Lomborg had ik al enige tijd uit het oog verloren. Niet dat ik zijn stelling onzin vind, ik ben het er mee eens. Je moet de feiten weten van je gedachten, de oorzaken en gevolgen van eventuele plannen. Niet zeggen A is fout en we moeten B doen, zonder de gevolgen te overzien. Wat als B onbedoelde negatieve neveneffecten heeft, of A onbekende voordelen? Vaak zijn naast feiten ook overtuigen en vooroordelen aanwezig. Het onderscheid tussen feiten en meningen is niet zo duidelijk, zo blijkt. Soms heb je een bron die de stelling van Lomborg lijkt te steunen, maar vervolgens daar recht tegen ingaat. 'Cherrypicking' is daarbij een vaak gehoorde klacht. Dat is het selectief omgaan met data, iets wat bij wetenschap hoort... Tja, Lomborg zegt soms dingen die tegen je gevoel ingaan...
Voor wie hem niet kent:
Dr. Bjorn Lomborg is president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and visiting professor at Copenhagen Business School. The Copenhagen Consensus Center is a think-tank that researches the smartest ways to do good. For this work, Lomborg was named one of TIME magazine’s 100 most influential people in the world. His numerous books include "The Skeptical Environmentalist", "Cool It", "How to Spend $75 Billion to Make the World a Better Place" and "The Nobel Laureates' Guide to the Smartest Targets for the World 2016-2030." (
www.lomborg.com/about)
Bjørn Lomborg is a political scientist, economist and the founder and president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, a US-based think tank which originated at the Copenhagen Business School in Denmark.
According to his website, Lomborg is also an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School. He received his Ph. D. in Political Science at the University of Copenhagen in 1994.
He appears regularly on global lists of influential people, including Time magazine and Esquire, and he writes columns which appear in many of the highest circulating newspapers in the world.
He is best known as the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It, two books downplaying the risks of global warming. Notably, Lomborg does not have a background in climate science and has published no peer-reviewed articles in the climate science arena (
www.desmogblog.com/bjorn-lomborg).
Hij is geen klimaatwetenschapper, maar een milieubewuste statisticus, die vindt dat het gaat over wetenschap en feiten om onwetendheid te bestrijden. Sommigen zijn het niet met hem eens.
"Mr Lomborg's views have no credibility in the scientific community," Professor Flannery wrote (
www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/bjorn-lomborg-centre-leaked-documents-cast-doubt-on-abbott-government-claims-20150422-1mqfnn.html).
Agnotology is the study of how and why ignorance or misconceptions exist. While misconceptions are a challenge for educators, they also present an opportunity to improve climate literacy through agnotology-based learning. This involves the use of refutational lessons that challenge misconceptions while teaching scientific conceptions (
www.researchgate.net/publication/272810525_Raising_Climate_Literacy_Through_Addressing_Misinformation_Case_Studies_in_Agnotology-Based_Learning).
Niet iedereen is het eens met Lomborg:
Lomborg’s entertaining but misleading book Cool It!(Lomborg, 2007) (
www.researchgate.net/publication/272810525_Raising_Climate_Literacy_Through_Addressing_Misinformation_Case_Studies_in_Agnotology-Based_Learning).
Specific anecdotes include the case of one student, who, referring to Lomborg’s writingin Cool It!, remarked, ‘‘He’s so convincing,’’ explaining that itwould be easy to accept Lomborg’s argument s in theabsence of information to the contrary. Another student,asking in class how Cool It! could have been published,considering the extensive errors documented at lomborg-errors.dk, prompted a valuable discussion of the publ icationprocess and served as a reminder that not all publishedwork, even from a reputable publisher, can or should bethought of as error-free (
www.researchgate.net/publication/272810525_Raising_Climate_Literacy_Through_Addressing_Misinformation_Case_Studies_in_Agnotology-Based_Learning).
Nu ben ik ook een leek en geen wetenschapper, ik heb de data niet zelf gezien, beoordeeld en gewogen, dus kan geen uitspraken doen over de feitelijk waarheid van de stellingen. Ik kan wel aangeven dat ik het argument van Lomborg die verwijst naar wetenschappelijke artikelen eerder geloof dan dat van de anderen, al verwijzen die eveneens naar wetenschappelijke artikelen. Het voorbeeld in
de tekst over Agnotology over ijsberen geeft ook aan dat door bij een dataset gedurende de tijd te kiezen voor de laagste of hoogste waarde van een gegeven foutenmarge, je het aantal ijsberen gedurende de tijd kan laten afnemen of toenemen. Statistiek is dus niet zonder meer te vertrouwen. Daarbij komt het feit dat gepubliceerd werk niet altijd foutenvrij en dus ook niet te vertrouwen is. Dat geldt eveneens voor mijn blog ;)
Altijd zelf blijven denken dus...
How To Explain Why You're A Vegetarian To Your Dinner Guests
Door John Tilston (Trafford Publishing, 12 mei 2004 - 100 pagina's)
Tilston gaat in hoofdstuk 4 in op de litanie die Lomborg heeft omschreven en bekritiseerd. Tilston gat vervolgens verder met de stelling dat of het doemdenken van de milieubeweging nu waar is of niet, we moeten toch eten. Hij gaat vervolgens in op het fenomeen dat landen hun statistiek over onder meer visvangst en dergelijke vervormen vanwege politieke redenen. Hij gaat volgens mij niet in op het feitje dat Lomborg zelf ook vegetarisch is.
Think organic food is better for you, animals, and the planet? Think again
BJØRN LOMBORG 12 JUNE 2016 • 5:33PM
In 2012 Stanford University’s Centre for Health Policy did the biggest comparison of organic and conventional foods and found no robust evidence for organics being more nutritious. A brand-new review has just repeated its finding: “Scientific studies do not show that organic products are more nutritious and safer than conventional foods.”
Likewise, animals on organic farms are not generally healthier. A five year US study showed that organic “health outcomes are similar to conventional dairies”. The Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety found “no difference in objective disease occurrence.” Organic pigs and poultry may enjoy better access to open areas, but this increases their load of parasites, pathogens and predators. Meanwhile the organic regulation against feeding bee colonies with pollen supplements in low-pollen periods along with regulation against proper disinfection leads to sharply lower bee welfare.
Organic farming is sold as good for the environment. This is correct for a single farm field: organic farming uses less energy, emits less greenhouse gasses, nitrous oxide and ammonia and causes less nitrogen leeching than a conventional field. But each organic field yields much, much less. So, to grow the same amount of wheat, spinach or strawberries, you need much more land. That means that average organic produce results in the emission of about as many greenhouse gasses as conventional produce; and about 10 per cent more nitrous oxide, ammonia and acidification. Worse, to produce equivalent quantities, organic farms need to occupy 84 per cent more land – land which can’t be used for forests and genuine nature reserves. For example, to produce the amount of food America does today, but organically, would require increasing its farmland by the size of almost two United Kingdoms. That is the equivalent of eradicating all parklands and wild lands in the lower 48 states.
But surely organics avoid pesticides? No. Organic farming can use any pesticide that is “natural”. This includes copper sulphate, which has resulted in liver disease in vineyard sprayers in France. Pyrethrin is another organic pesticide; one study shows a 3.7-fold increase in leukaemia among farmers who handled pyrethrins compared to those who had not.
Conventional food, it’s true, has higher pesticide contamination. Although it is still very low, this is a definite benefit of organics. However, using a rough upper estimate by the head of the US Food and Drug Administration’s Office of Toxicology, all conventional pesticide residues may cause an extra 20 cancer deaths per year in America.
This pales in comparison to the impact of organics. If all of the United States were to go organic, the cost would likely be around $200 billion annually from lower productivity. This is money we can’t spend on hospitals, pensioner care, schools, or infrastructure. ... This means that going organic in the US will kill more than 13,000 people each year. .... Norman Borlaug, who got the Nobel Prize for starting the Green Revolution, liked to point out that organic farming on a global scale would leave billions without food. “I don’t see two billion volunteers to disappear,” he said.
Essentially, organic food is rich people spending their extra cash to feel good. While that is just as valid as spending it on holidays, we should resist any implied moral superiority. Organics are not healthier or better for animals. To expand to any great scale would cost tens of billions of pounds while killing thousands. Indeed, a widespread organics revolution will increase environmental damage, and cut global forests.
(
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/12/think-organic-food-is-better-for-you-animals-and-the-planet-thin/)
The economist houdt Lomborg ook in de gaten:
Environmental hypocrisy in current politics runs deeper than photo opportunities: Bjorn Lomborg
Nov 22, 2011
When Denmark's new government ministers presented themselves to Queen Margrethe-II last month, the incoming development minister established his green credentials by rolling up to the palace in a tiny, three-wheeled, electric-powered vehicle. The photo opportunity made a powerful statement about the minister's commitment to the environment - but probably not the one he intended.
Christian Friis Bach's electric-powered vehicle was incapable of covering the 30 km from his house to the palace without running out of power. So, he put the electric mini-car inside a horse trailer and dragged it behind his petrol-powered CitroA«n for three-quarters of the trip, switching back to the mini-car when he neared the television cameras. The stunt produced more carbon emissions than if he had driven a regular car the entire distance.
...
Danish politicians - like elsewhere - claim a green economy will cost nothing, or may even be a source of new growth. This is not true. Globally, there is a clear correlation between higher growth rates and higher CO2 emissions. Further, nearly every green energy source is still more expensive than fossil fuels, even when calculating pollution costs. We don't burn fossil fuels simply to annoy environmentalists. We burn them because fossil fuels have facilitated virtually all of the material advances civilisation has achieved over the last few hundred years.
Politicians in Denmark and elsewhere argue as if this were no longer true: a transition to a green economy will create millions of new 'green jobs'. But, while green-energy subsidies generate more jobs in green-energy sectors, they also displace similar numbers of jobs elsewhere. This isn't surprising: either customers or taxpayers must finance subsidies. Electricity prices will increase, implying a drag on private-sector job creation. If the goal is to create jobs, public investment in other areas - such as healthcare - generates stronger, faster employment growth
(
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/environmental-hypocrisy-in-current-politics-runs-deeper-than-photo-opportunities-bjorn-lomborg/articleshow/10823888.cms)
December, 2013
In an op-ed in The New York Times, Lomborg writes:
“There’s no question that burning fossil fuels is leading to a warmer climate and that addressing this problem is important. But doing so is a question of timing and priority. For many parts of the world, fossil fuels are still vital and will be for the next few decades, because they are the only means to lift people out of the smoke and darkness of energy poverty.” (
www.desmogblog.com/bjorn-lomborg)
Improving energy efficiency is a fashionable policy that governments worldwide promote. On paper, it seems a no-brainer: improving energy efficiency is sold as cost-reducing, job-creating, and planet-saving. Win, win, win – and the media often help close the deal, focusing entirely on all the supposed upsides. But there is another side – a downside – to the story.
After spending £240 million ($316 million), the United Kingdom ended government funding for its flagship energy-efficiency-loan program last year, after a scathing report from the National Audit Office showed the program was neither attracting people to sign up, nor delivering cost-effective energy-saving measures for those who did. The policy “did not persuade householders that energy efficiency measures are worth paying for,” according to the auditors, and “failed to deliver any meaningful benefit.” (
www.lomborg.com/news/rethinking-energy-efficiency-policies)
On climate change, Pope Francis isn’t listening to the world’s poor
By Bjorn Lomborg September 23, 2015
The global elite has little idea what afflicts the poor, says Pope Francis. He’s right — but that observation sometimes applies to him, too.... In his US visit, the pope is already creating headlines about the urgent need to respond to climate change. Invoking the need to “protect the vulnerable in our world,” he calls for an end to humanity’s reliance on fossil fuels.
But do the world’s poor believe that carbon cuts are a top priority?
Both for the entire world and amongst the worst-off, climate comes 16th out of 16, after 15 other priorities. It’s not even a close race.
Poorly educated women from low-income countries are among the most vulnerable people on Earth, with the weakest voice in global discussions. Their top priorities are, again, health, education and jobs. Action on global warming ranks dead last. And in Africa, global warming also comes behind every other priority.
It’s only among those from the richest nations on Earth that global warming becomes more of a priority. Even then, it ranks 10th. The world’s poor overwhelmingly say they want better health care and education, more jobs, an honest government and more food.
Francis is right that the global elite often forget what the world’s poorest want. But it’s not action against climate change they clamor for, as he and many other well-meaning people claim.
(
http://nypost.com/2015/09/23/on-climate-change-pope-francis-isnt-listening-to-the-worlds-poor/)
Faced with this clear rejection, many climate campaigners somewhat patronizingly suggest that the poor don’t know what’s best for them. Warming, they note, worsens many problems afflicting vulnerable people — such as malaria.
Yes, rising temperatures mean malaria mosquitoes can become endemic in more places, possibly increasing infections, so not tackling global warming could worsen malaria.
But this is a blinkered way of looking at the world’s challenges, and leads us to the wrong responses.
Look at it this way: We could make a similar argument about malaria itself. If we don’t tackle it, millions will die — but a lot of other problems become worse, too. Lack of malaria treatment disrupts development, as sick children get fewer nutrients and their schooling suffers. Malaria-endemic societies have lower economic growth rates, so millions will be left in poverty longer.
What’s more, climate-change policies such as the cuts on fossil fuels are a terribly inefficient way to help malaria victims. The Kyoto Protocol’s carbon cuts could save 1,400 malaria deaths for about $180 billion a year.
By contrast, just $500 million spent on direct anti-malaria policies could save 300,000 lives. Each time climate policies can save one person from malaria, smart malaria policies can save more than 77,000 people.
This is true for a wide range of issues. Carbon campaigners are right that climate change could reduce agricultural yields. But helping directly with more research, better crop varieties, more fertilizers and less biofuels will cost much less and do much more good, faster.
The specter of worse hurricanes is often raised as an argument for cutting CO₂. But extreme weather mostly hurts the poor because they’re poor. When a hurricane hits Florida, few people die; a similar hurricane in Honduras or the Philippines can kill thousands and devastate the economy. Helping people out of poverty directly is thousands of times more effective than relying on carbon cuts.
Those who claim to speak for the poor and say that climate change is the world’s top priority are simply wrong. The world has clearly said it is the least important of the 16 priorities the UN focuses on (
http://nypost.com/2015/09/23/on-climate-change-pope-francis-isnt-listening-to-the-worlds-poor/).
And when those campaigners suggest the poor don’t know what’s best for them because carbon cuts will stop global warming from making all other problems worse, they’re wrong again. The poor are typically much better helped directly rather than via climate aid.
This doesn’t mean we should ignore global warming. It’s a real problem, and our advanced civilization can address multiple problems at the same time. But we need to tackle warming much more smartly, with fewer resources and more impact. And we should truly listen to the world’s poorest, and focus much more on their real priorities (
http://nypost.com/2015/09/23/on-climate-change-pope-francis-isnt-listening-to-the-worlds-poor/).
Pick solutions that offer highest social and environmental returns: Bjorn Lomborg
By TNN | Aug 16, 2015,
Controversial Danish environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg, who upended conventional wisdom with his book, The Sceptical Environmentalist, has been on an interesting mission: to identify the top problems faced by the world, gather its best economists, scientists and thinkers and work out a list of things need to be fixed.
The UN has asked all its member countries what to focus on. Not surprisingly, when you ask that many countries and NGOs, you come up with lots of answers — they have come up with 169 targets, each one of which is long-winded and has all kinds of wishes. It makes us feel good but the truth is we're not going to be able to do this. If we're not going to fix everything, first look at where can we do the most good.
For the past 15 years, we've had the millennium development goals, which were just 18 targets — reduce poverty, reduce hunger, get kids to school, stop them from dying, stop their moms from dying, get clean drinking water and sanitation and so on. Very simple. The sustainable development goals, which is what the next set will be called, is an incredibly long document. There is no way this is going to energise the world, there is no way this is going to focus the attention of the world.
What we've done is, we've brought together 82 economists, 44 sector experts, all the UN organizations and basically looked across all these areas and asked, for each of these areas, what is the best you can put up. What is the social and environmental benefit for every rupee spent?
Why is this important?
Imagine you have gone into this really expensive restaurant and there are all these great dishes, but there are no prices and no sizes — it will probably make you feel uncomfortable ordering because you have no idea whether you will get something that will feed your party or just be an appetizer. You have no idea whether you will pay Rs 1,000 or Rs 1,00,000. That matters. We've tried to mark the prices and sizes of all these different choices. What you choose is now better informed.
...
It's not to say there are not a lot of important things in the world. But there are some things that are easier, cheaper, more effective to do. Let's do the smart things first.
(
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/interviews/Pick-solutions-that-offer-highest-social-and-environmental-returns-Bjorn-Lomborg/articleshow/48499526.cms)
Trade-Offs for Global Do-Gooders
The Global Goals were a culmination of a four-year process for setting priorities to help the world’s most disadvantaged people—a process beset from the start by horse-trading, haggling and endless consultation. In a bid not to offend anyone, the new development agenda is expected to include an incredible 169 targets for investment. Giving priority to 169 things is the same as giving priority to nothing at all (
www.lomborg.com/).
(
www.lomborg.com/news/we-must-focus-on-the-un-goals-that-are-the-best-value-for-money)
we looked closely at the value for money of more than 100 proposed targets. They were certainly not all equal. Some targets generate much higher economic, social and environmental benefits than others.
The natural political inclination is to promise all good things to everyone, which is how the UN ended up with a list of 169 targets. But analyses prepared by 82 top economists and 44 sector experts for the Copenhagen Consensus Center showed us that some of the targets are barely worthwhile, producing little more than $1 in social benefits per dollar spent, while others produce much higher social returns. These analyses used benefit-cost analysis, which is a way of comparing the amount of “good” that society gets from one investment instead of another, and expressing environmental, social and economic benefits in a single figure.
(
www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2016/jul/20/we-must-focus-on-the-un-goals-that-are-the-best-value-for-money)
One development target that should be prioritised over others is the eradication of tuberculosis (TB). This is a hidden disease – more than two billion people carry the bacterium that causes it and about 1.5 million people each year die from TB. But treatment is inexpensive and, in most cases, highly effective. Spending a dollar on diagnosis and treatment is a low-cost way to give many more years of productive life to many people.
Preventing childhood malnutrition is another excellent target. A good diet enables a child’s brains and muscles to better develop, leading to lifelong benefits. Well-nourished children stay in school longer, learn more and end up being much more productive members of society. The evidence suggests that providing better nutrition for 68 million children each year would produce more than $40 in long-term social benefits for every dollar spent
(
www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2016/jul/20/we-must-focus-on-the-un-goals-that-are-the-best-value-for-money)
Bjorn Lomborg's Deception About 'Climate and Health Assessment' in Wall Street Journal
By Guest • Friday, April 8, 2016 - 09:48
This is a guest post by ClimateDenierRoundup originally published at Daily Kos.
A new op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by Bjorn Lomborg misses the mark, and while it’s not as bad as some of Lomborg’s misleading opinions, there can be no doubt that the deception is intentional.
Lomborg attacks the recently released Climate and Health Assessment, a comprehensive overview of how climate change impacts the American public by the US Global Change Research Program. He attacks the report’s finding that heat-related deaths from rising temperatures will outnumber the avoided cold-related deaths, which has been debated among legitimate scientists ...Lomborg claims the report, “hypes the bad and skips over the good.” He writes, “It also ignores inconvenient evidence—like the fact that cold kills many more people than heat.” Later, he reiterates his thesis statement, with the sentence, “Not once does this ‘scientific assessment’ acknowledge that cold deaths significantly outweigh heat deaths.”
Which is weird, because page 47 of the chapter on temperature and health states:
A recent analysis of U.S. deaths from temperature extremes based on death records found an average of approximately 1,300 deaths per year from 2006 to 2010 coded as resulting from extreme cold exposures, and 670 deaths per year coded as resulting from exposure to extreme heat (
www.desmogblog.com/2016/04/08/bjorn-lomborg-s-deception-about-climate-and-health-assessment-wall-street-journal).Okee, dus de stelling is dat Lomborg liegt omdat het gestelde van Lomborg (kou is gevaarlijker dan hitte) in de tekst staat waarop Lomborg kritiek heeft dat het te negatief is. Er wordt niet aangegeven dat in dat Climate and Health Assessment in tegenstelling tot het gestelde van Lomborg positief nieuws staat....
JAN 22, 2016
Why Africa Needs Fossil Fuels
Africa is the world’s most “renewable” continent when it comes to energy. In the rich world, renewables account for less than a tenth of total energy supplies. The 900 million people of Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding South Africa) get 80% of their energy from renewables.
While a person in Europe or North America uses 11,000 kWh per year on average (much of it through industrial processes), a person in Sub-Sahara Africa uses only 137kWh – less than a typical American refrigerator uses in four months. More than 600 million people in Africa have no access to electricity at all.
All this is not because Africa is green, but because it is poor. Some 2% of the continent’s energy needs are met by hydro-electricity, and 78% by humanity’s oldest “renewable” fuel: wood. This leads to heavy deforestation and lethal indoor air pollution, which kills 1.3 million people each year.
...
Europe and North America became rich thanks to cheap, plentiful power. In 1800, 94% of all global energy came from renewables, almost all of it wood and plant material. In 1900, renewables provided 41% of all energy; even at the end of World War II, renewables still provided 30% of global energy. Since 1971, the share of renewables has bottomed out, standing at around 13.5% today. Almost all of this is wood, with just 0.5% from solar and wind.
...
Few in the rich world would switch to renewables without heavy subsidies, and certainly no one would cut off their connection to the mostly fossil-fuel-powered grid that provides stable power on cloudy days and at night (another form of subsidy). Yet Western activists seem to believe that the world’s worst-off people should be satisfied with inadequate and irregular electricity supplies.
In its recent Africa Energy Outlook, the IEA estimates that Africa’s energy consumption will increase by 80% by 2040; but, with the continent’s population almost doubling, less energy per person will be available. Although nearly one billion additional people will gain access to electricity by 2040, 530 million will still be cut off.
But the IEA outlines another possible future – what it calls the “African Century” – in which Africa’s governments and donors invest an extra $450 billion in energy. This would sharply increase the use of fossil fuels, reduce much of the most polluting renewables, and provide energy access to 230 million more people. Providing more – and more reliable – power to almost two billion people will increase GDP by 30% in 2040. Each person on the continent will be almost $1,000 better off every year.
In Western countries, environmental campaigners would focus on the downside – 300 million tons of additional CO₂ emissions in 2040, and higher outdoor air pollution from greater reliance on coal power – and ask why anyone would want to increase CO₂ and air pollution. But let’s look at the costs and benefits.
The almost four billion extra tons of CO₂ emitted over the next 25 years would cause about $140 billion in damage from global warming, using the US official (though, likely somewhat exaggerated) social cost figure. The increase in coal use would lead to more air pollution, costing about $30 billion during this period.
At the same time, Africa would become almost $7 trillion richer. Indoor air pollution would essentially be eliminated for about 150 million more people, with social benefits worth nearly $500 billion. And power would reach 230 million extra people, generating benefits worth $1.2 trillion.
In other words, the total costs of the “African Century,” including climate- and health-related costs, would amount to $170 billion. The total benefits, at $8.4 trillion, would be almost 50 times higher.
The same general argument probably holds for India and other developing countries. In China, for example, CO2 emissions have increased 500% since 1981; but the country’s poverty rate plummeted – from 89% then to less than 10% today.In wealthy countries, campaigners emphasize that a ton of CO2 could cost some $50 and should be taxed to reduce emissions. But for Africa, the economic, social, and environmental benefits of more energy and higher CO2 run to more than $2,000 per ton. Focusing on the $50 in cost and ignoring the $2,000 in benefits is willful blindness.
(
www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/africa-needs-fossil-fuels-by-bj-rn-lomborg-2016-01)
“Global Warming May Be A Good Thing” – Bjorn Lomborg
MAY 6, 2016
Our climate conversation is lopsided. There is ample room to suggest that climate change has caused this problem or that negative outcome, but any mention of positives is frowned upon.
(
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/05/06/global-warming-may-be-a-good-thing-bjorn-lomborg/)
Danish author Bjorn Lomborg has articulated one of the most compelling arguments against the agenda of the climate alarmists – not by denying climate change, but by demonstrating how wasteful all government attempts are to control it. For years, in books such as Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming, Lomborg has been the adult in the room, pointing out that hundreds of billions of dollars have been squandered on green energy even as one billion of the world's people go hungry. Had those dollars been invested productively, the world would be a better place. In this conclusion Lomborg is most certainly correct, and he has shown extraordinary courage in confronting the climate alarmists (
www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/07/what_lomborg_leaves_out.html).
