3 ms·
The author is a long time climate change denier. He's apparently just moved onto a different phase of the denial strategy now that AGW is largely undeniable.
by skrap 7y ago
The author is a long time climate change denier. He's apparently just moved onto a different phase of the denial strategy now that AGW is largely undeniable.
- kuu 7y agoAGW may refer to: * Anthropogenic global warming, overall warming of Earth's climate caused or produced by humans
- newfangle 7y agoDo you have a source showing he is a climate change denier? I think you should provide one given that you posted this trying to attack his credibility.
- ceejayoz 7y agoIt doesn't take much Googling to prove. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg > In January 2003, the DCSD released a ruling that sent a mixed message, finding the book to be scientifically dishonest through misrepresentation of scientific facts, but Lomborg himself not guilty due to his lack of expertise in the fields in question.
- shkkmo 7y agoFrom what I can tell, that book does NOT deny climate change, it denies the efficacy of proposed interventions. From the Wikipedia page you linked: > He became internationally known for his best-selling and controversial book, The Skeptical Environmentalist (2001), in which he argues that many of the costly measures and actions adopted by scientists and policy makers to meet the challenges of global warming will ultimately have minimal impact on the world's rising temperature. Misrepresenting climate science to dispute the efficacy of specific interventions is not the same as misrepresenting science to deny that climate change has human causes. It does however mean that you should take his opinion on these matters with a grain of salt.
- ceejayoz 7y agoIt’s just the next step in the denial. Once “it’s happening” becomes transparently silly to deny, the next step is “fine, it’s happening, but we can’t do anything”.
- mayiplease 7y agoHold on, what evidence do you have that Lomborg ever held that first position? I've run into interviews with him since forever and remember his position has having been very consistent: climate change is real but not an existential threat and we should be more rational in prioritizing our responses to it. Or something like that.
- i_am_proteus 7y agoI don't think the term "climate change denier" applies; he seems to recognize that anthropogenic climate change is real, but proposes addressing the effects rather than cutting emissions, arguing that the former is more economically feasible.
- aaron695 7y agoThis is a outright lie, he has never denied AGW Please cite this. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/aug/30/bjorn-lomborg-climate-change-profile https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/aug/30/bjorn-lo...
- humanrebar 7y agoAs someone not all that worked up over this, I don't find this kind of labelling and implicit conversation stopping all that convincing. I think it actually contributes to misinformation because it feeds into conspiracy theories and persecution complexes. Other posts here attack the content of the post, which works better. It's probably also fair to critique the general approach if it is disingenuous in context.
- sproketboy 7y agoNo he's not you fucking enviro-communist scum.
- cal5k 7y agoOh good, throw a bad label at someone. Now there's no need to debate his ideas... right? I'd like to coin the term "nuance-denier" so that we can insert it jingoistically into the lexicon. It applies to anyone who is incapable of admitting that most humans don't hold a rigid set of views that can be encapsulated by pithy, pejorative labels.