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 books have been "hugely influential in providing cover to politicians, climate-change deniers, and corporations that don't want any part of controls on greenhouse emissions". He <ref name=begley>{{cite web|publisher=Newsweek|title=Debunking Lomborg, the Climate-Change Skeptic|url=http://www.newsweek.com/id/233942|accessdate=2010-02-24|author=Sharon Begley|date=2010-02-22|quote=Friel's conclusion, as per his book's title, is that Lomborg is "a performance artist disguised as an academic."}}</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

}}</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] and have led to his characterization as "a performance artist disguised as an academic."<ref name=begley/> Lomborg's books have been "hugely influential in providing cover to politicians, climate-change deniers, and corporations that don't want any part of controls on greenhouse emissions".<ref name=begley>{{cite web|publisher=Newsweek|title=Debunking Lomborg, the Climate-Change Skeptic|url=http://www.newsweek.com/id/233942|accessdate=2010-02-24|author=Sharon Begley|date=2010-02-22|quote=Friel's conclusion, as per his book's title, is that Lomborg is "a performance artist disguised as an academic."}}</ref> 

<blockquote>"the movie is just a clever loss leader... A film is a ticket to widespread media attention, far more than even a new book provides. For instance, the movie means that credulous reviewers who don’t follow the energy and climate debate closely will write columns that millions will read...compared to the...hundreds that are flocking to the film.

 ===Op-EdsEd debunked===

====Reception in the Uncritical media: Acceptanceacceptance====

====Reception among Rejection by scientists - Rejection=========''Scientific American'' critique=====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". [<ref name="sciam">{{cite web|url=http://www.sciamscientificamerican.com/article.cfm?articleIDid=000F3D47misleading-C6D2math-1CEBabout-93F6809EC5880000&catID=2]======Copyright infringement or persecution?==the |accessdate=2013-10-20 |title=Misleading Math about the Earth: Scientific American |date=2013-10-20 |description=Science defends itself against The Skeptical Environmentalist }}</ref> 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> :"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.cfm?articleID=000DC658However, I would also love your input to the issues -9373-1CDAmaybe 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-B4A8809EC588EEDF]piece."<ref name="sciam" />

In the Howard Friel said that in this book, <blockquote>"[Lomborg] writes: "The risks of unchecked global warming are now widely acknowledged" and "we have long moved on from any mainstream disagreements about the science of climate change". ...[Yet] Lomborg still argues in this book, as he did in the others, that cost-benefit economics analysis shows that it is prohibitively expensive for the world to sharply reduce CO2 emissions to the extent required by the scientific evidence: "Drastic carbon cuts would be the poorest way to respond to global warming."

Climate scientists have set 350ppm and a 2C average temperature rise (from 1750 to 2100) as the upper range targets to prevent a global climate disaster{{fact}}. Since we are already at 390ppm and since a 2C plus rise is a near certainty, how does Lomborg's appeal to forgo sharp reductions in CO2 emissions reflect climate science? He argues that there are "smarter solutions to climate change" than a focus on reducing CO2. This is hardly smart: it's insanity."<ref>{{cite web

Climate scientists have set 350ppm and a 2C average temperature rise (from 1750 to 2100) as the upper range targets to prevent a global climate disaster. Since we are already at 390ppm and since a 2C plus rise is a near certainty, how does Lomborg's appeal to forgo sharp reductions in CO2 emissions reflect climate science? He argues that there are "smarter solutions to climate change" than a focus on reducing CO2. This is hardly smart: it's insanity."

[[Category:United StatesDenmark]]