{"id":259097,"date":"2023-05-25T20:16:35","date_gmt":"2023-05-25T18:16:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=259097"},"modified":"2023-05-25T20:16:38","modified_gmt":"2023-05-25T18:16:38","slug":"nyt-makes-12-out-of-12-false-claims-against-lomborgs-book","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=259097","title":{"rendered":"NYT Makes 12 out of 12 False Claims Against Lomborg\u2019s\u00a0Book"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Science Matters<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By\u00a0Ron Clutz<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Bjorn Lomborg set the record straight at LinkedIn The New York Times\u2019 stunningly false and deceptive hit piece to preserve climate alarmism.<\/strong><\/a>  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The piece consists of Stiglitz enumerating four specific and compounding mistakes that I apparently make, and then another six separate observations. I will go through all of them below, starting with the four mistakes.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

My first \u201cmistake\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

My first mistake is that I draw \u201cheavily on the work of William Nordhaus of Yale University, who came up with an estimate of the economic cost to limiting climate change to 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels.\u201d Instead the High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices, which Stiglitz co-authored, showed that 1.5\u00b0C-2\u00b0C goals \u201ccould be achieved at a moderate price.\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is triply wrong. I don\u2019t rely on Nordhaus for the cost on limiting temperature rise for 1.5\u00b0C to 2\u00b0C, simply because Nordhaus does not make that estimate.<\/strong> Nordhaus explicitly writes,<\/strong> as Stiglitz would know had he read Nordhaus or my book: \u201cA limit of 2\u00b0C appears to be infeasible with reasonably accessible technologies even with very ambitious abatement strategies.\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Secondly, Stiglitz claims that his report estimates \u201ca moderate price\u201d<\/strong> for reaching the Paris agreement. This is false. There is no estimate of the total economic cost of a 2\u00b0C or 1.5\u00b0C target in his High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Compounding Stiglitz\u2019 error is the fact that the background report for his high-level commission does indeed list the UN Climate Panel cost estimate for reaching 1.5-2\u00b0C at more than 4% of GDP by 2100<\/strong> (p2), which makes Nordhaus\u2019 1.38% GDP economic cost at the lowest temperature scenario of 2.35\u00b0C by 2100 substantially smaller (not larger, as Stiglitz claims).<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Stiglitz throughout his piece neglects to inform the reader that Nordhaus<\/strong> is not just any old economist, but actually the only climate economist to get the Nobel prize for his work on climate economics.<\/strong> For reference, Stiglitz got his Nobel prize in economics for analyses of markets with asymmetric information like the selling and buying of used cars.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For the first mistake, Stiglitz makes two false claims and no correct, relevant claims.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

My second \u201cmistake\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

My second mistake is \u201cNordhaus\u2019s and Lomborg\u2019s underestimation of the damage associated with climate change.\u201d<\/strong> Stiglitz is in reality informing us that he knows much better than the world\u2019s only climate Nobel economist.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

But curiously, Stiglitz never tells us what the right cost is.<\/strong> As such, Stiglitz makes an absurd claim, essentially asserting he knows better than the best peer-reviewed evidence \u2014 but just couldn\u2019t be bothered to share that knowledge publicly.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Stiglitz gives one indication of his knowledge on this matter. He claims that a significant part of the cost of climate change \u201cincludes more extreme weather events<\/strong> \u2014 more intense hurricanes, more droughts, more floods, with all the devastation to life, livelihood and property that accompanies them. Yet, again, he seems to have forgotten to actually acquaint himself with the best evidence on the science and economics of extreme weather events. As the leading researcher on economic impacts of extreme weather events says, Stiglitz is \u201cjust wrong<\/a>.<\/strong>\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

But more importantly, Stiglitz is just\u00a0cherry-picking and ignoring the actual data.<\/strong>\u00a0He picked the costliest recent data point and he neglects that the trend for the US (and similarly for the world) is declining.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Stiglitz is simply doubly wrong on his only indication of how Nobel Laureate Nordhaus and I should be wrong, so for the second mistake, Stiglitz makes two false, one unsubstantiated and no correct, relevant claims.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

My third \u201cmistake\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Stiglitz suggests that \u201cA third critical mistake, compounding the second, is\u00a0not taking due account of risk.\u201d\u00a0<\/strong>\u00a0Ah, if only the world\u2019s only actual Nobel laureate in climate economics had thought of incorporating risks.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Of course, Stiglitz could still have quibbled about a different way to model risk, and added his own take on this. But he does not. He simply \u2014 and falsely \u2014 suggests that Nordhaus or I have not taken this obvious point into consideration.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Specifically, Stiglitz assuredly tells us that the best damage estimates are underestimates<\/strong> because \u201cas we learn more about climate change these best estimates keep getting revised, and, typically, in only one direction \u2014 more damage and sooner than had been expected.\u201d   No, they do not.<\/strong> This is the kind of claim one makes if one gets most of one\u2019s climate information from news media.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For the third mistake, Stiglitz makes two false, one unsubstantiated and no correct, relevant claims.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

My fourth \u201cmistake\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Stiglitz seems to claim that Nordhaus and I use a discount parameter that is too low for his liking. I<\/strong> cite the whole paragraph, because it is unclear what his actual point is<\/strong> except a rant against the Trump administration:<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Stiglitz apparently suggests that Nordhaus and I use a 7 percent discount rate<\/strong> to spew out the numbers that are in my book. This is demonstrably false.<\/strong> Perhaps Stiglitz knows he\u2019s fibbing, given that he settles for criticizing Trump and then conflating the 7% with the \u201cmodels Lomborg loves.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Instead, Nordhaus\u2019 discount rate is calibrated to the real interest rates, meaning a 4.8% discount rate in 2015, declining to 3.5% in 2100.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As he would know, having been World Bank chief economist, it is one thing what rich, liberals in Manhattan want for a discount rate. Most of the rest of the world has much higher discount rates<\/strong>. When we worked with the government of Haiti, the central bank decided on 12% (even contemplating 20%), while Ghana decided 8%.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For the fourth mistake, Stiglitz makes one false and no correct, relevant claims.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Other claims<\/strong><\/em><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Media drives alarmism<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

He seems to brush off my points that the hyperventilating media is one of the main causes of alarmism simply by saying \u201cfake news\u201d: <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For example, I outline how New York Times claims<\/a> that South Vietnam by 2050 will \u201call but disappear\u201d<\/strong> because it will be \u201cunderwater at high tide.\u201d  While the story was reported in almost all media, it was clearly incorrect<\/strong>. Because almost all of South Vietnam is already under the high tide mark today, and almost all of South Vietnam is already well-protected today:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Regulation<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Stiglitz claim that I miss discussing good regulations as a way to tackle climate.  <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

More importantly, Stiglitz<\/strong> seems to have missed at least the last third of my book<\/strong>. Here I talk about<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. Innovation<\/strong>: how we should invest $100 billion per year in green R&D (regulation, not taxation)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. Adaptation<\/strong>: regulation like zoning, building regulation and more pervious city surfaces (to ensure less flooding)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

3. Geoengineering<\/strong>: which will be almost entirely a regulatory approach<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

4. Prosperity<\/strong>: mostly about better policies including regulatory policies<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Stiglitz\u2019 claim that I ignore regulation is blatantly false.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wall Street underwater<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Almost bizarrely, Stiglitz chides me for not including<\/strong> in my book that Wall Street could be underwater by 2100:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The research very clearly shows that at least when an area has sufficient value (as Wall St and surrounding areas certainly have) all will be safeguarded through adaptive policies (like sea walls etc.).  <\/strong>I even show this in a graph in the book, based on this paper.<\/strong><\/a> We only see significant flooding when we disregard adaptation:<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

So when Stiglitz chides me for not including that Wall Street might be underwater i<\/strong>n my book, it is because such a claim would be false.<\/strong> His is a good example of bad information from hyperventilating media.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Copenhagen Consensus<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Stiglitz writes a slyly derogatory paragraph about the think tank I work fo<\/strong>r, Copenhagen Consensus:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The paragraph doesn\u2019t seem to say anything but that the experts are conservative and that we didn\u2019t include any \u201ctrue experts\u201d on climate science.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On his first claim, we have worked with more than 300 of the world\u2019s top economists and seven Nobel Laureates.<\/strong> Our main focus is all the world\u2019s problems,<\/strong> not just climate change, so many are experts in the economics of malaria, infrastructure, water, education etc.   We certainly don\u2019t have a \u2018conservative\u2019 bias<\/strong> \u2014 we\u2019ve actually invited Stiglitz to be a member of several eminent panels together with his Nobel colleagues. But it also shows that Stiglitz seems to be suggesting that only liberal economists such as himself can be trusted to help set priorities for the world.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On his second claim, we have worked with many climate economists,<\/strong> and when we did our big climate consensus, we worked with 27 of the world\u2019s top climate economists, publishing the results as a book with Cambridge University Press, which even got a favorable quote from the IPCC\u2019s chairman (\u201cThis book provides not only a reservoir of information on the reality of human induced climate change, but raises vital questions and examines viable options on what can be done to meet the challenge.\u201d).<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Stiglitz\u2019 derogatory two claims are simply incorrect.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lack of prioritization<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of the key points of my book (and the Copenhagen Consensus\u2019 work) is that we have to prioritize.<\/strong> No matter the amount of resources available, there is never enough to do everything, and hence we have to make sure we spend resources where they can do the most good first.  The allocation of scarce resources with alternative uses, of course, is the key definition of economics.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Obviously, money from a tax can be used on many things (some of which I\u2019m sure Stiglitz wouldn\u2019t like), but they can still only be used once. And the point is, that with more stringent climate policies, GDP will be slightly lower, hence there will be less in total to spend.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The new IPCC report shows end-of-world<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Stiglitz finally claims that because I cite the UN Climate Panel so often, one could believe I might be right. But, he comforts his readers, \u201cnothing could be further from the truth\u201d:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

What I say in the book is also what is in the IPCC 2018 1.5\u00b0C report.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then Stiglitz goes on to make the exact scare scenario in which the media excels and that I have criticized.<\/strong> The 60 feet sea level rise<\/strong> is from a world in an entirely different part of the state space. He knows very well that such statistics are only meant to scare but not informative for what will happen for us,<\/strong> in this part of the state space. That, of course, is exactly what the IPCC reports are about. They talk about a high outcome of 3 feet of sea level rise by 2100. The only reason to throw out 60 feet is to scare people silly.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Summary<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Making 12 substantial criticisms of my book and that they are all false, is quite an achievement. It is hard not to conclude that Stiglitz\u2019 review of my book is a deceptive and false hit piece<\/strong>. It is perhaps not surprising that Stiglitz actually said that he was going to give the book a bad review even before he read it<\/a>. In many ways, it seems like he still hasn\u2019t read it.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I have asked New York Times to rectify this terrible article. <\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Making 12 substantial criticisms of my book and that they are\u00a0all\u00a0false, is quite an achievement. It is hard not to conclude that\u00a0Stiglitz\u2019 review of my book is a deceptive and false hit piece. It is perhaps not surprising that Stiglitz actually said that he was going to\u00a0give the book a bad review even before he read it. In many ways, it seems like he still hasn\u2019t read it.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":259104,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_crdt_document":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691818056,691818090,691818076],"class_list":{"0":"post-259097","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-climate-change","9":"tag-climate-warning","10":"tag-co2","12":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/010x0-1.webp?fit=1200%2C887&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-15oZ","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":344872,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=344872","url_meta":{"origin":259097,"position":0},"title":"True, New York Post, Oft-Cited Climate Catastrophes Have Not Materialized","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"01\/10\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"A recent article at the New York Post by Bjorn Lomborg, titled \u201cShrinking island, vanishing polar bears \u2014 the climate scare stories that turn out to be false,\u201d points out that many of the harms the mainstream media claims climate change is supposed to be causing, for example, to polar\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Bjorn Lomborg\"","block_context":{"text":"Bjorn Lomborg","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=bjorn-lomborg"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/0nyp-lomborg.jpg?fit=1200%2C668&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/0nyp-lomborg.jpg?fit=1200%2C668&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/0nyp-lomborg.jpg?fit=1200%2C668&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/0nyp-lomborg.jpg?fit=1200%2C668&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/0nyp-lomborg.jpg?fit=1200%2C668&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":331585,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=331585","url_meta":{"origin":259097,"position":1},"title":"Thanks for Publishing the Truth, New York Post, Climate Activists Don\u2019t Care If People Die","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"05\/06\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The New York Post published an article by noted researcher Bjorn Lomborg, Ph.D., in which he argues climate activists not only don\u2019t care about people\u2019s well-being, they, in fact, support policies that result in unnecessary deaths. Lomborg is right.","rel":"","context":"In \"climate activists\"","block_context":{"text":"climate activists","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-activists"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/00shen-fei-scene-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C638&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/00shen-fei-scene-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C638&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/00shen-fei-scene-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C638&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/00shen-fei-scene-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C638&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/00shen-fei-scene-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C638&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":251515,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=251515","url_meta":{"origin":259097,"position":2},"title":"Bjorn Lomborg | PBD Podcast | Ep. 254","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"06\/04\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"PBD Podcast Episode 254. In this episode, Patrick Bet-David is joined by Bjorn Lomborg, Adam Sosnick and Tom Ellsworth.","rel":"","context":"In \"Bjorn Lomborg\"","block_context":{"text":"Bjorn Lomborg","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=bjorn-lomborg"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/0Screenshot-2023-04-06-125501.png?fit=894%2C505&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/0Screenshot-2023-04-06-125501.png?fit=894%2C505&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/0Screenshot-2023-04-06-125501.png?fit=894%2C505&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/0Screenshot-2023-04-06-125501.png?fit=894%2C505&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":251428,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=251428","url_meta":{"origin":259097,"position":3},"title":"12 Ways the Planet Could Truly Be Saved | Bj\u00f8rn Lomborg | EP 345","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"05\/04\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Dr. Jordan B. Peterson and Bj\u00f8rn Lomborg go through each of the \u201cdoable dozen,\u201d a series of issues that cost relatively little to solve, and yet doing so would yield exponential returns for developing countries and their impoverished citizens.","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/00Screenshot-2023-04-05-202651.png?fit=896%2C504&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/00Screenshot-2023-04-05-202651.png?fit=896%2C504&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/00Screenshot-2023-04-05-202651.png?fit=896%2C504&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/00Screenshot-2023-04-05-202651.png?fit=896%2C504&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":330984,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=330984","url_meta":{"origin":259097,"position":4},"title":"\u201cBonus\u201d Gets it wrong about May and Crok, 2024","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"03\/06\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Wow! Our new paper \u201cCarbon Dioxide and a Warming Climate are not problems,\u201d in the\u00a0American Journal of Economics and Sociology\u00a0has struck a nerve, judging by the traffic about it on twitter. An anonymous twitter troll who calls himself \u201cBonus @TheDisproof\u201d has published what he (or she) calls a list of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"climate alarmism\"","block_context":{"text":"climate alarmism","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-alarmism"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/0planet-earth-and-the-sun-as-seen-from-space-elements-of-this-image-furnished-by-nasa_v1lbpnwje_thumbnail-1080_01.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/0planet-earth-and-the-sun-as-seen-from-space-elements-of-this-image-furnished-by-nasa_v1lbpnwje_thumbnail-1080_01.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/0planet-earth-and-the-sun-as-seen-from-space-elements-of-this-image-furnished-by-nasa_v1lbpnwje_thumbnail-1080_01.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/0planet-earth-and-the-sun-as-seen-from-space-elements-of-this-image-furnished-by-nasa_v1lbpnwje_thumbnail-1080_01.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/0planet-earth-and-the-sun-as-seen-from-space-elements-of-this-image-furnished-by-nasa_v1lbpnwje_thumbnail-1080_01.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":361780,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=361780","url_meta":{"origin":259097,"position":5},"title":"Climatists Make Their Case by Omitting\u00a0Facts","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"12\/01\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Stiglitz, a Columbia University economics professor and\u00a0former World Bank chief economist,\u00a0concludes that increasing global warming will have huge costs on society and that a\u00a0fossil fuel-based system \u201cis causing imminent, significant, and irreparable harm\u00a0to the Youth Plaintiffs and Affected Children more generally.\u201d He explains in a footnote that his analysis also\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)\"","block_context":{"text":"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=carbon-dioxide-co%e2%82%82"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0-The-world-burns.webp?fit=1200%2C674&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0-The-world-burns.webp?fit=1200%2C674&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0-The-world-burns.webp?fit=1200%2C674&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0-The-world-burns.webp?fit=1200%2C674&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0-The-world-burns.webp?fit=1200%2C674&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/259097","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=259097"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/259097\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":259107,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/259097\/revisions\/259107"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/259104"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=259097"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=259097"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=259097"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}