Changes

{{#Show badges: | Climate change}}

[[Image:Bjorn_lomborg.jpg|150px]]

'''Bjorn Lomborg''' is associate professor of statistics in the Department of Political Science at the University of Aarhus, Denmark. His formal education is political science. He earned ; his Ph.D. books have been "hugely influential in game theory. From 2002 providing cover to politicians, climate- 2004 he was head change deniers, and corporations that don't want any part of the [[Environmental Assessment Institute]]controls on greenhouse emissions". In 2004<ref name=begley>{{cite web|publisher=Newsweek|title=Debunking Lomborg, following the [[Copenhagen Consensus]], he resigned the post to return to academia. [Climate-Change Skeptic|url=http://www.guardian.conewsweek.ukcom/climatechangeid/story/0233942|accessdate=2010-02-24|author=Sharon Begley|date=2010-02-22|quote=Friel's conclusion,12374as per his book's title,1245140,00is that Lomborg is "a performance artist disguised as an academic.html]"}}</ref>

Lomborg is not a climate scientist or economist and has published little or no peer-reviewed research on environmental or climate policy. His extensive and extensively documented<ref name=karefog>{{cite web|publisher=Lomborg Errors website|title=Lomborg Errors|url=http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/|accessdate=2010-11-14|author=Kare Fog|date=unknown|quote=because the errors seem not to be inadvertent, but to follow a general pattern, they give a bias in a certain direction, probably an intended bias. If the errors remain uncommented, the readers of Lomborg´s books will be misled in this distinct direction . There are many examples where the misleading seems to be deliberate}}</ref>,<ref>{{cite web|publisher=Yale University Press|title= The Skeptical Environmentalist Lomborg Deception: Setting the Record Straight About Global Warming|url=http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=9780300161038|accessdate=2010-11-06|author=Friel, Howard|date=2010-03-01}}</ref> errors and misrepresentations, which are aimed at a lay audience, "follow a general pattern"<ref name=karefog/> of minimizing the need to cut carbon emissions.

In 2001==Essential argument and rebuttal==Lomborg's essential argument is that we should be directing our resources toward fighting poverty now, Cambridge University Press published rather than acting now to lessen future climate change, since "[the future] larger economy will allow future generations to deal with an English translation exacerbated climate problem"<ref name="rr2011-0716">{{cite web|publisher=Rabett Run|title=The Models Suck: Part I|url=http://rabett.blogspot.com/2011/07/models-suck-part-i.html|accessdate=2011-07-16|author=Eli Rabett (pseudonym)|date=2011-07-15}}</ref>. But this argument ignores the likelihood that "if climate change limits economic growth, there ''is'' no larger economy, and even if there is a larger economy, it may not be enough to deal with the chaos associated with climate disruption. The Dark Ages in Europe were not nearly as pleasant as Roman times."<ref name="rr2011-0716"/>==2010=====Book and film===Lomborg is editor of his a 2010 book, titled ''The Skeptical EnvironmentalistSmart Solutions to Climate Change: measuring the real state of the worldComparing Costs and Benefits''(see "Books" section below).

In it [[Cool It (movie) | Cool It]], a film about Lomborg argued that a statistical analysis of key global environmental indicators revealed that while there were environmental problems they were not as serious as and his ideas, was popularly believedreleased in November 2010. A box office failure<ref>{{cite web|publisher=Box Office Mojo|title=Cool It (2010)|url=http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=coolit.htm|accessdate=2010-12-04|author=none|date=2010-12-02|quote=Domestic Total as of Dec. 2, 2010: $58,408}}</ref>, it still has influence: <blockquote>"The world A film is not without problemsa ticket to widespread media attention, but on almost all accountsfar more than even a new book provides. For instance, things are going better the movie means that credulous reviewers who don’t follow the energy and they climate debate closely will write columns that millions will read...compared to the...hundreds that are likely flocking to continue to do so into the futurefilm. The facts and information presented here should give us an opportunity movie also gives newspapers a ‘reason’ to set free our unproductive worries and allow us to focus on the important issues, so that we may indeed help make an even better world for tomorrowrun more disinformation..."<ref>{{cite web|publisher=Climate Progress|title=Climate Science Rapid Response Team debunks Bjorn Lomborg’s Washington Post op-ed |url=http://climateprogress.org/2010/11/22/bjorn-lomborg-debunked-op-ed-cool-it/|accessdate=2010-12-04|author=Joe Romm|date=2010-11-22}}</ref></blockquote>

According ===Op-Ed debunked===Claims made by Lomborg in a November 2010 Op-Ed in the Washington Post<ref>{{cite web|publisher=Washington Post|title=Bjorn Lomborg - Cost-effective ways to address climate change|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/16/AR2010111604973.html|accessdate=2010-12-04|author=Bjorn Lomborg|date=2010-11-17}}</ref> were subsequently debunked by the frontspiece in [[Climate Science Rapid Response Team]], "a scientist-run initiative to link top climate scientists with the media".<ref>{{cite web|publisher=Wonk Room|title=Climate Science Rapid Response Team Debunks Bjorn Lomborg's book his only published work is in "game theory |url=http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/11/22/scientists-debunk-lomborg/|accessdate=2010-12-04|author=Brad Johnson|date=2010-11-22|quote=Because Washington Post editorial editor [[Fred Hiatt]] did not bother to fact-check Lomborg’s column...We chose to test the new Climate Science Rapid Response Team, a scientist-run initiative to link top climate scientists with the media...we submitted questions about Lomborg’s claims to the team...[and computer simulations"] received comprehensive answers from three top climate scientists...[who] independently confirmed that Bjorn Lomborg had misrepresented the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) report. }}</ref>

Australian National University academic, John Quiggin, writing ===Announced shift in views; little change in the bottom line===''Australian Financial Review(for more information on how Lomborg'' in March 2002s views have changed, pointed out see the number of refereed publications Lomborg has produced on statistical or other scientific analysis of environmental issues section "is zeroShift in views over time".below)''

In particularUntil 2010, Lomborg argues used cost-benefit analyses to suggest we should delay climate action until after tending to other environmental or public health problems, and was noted as a leading skeptic on significant climate change action. In Fall 2010 in his new book<ref name=romm>{{cite web|publisher=Climate Progress|title=Lomborg flip-flop: 'Climate change is undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today'|url=http://climateprogress.org/2010/08/31/lomborg-new-book that while -smart-solutions-to-climate-change-debunk-errors-flaw/|accessdate=2010-11-06|author=Joe Romm|date=2010-08-31}}</ref>, he switched to supporting immediate action against climate change<ref>Juliette Jowit "[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/30/bjorn-lomborg-climate-change-u-turn "Bjørn Lomborg: $100bn a year needed to fight climate change"] The Guardian, August 30, 2010.</ref>, saying "we all need to start seriously focusing, right now, on the most effective ways to fix global warming ". However, his basic prescription hasn't changed, it's still to levy a small tax on carbon emissions to raise funds for energy R&D - but now his proposed CO2 tax is occurring$7/ton not $2, projections of its magnitude and R&D budget $100 billion/year not 25 - but it's still considered "are rather unrealistically pessimisticalarmingly risky" and that " insufficient to reduce GHG emissions enough.<ref>{{cite web|publisher=The Guardian|title=Letters: Still wary of Bjørn Lomborg's pronouncements on climate change |url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/sep/02/climate-change-bjorn-lomborg|accessdate=2010-11-07|author=Dr Alex Bowen, Dr Simon Dietz, Dimitri Zenghelis and Bob Ward of Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the typical cure Environment|date=2010-09-02|quote=Dr Lomborg last year began to call for an investment of early $100bn per year on research and radical fossil fuel cutbacks is way worse development for low-carbon technologies, instead of the $25bn he was advocating 18 months ago. He now proposes that this should be raised through a carbon tax of $7 per tonne of carbon dioxide, rather than the original affliction and moreover its total impact will not pose a devastating problem $2 per tonne for our future"which he previously argued.

Despite However, his strategy is alarmingly risky – invest heavily in R&D and hope that thisalone will keep atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases low enough to avoid the risk of serious and damaging impacts from climate change. This might work, but it might not. A more robust approach to managing the risks of climate change would be not only to invest in R&D, but also to use a carbon tax (or cap-and-trade) to discourage greenhouse gas emissions in the short run. The latter, not raising revenue, would be the primary purpose of introducing a carbon price. But to encourage enough emissions cuts in the next few years to keep greenhouse gases at low enough atmospheric concentrations, a carbon price considerably higher than Dr Lomborg's $7 per tonne is required. We welcome the fact that Dr Lomborg has implicitly acknowledged that his previous arguments about climate change were flawed, but it would be wise to remain wary of his book pronouncements...}}</ref> ==Australian Consensus Centre==On 2nd April 2015 an Australian Consensus Centre was contracted to be established at the University of Western Australia, with Bjorn Lomborg being made an Adjunct Professor.<ref>University of WA news, 2 April 2015 ''[http://www.news.uwa.edu.au/201504027455/events/new-economic-prioritisation-research-centre-uwa New economic prioritisation research centre at UWA]'' Accessed 29 May 2015</ref> It was then discovered that this centre was being funded by the Australian Government for $4 million.<ref>John Englart, Nofibs.com.au, 17 April 2015 ''[http://nofibs.com.au/2015/04/17/australian-government-funds-4-million-sweet-deal-for-climate-contrarian-bjorn-lomborg-takvera/ Australian Government funds $4 million sweet deal for #climate contrarian Bjorn Lomborg – @Takvera]'' Accessed 29 May 2015</ref>  Strong protests from Academic staff and students of the University resulted in the University Vice-chancellor cancelling the contract to establish the centre at the university.<ref>Graham Readfearn, Desmogblog.com, Thursday, May 28, 2015 ''[http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/05/28/climate-science-deniers-and-free-market-activists-backing-bjorn-lomborg The Climate Science Deniers And Free Market Activists Backing Bjorn Lomborg]'' Accessed 29 May 2015</ref> At the end of May 2015, [[Tim Andrews]] authorised for the free market and climate denial oriented [[Australian Taxpayers' Alliance]] a half page advert in The Australian newspaper arguing the cancellation of Bjorn Lomborg's Australian Consensus Centre at the University of Western Australia was academic censorship.<ref>See a copy of the advert at Desmogblog ''[http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/ATA%20lomborg%20ad.jpg Stop Academic Censorship]'' Accessed 29 May 2015</ref> ==Lomborg vs. experts on geoengineering==Lomborg also advocates geoengineering, despite the concerns of heavy hitters.  Geoengineering research proponent [[Ken Caldeira]] has said "the vision of Lomborg’s Climate Consensus is “a dystopic world out of a science fiction story... Geoengineering is not an alternative to carbon emissions reductions ... 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.”"<ref name=romm/>.  Presidential Science and Technology advisor John Holdren has said "The ‘geo-engineering’ approaches considered so far appear to be afflicted with some combination of high costs, low leverage, and a high likelihood of serious side effects."<ref name=rommgeo>{{cite web|publisher=Climate Progress|title=Caldeira calls Lomborg’s vision "a dystopic world out of a science fiction story"|url=http://climateprogress.org/2010/11/15/exclusive-redux-caldeira-calls-lomborg%e2%80%99s-vision-%e2%80%9ca-dystopic-world-out-of-a-science-fiction-story%e2%80%9d/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climateprogress%2FlCrX+%28Climate+Progress%29|accessdate=2010-11-16|author=Joe Romm|date=2010-11-15|quote=John Holdren resasserted in 2009 of strategies such as space mirrors or aerosol injection, "The ‘geo-engineering’ approaches considered so far appear to be afflicted with some combination of high costs, low leverage, and a high likelihood of serious side effects."Second, of course, those ’solutions’ do nothing to stop the consequences of ocean acidification, which recent studies suggest will be devastating all by itself (see Geological Society: Acidifying oceans spell marine biological meltdown "by end of century").Third, a major analysis in Science this year by leading experts on volcanoes and/or climate - Alan Robock, Martin Bunzl, Ben Kravitz, and Georgiy L. Stenchikov - "A Test for Geoengineering?" ... concluded: "Stratospheric geoengineering cannot be tested in the atmosphere without full-scale implementation."}}</ref>.  Joe Romm points out that geoengineering "’solutions’ do nothing to stop the consequences of ocean acidification, which recent studies suggest will be devastating all by itself". and he notes that "a major analysis in Science this year by leading experts on volcanoes and/or climate - Alan Robock, Martin Bunzl, Ben Kravitz, and Georgiy L. Stenchikov - "A Test for Geoengineering?" ... concluded: "Stratospheric geoengineering cannot be tested in the atmosphere without full-scale implementation.""<ref name=rommgeo/> == Background == Lomborg earned his Ph.D. in political science - specifically, game theory - at the University of Copenhagen in 1994.<ref>[PhD information from Wikipedia]</ref>. He got an M.A. in political science in 1991<ref>{{cite web |title=Biography - Bjørn Lomborg |url=http://www.lomborg.com/about/biography/ |accessdate=2009-12-04}}</ref> from University of Aarhus, with the thesis "An evolution of Cooperation"; it is unclear whether he has a bachelor's degree.<ref>[email from Lomborg associate Zsuzsa Horvath dated 2009-12-02</ref>.  From 2002 - 2004 he was head of the [[Environmental Assessment Institute]]. In 2004, following the [[Copenhagen Consensus]], he resigned the post to return to academia. <ref>{{cite web |title=Critic of Kyoto pledge quits as green adviser |publisher=The Guardian |author=Jan Olsen |url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1245140,00.html |date=2004-06-23}}</ref>==Scientific papers==Lomborg's only published work is in "game theory and computer simulations", according to the ''Skeptical Environmentalist'' frontispiece. Australian National University academic John Quiggin, writing in the ''Australian Financial Review'' in March 2002, pointed out the number of refereed publications Lomborg has produced on statistical or other scientific analysis of environmental issues "is zero". ==Shift in views over time==Kåre Fog notes that Lomborg's argument has shifted over time, from:<ref name=shift>{{cite web|publisher=Lomborg Errors|title=Hidden Agenda|url=http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/Hiddenagenda.htm|accessdate=2010-11-14|author=Kåre Fog|date=date unknown}}</ref>,<ref name=quotes>{{cite web|publisher=Lomborg Errors|url=http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/Attitudestoglobalwarming.htm|accessdate=2010-11-14|author=Kåre Fog|date=date unknown}}</ref><blockquote>"1) There is no problem. <br/><small>''[Jan. 1998: "The greenhouse effect is extremely doubtful"<ref name=quotes/>]''</small><br/>2) If there is a problem, it is only minor. <br/><small>''[Sept 1998: "There is no doubt that mankind has influenced the CO2 content of the atmosphere and is well on his way to double it. But it is still not clear whether this will lead to severe temperature rises."; Sept 2001: "There is no doubt that mankind has influenced and is still increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and that this will influence temperature. Yet, we need to separate hyperbole from realities..."<ref name=quotes/>]''</small><br/>3) If it is not minor, it will pay better to remedy other problems that are even larger. <small>''[June 2004: "Copenhagen Consensus...organised by...Bjorn Lomborg...recommended that global governments spend money on combating HIV/AIDS before tackling issues such as climate change."<ref>{{cite web|publisher=New Zealand Herald News|title=AIDS 'bigger problem than global warming'|url=http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=3571345|accessdate=2010-11-15|author=Paula Oliver|date=2004-06-09|quote=A "dream team" of the world's top economists has recommended that global governments spend money on combating HIV/AIDS before tackling issues such as climate change.The economist panel, which included three Nobel laureates, met in Copenhagen last week to decide on the 10 biggest challenges facing the world.The conference, known as the Copenhagen Consensus, was organised by Denmark's Environmental Assessment Institute - led by controversial and outspoken critic of the Kyoto Protocol Bjorn Lomborg.}}</ref>; Aug. 2007: "Doing too much about [climate change] means we are focusing too much effort on climate change and forgetting all the other things that we have a responsibility to deal with, like HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and malnutrition. If we spend too much time and resources focusing on climate change, then we do the future a disservice" <ref>{{cite web|publisher=Salon.com |title=Bjørn Lomborg feels a chill|url=http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/08/29/bjorn_lomborg/print.html|accessdate=2010-11-14|author=Kevin Burger|date=2007-08-29}}</ref>]''</small><br/>4) If it pays to resolve the climate change problem, this should not be done by reducing CO2 emissions, but rather by adaptation and by applying geo-engineering. <br/><small>''[date/quote/ref needed]''</small><br/>5) If adaptation and geo-engineering is not enough, then [mandated] reductions in CO2 emissions should be very modest, and the main emphasis should be on research to find better alternative energy sources, rather than those that could be implemented right now. <br/><small>''[Oct 2010: Global warming is "undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today" and "a challenge humanity must confront". . . "Investing $100bn annually would mean that we could essentially resolve the climate change problem by the end of this century." <ref name=quotes/>]''</small><br/><br/>These shifting arguments over the years look like a tactical retreat. In every case, the conclusion is ...the best that the fossil fuel industry could obtain..."<ref name=shift/></blockquote> ==Books===== 2001: The Skeptical Environmentalist === In 2001, Cambridge University Press published an English translation of ''The Skeptical Environmentalist: measuring the real state of the world''. In it Lomborg argued that a statistical analysis of key global environmental indicators revealed that while there were environmental problems they were not as serious as was popularly believed:<blockquote>The world is not without problems, but on almost all accounts, things are going better and they are likely to continue to do so into the future. The facts and information presented here should give us an opportunity to set free our unproductive worries and allow us to focus on the important issues, so that we may indeed help make an even better world for tomorrow".</blockquote> In particular, Lomborg argued that while global warming is occurring, projections of its magnitude "are rather unrealistically pessimistic" and that "the typical cure of early and radical fossil fuel cutbacks is way worse than the original affliction and moreover its total impact will not pose a devastating problem for our future".====Uncritical media acceptance====''The Skeptical Environmentalist'' received widespread and largely favourable coverage as a critique of global environmental policies and priorities. Much of the commentary embraced Lomborg's claim that scientists and environmentalists were being unduly pessimistic and making claims that were not based on good science. =====The 'lapsed environmentalist' narrative =====Routinely, journalists reported that Lomborg had -- before he undertook the research for his book -- been a supporter of Greenpeace. However, Greenpeace has no record of Lomborg ever being actively involved in the organisation. When challenged on this point on ABC Radio National's ''Earthbeat'' Lomborg said "I'm a suburban kind of Greenpeace member, your stereotypical person who contributes and nothing else."

The extensive and uncritical acceptance of Lomborg's claims prompted a reaction from many in the scientific community. In January 2002 ''Scientific American'''s editor, John Rennie, wrote the preface to a ten page critique written by four specialists. Rennie commented that "the errors described here, however, show that in its purpose of describing the real state of the world, the book is a failure". [http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000F3D47-C6D2-1CEB-93F6809EC5880000&catID=2] When Lomborg reproduced the ''Scientific American'' critiques on his [http://www.lomborg.com website] with his responses interleaved, the magazine threatened to sue him for ''copyright infringement''. Lomborg withdrew the file from his website but it was later re-published on the [[Patrick Moore]]'s website. ''Scientific American'' stated that the unauthorised reproduction was damaging its ability to sell copyrighted material, while Moore portrayed Lomborg as being persecuted for his views.

:"Bjørn Lomborg has posted on his Web page a long response to the critiques (http://www.lomborg.com/critique.htm)that appeared in ''Scientific American '' of four of the chapters in his book,''The Skeptical Environmentalist'', including my critique of his chapter on energy. No part of my critique escapes rebuttal. Perhaps Lomborg felt obliged to use all of the submissions he received in response to the appeal for help he broadcast to a long e-mail list after the ''Scientific American'' critiques appeared. It is instructive that he apparently did not feel he could manage an adequate response by himself. (In this, at least, he was correct. But he could not manage it with help, either.) Just as the book itself betrays the seeming inability of its author to discriminate sensible arguments from nonsensical ones, so also does the posted response to my critique suggest that Lomborg just tossed in, uncritically, whatever replies popped into his head or into his e-mail 'in' box."[http://www.<ref name="sciam.com" /article.cfm?articleID=000DC658-9373-1CDA-B4A8809EC588EEDF]>

:"In a "Dear Sir or Madam" broadcast e-mail sent out by Lomborg on December 18, he wrote, inter alia, "Naturally, I plan to write a rebuttal to be put on my web-site. However, I would also love your input to the issues -- maybe you can contest some of the arguments in the SA pieces, alone or together with other academics. Perhaps you have good ideas to counter a specific argument. Perhaps you know of someone else that might be ideal to talk to or get to write a counter-piece." [http://www.<ref name="sciam.com" /article.cfm?articleID=000DC658-9373-1CDA-B4A8809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=7&catID=9]>

=====Schneider on misrepresentation of IPCC=====The late Dr. Stephen Schneider, a professor in the Department of Biological Sciences and Senior Fellow at the Institute for International Studies at Stanford University, criticised Lomborg for inaccurately portraying the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and misrepresenting the Kyoto Protocol. (Schneider is also editor of Climate Change and lead author of several of the IPCC chapters and the IPCC guidance paper on uncertainties).

==Lomborg and the ===The Danish Committee for Scientific Dishonesty=====

===Related SourceWatch resourcesArticles===

*[[Climate change scepticsHeretic (frame)]]

<references{{reflist|2}} ===External resources===* [http:/>/www.lomborg-errors.dk/ Lomborg Errors] website, documenting same, by Danish biologist Kåre Fog

====General articles on Lomborg====*Jeremy Paxman, [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/audiovideo/programmes/newsnight/archive/2002184.stm The Sceptical Environmentalist], BBC, May 23, 2002.*Andrew Goldstein's [httpCategory://www.time.com/time/2002/greencentury/enlomborg.html Reviled for sticking it to ecological dogma, Bjorn Global warming skeptics|Lomborg laughs all the way to the bank], ''Time'', August 18, 2002. "I'm making a fair amount of money from the book, a lot more than Cambridge thought," Lomborg told Goldstein.*Robyn Williams, [http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ss/stories/s495345.htm The Skeptical Environmentalist], ABC Radio National, March 2, 2003.*Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty, [http://www.forsk.dk/uvvu/nyt/udtaldebat/bl_decision.htm Decision regarding complaints against Bjorn Lomborg], January 7, 2003.*[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3340305.stm Lomborg celebrates ministry ruling], BBC, December 22, 2003.*[http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/14803/story.htm Environmental sceptic new Danish green group chief], Reuters, March 1, 2002.*[http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/22004/newsDate/27-Aug-2003/story.htm Danish Environmentalist Work 'Unscientific'- Panel], ''Reuters'', August 27, 2003.*"[http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/247-03122004-263649.html Denmark Panel Won't Review Researcher]", ''Phillyburbs.com'', March 12, 2004. (This is an Associated Press story).*Jan Olsen, "[http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1245140,00.html Critic of Kyoto pledge quits as green adviser]", ''The Guardian'', June 23, 2004.*Andrew Walker, "[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4094589.stm Is money fighting climate change well spent?]", ''BBC News'', December 14, 2004.*[http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/28844/story.htm Danish Academic Slams Tsunami Warning System Plans]", Reuters, January 7, 2005.

===External articles=Critics of Lomborg====*Perhaps the best single site with links to many of the critiques of Lomborg's work, as well as those in support of him, is [http://info-pollution.com/lomborg.htm Jim Norton's site] *Danish biologist Kåre Fog also has a comprehensive site on Lomborg. One section, which is still being developed, has a chapter by chapter review of errors in Lomborg's book. See [http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/ This is the Lomborg-errors web site]. The site also has the best single overview of Lomborg's career and controversy [http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/lomborgstory.doc The Lomborg story].*The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty [http://www.forsk.dk/uvvu/nyt/udtaldebat/bl_decision.htm report] into complaints against Lomborg's has The Skeptical Environmentalist *[http://www.sciam.com Scientific American] - Jan 2002 edition*Green Alliance (UK) [http://www.green-alliance.org.uk]*Tom Burke (UK), [http://www.opendemocracy.net/forum/document_details.asp?DocID=609&CatID=94 Ten Pinches of Salt]:Critique of Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist *Prof Stephen Schneider, [http://www.stanford.edu/dept/biology/faculty/schneider.html resources]*[http://www.anti-lomborg.com Anti-Lomborg]*Centre for Social Science Research on the Environment, University of Aarhus, Danish [http://www.au.dk/~cesamat/debate.html scientists contest Lomborg's assertions ]*World Resource Institute, "[http://www.wri.org/press/mk_lomborg.html MEDIA KIT: Debunking Pseudo-Scholarship: Things a journalist should know about The Skeptical Environmentalist]", undated, accessed February 23, 2004.*"[http://www.gristmagazine.com/grist/books/lomborg121201.asp Something Is Rotten in the State of Denmark: A skeptical look at The Skeptical Environmentalist]", ''Grist magazine'', December 12, 2001. Contains commentary by: E.O. Wilson, Stephen H. Schneider, Norman Myers, Lester R. Brown, Emily Matthews, Al Hammond, Devra Davis.*Union of Concerned Scientists, "[http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/archive/page.cfm?pageID=533 UCS examines The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjørn Lomborg]", undated, accessed February 20, 2004.*Dr Peter H. Gleick, "[http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/report.cfm?publicationID=393 Where's Waldo? A Review of The Skeptical Environmentalist (Bjørn Lomborg)]", Union of Concerned Scientists, November 6, 2001.*Jerry D. Mahlman, "[http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/report.cfm?publicationID=394 Global Warming: Misuse of Data and Ignorance of Science: A review of the "global warming" chapter of Bjørn Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of theWorld]", Union of Concerned Scientists, December 6, 2001. *E.O. Wilson, Thomas E. Lovejoy, Norman Myers, Jeffrey A. Harvey and Stuart L. Pimm, "[http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/report.cfm?publicationID=395 Biodiversity Distortions in Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist]", Union of Concerned Scientists, December 10, 2001.*Stephen Schneider, "[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000F3D47-C6D2-1CEB-93F6809EC5880000&catID=2 Global warming: neglecting the complexities]", ''Scientific American'', pages 62-65.*John Quiggan, "Bogus science Moved to book", ''Australian Financial Review'', March 27, 2002.*John Rennie, "[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000F3D47-C6D2-1CEB-93F6809EC5880000&catID=2 Misleading Math about the Earth: Science defends itself against The Skeptical Environmentalist]", ''Scientific American'', May 2002, page 61.*Colin Woodard, "[http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/7089 The Shifty Environmentalist]", ''TomPaine.com'', January 14, 2003.*Jim Green, [http://www.geocities.com/jimgreen3/lomborg.html resources]*The Australia Institute, a centre-left think tank, have published two critiques of Lomborg's work - ''Environmentalism and scientific truth'' (January 2003) and ''With Friends Like Bjorn Lomborg, Environmentalists Don't Need Enemies''. (Go to "publications" then "other papers and submissions" section of the Australian Institute [http://www.tai.org.au websiteexternal articles)*John Quiggin, Australian Research Council Senior Fellow based at the Australian National University and the Queensland University of Technology has posted a summary of his critique of Lomborg on his [http://mentalspace.ranters.net/quiggin/ weblog]*Ian Lowe, "[http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=773 Bjorn Lomborg is neither sceptical nor an environmentalist]", ''Online Opinion'', October 08, 2003.*John Quiggan, "[http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/001902.html Copenhagen Con?]", ''Crooked Timber'', May 24, 2004.*Tom Burke, "[http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1334209,00.html This is neither scepticism nor science - just nonsense: Why is Bjorn Lomborg's work on climate change taken seriously?]", ''Guardian'' (UK), October 23, 2004.*Hans Martin Seip and Pål Prestrud, "[http://www.gnet.org/news/newsdetail.cfm?NewsID=27505&image1=2 Climate Measures Bad Investments? Hardly ]", GNet, undated, accessed December 2004.*John Quiggin, "[http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2005/01/21/copenhagen-review/#more-2157 Copenhagen review]", ''John Quiggin'' (blog) , January 21, 2005. (Another version of this article was published in the ''Australian Financial Review'' on the same day as "A curious consensus" but is available to subcribers only).*Kevin Berger, "[http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/08/29/bjorn_lomborg/index.html Bjørn Lomborg feels a chill]: Global warming doesn't faze the infamous author, who argues that polar bears are doing fine and Al Gore is way too hot under the collar. But can the 'skeptical environmentalist' back up his rosy views?" Salon.com, August 29, 2007. *Eban Goodstein, "[http://www.salon.com/books/review/2007/08/29/cool_it/index.html Hot air: Global warming is not as bad as it's made out to be, argues Bjørn Lomborg. But he cherry-picks evidence to manufacture a scientific and economic consensus that doesn't exist]," Salon.com, August 29, 2007.* Stefan Rahmstorf, [http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/mar/03/sea-levels-rising "We must shake off this inertia to keep sea level rises to a minimum:{{wikipedia}} Björn Lomborg's claim that sea levels are not rising faster than predicted are unfounded and used by those wanting to downplay climate change", ''Guardian'', March 3, 2009.

====Defenders of Lomborg====*Lomborg's website [http://www.lomborg.com www.lomborg.com]* The conservative Australian think tank the [[Institute of Public Affairs]] edition of [httpCategory://www.ipa.org.au/pubs/reviewdocs/53-4/Review53-4.pdf Review]*[[Patrick MooreClimate change]]'s [http://www.greenspirit.com/lomborg website]*[[Marc Morano]], "[httpCategory://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5C200412%5CSPE20041214b.html 'Ignore Global Warming,' Says Former Greenpeace Member]", [[CNSNews.comEnvironment]], December 14, 2004.*[[Paul Driessen]Category:Denmark], "[http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=%5CCommentary%5Carchive%5C200412%5CCOM20041215e.html Prophets, False Prophets and Profiteers]", ''CNSNews.com'', December 15, 2004.