The Lomborg Deception

Howard Friel was interviewed on the Science Show
about his book The Lomborg Deception

So Lomborg was very clever to present himself as a centrist, but when you get into the details of his book he’s hardly a centrist. I think he would be fairly classified as a climate denier. He takes almost every climate related issue from polar bears to melting glaciers to rising sea levels, and in my view very problematically downplays the significance of the impact of global warming on these areas. So people would classify him as a sceptic that is one notch above a denier, but I would not do that, I think he’s close to being a climate denier based on his actual work.

Indeed. There’s also a reply from Lomborg and links to Lomborg’s response to Friel’s book and Friel’s rebuttal.

Comments

  1. #1 sunspot
    June 4, 2010

    Howard Friel?

    ‘Take a look at his Wikipedia entry – blink and you’ll miss it. He has no history of writing about climate, no knowledge of climate science that I can find, no qualifications whatsoever in fact to write such a book. Ah, hang on a minute – qualifications only matter if you’re a sceptic, right? That must be it – Al Gore gets a free pass to say whatever he likes – but every utterance of a sceptic is scrutinised to the last letter, including his qualifications. So I think we’ll do the same, just for balance: where are yours?’

    http://www.tinyurl.com.au/9vk

  2. #2 Jeff Harvey
    June 4, 2010

    So, dumbspot – please tell me what eminent qualifications Lomborg has in any area of natural science. The answer ain’t hard to find. Nil. Just like yours.

    I have countered Lomborg’s garbage many times in this site and elsewhere (e.g. in Nature, 2001, with Stuart Pimm and with the Union of Concerned Scientists, also 2001 with E.O. Wilson, N. Myers, T. Lovejoy and Pimm) and I have no reason to keep doing it; I have better things to do with my time than to have to waste it on someone who IMHO in pushing his own agenda.

    BTW, Friel does an excellent job in his book, as does Kare Fog on his web site.

  3. #3 ashmoore
    June 4, 2010

    sunspot, Al Gore is a non-climate scientist who is repeating the work of many specialist climate scientists. He is a communicator not a researcher.

    Lomborg, etc are non climate-scientists who are making stuff up with poor scientific backing. They are basically communicators who have none to poor scientific basis of their claims.

  4. #4 Johnny Vector
    June 4, 2010

    Hey sunspot, I like your idea! Let’s ignore anything said by anyone who isn’t a practicing, publishing climate scientist. In fact, let’s ignore anything that isn’t published in a peer-reviewed climatology journal (So, e.g., The Electricity Journal doesn’t count.) No Al Gore, no Friel, no Lomborg, no Monckton, no Watts, and hell for that matter nothing that hasn’t been rebutted by McIntyre or McKitrick or Lindzen.

    I’m pretty sure that’s been the position of the reality-based community for years. Glad to see you come around.

  5. #5 Johnny Vector
    June 4, 2010

    Hmph. And nothing from people who can’t keep their antecedents clear. Let’s make that “for that matter nothing (that hasn’t been rebutted) by McIntyre or McKitrick or Lindzen”

  6. #6 Dibble
    June 4, 2010

    Johnny Vector: It would be a great idea, and would certainly lead to a more realistic discussion of the state of science.

    Failing that, we could listen to the very body set up to assemble the scientific literature and assess it’s significance within clearly defined confidence limits, having implicitly accounted for the uncertainties…the IPCC.

  7. #7 Steve Reuland
    June 4, 2010

    Ah, hang on a minute – qualifications only matter if you’re a sceptic, right? That must be it – Al Gore gets a free pass to say whatever he likes – but every utterance of a sceptic is scrutinised to the last letter, including his qualifications.

    Well you see, there’s a crucial difference. Al Gore is not disputing the conclusions of the professional climate science community. (And if and when he does, their word should be taken over his.) So-called “skeptics” however are disputing the conclusions of the climate science community, and are claiming to draw conclusions that are superior to those of scientists who study it for a living. As such, their qualifications are relevant. The qualifications of people who are merely transcribing what scientists say aren’t so relevant.

  8. #8 Dave Andrews
    June 4, 2010

    Jeff Harvey,

    Kare Fog does not do an ‘excellent job’. He comes across as a petty minded nit-picker.

    I seem to remember your review in Nature was also completely rebutted by letters a week or so later.

  9. #9 Dave Andrews
    June 4, 2010

    Jeff Harvey,

    Now whilst Kare Fog was nit-picking, Lomborg organised the Copenhagen Consensus Conferences involving many Nobel laureates.

    Yet you put your faith in Fog!

  10. #10 preearth
    June 4, 2010

    Concerning http://preearth.net/vostok-temp-vs-co2.gif

    “There’s nothing indicating what the zero means.”

    Yes there is; the top scale is “Depth of ice (metres).” The lower scale is “Age (years before present).”

    “The vertical run-up of CO2 on the chart occurs past the zero line (for depth of ice).”

    I think that is just a small mistake on the creators part.

    “and state whether you’re adding say Mauna Loa to the picture.”

    I would have guessed that Mauna Loa has been added to the picture. But that doesn’t make sense as the Vostok record must show the last few centuries,… otherwise what good is it? What good is it if it has huge gaps?

    I think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age presents a very misleading picture by not mentioning what is currently known and what must be shown by the record.

  11. #11 jakerman
    June 4, 2010

    Appeal to authority Dave Andrews?

    Very interesting!

  12. #12 John
    June 4, 2010

    Sunspot only gets his information from the true experts – oil funded thinktanks and British aristocracy.

  13. #13 frflyer
    June 5, 2010

    sunspot

    Since you seem interested in comparing Al Gore to Bjorn Lomborg, here you go.

    Al Gore´s film: 2 errors, 8 flaws, 10 in total.

    Al Gore´s book: 2 errors, 11 flaws, 13 in total.
    Film and book together: 2 errors, 12 flaws, 14 in total.

    Chapter 24 on global warming in “The Skeptical Environmentalist”: 22 errors, 59 flaws, 81 in total.
    (This is more than one distortion per page).

    “The Skeptical Environmentalist” in total (up to now 12/9/09):
    117 errors, 219 flaws, 336 in total.

    “Cool it!”, British edition: 48 errors, 111 flaws, 159 in total (up to now, with about 40 % of the book investigated).
    (This is nearly two distortions per page)..

    http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/

    And there is this:

    Something is Rotten in the State of Denmark a Skeptical look at the “Skeptical Environmentalist” by a panel of specialists.

    http://www.grist.org/advice/books/2001/12/12/of/

    including the one on extinctions below:

    Lomborg’s estimate of extinction rates is at odds with the vast majority of respected scholarship on extinction. His estimate, “0.7 percent over the next 50 years” — or 0.014 percent per year — is an order of magnitude smaller than the most conservative species extinction rates by authorities in the field.

    Before humans existed, the species extinction rate was (very roughly) one species per million species per year (0.0001 percent). Estimates for current species extinction rates range from 100 to 10,000 times that, but most hover close to 1,000 times prehuman levels (0.1 percent per year), with the rate projected to rise, and very likely sharply.

    by biologist Edward O Wilson – Harvard professor for fourty years, author of 20 books, winner of two Pulitzer prizes, and discoverer hundreds of new species.

    Is Wilson qualified enough for you?

  14. #14 Kristjan Wager
    June 5, 2010

    Now whilst Kare Fog was nit-picking, Lomborg organised the Copenhagen Consensus Conferences involving many Nobel laureates.

    In the 2004 conference, there were eight participants, all economists, of which 4 hold a Nobel Prize. The 2008 conference had similar numbers (with some overlap between the two sets of participants).

    No disrespect to economists, but global warming is not their field, and they are not qualified to rank the seriousness of different threats against each other.

    Even so, it’s telling that Lomborg had to misrepresent the findings of the 2008 Copenhagen Consensus Conference. As one of the participants, Gary Yohe, explained in 2009

    Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Sceptical Environmentalist, makes headlines around the world by arguing that capping carbon dioxide emissions is a waste of resources. He recently published a piece in the Guardian in which he dismissed efforts to craft a global carbon cap as “constant outbidding by frantic campaigners” to “get the public to accept their civilisation-changing proposals”.

    To support his argument, Lomborg often cites the Copenhagen Consensus project, a 2008 effort intended to inform climate negotiators. But there’s just one problem: as one of the authors of the Copenhagen Consensus Project’s principal climate paper, I can say with certainty that Lomborg is misrepresenting our findings thanks to a highly selective memory.

    Lomborg claims that our “bottom line is that benefits from global warming right now outweigh the costs” and that “[g]lobal warming will continue to be a net benefit until about 2070.” This is a deliberate distortion of our conclusions.

    We did find that climate change will result in some benefits for developed countries, but only for modest climate change (up to global temperature increases of 2C – not the 4 degrees that Lomborg is discussing in his piece). But developed countries are relatively prepared to handle climate change’s effects – they tend to be in colder areas, and they have the infrastructure to mitigate severe depletion of resources like fresh water and arable land.

    That is precisely why our analysis concluded – and Lomborg ignores – that climate change will cause immediate losses for developing countries and the planet’s most vulnerable, millions of whom are already facing challenges that climate change will exacerbate

    One thing I’ve learned through the years of observing Lomborg – you cannot trust him to explain other peoples’ position correctly.

  15. #15 Kristjan Wager
    June 5, 2010

    Yet you put your faith in Fog!

    Oh, and regarding this.

    Lomborg was investigated for scientific dishonesty, and the following verdict was made:

    Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty. …In view of the subjective requirements made in terms of intent or gross negligence, however, Bjørn Lomborg’s publication cannot fall within the bounds of this characterization. Conversely, the publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice.

    In other words, while Lomborg’s work is scientific dishonest, it cannot be shown that he is competent enough to have done it with intent or by gross negligence.

    I think I’ll trust Kaare Fog over Lomborg anytime.

    The reason why Lomborg managed to hold the Copenhagen Consensus Conferences is because his agenda suits the current Danish government, or rather the party which keeps the current government in power (Dansk Folkeparti). If he didn’t have political backing, he wouldn’t have been able to hold anything. Fog is following the general consensus, so he doesn’t get special consideration from the Danish government or its supporting parties.

  16. #16 Marco
    June 5, 2010

    @Kristjan:

    Quite damning quote! I think I should save this one, whenever somebody quotes Lomborg again. Thanks!

  17. #17 snid
    June 5, 2010

    Lomborg is an idiot. I read the “Skeptical Environmentalist”, and found it to be shallow and misleading. A good example is his analysis of water. Australia has not water problems, because if you divide the rainfall for the whole country by the population, on average it’s very good. In practice, water is a major problem.

  18. #18 sod
    June 5, 2010

    Quite damning quote! I think I should save this one, whenever somebody quotes Lomborg again. Thanks!

    yeah, the “incompetence approach”. it is the “insanity pledge” of science.

    it actually is very problematic, because it allows denialists to spout what ever nonsense they want. the one field of science that denialists have an advantage in, is incompetence. they will make maximum use of that, beware!

  19. #19 circleh
    June 5, 2010

    Howard Friel?

    ‘Take a look at his Wikipedia entry – blink and you’ll miss it. He has no history of writing about climate, no knowledge of climate science that I can find, no qualifications whatsoever in fact to write such a book. Ah, hang on a minute – qualifications only matter if you’re a sceptic, right? That must be it – Al Gore gets a free pass to say whatever he likes – but every utterance of a sceptic is scrutinised to the last letter, including his qualifications. So I think we’ll do the same, just for balance: where are yours?’

    Howard Friel and Al Gore rely on legitimate climate experts for their data. Lomborg relies on claiming to be such an expert himself. But the ultimate proof is in the data itself, not the person presenting it.

  20. #20 Jeff Harvey
    June 6, 2010

    Dave Andrews,

    You are out of your depth on this issue. A warning: get lost before you further humiliate yourself.

    Kare does anything but ‘nit-pick'; like Stuart and I and colleagues in Earth and environmental science, we have definitively shown that Lomborg’s take on a diverse array of subjects is an illusion. Why? Because he does not factor the natural economy into his so-called ‘evidence’. The reason he does this, as Kristjan says, is because he has no expertise whatsoever in any of the fields he covers superficially in his books. I debated him here in Holland in 2002 and he was so caught off guard that he could not reply to my presentation and bumbled his way through his rebuttal. It was great to see him squirm; this may explain why he will not debate me any more. I have no fear of him or of his ‘facts’. He relies on preaching to those with money and power – he avoids scientists because he knows only too well that we will shred his garbage. He can stay the darling of the libertarian think tanks and corporate media for all I care. His books are crap.

    Who rebutted our Nature review? Steve Budiansky? HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!!! If you knew anything about Budiansky you’d keep your mouth firmly shut. IMO he’s a hack. Paul Ehlrich does a good job dismantling Budiansky’s contrarian rubbish in “Betrayal of Science and Reason”.

    As of the ‘Copenhagen Consensus’, as John Quiggen and others have pointed out it flopped, big time. This is because Lomborg stacked the deck with right wing neoclassical economists. No progressive economsists or population ecologists were anywhere in sight. That is because in my view the conslusions of the conference were to be ‘pre-determined’ in favor of Lomborg’s persepctives.

    As I have said many times before, Lomborg’s conclusions from TSE are already being conclusively proven wrong through the growing empirical evidence over time. It is not hard to see why. This is because Lomborg preaches the absurd view that the only reason that there is poverty at all is that there is not enough wealth to go around, and that once the third world becomes as wealthy as the developed world then all will be well with the world. It is dishonest in my view that he can use this pathetic argument forever in support of his views with little in the way of come-back.

    Of course this is comic-level book analysis that is highly appealing to commercial and political elites in the north (and their counterparts in the south) who want to retain the status quo and who realize that creating a world as consumptive and wasteful and the United States or Europe is not possible, given the finite amount of resources in ther Earth’s closed system and because we need to loot resources from the south to retain our affluence as currently defined. Senior U.S. planner George Kennan stated in 1948 that the U.S. “controls 50% of the world’s wealth with only 6% of its population”, and went on to argue that the aim of U.S foreign policy should be to “maintain this disparity without threat to our national security”, by ignoring notions like “democracy promotion and altruism” and instead thinking in “straight power concepts”. In 1954 Kennan argued that the resources in South America were essentially “ours” (meaning U.S. corporations) even though they were found somehwere else. In 1974 a document was leaked that had been authored Henry Kissinger and other influntial U.S. Democrats and Republicans that argued that U.S. foreign policy towards the third world should be one of ‘depopulation’ because the U.S. economy would need a large and ever increasing flow of raw materials (resources) from these countries that would enable the U.S. to remain the planet’s dominant superpower.

    Other planners like Brezinski and Nitze have more or less said the same thing over the years. British planning docuaments released after 30 years as part of the Freedom of Information Act tell exactly the same story (see the book, “Unpeople”by British historian Mark Curtis for more details).

    None of these salient facts appear in Lomborg’s puerile writing. It is as if he lives in a world of his own making.

    So Dave Andrews, get lost.

  21. #21 Mal Adapted
    June 6, 2010

    Jeff, I’m afraid you’ve let DA get to you. He’s playing a role here. Given his record, he’s hardly going to get lost before further humiliating himself.

    His remark about your Nature review was a provocation, but surely you’ve kept your cool in the face of worse, from your own peers. Please don’t let the likes of DA goad you into intemperate responses.

  22. #22 zoot
    June 6, 2010

    He’s playing a role here.

    Yes, it seems every village is destined to have an idiot.

  23. #23 Mark Shapiro
    June 6, 2010

    Skeptic? Denier?

    Don’t know exactly what to call guys like Lomborg?

    How about “burners”? Whether they are skeptics, deniers, sophists, spinners, or old-fashioned propagandists, they all happen to conclude that it is okay to keep burning fossil fuels.

    Whatever else they are, they are burners.

  24. #24 Dave Andrews
    June 6, 2010

    jeff Harvey,

    Your problem is that you think just because the likes of Kennan said something in 1948 and 1954, that’s the way the world is now.

    All kinds of people in positions of power say all kinds of things at all times the world over. It doesn’t mean they are true or come to pass.

    Obviously, Lomborg got to you in a big way. The fact you still feel so deeply about it proves that. Perhaps he actually challenged you and your beliefs in ways that made you uncomfortable and which you find difficult to deal with.

  25. #25 Dave Andrews
    June 6, 2010

    zoot,

    Which village do you come from?

  26. #26 Dave Andrews
    June 6, 2010

    Jeff Harvey,

    Tell you what, I might ‘get lost’ when you admit that your much touted scientific standing does not necessarily mean that your political understanding is correct and you stop heaping the latter on top of the former.

  27. #27 Vince Whirlwind
    June 6, 2010

    I submit that Jeff Harvey, far from having his “beliefs” “challenged” by Lomborg, is in fact irate at Lomborg’s dishonesty and incompetence.

    The interesting question here is why DA feels the need to apologise for intellectual charlatans such as Lomborg? I get a feeling that the answer is a simple one: in the world of DA, politics trumps facts – a situation which the honest and the ethical find intolerable.

  28. #28 Mark Schaffer
    June 6, 2010

    Hello Dr. Lambert,
    When will you ban the jackass…I mean Dave Andrews from posting more nonsense and interfering in constructive discussion?

  29. #29 Jeff Harvey
    June 7, 2010

    Dave Andrews,

    The world has unfortuneately not changed one iota since Kennan’s remarks were made. Check up on the recent comments by Zbigniew Brezinski and other planners, as well as on the Clinton doctrine… read “Unpeople” and “Divided Planet: The Ecology of Rich and Poor”. Learn how the world works instead of parroting elite explanations.

    Until you can actually discuss the issues with me with even a hint of substance, I see you as nothing more than an annoying flea… Lomborg redux…

  30. #30 jakerman
    June 7, 2010

    Given Dave Andrews’ [recent post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/06/blogging_on_climate_change_-_a.php#comment-2569372) I think he needs to really look at himself.

  31. #31 Dave Andrews
    June 8, 2010

    Jeff Harvey,

    I tried to post this yesterday but it did not get through.

    Curtis has a particular point of view which is widely suported by lots of…. er,erm,ermm, at least Chomsky and Pilger. So that makes three of them.

    BTW, Pilger once wrote a letter to the Guardian complaining that the media was ignoring the true situation in relation to the war in Iraq. The irony was that a few days before the letter was published Pilger had had a large article in the Guardian comment section making the points he was claiming the media were ignoring. Perhaps he was being humorous.

  32. #32 Jeff Harvey
    June 9, 2010

    Dave Andrews,

    Before you have the audacity to make such an ignorant posting again, read what Curtis has to say. The man has gone through reams of declassified planning documents. His arguments are rock solid. Its just too bad that your knowledge of history is non-existant.

    Typical of you to try to get the last word in by shooting the messenger.

    Andrews, you are a waste of time and space.

  33. #33 Kaare Fog
    June 10, 2010

    Dave Andrews wrote in comment # 9:
    “Jeff Harvey,
    Now whilst Kare Fog was nit-picking, Lomborg organised the Copenhagen Consensus Conferences involving many Nobel laureates.
    Yet you put your faith in Fog!”

    Sunspot wrote in comment # 1:
    “Ah, hang on a minute – qualifications only matter if you’re a sceptic, right? That must be it – Al Gore gets a free pass to say whatever he likes – but every utterance of a sceptic is scrutinised to the last letter, including his qualifications. ”

    So here is a theme about qualifications. If you think like Sunspot, then qualifications are not crucial. The conclusion is, don´t trust Nobel laureates just because they are Nobel laureates. There are just as many Nobel laureates of economics who say the opposite of what is said by those participating in Copenhagen consensus. So the Nobel status should not be a valid argument (and by the way, read how the results of the Copenhagen Consensus conferences have been maniupulated and are misleading, here: http://www.Lomborg-errors.dk/CopCons.htm).

    But if you argue the opposite – that qualifications are important – then you have the problem that Lomborg has practically no scientific qualifications.

    Whatever option you choose, the Lomborg side loses. Why? Because the data do not support what Lomborg says.

    As said very precisely in comment # 23, Lomborg and the others are “burners” – the arguments vary, but the conclusion remains always the same – go on to burn ever more fossil fuels. So there can be little doubt who these people actually work for.

  34. #34 Dave Andrews
    June 10, 2010

    Kaare Fog,

    Whether you like it or not fossil fuels will continue to be burnt in ever increasing amounts for the foreseeable future. This is not Lomborg’s fault.

    You also say Lomborg has practically no scientific qualifications whilst at the same time arguing Nobel laureates don’t matter. You can’t have it both ways.

    Maybe you would do well to remember the little story about ‘The Emperors New Clothes’ by one of Denmark’s ‘heroes’.

    one of Dennmark’s ‘heroes’

  35. #35 sunsopt
    June 11, 2010

    NO !!! golly gee ….could it be true ?

    Some Big Lies of Science

    http://www.tinyurl.com.au/as1

  36. #36 Jeff Harvey
    June 11, 2010

    Sunspot,

    You must really lead an exciting life. Where on Earth do you dig up this crap? The article by Rancourt contains so many inconsistencies and contradictions that I do not know where to begin.

  37. #37 J Bowers
    June 11, 2010

    Re: 36 sunspot.

    For a while now I’ve occasionally referred to hardcore denialists as “AGW troofers”. Now it’ll be far more frequently. From the link you use to support your anti-science point of view… http://www.tinyurl.com.au/as1

    PEACE BY TRUTH
    9/11 and other “Big Lies” examined

    Flippin’ marvellous, and many thanks. Enjoy your day as much as I’ll be enjoying mine.

  38. #38 jakerman
    June 11, 2010

    Kare Fog (@33) was able to pre-empt Dave Andrews’s response (@34), yet Dave Andrews still couldn’t resist falling into it.

  39. #39 Lotharsson
    June 11, 2010

    From sunsopt’s link, the author is Dr. Denis G. Rancourt, about whom it says:

    > Denis G. Rancourt was a tenured and full professor at the University of Ottawa in Canada. He was trained as a physicist and practiced physics, Earth sciences, and environmental science, areas in which he was funded by a national agency and ran an internationally recognized laboratory. He published over 100 articles in leading scientific journals.

    What does he say? Apparently the following is a key point (my emphasis):

    > Pick **any** expert opinion or dominant paradigm: It’s part of a racket.

    Well, at first glance it’s a sweeping generalisation that many people might point out appears to be contradicted by fairly solid counterexamples, but hey, he’s a former professor so it must be true, right? That means…

    …wait, wait, I think I can figure this out…

    …got it! Rancourt is apparently **an expert**, and he’s **giving his opinion**, therefore *his* article is **part of a racket** and therefore should be ignored!

    I guess sunspot is making progress – the links are now self-refuting ;-)

  40. #40 SP
    June 11, 2010

    Dave Andrews at #9 asks us to believe the “Nobel” laureates.
    Apart from the already mentioned fallacious nature of this argument (ie appeal to authority) there is no Nobel prize for economics.

    What there is, is the “Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel”. Although prestigious and what not… a cautionary tale. Recent awardees of this prize include the luminaries Myron Scholes and Robert C. Merton who were board members of the Long Term Capital Management Fund … do we remember what happened next?

    I admit the appeal to failure argument is probably equally as fallacious… but … economics is called the dismal ‘science’ for a reason.

  41. #41 Dave Andrews
    June 17, 2010

    SP,

    Of course I could just turn your argument around. There is an appeal to authority in climate science, especially since the IPCC was awarded (along with Gore, for heaven’s sake!) the Nobel prize.

    And at least economists admit openly that they don’t have a consensus

  42. #42 sridhara
    June 28, 2010

    Dave Andrews wrote in comment # 9: “Jeff Harvey, Now whilst Kare Fog was nit-picking, Lomborg organised the Copenhagen Consensus Conferences involving many Nobel laureates. Yet you put your faith in Fog!”

    Sunspot wrote in comment # 1: “Ah, hang on a minute – qualifications only matter if you’re a sceptic, right? That must be it – Al Gore gets a free pass to say whatever he likes – but every utterance of a sceptic is scrutinised to the last letter, including his qualifications. ”

    So here is a theme about qualifications. If you think like Sunspot, then qualifications are not crucial. The conclusion is, don´t trust Nobel laureates just because they are Nobel laureates. There are just as many Nobel laureates of economics who say the opposite of what is said by those participating in Copenhagen consensus. So the Nobel status should not be a valid argument (and by the way, read how the results of the Copenhagen Consensus conferences have been maniupulated and are misleading, here: http://www.Lomborg-errors.dk/CopCons.htm).

    But if you argue the opposite – that qualifications are important – then you have the problem that Lomborg has practically no scientific qualifications.

    Whatever option you choose, the Lomborg side loses. Why? Because the data do not support what Lomborg says.

    As said very precisely in comment # 23, Lomborg and the others are “burners” – the arguments vary, but the conclusion remains always the same – go on to burn ever more fossil fuels. So there can be little doubt who these people actually work for.

Current ye@r *