Bjørn Lomborg

{{bronze}}[[File:Bjørn_Lomborg_1.jpg|thumb|right|165px|The poster boy of [[style over substance]].]]{{globalwarmingnav}}{{pundits}}
{{cquote|I think that probably might be right, Bjørn, but I will just get so much more mileage out of criticising you.|||(Then) Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt after Lomborg asked to debate her on [[climate change]]}}
'''Bjørn Lomborg''' {{lived|1965|}} is a [[Denmark|Danish]] 
professional [[Bullshit|bullshitter]]
 "[[pseudoskeptic|academic]]". He is, unsurprisingly, very controversial because of his writings on [[environmental]] issues. Lomborg is frequently cited as an [[economist]], though his doctorate is in [[political science]] and he was a professor of [[statistics]] before turning his eye toward environmental economics.

He is to the debate what [[Mehmet Oz|Dr. Oz]] is to [[medicine]], a rodeo clown who frames his information to give audiences what they want (a quick-fix [[miracle cure]]) and cries [[censorship]] when confronted by actual [[scientist]]s.

==The Lomborg fallacy==
Concerning climate change mitigation, Lomborg presents the same [[false dichotomy]] in much of his output: there are limited resources, so we must choose between dealing with global warming or what Lomborg has decided are [[Not as bad as|"more important problems"]]. He considers [[AIDS]] and other [[disease]]s, [[World food shortage|starvation]], malnutrition, and [[poverty]] to be more important problems than global warming, yet his [[framing]] of the issue treats global warming as a discrete issue, ignoring the fact that it will actually ''[[Effects of global warming|exacerbate]]'' the other problems he considers to be more important. Strangely, Lomborg spends most of his time and effort debunking these "unimportant" environmental concerns, writing tendentious books and setting up [[bullshit]] forums titled in such a way as to confuse the [[ignorance|ignorant]] — he has done little to nothing to encourage greater spending on what he considers the great problems.

Here's the ultimate [[irony]]: if the exact opposite of what he wants occurs (Anthropogenic global warming is given paramount priority, say, like [[ozone layer|ozone depletion]]), he'll eventually be able to claim that everything ''was'' indeed going to be fine from the start and those [[Malthusian]]s were just panicking all along! This [[logic]]al sidestepping is probably worth academic study.

==''The Skeptical Environmentalist''==
Lomborg is best known as the author of ''The Skeptical Environmentalist''<ref>''The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World'' by Bjørn Lomborg (2001) Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521010683.</ref> and his cynicism concerning current approaches to environmental issues. While the book met with generally [[argumentum ad populum|gushing reviews]] in the popular media, it was not so well-received in the [[scientific]] press. But it's got over 3,000 [[footnotes]], so it must be thoroughly researched and authoritative, right? Right?

===Getting skeptical about science?===
The book contains a litany (to borrow Lomborg's turn of phrase) of [[deceit|factual inaccuracies]] and substantial [[cherry-picking]] and [[quote mining]] of research.<ref group=note>There are far too many to list here, but a catalog of errors can be found at [http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/error_catalogue.htm Lomborg Errors' section on ''The Skeptical Environmentalist''.]</ref> Lomborg looks at several environmental issues and generally picks the most favorable citations he can find regardless of whether they're out of date, out of context, or if they say the opposite of what he claims, which should immediately raise alarm bells. Some of his more egregious and sweeping mistakes based on faulty analysis include: 
*Lomborg underestimates the rate of [[species]] [[extinction]] by an order of magnitude and concludes that extinction rates [[:File:Stupidburn.jpg|are not increasing]].<ref>[http://www.grist.org/article/point On Bjorn Lomborg and Extinction], ''Grist''</ref><ref group=note>See also the National Research Council's report [http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12501 In the Light of Evolution, Volume II: Biodiversity and Extinction]</ref>
*The use of reports that use different definitions of forests to declare that deforestation was only slight over the second half of the 20<sup>th</sup> century. No, seriously, he tries to get away with saying "the world’s forests are not under threat."<ref>[http://www.grist.org/article/for On Bjorn Lomborg and deforestation], ''Grist''</ref>
*Discounting several negative effects of global warming such as [[Effects of global warming#A rise in sea level|rising sea levels]] and cherry-picking best-case scenarios.<ref>[http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/chapter24.htm Ch. 24: Global Warming], Lomborg Errors</ref>

The thrust of Lomborg's argument is that a) environmental claims sometimes get overblown, and b) economic and technological innovation has and will continue to solve environmental problems. Both of these claims ''are'' true but [[Lying by omission|not to the extent]] that Lomborg would have the reader believe. On the first point, he often fails to differentiate between [[pop science|popular]] and [[scientific journal|scientific literature]] (he frequently cites secondhand popular sources to "debunk" environmental claims), and his numerous errors in reporting the scientific literature undercut the argument severely. 

On the second point, he is correct in stating that life expectancy, wealth, and general standards of living have risen over the last century due to technological innovation. However, he also applies this argument to environmental conditions while failing to credit [[EPA|environmental standards and regulations]] for decreased [[pollution]] in some [[Western world|First World]] industrial cities in addition to technology and development. Lomborg fails to take into account that this innovation is sometimes driven by the need to meet new standards. There are valid points in his argument that economic growth and technology can improve environmental conditions, but it's undercut by his gratuitous spinning of science.

===DCSD and scientific dishonesty===
In 2003, the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) issued a report in reaction to numerous complaints about ''The Skeptical Environmentalist''. It ruled:
{{cquote|Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty. 

Given the subjective requirements made in terms of intent or gross negligence, however, Lomborg's publication cannot fall within the bounds of this characterization. Conversely, the publication is deemed contrary to the standards of good scientific practice.<ref>[http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DishonestDane.pdf DCSD report]</ref>}}

The Danish Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovation (of which DCSD is a part) issued a statement repudiating the DCSD ruling due to procedural errors, largely over the definition of "[[Intellectual honesty|scientific dishonesty]]" and whether DCSD had jurisdiction over a non-[[peer review]]ed book in mass media (though it was published by Cambridge University Press).<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3340305.stm Lomborg celebrates ministry ruling], BBC</ref><ref>[http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/lomborgstory13.htm Criticisms of UVVU], Lomborg Errors</ref>

==''Cool it'', Bjørn==
''Cool It'' is Lomborg's sequel to ''The Skeptical Environmentalist'' that was subsequently recycled into a [[Films|documentary]] of the same name.<ref>[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1694015 ''Cool It''] (2010) ''IMDb''.</ref> Lomborg takes the same approach here as he did in his last polemic — cherry-pick all the low-end estimates and sprinkle various distortions on top of that.<ref group=note>Once again, there are loads of factual inaccuracies. See [http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/coolitB.htm Lomborg Errors' section on ''Cool It''.]</ref> A central flaw to all of his arguments in this book is that he assumes warming of roughly 2.5°C by 2100, which is toward the low end of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates, which take a 3°C (±1.5°C) for a doubling of atmospheric [[carbon]] dioxide and set the best estimate range for 2100 at 1.8°C to 4°C.{{fact}} Lomborg is sometimes mischaracterized as a [[climate change denier]], though it would be more accurate to call him a "delayer" who falls back on [[denialist]] [[talking point]]s when it's convenient. The book parrots several denialists [[canard]]s, including the [[myth]]ical increasing polar bear population,<ref>[http://www.skepticalscience.com/polar-bears-global-warming.htm How Will Global Warming Affect Polar Bears?], Skeptical Science</ref> sea level rise of one foot (or about 30 cm, which is still in the lower range of the 18-59 cm IPCC projections, which also don't account for worst-case scenarios such as the full ice sheet melt uncertainty),<ref>[http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/the-ipcc-sea-level-numbers/ The IPCC Sea Level Numbers], Real Climate</ref> and fewer deaths due to cold (it helps to [[willful ignorance|ignore]] deaths from increased heat and infectious diseases caused by warming).<ref>[http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-intermediate.htm Positives and Negatives of Global Warming], Skeptical Science</ref> This, along with his cherry-picking of economic models that predict the highest costs for emission caps, causes Lomborg to seriously overestimate the cost of mitigation effects. Instead, he recommends investing largely in [[renewable energy|alternative energy]] (not something any environmentalist would disagree with anyway, and the suggestion that shifting from [[fossil fuel]]s to renewable ones is somehow separate from mitigation of global warming is rather bizarre anyway) and [[geo-engineering]] research to be paid for with a modest carbon [[tax]].

==Copenhagen Consensus Project==
Lomborg set up a [[think tank]] called the Copenhagen Consensus Project (a [[scientific consensus|misnomer]], to be sure), which generally pushes [[wishful thinking]] about geo-engineering. Geo-engineering is largely seen as a last-ditch solution because pumping the atmosphere full of massive amounts of sulfur as Lomborg favors may have loads of unintended consequences and doesn't deal with several problems created by increased carbon dioxide levels such as [[ocean]] acidification (the project tends to omit these considerations in its reports). 

The think tank was set to close in July of 2012 after the newly-elected Thorning-Schmidt administration cut its government funding.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jan/23/bjorn-lomborg-climate-thinktank-close Bjorn Lomborg's climate skeptic think tank to close], ''The Guardian''</ref> However, luckily for Lomborg he had quietly set up a think tank called the Copenhagen Consensus ''Center'' in America that was doing well enough to pay himself $775,000 yearly<ref group=note>Which is, well, shitloads for a statistician.</ref> and that since it began, the CCC had attracted $4.3 million from "anonymous" donors with [[climate denier]] links.<ref>[http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/06/25/millions-behind-bjorn-lomborg-copenhagen-consensus-center The Millions Behind Bjorn Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus Center US Think Tank], DeSmog Blog</ref> (If you can't guess who and what these groups are at this point, you're not paying attention.)

It’s hardly surprising that Lomborg is also doing the usual [[wingnut welfare]] circuit on various “think tanks”, such as the {{wpl|Hoover Institution}} (visiting fellow<ref>[https://www.hoover.org/profiles/bjorn-lomborg-0 Lomborg’s profile on the Hoover Institution’s website]</ref>) and the [[American Enterprise Institute]] (speaker for hire<ref>[https://aeispeakers.com/speakers/dr-bjorn-lomborg/ AEI’s speaker list]</ref>).

==Eco-terrorism!==
In 2001, Lomborg was pied in the face by [[Mark Lynas]] during a book signing at Borders.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOg8IqkS4PA Lomborg cream pied by Mark Lynas]</ref>

==PragerU videos==
{{expand section}}
Lomborg has presented three videos for [[Dennis Prager|PragerU]] discussing climate change. In "Climate Change: What's So Alarming?", his explicit acknowledgment of the reality and the dangers of climate change and his emphasis on awareness of the climate's effects on economically developing nations make him veer towards [[stopped clock]] territory, even if it is rather undermined by his flimsy downplay of the issue and his insistence that the little progress that has occurred has supposedly been made despite "alarmism" rather than ''because'' of it.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PWtaackIJU Climate Change: What’s So Alarming?], from PragerU’s YouTube channel, July 28, 2016</ref>

==Fox News “expert”==
In line with Lomborg’s other work, or rather appearances, he was also trotted out on [[Fox News]]<ref>[https://video.foxnews.com/v/6232641136001#sp=show-clips Texas winter storm freezes wind turbines, causes blackouts,] ''Fox News'', February 16, 2021, 04:28</ref> when they decided to blame the February 2021 [[Texas]] blackouts following extreme cold weather, not on climate changes or an insufficiently prepared energy grid but on [[wind turbine]]s and using it to scaremonger about the Green New Deal. And of course, this was hardly Lomborg’s first gig as a Fox “expert”, as, among other things, he took to the network to defend [[Donald Trump]]’s decision to pull the US out of the {{wpl|Paris Agreement}} in 2017.<ref>[https://video.foxnews.com/v/5469639692001/#sp=show-clips Bjorn Lomborg: Trump was right to leave Paris climate deal,] ''Fox News'', June 13, 2017, 05:12 </ref>

==See also==
*[[Warmist|Lukewarmer]]

==Too many external links==
*[http://www.lomborg.com/ Lomborg's homepage]
*[http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/ Lomborg Errors]
*[https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/scienceshow/the-lomborg-deception/3044354 The Lomborg Deception], Australian Broadcasting Corporation
*[http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/02/21/book-review-the-lomborg-deception.html Book Review: The Lomborg Deception], Sharon Begley, ''Newsweek''
*[http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/willful-idocy/ Willful Idiocy: Unpacking Lomborg's Climate Nonsense], The Way Things Break
*Deltoid: [http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/11/lomborg_spreads_ddt_ban_myth.php Lomborg Spreads DDT Ban Myth] (yes, flirting with [[DDT]] denial, Bjørn?), [http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/02/misinformation_from_lomborg.php Misinformation from Lomborg], [http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/08/so_whats_wrong_with_lomborg.php So What's Wrong With Lomborg?], [http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/10/the_australians_war_on_science_22.php ''The Australian'''s War on Science XXI]

===Commentary on ''The Skeptical Environmentalist''===
*[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=misleading-math-about-the Misleading Math About the Earth], ''[[Scientific American]]''. [http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/pdf/lomborgrebuttal.pdf Lomborg's response], and response ''to'' the response by [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-response-to-lomborgs-re John Rennie.] 
*[http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/publications/special/pielke_tse_debate.html Debate over ''The Skeptical Environmentalist''], University of [[Colorado]]
*[http://www.grist.org/article/series/the-skeptical-environmentalist A Skeptical Look at ''The Skeptical Environmentalist''], ''Grist'' special series
*[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6920/full/421195b.html More heat, less light on Lomborg.] ''[[Nature]]'' 421, 195 (16 January 2003)<ref group=note>Article is behind a paywall</ref>
*[http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/ucs-examines-the-skeptical.html Review] by the [[Union of Concerned Scientists]]
*Rorsch et al. [http://adl.nl/JoIE%20Lomborg.pdf On the Opposition Against the Book ''The Skeptical Environmentalist'' by B. Lomborg], ''Journal of Information Ethics'', Spring 2005. (An academic defense, albeit lukewarm, of Lomborg.)

===''Skeptical Inquirer'' series===
*[http://www.csicop.org/si/show/skeptical_about_the_skeptical_environmentalist/ Skeptical About ''The Skeptical Environmentalist''], Richard M. Fisher
*[http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/skeptical_environmentalist_a_case_study_in_the_manufacture_of_news/ ''The Skeptical Environmentalist'': A Case Study in the Manufacture of News], Matt Nisbet
*[http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/follow-up_to_matt_nisbet/ Follow-up to Matt Nisbet], John Stahle

===Commentary on ''Cool It''===
*[http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2007/oct/11/can-anyone-stop-it/ Can Anyone Stop It?] Bill McKibben, ''New York Review of Books''
*''Salon'': [http://www.salon.com/books/review/2007/08/29/cool_it/index.html Hot Air], [http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/08/29/bjorn_lomborg/index.html Interview with Lomborg]
*[http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/cool-climate-film-takes-on-truth/ 'Cool' Climate Film Takes on 'Truth'], Andrew Revkin, ''[[The New York Times]]''
*[http://www.desmogblog.com/on-hurricanes-and-global-warming-dont-cool-it-too-much On Hurricanes and Global Warming, Don't Cool It Too Much], Chris Mooney
*[http://www.csicop.org/si/show/lets_keep_our_cool_about_global_warming Let's Keep Our Cool About Global Warming], Lomborg in ''[[Skeptical Inquirer]]'' (Imagine the reaction from the authors above.) [http://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-and-the-posture-of-skepticism-bjorn-lomborg Response by Chris Mooney.]
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20130829013640/http://www.thedailygreen.com/living-green/blogs/recycling-design-technology/cool-it-movie-review-461110 Bjorn Lomborg's ''Cool It'' Documentary Full of Ozone Sized Holes], Daily Green

===Copenhagen Consensus Project===
*[http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/CCC%20Home%20Page.aspx Homepage]
*[http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2004/oct/23/environment.science This Is Neither Scepticism Nor Science - Just Nonsense], ''[[The Guardian]]''
*[http://johnquiggin.com/2005/01/21/copenhagen-review/ Copenhagen Review], John Quiggin
*[http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/the-copenhagen-distraction The Copenhagen Distraction], OSS Foundation
*Real Climate: [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-copenhagen-consensus/ The Copenhagen Consensus], [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/08/a-biased-economic-analysis-of-geoengineering/ A Biased Economic Analysis of Geoengineering]

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}

==References==
{{reflist|2|90%}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Lomborg, Bjorn}}
[[Category:Authors]]
[[Category:Economists]]
[[Category:Environmentalism]]
[[Global warming denialists]]
[[Category:Living people]]
[[Category:Political pundits]]
[[Category:Pseudoscience promoters]]
[[Category:Shysters]]
[[Category:Denmark]]

Categories: Authors, Economists, Environmentalism, Living people, Political pundits, Pseudoscience promoters, Shysters, Denmark