This is fucking hilarious.

ATTACK THE VAGUE.

Why do eco evangelists insist on using that completely awful term denier when talking about "skeptics"

Besides if you had ears or you actually read any of his work you would had known he does think global warming is happening. He just thinks it's not a massive priority next to say, world hunger and aids.

He's right.

In this video Bjorn states that global warming is real, and that it is anthropogenic. He says that we need to be smart about investing capital where it will make the most difference towards resolving the problem. He says we should be investing in non-carbon emitting energy sources, like renewables.

Why have you labeled him a denier? He simply sounds like a pragmatist.

Now I'm interested in reading his book.

I don't really understand why you denounce Lomborg a "denieralist", or whatever your trendy perjorative term is?

Lomborg emphatically doesn't deny that climate change is real. He makes a very well reasoned argument, backed up by facts, for moderation.

The current dismissive and absolutist attitude toward anyone who is not screaming at the top of their lungs announcing immenent doom, really does give credence to the notion that Global Warming has an increasing extreme cult element.

Such shrill denunciations of anyone who doesn't toe the party line is starting to get creepy. The debate needs more reasoned argument, and less dogmatic absolutism.

I agree that Lomborg acquitted himself quite well here - he certainly makes an interesting argument, and one worthy of consideration. I haven't read his books, but perhaps discussions of his work focus more on the "global warming isn't a problem" aspect, rather than the "there are other equally significant problems" side of the argument. I don't agree with the former, but it's hard to argue with the latter.

I also wonder if perhaps there's a sense of moving beyond Lomborg's argument - he is very focused on Kyoto, and the costs associated with it, but with latest economic ideas about global warming and the cost of doing nothing (ie. Sterne), and the market taking a more pro-active role in bringing sustainable energy to fruition, perhaps that argument is becoming increasingly irrelevant...

Have a look at Bjorn's TED talk (video ~ 17 min).

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/62

From the write-up about his talk:

Given $50 billion to spend, which would you solve first, AIDS or global warming? Danish political scientist Bjorn Lomborg put this question to economists and students around the world, and the answers they came up with may surprise you. Ranking our toughest problems not on any moral scale but simply by how effectively they can be solved, Lomborg and his colleagues demand we take a fresh look at doing good.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The "everyone will be much richer in the future" thing doesn't seem to have many facts backing it up, but looking at how to prioritize spending on problems from an impact point of view is interesting.

Riban, Anonymous, ChrisB, DC, and others wondering WTF's up with all this Lomborg-bashing:

Lomborg's previous work was deemed scientifically dishonest, specifically due to:

1. Fabrication of data
2. Selective citation
3. Deliberate misleading use of statistical methods
4. Distorted interpretation of conclusions
5. Plagiarism
6. Deliberate misinterpretation of others' results.

(For full disclosure, I got this list from Wikipedia.) However, there is also a lot of frustration in environmental circles that Lomborg implicitly (not explicitly, and he will deny it when asked openly) comes across as a scientist. It is more for this reason that a lot of environmental scientists dislike him. (That, and he seems to be able to get away with wearing polo shirts at congressional testimony.)

For those of you who are interested with a more complete listing of Lomborg's (possibly deliberate) errors in the past (and present), check out:

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

"Lomborg's previous work was deemed scientifically dishonest"

He was exonerated and you know it!

Either your being economical with the truth, or following that well trodden environmentalist path and ignoring the evidence.

"Besides if you had ears or you actually read any of his work you would had known he does think global warming is happening. He just thinks it's not a massive priority next to say, world hunger and aids.

He's right."

Matt, the major flaw with any argument against global warming as a major world issue is that issues such as AIDS or world hunger are a human only problem mostly caused by humans. Global warming is a LIFE problem shared by every living animal, plant, system on earth and therefore greatly outweighs anything as trivial as human social issues. Humans are the cause of both sets of problems only one problem involves a lot more than just us.

think about that for a second

Something’s rotten (even) in the state of Denmark

Bjorn Lomborg seems to appear on the scene as an errand boy for the new Janus approach of Denmark.
Denmark, well known for its leading role in development and use of wind energy – yes, as a matter of fact, until recently a world leader in that field - now also has become a world leader in air pollution.

How did it come about, that a Scandinavian country shifted from being an invocative leading sustainable developer to an extremely high contributor of greenhouse gases [GHG]?

Denmark, with an annual growth rate of 12, 7% in primary energy consumption of fossil fuels in 2006, now has the highest rate of energy growth among OECD members’ countries – even higher than the growth rate in China (8, 4%). Add thereto, the GHG-emissions from the Danish International Shipping Industry [DISI] – which now owns and manages a fleet with a gross tonnage of approximately 50 million - equal to ca. 10 percent of the entire world fleet (and with a heavy segment of high-speed container vessels, (Maersk-Line etc.)). In 2006 DISI consumed about 40 million tons of heavy marine bunker oil – more than twice of the country’s entire domestic energy consumption (total domestic fossil fuel consumption 2006: 19, 5 mill. tons oil equivalent, according to BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2007)

To Denmark, that gives a yearly consumption rate of 11 tons fossil fuel/capita and a corresponding emission rate of 32, 5 tons CO2/capita – far beyond the figures from US.

So, The Kingdom of Denmark, which ironically embraces Greenland, has as a world leader in air pollution sent a messenger to play down the consequences of the global warming.

this idiot isnt a pragmatist. if he were a pragmatist, hed try to get as much done as soon as possible to stop global warming. if he was a pragmatist he wouldnt be suggesting what those that have contributed to global warming are saying.