Another sign of the times – Devious Danish Disinformer Bjorn Lomborg is finding, like his Heartland Institute soul mates here in the US – that bumping up against reality sucks, even in Denmark.
The much-criticised author and climate policy sceptic Bjorn Lomborg has told the Ecologist he is the victim of a vendetta after his funding was cut by the Danish government.
Lomborg, working through the Copenhagen Consensus Centre, of which he is director, has been highly critical of proposals to tackle climate change. While accepting that climate change is happening, he argues that current policies for reducing emissions are not only failing but are a waste of money as well. Instead of trying to cut emissions we should focus on adaptation, he says, investing in renewable technologies and tackling poverty today.
—
However, Denmark’s general election last year ushered in a new administration less keen to support his views. Earlier this month, the Danish government confirmed that it had cut more than £1 million in funding for Lomborg’s centre. As a result, he only has funding in place until the end of June.
Bjorn Lomborg bout as much chance of staying in the game against real climate scientists as did his countryman, Bjorn Borg, did trying to stage a comeback with a wooden racquet. Just playing with inferior equipment.
oops check that last confusing Danes and Swedes again my mistake.
Syria is in the tank business these days.
One million dollars taken away from a person convinced AGW is real, is dangerous and needs to be tackled, only in ways you disagree with. And you’re happy about his institute closing???
It’s like seeing warmist zombies eat each other’s brains.
As long as there’s a Lomborg for you Climate Haters to attack, the true nature of the CAGW camp will continue shining.
With a little homework, you would have noticed Lomborg, Mitt, and Newt have been occasionally AGW correct. They are currently in a NRA circular firing squad with guns not going to Sudan, Syria, and CPAC. Keep predicting those free lunches.
What is interesting in all of this is that James Hansen agrees with Lomborg that current policy focus on emission reduction targets (that have failed to reduce any emissions) is wrong-headed. What we need are carbon taxes to encourage people to invest in alternative methods of energy generation.
However, where Hansen – and people like Clive Hamilton – would disagree with Lomborg is that, if we fail to reduce emissions very significantly over the next 10 years, we have zero chance of avoiding catastrophic, continuous sea level and temperature change for centuries. This will make mitigation impossible; and adaptation very expensive (in both human and economic terms).
Martin – do you classify THAT as “denial” by Lomborg??
Please just include your paypal site.
As I am sure I have said to you before, Lomborg is (like you I suspect) a technological optimist or a Promethean – he (and you?) believe that human ingenuity will solve our problem. This is what Sir Nicholas Stern calls a category mistake – you completely fail to take on board the unprecedented scale of the climate change problem: You are stuck somewhere between 5 and 6 of I what I call the 6 Pillars of Climate Denial:
1. Global warming is not happening.
2. Global warming is not man-made.
3. Global warming is not significant.
4. Global warming is not necessarily bad.
5. Global warming is not a problem.
6. Global warming is not worth fixing.
See Robert Henson’s Rough Guide to Climate Change (2007) p.257); or
my Tough Guide to Climate Denial (unpublished)!
.
Martin – that wasn’t my question. My question was why a policy disagreement would be classifiable as ‘denial’.
Denialist, Sceptic, Technological Optimist, Promethean… who cares what you call him/them… Either way – they ain’t dealing with the cause of the problem; they’re just shuffling the deckchairs.
Seems these days he Denialists are running around like ants – trying in vain to continue their campaign of misinformation backed by tens of millions of dollars from the Energy industry.
No,sorry, this is an important part of liberal democracy, you don’t call ‘denier’ somebodey just because they have a diffent policy outlook than you have. No discussion can be had if those are the conditions.
Leave such an attitude to the Reichstag of 1932.
OK then, he’s a prevaricotor and an obfuscator. Are you happy now?
Yes. Thanks.
Maurizio, using the word dispute rather than deny if you must, can you tell me exactly where you stand in relation to the 6 statements listed by me earlier (or are you a prevaricator/obfuscator too)?