3 ms·

>Yeah, fairly certain they did. There's no need to be "fairly certain" when you can search their entire archive online. For what it's worth, the FT is one of

• ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  And there's no need to search their online archives when you remember being angry at some of the obvious lies you read in it in the first place. I did scan their online archives, but only to track their general tone over years. And while it's improved (along with most of the media) they're still condoning clear bullshit by Bjorn Lomborg and Michael Shellenberg, two individuals who also have an entire online archive of them being wrong. https://www.ft.com/content/93d6353c-9ab1-4bd9-86bb-7d77aab44dde https://www.ft.com/content/93d6353c-9ab1-4bd9-86bb-7d77aab44... They apparently aren't even very good at simple financial maths: > Lomborg estimates that it will cost New Zealand between 16 and 32 per cent of annual GDP to hit its declared net-zero target in 2050 — or $12,800 for each citizen. > Lomborg suggests that a temperature rise of 4C is possible — more than twice the 1.5C targeted in the 2015 UN Paris climate arrangement — while shedding only 2.9 per cent of global GDP relative to where it otherwise would have been. They got taken in by this comparison for example and had to issue a correction. https://www.desmog.com/bjorn-lomborg/ https://www.desmog.com/bjorn-lomborg/ https://www.lomborg-errors.dk/coolitB.htm https://www.lomborg-errors.dk/coolitB.htm