the Philippines)
— and tackled it finehttps://t.co/yInawvjE2s pic.twitter.com/2JFacoKk2h

— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) June 3, 2019

Bjorn, what formal training in the climate sciences do you have again? – #climatechange #sciencematters

— Gerald Kutney (@GeraldKutney) June 3, 2019

What a sad question: Trying to keep out unpleasant questions out of the alarmist bubble.

Do you have a substantial comment to contribute?

[And PS: Climate impact on society is — not surprisingly — a social science question (with climate science input). That's what I do]

— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) June 3, 2019

Ah, how constructive:
Climate alarmist: millions will die
I point out the research showing: 1) none will die 2) very few will move

And then PhD in chemistry joins —not with a substantial contribution (maybe challenging my points)
but instead trying to disallow conversation https://t.co/KCpG3czyIB

— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) June 3, 2019

A claim of 187 million displaced when right number <305K — 600x less
Or someone claiming millions will die, when right number is ~zero

If you missed this, maybe try to read twitter-thread again?

— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) June 3, 2019

"Alarmist?" What is an alarmist?"

— Gerald Kutney (@GeraldKutney) June 3, 2019

Alarmist: someone who *incorrectly* say millions will die, when right number close to ~zero

Not a complicated definition, I would think

— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) June 3, 2019

I do appreciate your response, and now I understand. I am not aware of any peer-reviewed studies that have suggested such things. "Alarmist papers must be quite rare. Or are you saying that only some public press are alarmist?

— Gerald Kutney (@GeraldKutney) June 3, 2019

E.g. the paper I quoted in the second para: https://t.co/aB2sYpoEfQ, says 187 million will be displaced, and got quoted everywhere to say swamp nearly 200,000,000

— when the right number was 41,000-305,000https://t.co/Alf53p114i pic.twitter.com/4YDTmyOGYR

— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) June 3, 2019

"Zero"? People dying in climate driven heat waves already.

— ?Rob Mailler (@rlmailler) June 3, 2019

Maybe look at data first: *17x* more die from cold than heathttps://t.co/bTTI7WuoNu
And here for the US (increasing cold deaths, decreasing heat deaths, despite global warming, https://t.co/Yru8MgdTW8 pic.twitter.com/zrFKLwn8pe

— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) June 3, 2019

People living in low lying countries will not see a gradual increase of water level in their country. They will see a safe country, until suddenly it is flooded deeply. See Katrina. Unless they have a good early warning system and evacuation plans, they’ll drown.

— Gerard Cats (@gjcats) June 3, 2019

Hollands own history of the 1953 flood (2500 dead) seems to suggest that you need something to 'kick' you into take-this-serious mode
But after Dutch did lots, and so saying millions will die is a serious overstatement

— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) June 3, 2019

Did Sandy “kick” New York into take-this-serious mode? Do you need 1000s of deaths before you are aware that you went into the take-this-serious mode?

— Gerard Cats (@gjcats) June 3, 2019

Yes, de Blasio is launching a $10bn plan (based on Bloomberg's earlier plans) to implement many of these adaptive measures (it is probably too bloated, but hey, https://t.co/s6Ghpvz1n5)

— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) June 3, 2019

But Millions are dying. https://t.co/s3qWWD7bRt

— Terry Tremwel (@2TVolts) June 3, 2019

Yes, that is air pollution. Interesting, half come from poverty (indoor air pollution, bc you're poor and heat with dung and wood)
Other half is outdoor air pollution that gets tackled when you get rich enough to afford to pay for cleaner air
Here London air pollution 1585-today pic.twitter.com/a1Js6ykqeC

— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) June 3, 2019

And deaths due to heat? https://t.co/WcDCwdFrdn

— Terry Tremwel (@2TVolts) June 3, 2019

Yes, this is classic alarmism:
*17x* more die from cold than heathttps://t.co/fUIBhcyy33
And here for the US (increasing cold deaths, decreasing heat deaths, despite global warminghttps://t.co/TWZfaBW7nD pic.twitter.com/FYKkuhQvhA

— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) June 3, 2019

and here is India, where McKibben deliberately focus on dozens of dead, seemingly ignoring the hundreds of thousands of dead from coldhttps://t.co/7doEkIiYXm pic.twitter.com/qlqtecHiUb

— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) June 3, 2019

Temperatures rise about 37C wet bulb in the Ganges Valley is the recipe for million die. You, of course, are willing to risk that. As we entered June they went about 50 C and yes Bjorn people died

— eli rabett (@EthonRaptor) June 3, 2019

And you focus on avoiding the 4,700 extreme heat deaths,
while ignoring the 200,000+ cold deaths, that need higher incomes (and cheap energy) to be avoided

You literally decide to focus on the smallest death category, because it fits your preconceptions
https://t.co/7doEkIiYXm pic.twitter.com/D3zHbaF83n

— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) June 3, 2019

You know very well that climate change causes localised extreme cold with polar vortex shifts. These extra cold deaths part of climate toll.

— ?Rob Mailler (@rlmailler) June 3, 2019

No
Most cold deaths are not from extreme cold, but from moderate cold — so they have nothing to do with polar vortex, here from https://t.co/S8QiQZhIJI
9% of cold deaths from extreme cold (0.63% of all deaths), rest (6.66% of all deaths) from moderate cold

— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) June 3, 2019

So I got it right then, there is only a very few peer-reviewed studies that you would call "alarmist." Thank you for that.

Not sure how, considering the SR15 for example, you could conclude that death toll from AGW would be zero by 2100 (the year used in the paper).

— Gerald Kutney (@GeraldKutney) June 3, 2019

I'm not sure you're actually trying to have a sincere conversation.
You really expect me to cite you all the alarmist papers on twitter — and if I don't you conclude that almost none are alarmist?

— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) June 3, 2019

But let me give you a few, similar ones:https://t.co/hXirNyrLOb estimates $14 trillion in climate damages from rising sea level, but only if nobody adapt at all the next 81 years.
Otherwise the cost will be 88% lower
The press release and media only mentioned $14 trillion pic.twitter.com/fWta4AcbJf

— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) June 3, 2019

Or this paper, https://t.co/9k7czJV2Nq, which found the cost of sea level rise could be $100 trillion+/year (10+% of GDP)
— if nobody does anything
With adaptation, the cost is 0.003% of GDP
Everyone mentioned the $100+ trillion, not the lower figure

— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) June 3, 2019

And finally, I am talking about deaths from sea level rise, not from all impacts, as should also be evident from the twitter thread

— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) June 3, 2019

“Your country will disappear under water but you can move, so everything is fine”. ?

— Jorden Splinter (@jordensplinter) June 3, 2019

No, read the second part of the sentence — "adaptation means almost none will move"

— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) June 3, 2019

https://twitter.com/CJPomfret/status/1135647411420844032

No, Marshall Islands land area is increasing, not decreasinghttps://t.co/I8S4tRQPQ7 pic.twitter.com/x0tpi2e39F

— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) June 3, 2019

https://twitter.com/CJPomfret/status/1135655728662818817

And although I don't know of any studies of the migration intentions of people from Marshall Islands, we have a study on the migration intentions from Maldives, and climate/sea level is "not presently important"https://t.co/FNyRU9n3ov pic.twitter.com/2qjdYBQPgb

— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) June 3, 2019

You may want to look at the tweet again. It includes the link to a scientific, peer-reviewed, meta-study of the studies on atoll land area
here is the link again, fyi: https://t.co/I8S4tRQPQ7

— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) June 3, 2019

The climate discussion in a nutshell:
I show the overview diagram from the newest, scientific peer-reviewed meta-study overview of how Marshall Islands and all the other atolls have *increased* their land area over the past decades
But tweeter missed the link, and TV said… https://t.co/2o0NuHSxoi

— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) June 3, 2019

When the science disagrees with their agenda, suddenly the science is invalid. Amazing how that works.

Thank you! Saved me from another tweet. Pls keep up your great work combating poor and illogical thinking from so many

— Stuart Mill (@StuartMill1776) June 3, 2019