PART 1 - Michael Pawlyn debate with Bjorn Lomborg at the BCO 2009 conference

It would be much more honest to call these postings a lecture or presentation. Please sir, if you post a "debate" that doesn't mean one side only... and then a mention in the comments about how you really wanted to post both sides but didn't have permission. Just call it something besides a debate. It's misleading. I listen to you for 25 minutes only to find out that Lomborgs rebuttals and defense of his side is nowhere to be found here.

I appreciate your point but I am keen that people do engage with this as a debate. Thats why I confirmed in the comment below where people can find a transcript of the discussion part and the nearest equivalent of BLs presentation. Sorry that this is not as convenient as most debates but I believe there are some major errors in BLs analysis that need to be aired

In response to the comments asking where the other side of the debate is: The event took the form of a presentation from Bjorn Lomborg followed by my talk and then a discussion / debate. BL refused permission for his presentation or the discussion to be posted on Youtube which is why you only see one side of the story here. His presentation was similar to his TED talk. A transcript of the discussion can be found by googling 'climate progress pawlyn'

Following my responses below I can expand as follows: Stern believes the cost benefit figure should be $85/T & the ECI at Oxford Uni arrived at an even higher figure. Even with the conservative figure from Tol of $28/T we can see that there is a substantial cost benefit in carbon reduction technologies. BL tries to undermine this with a use of statistics that is highly selective and, I would argue, dangerously misleading. Whether it is willful deception or not I will leave to others to decide.

How is this a debate? First, where is Bjorn Lomborg, and second, Bjorn Lomborg never opposes smart low carbon solutions, he promotes them. He advocates intelligent and product use of available resources. This is a very lame.

BL does oppose low carbon solutions. He says they cost $20/T to implement & only deliver $2/T of benefits. Both figures are deceptive. Many low C solutions have a negative cost. BL's $2 figure comes from Prof R. Tol who has confirmed that BL is using the wrong figure: "The $2 comes about when you ignore all the uncertainties, but if you start including the fact that things could go dramatically wrong then you would come up with a much higher number". Prof. Tol believes the right figure is $28/T.

i cannot find the other side of this debate ,where is the other guy if you cannot be bothered to post
the whole thing i will assume you only want people to hear one side ,and i will take it with a large pinch of salt.

Where can i find more about BCO ?