<div>I sent a private response, as forwarded at the bottom here, to a private e-mail, that referred to one of my Vision2020 posts, regarding a TED video that is discussed below. Given that my private response was publicly posted and discussed on the Internet without my permission, despite the fact I honored the request to not post this individuals private communication to Vision2020, I am now posting this private exchange to Vision2020, and answering the Internet discussion of my private response. I will still honor the request to not present the e-mail address or name of this correspondent, though other clues may reveal the identity.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I wonder who the pastor is referred to below by the individual who requested to not post his identity to Vision2020? </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The public posting of my private response and ensuing discussion is at the URL below. I answer various points raised in the discussion after each point:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://halfpastnoon.com/2008/08/i-just-sent-ted-moffett-an-email-i-cou/">http://halfpastnoon.com/2008/08/i-just-sent-ted-moffett-an-email-i-cou/</a></div>
<div>
<p>I just sent Ted Moffett an email. I couldn't help myself. He's big on defending the Urgency of Anthropomorphic Global Climate Change (and All It Entails), and recently linked to <span class="searchterm1"><font style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">TED</font></span> Talks on Vision2020.</p>
<p>Seeing as one of my favorite <span class="searchterm1"><font style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">TED</font></span> finds (thanks to Austin) is Bjorn Lomborg's assertion that <a href="http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities.html">fighting Global Warming doesn't make sense in terms of ROI,</a> I sent <span class="searchterm1"><font style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">Ted</font></span> a link and asked for his comments:</p>
</div>
<div>
<h4><a href="http://halfpastnoon.com/" rel="external nofollow">C</a> <span class="meta">4:41 pm on August 28, 2008 | <a href="http://halfpastnoon.com/2008/08/i-just-sent-ted-moffett-an-email-i-cou/#comment-255">#</a></span> </h4>
<p>Some basic research has yielded:</p>
<p>1. Richard Tol, the lead author for the IPCC (which is mentioned in Ted's response), had <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6295021.stm" rel="nofollow">this</a> to say about the Stern Review:</p>
<p>(***My response: Richard Tol is not "the lead author" for the IPCC but one of a group of lead authors.)</p>
<p>"If a student of mine were to hand in this report as a Masters thesis, perhaps if I were in a good mood I would give him a 'D' for diligence; but more likely I would give him an 'F' for fail.</p>
<p>"There is a whole range of very basic economics mistakes that somebody who claims to be a Professor of Economics simply should not make.</p>
<p>"Stern consistently picks the most pessimistic for every choice that one can make. He overestimates through cherry-picking, he double counts particularly the risks and he underestimates what development and adaptation will do to impacts."</p>
<p>(***My response: Richard Tol's criticism of the Stern Report should be placed in the context of these positive comments from Nobel Prize economists on the Stern Report, even if the Stern Report contains errors:</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review</a></p>
<li>"If the world is waiting for a calm, reasonable, carefully argued approach to climate change, Nick Stern and his team have produced one. They outline a feasible adjustment policy at tolerable cost beginning now. Sooner is much better." <a class="mw-redirect" title="Robert M. Solow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Solow">Robert M. Solow</a>, Nobel Prize economist 1987<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-Stern-Response_25-0"><a title="" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review#cite_note-Stern-Response-25">[26]</a></sup>
<li>"The Stern report shows us, with utmost clarity, while allowing fully for all the uncertainties, what global warming is going to mean; and what can and should be done to reduce it. It provides numbers for the economic impact, and for the necessary economic policies. It deserves the widest circulation. I wish it the greatest possible impact. Governments have a clear and immediate duty to accept the challenge it represents." <a title="James Mirrlees" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Mirrlees">James Mirrlees</a>, Nobel Prize economist 1996<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-Stern-Response_25-1"><a title="" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review#cite_note-Stern-Response-25">[26]</a></sup>
<li>"The stark prospects of climate change and its mounting economic and human costs are clearly brought out in this searching investigation. What is particularly striking is the identification of ways and means of sharply minimizing these penalties through acting right now, rather than waiting for our lives to be overrun by rapidly advancing adversities. The world would be foolish to neglect this strong but strictly time-bound practical message." <a title="Amartya Sen" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amartya_Sen">Amartya Sen</a>, Nobel Prize economist 1998<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-Stern-Response_25-2"><a title="" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review#cite_note-Stern-Response-25">[26]</a></sup>
<li>"The Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change provides the most thorough and rigorous analysis to date of the costs and risks of climate change, and the costs and risks of reducing emissions. It makes clear that the question is not whether we can afford to act, but whether we can afford not to act. To be sure, there are uncertainties, but what it makes clear is that the downside uncertainties—aggravated by the complex dynamics of long delays, complex interactions, and strong non-linearities—make a compelling case for action. And it provides a comprehensive agenda—one which is economically and politically feasible—behind which the entire world can unite in addressing this most important threat to our future well being." <a class="mw-redirect" title="Joseph Stiglitz" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stiglitz">Joseph Stiglitz</a>, Nobel Prize economist 2001<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-Stern-Response_25-3"><a title="" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review#cite_note-Stern-Response-25">[26]</a></sup> )</li>
</li></li></li></div>
<div>
<p>2. The rest of this BBC article says that Stern underestimated Cost to Cure and overestimated global temperature increases, basically overinflating both the urgency and the impact of action. Were his predictions to be revised, the CCC statement may be closer than <span class="searchterm1" id="high_1"><font style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">Ted</font></span> suggests.</p>
<p>3. Bjorn Lomborg <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009182" rel="nofollow">has actually responded</a> to the report, so we at least know that he is aware of it and there is a dissenting view from the CCC.</p>
<p>Anyways, if you want your Global Warming fix, there you have it. If anybody cares, I'll bump this to the front page.</p>
<li id="comment-263"><img class="avatar avatar-32" height="32" alt="" src="http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/f30fe6e62ec11ab73171888b87fa6e32?s=32&d=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D32&r=G" width="32">
<h4>A <span class="meta">1:06 am on August 29, 2008 | <a href="http://halfpastnoon.com/2008/08/i-just-sent-ted-moffett-an-email-i-cou/#comment-263">#</a></span> </h4>
<p>Cool that you're interacting with Ted Moffett. Alas! He does not have the know-how to send you down the rabbit-hole. I'm really clinging to the idea that Bjorn Lomborg knows his stuff. I like to think that he's such a nerdy economics guy that the left/right politics of global warming aren't a factor to him.</p>
</li></div>
<div>(*** My response: What you are apparently "clinging to" is not doing careful research into all the peer reviewed published literature on the potential economic impacts and risks of anthropogenic climate change. Bjorn Lomborg is only one source. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Of course there are uncertainties on these issues. But assuming the impacts of anthropogenic climate change will be so minimal that the economic costs of taking action now to mitigate climate change are not worth prioritizing the investment, is to take very serious risks given the scientific consensus among climate scientists of the probability of profound impacts, not only for this century, but for centuries in the future:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><span style="FONT-SIZE: larger"><b>2008 National Academy of Sciences Climate Change Report</b></span></div>
<div><span style="FONT-SIZE: larger"><strong></strong></span> </div>
<div><span style="FONT-SIZE: larger"><strong><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf" target="_blank">http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf</a></strong></span></div>
<div><span style="FONT-SIZE: larger"></span> </div>
<div>
<div><span style="FONT-SIZE: larger"><b>Science Academies Statement On Climate Protection</b></span> </div>
<div> </div>
<div><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8Statement_Energy_07_May.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8Statement_Energy_07_May.pdf</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>---------------------</div></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Lomborg argues the money that might be spent on climate change mitigation would offer better outcomes if spent on other problems, and that climate change mitigation offers only a small mitigation effect, even if large sums are spent to address it. But just the impacts of a rise in global ocean level, will impose large costs on the global economy, that Lomborg apparently minimizes, impacts that should be considered in a time frame of centuries. Lowering emissions in the next few decades should be considered an effort to reduce the potential for catastrophic outcomes beyond 2100.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Consider the Delta Report from the Netherlands, stating that "Great urgency attaches to the implementation of this advice." regarding predictions of .65 to 1.3 meter sea level rise by 2100, and 2 to 4 meters by 2200, from climate change, with costs estimates of 40 plus billion in euros to implement a plan for flood protection through 2050. This report is prescient in indicating clearly that choices we are making now to mitigate climate change will have impacts for centuries, a time frame human economic and political planning rarely addresses:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.deltacommissie.com/en/advies">http://www.deltacommissie.com/en/advies</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.deltacommissie.com/doc/summary.pdf">http://www.deltacommissie.com/doc/summary.pdf</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.deltacommissie.com/doc/twelve_recommendations.pdf">http://www.deltacommissie.com/doc/twelve_recommendations.pdf</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>------------</div>
<div>The Dutch can afford this flood protection investment, but many poor nations cannot, even if flood protection were feasible. But consider the costs of flood protection for all ports and coastal communities worldwide, given one to four meters in sea level rise. Here in the richest nation on Earth, we left a major city, New Orleans, vulnerable to catastrophic flooding, in part due to cost considerations. It might be cheaper to abandon coastal cities and communities and move to higher ground, rebuilding ports, given business as usual regarding human emissions inducing climate change. Such an outcome is unthinkable, and the costs enormous, whether for large scale global coastal flood protection or relocating coastal habitation, commerce, agriculture and industry, not only economic, but ecological, cultural and otherwise.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Note estimates of impacts of one meter of sea level rise globally offered below. And if there are two to four meters sea level rise by 2200?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<h2>Population, area and economy affected by a 1 m sea level rise (global and regional estimates, based on today's situation)</h2></div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/population-area-and-economy-affected-by-a-1-m-sea-level-rise-global-and-regional-estimates-based-on">http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/population-area-and-economy-affected-by-a-1-m-sea-level-rise-global-and-regional-estimates-based-on</a>-</div>
<div> </div>
<div>--------------------</div>
<div>A recent discussion from climate scientists on the latest reseach into sea level rise is at this URL from Realclimate:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/how-much-will-sea-level-rise/">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/how-much-will-sea-level-rise/</a></div>
<div>--------------------</div>
<div>To quote Lomborg on why addressing climate change is not cost efffective:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009182">http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009182</a></div>
<div>
<p>"Last weekend in New York, I asked 24 U.N. ambassadors--from nations including China, India and the U.S.--to prioritize the best solutions for the world's greatest challenges, in a project known as Copenhagen Consensus. They looked at what spending money to combat climate change and other major problems could achieve. They found that the world should prioritize the need for better health, nutrition, water, sanitation and education, long before we turn our attention to the costly mitigation of global warning."</p>
<p>--------------</p>
<p>All these issues, including climate change, should be addressed. Climate change is linked critically to the future viability of agriculture and water resources, given increasing drought and losses of snow pack and glacier fed rivers both effecting water supplies for irrigation and other human uses. With business as usual emission rates, there will be impacts on food production and GDP for many nations that are significantly negative, according to this source:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.cgdev.org/content/publications/detail/14090#Chpt">http://www.cgdev.org/content/publications/detail/14090#Chpt</a></p>
<p>Regarding "Global Warming and Agriculture" by William R. Cline:</p>
<p>Temperatures in developing countries, which are predominantly located in lower latitudes, are already close to or beyond the thresholds at which further warming will reduce rather than increase agriculture potential, and these countries tend to have less capacity to adapt. Moreover, agriculture constitutes a much larger fraction of GDP in developing countries than in industrial countries, so a decrease in productivity will impose larger income loss in developing countries. </p>
<p>Chapter Five, Country-Level Agricultural Impact Estimates:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.cgdev.org/doc/books/Cline%20global%20warming/Chapter%205.pdf">http://www.cgdev.org/doc/books/Cline%20global%20warming/Chapter%205.pdf</a></p></div>
<div>------------------------</div>
<div>My approach to this subject is simply to research the credible evidence without bias, to discover if there is or is not a reasonable consensus among those who devote their professional lives as scientists (or economists) to this subject, a task anyone with even just a high school education should be prepared for. This does not require a PhD; and some with PhD's have emotional, religious, political or professional biases that filter evidence that does not fit their beliefs. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Intelligence and/or professional qualifications are no absolute guarantee of a mindset intent on the objective pursuit of truth. You can find PhD.'s who will state skeptical, outlandish, views on many issues, at odds with most of their colleagues and the consensus of the scientific community. But a community of scientists and/or economists who question each others work offers a check against distorting bias, which is not to say that minority opinions are not sometimes vindicated. But I think the statements from the National Academy of Science, The American Meteorological Association, The American Geophysical Union, The Union of Concerned Scientists, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, et. al., that anthropogenic climate change is a major problem that indicates the need for rapid mitigation, are credible.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Below is info on a well researched and exhaustive analysis on the economics of climate change in the Northeast US involving more than 50 economists and scientists, that you might want to consider:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/global-warming-to-hit-0044.html" target="_blank">http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/global-warming-to-hit-0044.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (July 11, 2007)—If heat-trapping emissions are not significantly curtailed, global warming will substantially change critical aspects of the Northeast's character and economy, according to a new report by the Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment (NECIA), a two-year collaboration between the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and a team of more than 50 scientists and economists. Near-term choices about energy, transportation, and land-use will largely determine the extent and severity of climate change. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>"Global warming represents an enormous challenge, but we can meet it if we act swiftly," said Peter Frumhoff, director of science and policy at UCS and chair of the NECIA team. "Our response to global warming in the next few years will shape the climate our children and grandchildren inherit." </div>
<p>The peer-reviewed report, "Confronting Climate Change in the U.S. Northeast," incorporates and builds on NECIA's 2006 study that described how the climate of the nine Northeast states will change under two scenarios: one that assumes an increase in global warming emissions from continued heavy reliance on fossil fuels, and another that assumes substantially lower emissions due to an increased reliance on clean energy sources. The report documents the projected consequences of each emissions path. It also details what individuals, businesses, and governments can do today to reduce emissions to levels below the lower-emissions scenario and to adapt to the unavoidable changes already set in motion by emissions over the past several decades. </p>
<div>The new report and a complete list of collaborating scientists and economists are available at</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.climatechoices.org/ne/resources_ne/nereport.html" target="_blank">www.climatechoices.org/ne/resources_ne/nereport.html</a></div>
<div>---------------</div>
<div>Also, consider the discussions of and reports on climate change mitigation economics from the Pew Center:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.pewclimate.org/economics">http://www.pewclimate.org/economics</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div><br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 8/28/08, <b class="gmail_sendername">Ted Moffett</b> <<a href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com">starbliss@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>While some of the ideas presented in this lecture are interesting, and certainly solving problems must be prioritized, given all problems cannot be solved given financial and other realities, his analysis of the costs of climate change relative to the costs of solving the problem is very flawed. He clearly has not studied the latest climate science regarding impacts from human greenhouse gas emissions and when these problems will begin to be very serious, and he misstates what the <span class="st" id="st" name="st">IPCC</span> predicts regarding climate change in this century. Nor does he reference, that I heard, the <span class="st" id="st" name="st">Stern</span> <span class="st" id="st" name="st">Report</span> on the economics of climate change, an exhaustive analysis that clearly spells out that solving climate change in the next few decades will cost less than allowing it to continue and inflict the damages due to climate change over the next century and beyond.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I agree that <span class="st" id="st" name="st">Kyoto</span> is not the path to solve climate change. A very different solution is required..</div>
<div> </div><span class="sg">
<div>Ted</div></span></div></blockquote>
<div> </div><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><span class="q" id="q_11c0b916842c3c36_2">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">Hi Ted,<br><br>Longtime lurker; I don't do offlist much either.<br><br>You linked to TED. One of my favorite TED videos is:<br><br><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities.html" target="_blank">http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities.html</a><br>
<br>and I won't spoil the surprise for you, but I'm curious about your thoughts on the topic. If you post any part of this to the Viz, I'd appreciate you leaving my name out of it. Local politics get a bit sticky at times and I'd rather keep my name out of it for the sake of my boss, pastor, <i>et cetera</i>.<br>
<br>Thanks,<br><br></div></blockquote></div></span></div></div></blockquote></div>
<div><br>------------------------------------------</div>
<div>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett</div>