Lomborg flip-flop: “Climate change is undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today.”

Posted on  

"Lomborg flip-flop: “Climate change is undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today.”"

The one-time “Skeptical Environmentalist” now says, “man-made global warming exists” and “we have long moved on from any mainstream disagreements about the science of climate change.”

Climate ‘sceptic’ Bj¸rn Lomborg now believes global warming is one of world’s greatest threats

One of the world’s most prominent climate change sceptics has called for a $100bn fund to fight the effects of global warning, after rethinking his views on the severity of the threat.

That’s the UK Telegraph’s headline.

Bj¸rn Lomborg: the dissenting climate change voice who changed his tune

With his new book, Danish scientist Bj¸rn Lomborg has become an unlikely advocate for huge investment in fighting global warming….

That’s from the Guardian’s headline.

The key phrase is “With his new book.”  Lomborg is shilling a new book, and he knows he can’t keep running the same tired old story that fears about global warming are overblown.  The contrarian needed to go reverse contrarian.

As the Guardian put it, “Lomborg is most vulnerable to allegations of a volte-face on the need to take action on climate change and the value of doing so.”  Instead of titling the book Smart Solutions to Climate Change, the Danish chameleon should have called it The Bjorn Identity.

Of course, Lomborg doesn’t really know anything about the solutions and most of the people he got to write essays for his book don’t either — and there’s no way of telling if in a few years Lomborg won’t just stick his finger in the wind and flip flop again if that seems like the way to get attention.  So I can’t imagine why someone would want to buy this book.

Lomborg is, after all, one of the most debunked writers on climate in the world — see “Lomborg’s main argument has collapsed” and buy The Lomborg Deception.

In the final paragraph of the book, Lomborg provides a seemingly strong call to action:

If we care about the environment and about leaving this planet and its inhabitants with the best possible future, we actually have only one option: we all need to start seriously focusing, right now, on the most effective ways to fix global warming.”

And in his Guardian interview:

… he raises the possibility of “something really bad lurking around the corner”: the small-chance, big-consequence outcome his previous work appeared to dismiss.

But the penultimate paragraph of the book tells you everything you need to know about Lomborg’s new “thinking” and this book:

It is unfortunate that so many policy makers and campaigners have become fixated on cutting carbon in the near term as the chief response to global warming.

Seriously.

As the Guardian notes:

he is still deeply critical of the dominant, cutting-carbon approach, which four of the five economists who were asked to rank the options put at the bottom of their lists.

Yes, well, if you talk to the economists that Lomborg talks to, you’d end up befuddled, too.

That’s why it’s always better to listen to serious climate scientists about this sort of thing.  As Ken Caldeira put it (and he didn’t need a whole book):

I believe the correct CO2 emission target is zero. I believe that it is essentially immoral for us to be making devices (automobiles, coal power plants, etc) that use the atmosphere as a sewer for our waste products.  I am in favor of outlawing production of such devices as soon as possible”¦.

Every carbon dioxide emission adds to climate damage and increasing risk of catastrophic consequences. There is no safe level of emission.

I compare CO2 emissions to mugging little old ladies “¦ It is wrong to mug little old ladies and wrong to emit carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The right target for both mugging little old ladies and carbon dioxide emissions is zero.

And that’s from one of the leading proponents of pursuing geo-engineering R&D.

Lomborg’s “solution” is to mostly skip the CO2 reductions and focus on geo-engineering and energy R&D and non-CO2 GHGs.  In 2009, Caldeira explained to me why the vision of Lomborg’s Climate Consensus is “a dystopic world out of a science fiction story.” As Caldeira told the WashPost:

“Geoengineering is not an alternative to carbon emissions reductions,” he said. “If emissions keep going up and up, and you use geoengineering as a way to deal with it, it’s pretty clear the endgame of that process is pretty ugly.”

The easiest way to see that Lomborg hasn’t really changed his stripes is to go to his Copenhagen Consensus website and read an article he posted just this month, “New Project Syndicate article by Lomborg: ‘Who’s Afraid of Climate Change’.”  You’ll learn that:

More often than not, what sound like horrific changes in climate and geography actually turn out to be manageable – and in some cases even benign.

And he is talking about a “collapse of the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet” that “would likely cause the oceans to rise by perhaps 20 feet over the next hundred years”!

But no worries, mate, because Lomborg says it wouldn’t be all that calamitous.  It would only cost “$600 billion a year, or less than 1% of global GDP.”    He asserts “only about 15 million people would have to be relocated. And that is over the course of a century.”

That’s utter nonsense, of course — and I debunk it at length in my post, The Lomborg Deception.

But utter nonsense is what we have come to expect from Lomborg.

Related Posts:

« »

42 Responses to Lomborg flip-flop: “Climate change is undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today.”

  1. sod says:

    yreah, just a minor change to the garbage he is spewing.

    i wouldn t touch Lomborg, even with a very long stick.

    best we keep as much distance to him as possible.

  2. Doug Bostrom says:

    Look on the bright side: Lomborg only gets to flip-flop once. If he does so again his pull is going to be permanently and massively diminished.

  3. Anne van der Bom says:

    Seven words to define Lomborg: Mopping up water with the tap running.

  4. Barry Woods says:

    And of course, today in the UK, the general public in the UK will also see this:

    Daily Mail – pg 4

    UN climate experts ‘overstated dangers’:
    Keep your noses out of politics, scientists told

    “UN climate change experts have been accused of making ‘imprecise and vague’ statements and over-egging the evidence.
    A scathing report into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change called for it to avoid politics and stick instead to predictions based on solid science.”

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1307446/UN-climate-change-experts-overstated-dangers.html#ixzz0yAtIznpr

    And: (The Daily Mail – UK)

    “The investigation said the IPCC’s mandate calls for it to be ‘policy relevant’ without ‘straying into advocacy’ which would hurt its credibility. The scientists charged with writing the IPCC assessments were criticised for saying they were ‘highly confident’ about statements without having the evidence.
    One of the summary documents prepared for government use ‘contains many such statements that are not supported sufficiently by the literature, not put into perspective or not expressed clearly’.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1307446/UN-climate-change-panel-relied-vague-imprecise-predictions.html#ixzz0yB2uIJSI

    Newspaper circulation: (july figs)
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/table/2010/aug/13/abcs-national-newspapers

    Daily Mail 2,117,000
    The Times 503,000
    Telegraph 678,000
    Guardian 277,000

    The Daily Mail has a larger web presecnce than the others as well

    One more cold winter in the uk, and the media and the public, may move on mass to scepticism.

  5. mike roddy says:

    The Dane smells cash in the Pielke/Gates/Breakthrough Institute more-research-geoengineering meme.

    The best summary of his views was on Colbert last year, when the host summarized his talk thusly: “It’s getting warmer. So?”

    That being said, a minor flip flop is better than nothing, and Lomborg deserves a smidgen of credit. Sooner or later even people like Glenn Beck and Mitch McConnell or going to have to face the facts. When it happens, it will be a stampede, so let’s welcome a little movement in that direction.

    As for economists in general, I recommend Taleb’s books. Basically, they don’t know nothing.

  6. Barry says:

    I think Lomborg is pushing the “new message” from big fossil. Yes to problem, yes to alternative energy and yes to continued fossil fuel burning.

    Nobody can deny the climate problem anymore now that even petro-state Russia is freaking out about it. And saying the poor will be hurt more by spending to stop climate change than not is now patently shown to be immoral in the face of Patastani floods and similar climate-amplified events. So now “the messages” has to include that the problem is real.

    But all big fossil cares about is that we keep buying fossil fuels. So the “solution” has to include that we keep burning fossil fuels. The “solution” is to build alternatives in the future. Or to build alternatives on a scale that does not stop the fossil fuel flow.

    This is the yes to green, yes to brown strategy. I see it everywhere. One new green energy source…one new brown energy source. This is the China model right now. We know where that will leave us.

    Green as an add-on to fossil.

    I think we will see an end to deny and and end to delay of green. But the Lomborgs and other petro-celebrities will push a subtle message that continues fossilgeddon.

    I’m 100% with Caldeira. It is immoral to build new fossil infrastucture when we have alternatives that are affordable instead.

  7. toby says:

    Lomborg lacks any credibility, except with the media.

    I doubt if anyone cares what he thinks anymore.

  8. toby says:

    @ Barry Woods,

    The Daily Mail’s science editor recently announced his belief in the reality of global warming. Joe blogged about it here:

    http://climateprogress.org/2010/08/11/daily-mail-%e2%80%9cglobal-warming-is-real-and-deeply-worrying%e2%80%9d/

    I have noticed different tones in the Times recently, sicne its “ace” science reporter, Jonathan Leake, was caught out, forcing some embarrassing apologies. The Daily Telegraph had to apologise to Dr Pachauri for their libellous remarks on his finances.

    All these newpapers have been burned by becoming part of the denialist noise machine. They do realise they will have to thread more cautiously.

    And do you really think that massive evidence for global warming will not impnge on the British public over the next few years? The truth will out, the question is when.

  9. Barry Woods says:

    The UK medai and all political parties have been broadly with the IPCC consensus, yet polls have suggested thatthe general public, is more ‘sceptical about man made global warming, than before Copenhagen..

    Politicians (call me a cynic) generally follow the mood of the public (right or wrong)

    If the UK MSM beome more ‘sceptical’, what happens next..

    ie, in the Times there was a FULL page opinion piece in the print edition…(I put this inthe wrong thread earlier, by mistake – apologies for putting it on twice, please feel free to delete the other one)

    The Times (UK)
    – Opinion – This discredited science (IPCC)body must be purged
    “Three years ago, not having paid much attention, I thought that IPCC reports were reliable, fair and transparent. No longer. Despite coming from a long line of coal-mining entrepreneurs,

    I’m not a “denier”: I think carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. I’m not even a sceptic (yet): I think the climate has warmed and will warm further. But I am now a “lukewarmer” who has yet to see any evidence saying that the current warming is, or is likely to be, unprecedented, fast or tending to accelerate.”

    followed by this…(The Times)

    “So I have concluded that global warming will most probably be a fairly minor problem — at least compared with others such as poverty and habitat loss — for nature as well as people.”
    “After watching the ecologically and economically destructive policies enacted in its name (biofuels, wind power), I think we run the risk of putting a tourniquet round our collective necks to stop a nosebleed.”

    And: ( The Times – Opinion)

    “The unilateral redrafting of IPCC reports by “lead authors” after reviewers had agreed them, and the writing of a sexed-up “summary for policy makers” before the report was complete, have discomfited many scientists since the first report. It is no great surprise that the “experts” who compiled one part of the 2007 report included three from Greenpeace, two Friends of the Earth representatives, two Climate Action Network representatives, and a person each from the activist organisations WWF, Environmental Defense Fund, and the David Suzuki Foundation.”

    The Times has this as a full page opinion in the print edition
    (the website is now behind a paywall – reproduced on the authors blog)

    http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/reform-ipcc-sake-science

    If the media and politicians turn against the IPCC, what next.

  10. Peter says:

    His assets may threatened by the likelihood of catastrophic climate change – now he says CC is a ‘serious problem’ opportunist more then a crusader for humanity.

  11. Bob Wallace says:

    I’d say Lomborg flipped. He moved from the ranks of deniers to the ranks of those who are convinced by the data.

    And that’s a good thing.

    To expect him to move from Denierland all the way to being fully informed in one giant leap, not a reasonable expectation.

    Welcome him to the side of science. Let him make, expect him to make, some missteps as he acquires new knowledge. Feed him the information he needs rather than punish him for his approximations.

    He’s got readership. He’s going to convince some people to look again at the facts. Every single person who moves away from denial is a net gain for fixing our climate problem.

  12. Devin says:

    @Barry – I think this is an apt summary of the “new delayer” position: “Yes to problem, yes to alternative energy and yes to continued fossil fuel burning.”

    This also reminds of Colbert last week (Aug 25), when he had Heidi Cullen on to talk about her new book on extreme weather, and he said something like, “I agree that there’s a problem. I just don’t think we should do anything about it.”

  13. Bjorn Lomborg … ugh.

    Thanks but no thanks.

    He should denounce and repudiate all of the lies, errors and misinformation in his books.

    Once he has done so, he should just shut up and live anonymously with the knowledge that his efforts on behalf of pollution have destroyed humankind’s future.

    The damage is already done.

    Humans aren’t going to either stop or slow down with their pollution, either. We’re already living in the catastrophe and yet the United States and China remain devoted to propping up their economies at all costs.

  14. Sam says:

    To the extent that Lomborg now accepts some facts, let’s welcome him to the real world.

  15. Doug Bostrom says:

    I’m a big fan of the sewer analogy, it fits nicely, but I’ll go out on a heretical limb and say it’s my tiny, humble opinion that -net- zero C02 emissions are the only tolerable way of going forward. One pleasant difference between C02 and actual sewage is that we can (in theory) remove C02 molecules from the atmosphere on a 1:1 basis w/emissions, leaving things at net zero in terms of boosting CO2 content in the air.

    Picking a specific and challenging example, if for instance we run into an existential problem w/substituting a sufficiently energy-dense fuel for aviation applications and for some period of time absolutely require fossil hydrocarbons to operate aircraft, we may do so on the nonnegotiable basis that C02 emissions from that application are definitely and demonstrably removed from the air, with inarguable accounting for the removal of C02 in equal quantities to that emitted by aviation. In other words, fly all we want, but the net contribution of C02 to the atmosphere from aircraft operations must be zero as shown by hard numerical accounting specific to the fuel input of the aviation industry. This would naturally increase the cost of operating aircraft but that’s a matter for the market to deal with; air travel will price itself around the constraint that aircraft operations include accounting for C02 down to the last molecule.

    I’m moved to mention this because on another site (Skeptical Science) a doubter was prattling about Spencer and the Kyoto protocol, which led me to take a closer look at where we’re headed after 2011. That’s hard thing to do; we’ve procrastinated so long on this issue we’ve got a scary mountain of work to do before we can eliminate fossil fuel emissions. It’s close to being a psychological shutdown size of problem. Many people would say we can’t do it, not true and in any case for multiple reasons we have no choice. Still, this transition is not going to happen nearly as fast as it needs to so while we’re sorting out how to substitute for fossil fuels we can at least try for a net zero w/the physical mechanisms to do so, which will help to push costs in a more realistic direction, eliminate the “free” part of the fossil fuel ride.

    Bear in mind, coal CCS is not really in the same ballpark I’m speaking of. That’s a non-starter. I’m thinking more of the tougher substitution problems such as (again) aviation.

  16. BBHY says:

    He has a degree in political science. I think that’s all you need to know about Lomborg.

  17. Lou Grinzo says:

    I’m certainly no Lomborg fan, but it’s fair to point out that he started this shift a year ago, when he started to embrace geoengineering. I covered it then:

    http://www.grinzo.com/energy/index.php/2009/08/07/bjorn-again-on-cc/

    I also covered this latest shift today:

    http://www.grinzo.com/energy/index.php/2010/08/31/the-lomborg-pivot/

    As others here have said, I find no value in Lomborg’s pronouncements, but he is worth paying attention to simply because he gets so much media attention and therefore influences at least some consumers and voters.

  18. Not surprising.

    His goal is to use this issue to secure his position as a public performer.

    He had to change. But he still remains a lagging indicator.

  19. William T says:

    I think you need to give Lomborg some credit for changing his mind – not long ago he was saying that climate change was a minor problem and we shouldn’t do anything about it for a long time. Now he is saying it’s the most important problem the world has to face. Now that is really saying something given the economic models he and his friends rely on are all prone to over-optimism and generally assume high discount rates in calculating the costs of future disasters…

  20. PurpleOzone says:

    What a great Self-Promoter.

  21. Greg says:

    I’m not sure he’s really changed his view – let alone “flipped”. Isn’t he still just pushing the R&D/adaption only approach, and isn’t $100bn about 10% of what other serious organisations are estimating is required?

  22. Colorado Bob says:

    Acidifying Oceans Spell Bleak Marine Biological Future ‘by End of Century’, Mediterranean Research Finds

    At a mean pH level of 7.8, calcified organisms begin to disappear, and non calcifying ones take over. We are headed towards that being the case in this century. The big concern for me is that unless we curb carbon emissions we risk mass extinctions, degrading coastal waters and encouraging outbreaks of toxic jellyfish and algae.’

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100825093651.htm

    [JR: Thanks. Missed this, as did the MSM.]

  23. Phil says:

    @Barry

    The Times piece “This discredited science body must be purged” was by the discredited Matt Ridley. Oh, the irony.

  24. DavidCOG says:

    > The one-time “Skeptical Environmentalist” now says, “man-made global warming exists”…

    Joe, has he not always claimed that he accepted global warming exists? “This chapter accepts the reality of man-made global warming.” The Skeptical Environmentalist, 2001

    He just advocated doing nothing because he cherry-picked and fabricated data to make it seem like global warming would amount to little more than being able to wear t-shirts for a few extra days a year?

    I’ll look forward to the first detailed credible analyses to come in for this book. What’s the betting that it will be the same mix of cherry-picking, quote-mining, distortion and outright fabrication as always?

  25. adelady says:

    If he’s talking about $100 billion a year as a big number for mitigation, then he’s not done the homework on big numbers and dollars in fossil fuel industries. If you want to be taken seriously, get serious.

  26. Heraclitus says:

    I learnt everything I needed to know about Lomborg a few years ago when I visited his website – all soft-focus close-ups of a floppy-blonde haired political scientist. A paean to … Lomborg. He’s changed it since, obviously his shameless self-promotion is becoming more subtle, though no less effective.

  27. Chris Winter says:

    I don’t know whose typo this is…

    One of the world’s most prominent climate change sceptics has called for a $100bn fund to fight the effects of global warning, after rethinking his views on the severity of the threat.

    (Emphasis added.)

  28. Omega Centauri says:

    I’d recommend we go easy on Bjorne, regardless of what we may actually think. Even insincere allies can be valuable in a time of crisis. Besides he does have a plausible sounding out. He’s always acknowledged CC was real, just didn’t think the consequences were bad enough to bother with. Recent information keeps showing that it worse than expected. So any honest person starting with that position would eventually have to switch once the numbers changed enough.

    Sure, serious people don’t take him seriously. However millions of not so serious people who we need to get on our side of the issue might. Now, when denialists throw some popular authors work at us, we can throw Lomborg back.

    I would describe Lomborg as a contrarian squared, which make him contrary to the contrarians. [try to say that three times fast]

  29. And he’s just loving that we — and everyone else in the climate/cleantech blogosphere — are talking about it and providing free marketing.

  30. Chad says:

    Lomborg has always been wrong, for two fundamental reasons.

    The first is that cost-benefit analysis, as we currently practice it, is simply unsuitable for inter-generational problems. The choice of discount rate utterly overwhelms any actual data put into one’s models, and many factors, such as species loss, are just not convertable in any meaningful way into dollars. Not surprisingly, most of these unmeasurable factors are ones that would justify more mitigation sooner if they could be properly accounted for.

    The second is that combatting climate change, unlike everything else Lomborg compares it to (micronutrients, fighting AIDS or malaria, vaccines, etc) is something that is the direct fault of the rich nations that would be paying most of the money to solve the problem. Everything else is simply a charity, which implies a lower level of responsiblity and comes from a different pool of money. The real choice is not “fight climate change, or search for a cure for AIDS”, it is “fight climate change, or add a granite countertop”.

  31. Kevin says:

    Easy on ecoonomists — there are many working on climate in the “pro” camp to examine how lower emissions as efficiently as possible. (Not)surprisingly, Bjorne hasn’t done his homework on the cost of mitigation either. At MIT conf a couple years ago the number of $43T was put forward as the total capital req’d between now and ?? 2050? In any case, it was just over 1% of projected global capital investment through the same period. A big number, but in context not one that causes global economic breakdown. The tremendous cost Lomborg likes to carp about as reason to avoid mitigation is always put forward w/out context.

  32. Bob Wallace says:

    I hope he’s loving it.

    He’s now put himself of the side of science. That’s what counts in my book.

    If he helps move the world toward less climate change I don’t care if he makes a friggin’ fortune.

    This is not about vengeance. It’s about changing the way we produce our energy.

  33. Peter Wood says:

    Does anyone know where Lomborg gets all of the money that he uses to spend on consultants?

    A big problem with what Lomborg believes is that he views geoengineering as a substitute for mitigation, rather than a complement. Obviously he is not very concerned about ocean acidification; or the consequences if we continue to emit greenhouse gases, pump sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere, and then abruptly sto p the geoengineering.

  34. Anonymous says:

    I see no evidence that this self-publicist shill has flipped – just some more pretty words and book sales and, as evidenced in some comments above (even here among hard-bitten CP contributors), a whole new audience in the form of activists who’ve been waiting a long time to see a high profile shill change sides, as well as swathes of concerned ‘civilians’.

    And what could he possibly hope to gain by this non-flip ?

    - A hearing as to his views on solutions by the 95% of those awake to the reality of global warming, but whose actual knowledge of its specific imperative demands is hazy at best.

    As a denier, this audience and this degree of influence was completely closed to him. If I’d been his handler for his fossil-lobby sponsor, this non-flip is precisely what I’d have recommended to him – or required of him, depending on the relationship.

    (The primary link between him and the fossil fuel lobby is their shared willingness to brazenly lie and deceive with no discerable compassion at all for the victims of the mayhem their delayer tactics will generate. I’ve yet to learn of documentary evidence of his being on a retainer for that lobby).

    So what does the fossil lobby fear most ? – An equitable and efficient global climate treaty rapidly phasing out fossil fuel usage.

    And they’re next greatest fear ? – That sufficient weather hits will generate public demand for action which, if not effectively pre-deflected, could help bring that treaty into being.

    Lomborg will now be able to help directly with the pre-deflection issue, first by promoting solar radiation management, and perhaps also the travesty of carbon-recovery-as-industry-offsets, without any focus on the imperative of cutting carbon emissions.

    The second front he works on will, I’d expect, focus on promoting non-fossil energies and electric vehicles not to the extent of serious non-fossil market share, but as an illusory (shiny, high-cred, plausible) alternative to striving for the treaty that is pre-requisite for the sufficiently rapid termination of global GHG outputs.

    With this latter focus he could rather easily gain significant influence, given the number of activists, politicians and even the odd scientist, who seem unable to do the maths of the rate of change that is necessary as compared to the feasible rate of global market-led substitution,
    and who’ve yet to get their heads round the idea that, in the absence of a global treaty capping emissions, any fossil fuels displaced by renewables will be bought and burnt elsewhere.

    So I can’t agree with those who think we’ve got a new ally – I think an old enemy just got substantially more dangerous.
    The snake sheds his skin, not his fangs.

    Regards,

    Lewis

  35. Steve Jones says:

    “It is unfortunate that so many policy makers and campaigners have become fixated on cutting carbon in the near term as the chief response to global warming.”

    If Bjorn says this, he must also say what his proposed alternative is. Can anyone elaborate?

    I ask because this is obviously a partial quote, and without the context of the remainder it’s impossible to judge from this post exactly what Bjorn thinks is the required response to the threat.

  36. Adam R. says:

    Shockingly, this news has not been posted at WUWT.

    I have left a comment about it in the “Global Energy Use in the 21st Century” thread. I soft-pedaled the snark, so perhaps it will survive moderation.

    wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/01/global-energy-use-in-the-21st-century/

    [JR: Another characteristic ad hominem post from Watts.]

  37. AL says:

    I think if he is now convinced that this is a major problem worth mitigating then he should be embraced by those who also want immediate and meaningful action.

    The media is spinning this as a u-turn or flip-flop – i don’t see it. For all Lomborg’s faults in the past he has never denied global warming is caused by human activity, he has only questioned how we should respond to it. That is completely fair. If he has come to a new realization that the problem is far more serious and mitigation (along with adaptation) is the best course of action than kudos to him.

    We don’t have time to fight with people like Lomborg. It’s not worth it. He could be a good ally in this fight.

    AL

  38. Lewis C says:

    AL -
    your comment makes my case rather neatly, that the man is seeking a whole new audience that his previous posture put beyond reach.

    You’ve apparently already managed to forget the many years of his brazen callous deception, and the delay that he has generated as a leading propagandist, and the numerous children that will starve due to his profiteering dishonesty.

    But to claim that:
    “For all Lomborg’s faults in the past he has never denied global warming is caused by human activity, he has only questioned how we should respond to it.”
    seems more than generous; it is patently untrue. Far from questioning how we should respond, he has consistently claimed that it did not warrant any response at all.

    I wonder just how many are going to be duped into adopting his dead end diversionary non-solutions as just what they’ve been waiting for ? Be assured that we’ll hear about them, for Lomborg is being set up as the new and acceptable face of climate activism for the MSM to start pumping out at the public. Yahoo is already presenting him as a scientist, and the BBC has rushed to interview him in person, in stark contrast to its habitual exclusion, distortion and smear of climate scientists . . . .

    As I said above, many activists have been waiting a long time for a leading shill to change sides. – Well, this ain’t him.

    Those who are just longing to welcome home a lost sheep would be well advised to check the length of its snout, how well-attached is the fleece, and the look in its eye, before doing so.

    Regards,

    Lewis

  39. Martin Vermeer says:

    Perhaps he has realized that he may live long enough to face crimes-against-humanity charges.

  40. JeffM says:

    Lomborg has the right idea.

    If government claims that Carbon fuels are a threat to humanity, government must respond by funding the R&D to find an affordable, full time energy source to REPLACE carbon fuels. I don’t see government doing this. I see government focused on developing part time technologies such as wind and solar. Wind and solar, along with biofuels, still require full time availability of carbon fuels as backup. I see government taking us down a long, expensive road in pursuit of energy sources that cannot replace carbon fuels.

    Let’s hope that Bloom Energy’s fuel cell development will lead us off of this road to nowhere. Bloom is doing what government should have been doing all along.

  41. Lewis C says:

    Interesting to see how many new commenters are appearing just to try to boost Lomborg’s new skin. Anybody would think his conduct over the last decade had earned him lots of supporters.

    Regards,

    Lewis