4 ms·

Scandinavian society gives a lot of airtime to "radical" intellectuals talking bullshit about things outside their field of expertise. Bjørn Lomborg was a hips

Scandinavian society gives a lot of airtime to "radical" intellectuals talking bullshit about things outside their field of expertise. Bjørn Lomborg was a hipster economist who denied man-made climate change and had an embarrassing amount of clout in Denmark: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg

sputr 5y ago
As non-scandinavian ... may it have something to do with the strong left/progressive lean of the population? I say this because one of the biggest problems of every single group or organization that I've seen built around progressive/left/liberal ideas is the tendency to believe in the "everyone has a right to be heard/speak" which leads to everything being dominated by the loudest individuals who are almost always full of BS. Honestly, I've identified this tendency as the #1 reason why such groups do so poorly in politics, except in situations where the values are just a PR front for a more traditional power structure.
- giraffe_lady 5y ago
  I don't have an educated answer for your question so I won't offer one. But I think it is making it more confusing that you conflate left, liberal, and progressive. They have some overlap and shared meanings but are also different things. The "everyone has a right to be heard" thing you mention is specifically a liberal value. Others may or may not subscribe to it to varying degrees but in my view it is core only to that one. Scandanavia is pretty firmly liberal from what I can see. I mean just the other day here there was a good conversation about how the entire wealth of norway is based on nonrenewable resource extraction. Not really anything leftist about that.
boublepop 5y ago
Lomborg never denied man-made climate change. Though he certainly was a controvercial Voice in the debate. The reason was however that he challenged key predictions and strongly critized the proposed solutions as being cost ineffective. But it’s true that those who opposed him tried to paint his criticism as a if it had been denial because that’s a strawman that is easier to argue against. If someone comes out saying “climate change is man made and unless we do something the Oriana going to boil away in 2 years, our only option is to start throwing ice cubes into the ocean!” Then it’s perfectly resonable to argue that the prediction is wrong, and that even if it was accurate the proposed solution isn’t cost effective and that better solutions exist, that doesn’t mean you are arguing against the main premis of manmade climate change. Now the meat of the debate around Lomborg is really if his predictions stack up against the predictions he criticized.

sputr 5y ago

As non-scandinavian ... may it have something to do with the strong left/progressive lean of the population? I say this because one of the biggest problems of every single group or organization that I've seen built around progressive/left/liberal ideas is the tendency to believe in the "everyone has a right to be heard/speak" which leads to everything being dominated by the loudest individuals who are almost always full of BS. Honestly, I've identified this tendency as the #1 reason why such groups do so poorly in politics, except in situations where the values are just a PR front for a more traditional power structure.

giraffe_lady 5y ago
I don't have an educated answer for your question so I won't offer one. But I think it is making it more confusing that you conflate left, liberal, and progressive. They have some overlap and shared meanings but are also different things. The "everyone has a right to be heard" thing you mention is specifically a liberal value. Others may or may not subscribe to it to varying degrees but in my view it is core only to that one. Scandanavia is pretty firmly liberal from what I can see. I mean just the other day here there was a good conversation about how the entire wealth of norway is based on nonrenewable resource extraction. Not really anything leftist about that.

boublepop 5y ago

Lomborg never denied man-made climate change. Though he certainly was a controvercial Voice in the debate. The reason was however that he challenged key predictions and strongly critized the proposed solutions as being cost ineffective. But it’s true that those who opposed him tried to paint his criticism as a if it had been denial because that’s a strawman that is easier to argue against. If someone comes out saying “climate change is man made and unless we do something the Oriana going to boil away in 2 years, our only option is to start throwing ice cubes into the ocean!” Then it’s perfectly resonable to argue that the prediction is wrong, and that even if it was accurate the proposed solution isn’t cost effective and that better solutions exist, that doesn’t mean you are arguing against the main premis of manmade climate change. Now the meat of the debate around Lomborg is really if his predictions stack up against the predictions he criticized.