As you would expect from the cynical, far-right WSJ editorial section, the author is cherry-picked as one of the few people who would make this claim with a str

As you would expect from the cynical, far-right WSJ editorial section, the author is cherry-picked as one of the few people who would make this claim with a straight face: > Lomborg's views and work have attracted scrutiny in the scientific community; he was formally accused of scientific misconduct over The Skeptical Environmentalist, and the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty concluded in an evaluation of the book that "one couldn't prove that Lomborg had deliberately been scientifically dishonest, although he had broken the rules of scientific practice in that he interpreted results beyond the conclusions of the authors he cited."[1] Tellingly, the author isn't arguing the bill should have done more or that the US should do more to fight climate change in general. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg