The Swedish media mega-star and Gapminder edutainer Hans Rosling releases all of his media authority (and Swedish home-made charm) in his talk 200 Years of Global Change in support of IPCC at the presentation in Stockholm September 27 of the IPCC AR5 Summary for Policymakers:
- I am not at all involved in the climate research, heh, just standing at the side, looking at the factors that contribute to the climate change and the impact it will have on humans.
- I can assess really as an outsider that this IPCC Summary for Policymakers is as good as science can do. It is a truely, truely, good report! (Applause)
- I've been through quite a lot of similar things...smoking and cancer...bottlefeeding of young children...HIV...
- I am completely independent...they didn't even pay me to come here...(laugh).
- IPCC have spent all their effort up to the press conference just to see that the entire content is as correct, meticulously correct and well weighed as it could be.
- When I read through the report as an experienced researcher and scientist, I like very much the way the arguments are weighed, and the different wordings: this we know, this is very sure, this we don't know so well, heh, this is is as good we can... And it is especially difficult this report:
- Smoking and cancer was easier because it was a practice here and now and a disease here and now...this (report) is about future and future is is almost impossible to do research about, heh?
- I think the work now being done in climate science will have importance and implications for science in many other fields that need to do predictions, how you should do and work.
- I am not so much professor, I am mainly edutainer at Gapminder, an independent foundation, that fights devastating ignorance with a fact-based worldview that everyone can understand.
- It is very clear that the sea level is rising......the uncertainties are shown so clearly...
- As I read it, today the question, does human change climate, yes or no, that's over! That's over, that's set!
- The big question now is, how much will it change, how fast will it change, in which way will it change and where will this or that happen? The background was already done by Arrhenius in 1900....
- We must take this IPCC report seriously and get things done...
- We think we have done more than we have and we haven't understood how much we have to do, thank you!
My questions to Hans Rosling are:
- You say that you are not at all involved in climate science, yet you assure the world that IPCC science is truely, truely good. Is this a fact-based message or does it rather reflect ignorance?
- You claim to know that humans are changing the climate, but not how much, how fast, in which way, or where this or that will happen. What do you mean by this statement? Does it have a content? Is that not an example of the devastating ignorance you are fighting?
- You know that massive use of fossil fuel is required to improve the living conditions for billions of poor people, yet you support the idea that the use of fossil fuel must be reduced, drastically reduced. How are you going to resolve this contradiction?
- You compare with smoking and cancer and HIV. What is the connection to climate science?
- You say we have to get things done. What is it we have to do?
I invite Hans to answer as a comment.
Watch the shocking alarming increase of atmospheric CO2 as humanity is lifted out of poverty 1800 - 2013.
PS1 Will Rosling answer my questions? I bet 100 Skr that he will not. My bet is based on long experience and many observations...
PS2 Rosling shows only one graph to support the CO2 alarmism he is selling , not over global temperature which does not rise anymore, but over global sea level which continues a steady slow rise since long before CO2 emissions started to grow:
PS1 Will Rosling answer my questions? I bet 100 Skr that he will not. My bet is based on long experience and many observations...
PS2 Rosling shows only one graph to support the CO2 alarmism he is selling , not over global temperature which does not rise anymore, but over global sea level which continues a steady slow rise since long before CO2 emissions started to grow:
PS3 In talks during 2012 Rosling supported his alarm message with the following picture of a quickly shrinking arctic ice cap:
But in 2013 Rosling keeps silent about the arctic ice cap since it is quickly growing and the reason for alarm is gone. What remains of alarm is a steady very slow rise of the sea level as the world is slowly recovering from the Little Ice Age. It is the alarm which is shrinking to zero, not the arctic ice cap.
Inlägg
Dear Claes,
SvaraRaderaIf you had trusted your "long experience and many observations" more your bet would have been higher, but it is truly difficult to make predictions. Pls send the 100 SEK as a donation to UNICEF!
Thanks for the questions, it is sad for me to learn that I was so unclear that you missed what I tried to say on so many points, but here are my answers to your not so easy to understand questions.
1. As you rightly write I commented on the summary for policy makers. I was explicit about not being a climate scientist, but my judgement is that this summary for policy maker is as good a summary of research as policy makers, public and researchers in other fields can ever hope to get.
2. No it is not me claiming, it is IPCC claiming that humans are changing the climate, I accept their consensus on this point, but pointed out that their projections have a very wide range of uncertainty. I think I was very clear about the distinction between accepting the consensus that humans are changing the climate and my observations that the uncertainties in the projections are so wide that they range from almost negligible changes to potentially catastrophic.
3. No I do not know how to solve this contradiction, but it do exist! My suggestion in the end is that the richest, that have by far the highest emission must lower their emission first before they demand restrictions by those with much lower emission.
4. The connection is that the a scientific consensus regarding a causal link between smoking and cancer as well as between sexual transmission of HIV and Aids was of greatest importance for human behavior, as well as for health, economic and trade policy. The ways those consensus were reached and communicated were far more haphazardly done then IPCC, but then again I said that IPCC is in a more difficult position as they are making predictions rather than concluding about causal links in the present time.
5. If we should avoid a possible catastrophic climate change we, that is we humans, have to reduce or at least stop to increase the CO2 emission.
Kind regards Hans Rosling
Mr. Rosling claims no personal knowledge of the Climte issues.
SvaraRaderaMr. Rosling claims he trusts the IPCC.
Mr. Rosling was very quick to jump in to take your money for his friends.
Mr. Rosling sounds like the typical agenda driven fellow traveler.
Hans Rosling: I reject your "answers" as blatant political and ideological chaff, i.e., scientifically non-responsive, thus worthless. And since they ARE so clearly political chaff, it is also obvious you are not a scientist, at least not a competent and honest one. You are one of the Insane Left, relishing a position in which you can promulgate empty alarmism to the people of the world (blaming especially those in the more developed countries--by which you mean the West--again without evidence) You have well shown yourself ignorant of any definitive evidence supporting such alarmism, only a "consensus" you admit you are not competent to judge, and which you choose to accept blindly, or fraudulently, to the people of the world. This is one scientist who will never accept the likes of you as a true scientist, or a true voice for the people. You are nothing but a fellow-traveller of utopian tyranny over honest reason.
SvaraRaderaAbout Mr. Huffman's 17:24 post: Haha, that, if something, I would call "blatant political and ideological chaff". "Insane left", "utopian tyranny"... talk about fact-based non-political reasoning.
SvaraRaderaBy the way: as a scientist (I am myself a scientist), of course you are able to assess whether a peer-review process is sound or not, although you are not a specialist is the specific scientific area of concern. Thus it is not contradictory in anyway to not have much knowledge about climate science and still trust IPCC's reports as good science. I would say that in lots of disciplines, as a scientist you have to accept the current consensus in other disciplines you have little experience of yourself, in particular in today's cutting edge science which often draws on the knowledge in a broad spectrum of disciplines. That is largely the point of the peer-review process.
SvaraRaderaBy the way, what's wrong with pointing out a contradiction without having a suggestion of how it is to be resolved (which, by the way, Hans has: he says that the Western world should reduce emissions heavily to make room for development (i.e. fossil fuel use) in the rest of the world)? Does Mr. Johnson believe in a contradiction-free world?
Contradictory science is nonsense. Contradictory politics is dangerous populism. To believe without understanding is religion and not science.
RaderaTo accept by authority only is obedience and not science.
Wow, oneliners. I'm astounded.
RaderaDon't understand your point regarding "contradictory science" and "contradictoy politics" and its relevance for the contradiction we discuss. The contradiction here is that fossil fuel can be both beneficial for some reasons and still problematic. The world is full of such contradictions, and I can't see what's wrong with pointing them out. For me it is not very intellectual to not accept contradictions, to see things as black and white and never grey.
Regarding accepting the scientific consensus (or rather: trust it as the best available current knowledge): it's not about "blind faith" or accepting "authority", it's about trusting the scientific peer-review process (which actually is designed to avoid the risk for authority belief, although it's not perfect) - which I personally think is the most trustworthy process for drawing conclusions about the world we live in. And although I'm not an expert in a particular scientific field, I'm perfectly capable of assessing the trustworthyness of a particular peer-review process (which, of course, can be less or more trustworthy). For example, I'm not a climat scientist, but I can see some serious differences between the process behind the IPCC report and the process behind the NIPCC report, and I am confident in my ability to assess which one is the most trustworthy.
Yellow Elephant,
RaderaYou appear to be claiming that the use of carbon based fuels in the west is bad, BUT, it is good for the developing world. Rather than arm waving, would you care to expand your argument so we can respond intelligently to your apparent BELIEF???
You are fooling yourself by formal arguments without looking at facts. There is so much invested in CO2 alarmism that you cannot rely on anyone whose salary depends on keeping the myth alive, and they are many.
RaderaThanks for your answers Hans! I comment in the next blog post
SvaraRaderahttp://claesjohnson.blogspot.se/2013/10/hans-rosling-consider-facts-help-world.html
In this context, Rosling makes me associate to Lenin's "useful idiots" concept.
SvaraRaderaHans Rosling is an expert om statistics. Why not use this and evaluate the temperature during the passed decennial!
SvaraRaderaLock at 1905-1945 compared to 1965-2000. Is there a difference?
Change is about 0,4 degrees both periods.
What happened after 1965 more than CO2 emissions started in a big scale?
Why is it different from the first period?
This analysis should enlighten even the most 'agw-convinced':
SvaraRaderahttp://www.informath.org/AR5stat.pdf