Ah yep, it's Lomborg, he's always controversial in this area, although he isn't denying anthropogenic climate change. Just be aware that he's a lecturer in stat

Ah yep, it's Lomborg, he's always controversial in this area, although he isn't denying anthropogenic climate change. Just be aware that he's a lecturer in statistics, not a climate scientist, and he's had issues in the past with the scientific accuracy of his books. > DCSD made its decision in January 2003. In it, DCSD found that, by customary scientific standards, the defendant had acted at odds with good scientific practice in his systematically one-sided choice of data and in his arguments. If the book was intended to be evaluated as science and not as a contribution to the general debate, then in addition the scientific message had been so distorted that the objective criteria for establishing scientific dishonesty had been met. > DCSD did not find a sufficient basis, however, on which to establish that the defendant had misled his readers with intent or gross negligence. DCSDnoted, in this context, that in the preface to the book the defendant had himself drawn attention to the fact that he was no expert in environmental issues. https://ufm.dk/en/publications/2004/files-2004/annual-report-2003-danish-committees-scientific-dishones.pdf https://ufm.dk/en/publications/2004/files-2004/annual-report...