So you have not read any of his crap or listened thoroughly to what he says! He is not interested in changing the world. He is an imposter who takes all the wellmeaning lines from the real climate concerned and twist it into a right-wing non-active pursuit. His only job is to confuse the debate, on one hand talking about changing our habits and on the other not to! In Denmark his job was to force attention away from the real NGOs and sucking money out of the state for fake projects.
• 13-2: Bjørn Lomborg klager over UVVU’s afgørelse til Videnskabsministeriet, som er ankeinstans for UVVU. Maj 2003:
• 30-5: Videnskabsministeriets arbejdsgruppe offentliggør deres rapport, hvoraf det fremgår, at UVVU i Lomborgs sag gik ud over, hvad der var hjemmel for i de gældende regler.
December 2003:
• 17-12: Videnskabsministeriet offentliggør en sønderlemmende kritik af UVVUs afgørelse over Lomborgs bog.
• 6-2: 640 forskere har skrevet under på en erklæring, der støtter, at Danmark har et organ som UVVU, der ser på videnskabelig uredelighed. Skrivelsen forholder sig ikke til Lomborg-sagen. Initiativtager er professor Jens Rehfeld, Rigshospitalet.
• 13-2: Videnskabsministeriet nedsætter en arbejdsgruppe, der skal undersøge, hvorvidt, der er behov for at justere regelgrundlaget for UVVU’s arbejde.
• 18-1: Politiken offentliggør en protestskrivelse mod Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed afgørelsen underskrevet af 286 forskere fra en række videnskabelige miljøer. Initiativtagere er professor David Lando, Københavns Universitet og professor Henrik Lando, Handelshøjskolen.
• 21-1: Ombudsmanden henviser Peter Paghs klage over Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredeligheds afgørelse til Videnskabsministeriet, som UVVU hører under.
• 15-1: Professor Dr. Jur. Peter Pagh klager til ombudsmanden over Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed’s afgørelse, som han finder er ”behæftet med alvorlige retlige mangler.” Klagen kan læses her.
• 17-1: Syv samfundsvidenskabelige professorer offentliggør et åbent brev til Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed, hvori de efterlyser en ”videnskabelig klargøring” fra UVVU. Initiativtager er professor Kjeld Møller Petersen, Syddansk Universitet.
• 14-1: affaldskonsulent Erik Jørgensen, Københavns Miljø- og Energikontor klager over dåserapporten til Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed. Jørgensen hævder, at rapporten har udeladt fakta, som er afgørende for rapportens konklusion. Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed afviser at behandle klagen. Ved evaluering af Institut for Miljøvurderings rapporter betegnes dåserapporten som ”forsvarlig” og ”velfunderet”.
• 13-1: Foranlediget af debatten ifbm. Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed beslutter IMV’s bestyrelse at fremrykke en ekstern, uafhængig evaluering af Inst. for Miljøvurderings første 8 rapporter.
• 14-1: professor Poul Harremoës forlader Institut for Miljøvurderings bestyrelse i protest over Lomborgs ledelse af IMV.
• I jan. blusser debatten om Inst. for Miljøvurdering-rapporten ”Pant på engangsemballage?” (den såkaldte ”dåserapport”) op igen i forbindelse med UVVU-sagen.
• 7-1: Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed erklærer i sin afgørelse, at Lomborgs bog falder ind under begrebet ”objektiv videnskabelig uredelighed” og er ”i klar strid med normerne for god videnskabelig skik”. Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed offentliggør afgørelsen på et pressemøde og på Internettet både på dansk og engelsk.
• 22-3: Stuart Pimm, USA og Jeffe Harvey, Holland klager til Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed over Bjørn Lomborgs bog ”The Sceptical Environmentalist”. Klagen er sendt via Kåre Fog. Lomborgs udnævnelse til direktør for Institut for Miljøvurdering indgår i begrundelsen for klagen.
• 26-2: Bjørn Lomborg ansættes som direktør for Institut for Miljøvurdering.
Marts 2002:
• 7-3: Mette Hertz og Henrik Stiesdal klager til Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed over avisartikler af Bjørn Lomborg. Klagen er motiveret med, at Lomborg er udnævnt til direktør for Institut for Miljøvurdering.
• 20-2: Biolog Kåre Fog klager til Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed over Bjørn Lomborgs bog ”The Sceptical Environmentalist”. Klagen lyder: ”Formålet med at indgive denne klage på dette tidspunkt er at på det tidspunkt hvor bestyrelsen for instituttet skal vælge hvem der skal ansættes, skal de være klar over, at der er tvivl om Bjørn Lomborgs videnskabelige hæderlighed.”
Jeg kan da osse fortælle dig at Lomborg er populist. Han er former sine udtalelser efter hvem der har pengene. Han bruger citater fra venstrefløjen så det ser ud som om han vil noget i verden, men samtidig omformer han sine udtryk så de tilpasses kapitalismen fremfor demokrati. Desuden er han blevet kritiseret af flere videnskabsmænd (også dem der ikke er med Al Gore) for fejlagtige/manipulerede oplysninger!
Desuden ved du intet om Lomborg. Manden genbruger bare andres idéer, pakker dem ind i blåt fløjl med lyserød sløjfe og du æder det bare! Lomborg er lobbyist. Hverken videnskabsmand (han er analytiker, hvilket ikke går under begrebet videnskabsmand el. på engelsk scientist) som han ellers hygger sig med at blive kaldt. Han er en løgner. En agent for Anders Fjoghs blokpolitik. Og han er ikke interesseret i en bedre verden, bare en tykkere tegnedreng.
bare til en orienteting, så skal man huske ikke at kaste med sten når man selv bor i glashus. TYPISK HØJREORIENTEREDE DUMMERNIKKER at snakke om at man skal acceptere deres meninger når du/I selv ikke kan klare andres! Sådan har det altid været - og hvem kastede den første sten af alle? Dyk ned i historien. Der er jo en grund til at man ikke har lyst til at være en del af Jeres grimme, løgnagtige og griske samfund. Derfor vælger vi en anden levevis. Deal with it. I har jo resten!
He is not a scientist - at least not in the fields of natural sciences. He is a populist political figure supporting right-wing politics where it has always failed: in being compassionate and caring! Listen to him and you'll get your ears filled with crap. He has nothing! He knows nothing. He's got specialist telling what to say and corporations and think tanks to tell him what not to say! And Dumbass Bussh loves him!!! The man who allowed mountaintop removals for the mining industry!
... MEN jeg synes, at det er ærgerligt, at det i interviewet kommer til at fremstå "fjollet" at være miljøvenlig privat. Individet har masser af magt. En sparepære alene kan ikke redde verden, men hvis vi alle kører lidt mindre i bil og spiser mindre oksekød, gør det en kolossal forskel.
@1Fog1 Det var nu ikke det, jeg hørte ham sige. Han taler kun om klimagevinsten ved at skifte til en mere miljøvenlig bil og skifte til sparepærer. Han taler ikke om gevinsten ved rent faktisk at køre mindre og spise mindre kød. Når man fx spiser 1 kg oksekød, kan det drivhusgas-mæssigt sammenlignes med at køre 100 km i bil.
Det er flot at Lomborg får sådan et interview. Vi bør lytte til mandens pragmatiske tilgang til problemet. COP15 har bevist, at man desværre ikke kan tvinge landene til at reducere deres CO2-udslip. I sidste ende tænker amerikanerne og kineserne jo kun på deres pengepung, og i et demokratisk samfund vil politikerne naturligvis afspejle det i deres holdninger. Det smukke ved Lomborgs forslag er, at man kan poste relativt mange penge i R&D uden at hæve borgernes energipriser mærkbart.
Bjørn Lomborg is a moron. He never even studied anything climate-related and his books have been found to contain plenty of 'scientific dishonesty'. The only reason Lomborg himself wasn't found guilty was because they found him too ignorant of the actual subject. They didn't believe he knew enough about the climate to make all those "mistakes" on purpose. lol
Look it up on Google or whatever... Bjørn Lomborg and 'DCSD investigation'
You might as well ask your hairdresser for climate advice.
@gnawershreth agree he does not know much about climate, he is an economist, and therefore looks at the debate with other eyes, and that's why he is important, we can have just as many climate scientists, but if the only thing they appear to mean that we are a technological step backward, then they are not worth much
It would be fine if he would concentrate on the FACTS instead of making up his own. Like you said, he doesn't know much about the climate, so he shouldn't try to argue with the scientists who actually know what they're doing. If he wanted to be a little useful, he should stick to the reports made by climate scientists and try to work out the most cost effective way to handle those issues.
Currently he's a complete joke in the scientific world.
@gnawershreth that is not entirely true, his has a think tank in which several of the best economists participate, as his places emphasis on is that we must prioritize what we should spend money on, to help as many as possible ... and to that you can not use a climate scientist, and that is as said his starting point. that Lomborg spends most of his time on the climate issue, primarily due to being used an awful lot of money at exactly the climate, and most of the money is not used well enough.
It doesn't matter how many economists you get together though. They shouldn't even have a say in the actual climate "debate" as they know nothing about it. It's like asking marine biologists about economic issues. It's not their field of expertise.
They might be able to add something useful in regards to economy (like, how much would it cost to....) but they shouldn't try to argue about the facts of global warming. That's not the job of economists.
@gnawershreth Years ago he questioned by the evidence the scientists had found that today is his main messages that the world community should take a step back and choose which actions you want to do, and above all that we must make clean energy cheap, since in the long path will work better, both economically and environmentally
@gnawershreth but that is not think tank goal, nor the economists for that matter, although Lomborg tidliger mingled, their goal and task is to look at how to get madeso many of the steps as the earth's population will benefit from For a specified amount, and they, with Bjorn Lomborg in the lead, touched and say that what you do not have any effect and that the agreement to make as a result of the scientists will have no effect ...
@gnawershreth Lomborg held not too long ago a lecture which was broadcast on Danish television, where he went in and took hold of many of the solutions and problems that scientists had found, and from it he could with his background in the economy, see which picks up there would appreciate sensible and what could not be achieved ...
I am Danish as well, so I'm well aware of his.. Well, BS tbh.
I agree that clean energy needs to be cheaper than it is today. If you don't have any money, you won't be getting a windmill (or whatever.) It's that simple.
However, if he would just accept the facts instead of making up his own, he'd also realize that if things are as bad as predicted, we need to do SOMETHING now.. Regardless of the costs. Saving money is no good if we won't have a livable world to spend money in.
det er ikke så simpelt, idet det meste af energiproduktionen bliver lavet af private virksomheder og/eller statsejede virksomheder, og de har i stort set alle tilfælde penge nok til at investere i teknologien... og han acceptere jo netop de grundlæggende problemer, men det er jo ikke ham der sidder og tager beslutningerne, han rådgiver, og her på det seneste har han talt for at man skulle til at gøre noget istedet for bare at holde møder i kbh
Det er korrekt, at han i den senere tid er begyndt at forhold sig mere til facts, men det er bare lidt sent, synes jeg. Bedre sent end aldrig måske, men han har bare forspildt sin chance, vil jeg mene. Når man først har udgivet bøger, som er 'Scientific dishonest', så er man svær at tage seriøst. Vi aner ikke, hvad der er facts og hvad der er hjemmestrikket, når det kommer fra ham i dag.
@gnawershreth selvfølgelig kan man det, og ved man det. Det først man gør er at se på de nye tiltag han har lavet, og her finder vi ud af at han ikke selv har lavet undersøgelser han præsentere, men at han har lavet dem i samråd med nogen af verdens mest anerkendte økonomer, bakket op af forskellige teams af forskere der udtaler sig om deres felter, derved ved vi at tingende må være iorden faktuelt, derefter høre vi på hvad han siger og bestemmer om det giver mening... svære er det ikke.
@gnawershreth jeg synes at du ligger for meget ansvar over på Bjørn Lomborg, han er ikke en beslutnings tager, og selv om han har meget medie dækning er det ikke hans skyld at der ikke bliver taget større eller bedre tiltag for miljøet, det er politikerne og storkapitalen. om han har forspildt sin chance ved jeg ikke, det må vel være de bedste løsninger som vi bør forfølge, og hans mål de sidste år har jo ikke været andet, end at få så meget for pengene som muligt
Problemet med global warming er bare, at.. 99.9% af faktiske klimaforskere er på den ene side af "debatten", og den anden side består af diverse folk hyret af højrefløjen og 'big business' med det ene formål at så tvivl om de rigtige forskeres resultater. Sjovt nok kommer modstanden ofte fra undersøgelser lavet af kulfirmaer eller andre, som kan score kassen på IKKE at gøre spor for miljøet.
Blandt egentlige klimaforskere er der slet ingen debat. Derfor virker det hele som en farce.
@gnawershreth de er enige i at det e et problem, men størrelsen på problemet er de ikke enige om, her tænker jeg på hvor meget vandstanden vil stige, det er ikke så længe siden at det kom frem at FNs klima panel kom med en undskyldning om at man havde regnet ca 300 år forkert grundet en koma fejl, men som du selv siger der er ingen væsentlig debat om at der er problemer, vi gør bare ikke noget ved de problemer, og her er det jo faktisk tiltrods for Lomborg... med der er en helt anden disktution
Han har netop selv været en del af det problem, som har gjort, at handling er blevet udskudt. Han forsøgte gang på gang at argumentere mod bedrevidende, og det var skyld i en masse spild af tid og omkostninger.
At han er hyret af højrefløjen og er alt andet end upartisk betyder måske, at han ikke bryder sig om realiteterne, men det ændrer altså ikke spor på deres validitet.
If Bjorn Lomborg can get just a few % of Americans to think a little more on the environment and maybe get them to save a bit of fossil fuel ect then we have come a long way.
If Bjorn Lomborg can get just a few % of Americans to think a little more on the environment and maybe get them to save a bit of fossil fuel ect then we have come a long way.
If Bjorn Lomborg can get just a few% of Americans to think a little more on the environment and maybe get them to save a bit of fossil fuel ect so we have come a long way.
Han er ikke klima-nørd. Han er anti-klima idiot, som bare prøver at være sjov. Han har intet. Han er analytiker og slet ikke med speciale i klimaforandringer. Tossen har afsporet klimadebatten i et årti. Han elsker multinationale og Bush, så der kommer kun Lo.. ud af hans mund. Han er dybt tragisk!!!
Mr. Lomborg has had a long and varied career in the field of entertainment starting with two years teaching statistics at the political science department at the University of Aarhus. His talents are mainly political as demonstrated by his ability to survive repeated accusations which include, but are not limited to, the fabrication of data, misrepresentation of others, and misleading use of statistical methods.
Det er alligevel imponerende, at han taler SÅ godt engelsk - det havde jeg ikke regnet med. Det er ikke det vi plejer at høre, når Danmark er repræsenteret ude i den store verden. Flot, Bjørn!
@Darknessknight38 Fint så behøver jeg ikke at skrive på engelsk. Jeg kan ikke lige huske, hvordan man gøre det, men man kan indtaste en kode på sin pc så man f.eks. får et spansk tastatur.
@anotherelvis Bjørn Lomborg dosn't fiddle the numbers.. He and the company Copenhagen Consensus Center uses information given by the UN climate administry.. They don't make reseaches themselves, but want to make a statement in handling the global challenges.
@stenvag I have talked to people that worked at his evaluation institute. They said he was a liability for the institute, because he was more of a politician than a researcher, and because he twisted the results to fit to his needs. Now he has been removed as a leader for the insitute.
Danes are the happiest people on the planet and thats a fact, sure we have idiots/retards. But most people can think for themselves and are not easily scared...
Actually we have seen when our poiticians try to scare us into doing something, we dump em and kick em out of office.
And Bjørn hes one that knows what he talks about, but politicians like easy solutions so they wont listen =( Expet our last Prime Minister whos now NATO´s general secretary, Anders Fogh Rasmussen.
No most people don't think for themselves. If this was a fact Helle Thorning (social democrats) would not get into power after next election (according to the poles). After next election most likely a former communist Ole Sohn will be minister of the treasury. Scary shit.
Letterman is out of his depth here. It's admirable that he wants to take on a real serious subject, but he and his audience are infinitely better suited to chat with the newest flavor of the month with big tits about her plans for Halloween.
I must say that I find it funny how some people think that anything they dont agree with is socialist - to be honest it says more about them that the person they are talking about
Why? - because a Danish person is talking to David Letterman? You make Denmark sound like a really shitty place with nothing in particular to be proud of ...
@CapKorzeniowski Maybe because Lomborg challenges the general thought of the world (Regarding global warming) and do not care if 90% of the world disagrees with him... and considering Denmarks size we should be proud of a lot of things but if you do not know any of them them then you should maybe not be proud of your universal knowledge...
I just find it a bit hilarious that whenever you see a clip of something Danish - Oh land or Agnes Obel singing some song, Danish troops in Helmand etc. you'll meet this "proud to be Danish"-comment. It's completely out of context and only describes DK as being a very small country in every meaning of the word. - And since I'm Danish I could give you a long list of reasons "to be proud of" and "not to be proud of" ;)
@CapKorzeniowski riiight... unlike the americans... Owait! Personally i couldnt care less but saying this when compared to americans then we are nowhere near them...
@CapKorzeniowski "And since I'm Danish I could give you a long list of reasons "to be proud of" and "not to be proud of" ;)" So what, could'nt every one?
- hmmm ... no! I know one or two who simply wouldn't be able to do that, but unlike me they don't have the advantage of being Danish ... I think the term "being in context" would be more interesting/relevant to you ;)))
@CapKorzeniowski om man er dansk eller ej kan man altid finde noget i sit ophav, som man ikke er stolt af. Danmark er et af de lande der har absolut mindst af noget vi ikke kan være stolte af.
I live here :) I pay at least 50% in various taxes and VAT (MOMS) which does not allow me to save for bad times. This is a big problem now that my girlfriend has been unemployed for over a year. In about 1 year unemployment benefits will run out. It can take up to a year to sell a house so this means that we should start putting the house up for sale now. So one person in the household is unemployed for a year and we are fucked. Without all that tax we could have saved up for this.
@BarrySlisk what country exactly can you go without a job for a year and not have a problem, what country do you earn so much you can save it all up? im 19 years old and i live like a king compared to people with a great education in other countries. other than that, the most of the money you pay in taxes will come back to you or the people you love, through education, medical help and so on.
The fact: If you didn't pay those taxes, you would have used all that extra money you've had in your wallet on unnessecary goods instead of saving.. And then you'd be fuck'd now, if you didn't get unemployment benefits.
And maybe you should start looking for a job for her, instead of complaining about how miserable your life is on Youtube? :)
Pure socialism is not the way to go, no. But pure capitalism isn't either.
You have to mix them, and when you do that, you get a wellfare society - like Denmark.
Social security, freedom, and also economical growth. :)
Socialistic ideas are simply a must if you want to build a safe and secure society. If you look at a country like America, so many people are poor and in a bad situation, because society won't help them.
I think there is too much socialism in the mix. I don't see the point in me paying taxes to you can go to the theatre and you paying taxes so I can go to the museum. Middle class should be able to take care of themselves. We should pay taxes to pay for police, millitary, justice, roads etc. and those people who are not capable of taking care of themselves. I actually think we do too little to help people who are handicapped or have handicapped children for example.
Well state-funded support for unnecessary things is not a good idea in these times of financial crisis, comrade. But there are so many tax-funded things I couldn't live without. Healthcare, SU, education etc.
I couldn't live in a country where I had to pay just these three! I wouldn't go outside my house, especially not in gunslinging America, if I had to pay if I was hospitalized. But maybe I'm just part of the lower middleclass, and cannot understand the ways of the rich :)
Of course you could live without those 3. You just can't imagine it, just like people in the sovietunion couldn't imagine a free market.
I don't think however that people should lie in the streets with cancer ect ;) I think the hospitals should be privatized and the middle and upperclass should pay their own insurrance. Poor people should get one paid by the state. But hospitals operating in a free market would have incentives to improve and do things more effective due to competition.
@BarrySlisk We have a lot of things to be proud of. Among sport people we have Caroline Wozniacki, Lotte Friis and so on.. and that is just one of many things
@CapKorzeniowski We have a lot to be proud of and this is just an example. Denmark is not a shitty place, but it is a small country so it is something out of the ordinary when a fellow dane makes an international contribution.
OK, but Bjørn better know what he´s talking about then. I´m not so sure he really does... or anyone does. He has certainly a point or two, but he does not know how to fix global warming... it´s far too complex. Anyway keep up the good work Bjørn.
There's an agenda on this show! It's funny to watch them trying to make people think that they have truth. It's s funny. David Letterman has been told what to say. Haha do you think he is 'Just having a chat' with this dude. It's a script and it's funny to watch!
@ChoHorpe
You're right. This is just a scam. And Letterman doesn't even know!
freechristiania 2 weeks ago
@YouAquaDj
So you have not read any of his crap or listened thoroughly to what he says! He is not interested in changing the world. He is an imposter who takes all the wellmeaning lines from the real climate concerned and twist it into a right-wing non-active pursuit. His only job is to confuse the debate, on one hand talking about changing our habits and on the other not to! In Denmark his job was to force attention away from the real NGOs and sucking money out of the state for fake projects.
freechristiania 2 weeks ago
@MK3B4YV6
• 13-2: Bjørn Lomborg klager over UVVU’s afgørelse til Videnskabsministeriet, som er ankeinstans for UVVU. Maj 2003:
• 30-5: Videnskabsministeriets arbejdsgruppe offentliggør deres rapport, hvoraf det fremgår, at UVVU i Lomborgs sag gik ud over, hvad der var hjemmel for i de gældende regler.
December 2003:
• 17-12: Videnskabsministeriet offentliggør en sønderlemmende kritik af UVVUs afgørelse over Lomborgs bog.
Sagen er ikke afsluttet!
freechristiania 2 weeks ago
@MK3B4YV6
Februar 2003:
• 6-2: 640 forskere har skrevet under på en erklæring, der støtter, at Danmark har et organ som UVVU, der ser på videnskabelig uredelighed. Skrivelsen forholder sig ikke til Lomborg-sagen. Initiativtager er professor Jens Rehfeld, Rigshospitalet.
• 13-2: Videnskabsministeriet nedsætter en arbejdsgruppe, der skal undersøge, hvorvidt, der er behov for at justere regelgrundlaget for UVVU’s arbejde.
freechristiania 2 weeks ago
@MK3B4YV6
• 18-1: Politiken offentliggør en protestskrivelse mod Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed afgørelsen underskrevet af 286 forskere fra en række videnskabelige miljøer. Initiativtagere er professor David Lando, Københavns Universitet og professor Henrik Lando, Handelshøjskolen.
• 21-1: Ombudsmanden henviser Peter Paghs klage over Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredeligheds afgørelse til Videnskabsministeriet, som UVVU hører under.
freechristiania 2 weeks ago
@MK3B4YV6
• 15-1: Professor Dr. Jur. Peter Pagh klager til ombudsmanden over Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed’s afgørelse, som han finder er ”behæftet med alvorlige retlige mangler.” Klagen kan læses her.
• 17-1: Syv samfundsvidenskabelige professorer offentliggør et åbent brev til Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed, hvori de efterlyser en ”videnskabelig klargøring” fra UVVU. Initiativtager er professor Kjeld Møller Petersen, Syddansk Universitet.
freechristiania 2 weeks ago
@MK3B4YV6
• 14-1: affaldskonsulent Erik Jørgensen, Københavns Miljø- og Energikontor klager over dåserapporten til Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed. Jørgensen hævder, at rapporten har udeladt fakta, som er afgørende for rapportens konklusion. Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed afviser at behandle klagen. Ved evaluering af Institut for Miljøvurderings rapporter betegnes dåserapporten som ”forsvarlig” og ”velfunderet”.
freechristiania 2 weeks ago
@MK3B4YV6
• 13-1: Foranlediget af debatten ifbm. Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed beslutter IMV’s bestyrelse at fremrykke en ekstern, uafhængig evaluering af Inst. for Miljøvurderings første 8 rapporter.
• 14-1: professor Poul Harremoës forlader Institut for Miljøvurderings bestyrelse i protest over Lomborgs ledelse af IMV.
• I jan. blusser debatten om Inst. for Miljøvurdering-rapporten ”Pant på engangsemballage?” (den såkaldte ”dåserapport”) op igen i forbindelse med UVVU-sagen.
freechristiania 2 weeks ago
@MK3B4YV6
Januar 2003:
• 7-1: Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed erklærer i sin afgørelse, at Lomborgs bog falder ind under begrebet ”objektiv videnskabelig uredelighed” og er ”i klar strid med normerne for god videnskabelig skik”. Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed offentliggør afgørelsen på et pressemøde og på Internettet både på dansk og engelsk.
freechristiania 2 weeks ago
@MK3B4YV6
Marts 2002:
• 22-3: Stuart Pimm, USA og Jeffe Harvey, Holland klager til Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed over Bjørn Lomborgs bog ”The Sceptical Environmentalist”. Klagen er sendt via Kåre Fog. Lomborgs udnævnelse til direktør for Institut for Miljøvurdering indgår i begrundelsen for klagen.
freechristiania 2 weeks ago
@MK3B4YV6
Feb. 2002:
• 26-2: Bjørn Lomborg ansættes som direktør for Institut for Miljøvurdering.
Marts 2002:
• 7-3: Mette Hertz og Henrik Stiesdal klager til Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed over avisartikler af Bjørn Lomborg. Klagen er motiveret med, at Lomborg er udnævnt til direktør for Institut for Miljøvurdering.
freechristiania 2 weeks ago
@MK3B4YV6
Forløbet omkring klagen til UVVU
Februar 2002:
• 20-2: Biolog Kåre Fog klager til Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed over Bjørn Lomborgs bog ”The Sceptical Environmentalist”. Klagen lyder: ”Formålet med at indgive denne klage på dette tidspunkt er at på det tidspunkt hvor bestyrelsen for instituttet skal vælge hvem der skal ansættes, skal de være klar over, at der er tvivl om Bjørn Lomborgs videnskabelige hæderlighed.”
freechristiania 2 weeks ago
@MK3B4YV6
Jeg kan da osse fortælle dig at Lomborg er populist. Han er former sine udtalelser efter hvem der har pengene. Han bruger citater fra venstrefløjen så det ser ud som om han vil noget i verden, men samtidig omformer han sine udtryk så de tilpasses kapitalismen fremfor demokrati. Desuden er han blevet kritiseret af flere videnskabsmænd (også dem der ikke er med Al Gore) for fejlagtige/manipulerede oplysninger!
freechristiania 2 weeks ago
@MK3B4YV6
Desuden ved du intet om Lomborg. Manden genbruger bare andres idéer, pakker dem ind i blåt fløjl med lyserød sløjfe og du æder det bare! Lomborg er lobbyist. Hverken videnskabsmand (han er analytiker, hvilket ikke går under begrebet videnskabsmand el. på engelsk scientist) som han ellers hygger sig med at blive kaldt. Han er en løgner. En agent for Anders Fjoghs blokpolitik. Og han er ikke interesseret i en bedre verden, bare en tykkere tegnedreng.
freechristiania 2 weeks ago
@MK3B4YV6
bare til en orienteting, så skal man huske ikke at kaste med sten når man selv bor i glashus. TYPISK HØJREORIENTEREDE DUMMERNIKKER at snakke om at man skal acceptere deres meninger når du/I selv ikke kan klare andres! Sådan har det altid været - og hvem kastede den første sten af alle? Dyk ned i historien. Der er jo en grund til at man ikke har lyst til at være en del af Jeres grimme, løgnagtige og griske samfund. Derfor vælger vi en anden levevis. Deal with it. I har jo resten!
freechristiania 2 weeks ago
Oh fuck please, this guy is not a scientist, in any way shape or form,
he got a degree in cand.scient.pol. in other words his a politician.
So what are you gonna do if you create a Consensus on Climate Center.
hire economists right ?....
right... this tool hires first economists instead of hiring scientists...
geeez what we gonna do with these people.
izaccy 1 month ago
mange danske kommentarer :p
Nekaerth 1 month ago
Letterman is abit out of his element here I think.. He´s just not good at handling scientists
Elariuz 3 months ago
@Elariuz
He is not a scientist - at least not in the fields of natural sciences. He is a populist political figure supporting right-wing politics where it has always failed: in being compassionate and caring! Listen to him and you'll get your ears filled with crap. He has nothing! He knows nothing. He's got specialist telling what to say and corporations and think tanks to tell him what not to say! And Dumbass Bussh loves him!!! The man who allowed mountaintop removals for the mining industry!
freechristiania 2 weeks ago
må sige at han taler flot amerkansk....
hernandezrivas 3 months ago 8
hvad mener du @Michele88232? Og hvorfor den fornærmede tone?
1Fog1 4 months ago
I agree with everything he says!
Razmuz12 5 months ago
don't talk act
jazzmann16 6 months ago
... MEN jeg synes, at det er ærgerligt, at det i interviewet kommer til at fremstå "fjollet" at være miljøvenlig privat. Individet har masser af magt. En sparepære alene kan ikke redde verden, men hvis vi alle kører lidt mindre i bil og spiser mindre oksekød, gør det en kolossal forskel.
ZrednaZ 8 months ago
@ZrednaZ Nej, det gør jo netop ikke den store forskel ifølge FNs egne tal, som Lomborg siger.
1Fog1 6 months ago
@1Fog1 Det var nu ikke det, jeg hørte ham sige. Han taler kun om klimagevinsten ved at skifte til en mere miljøvenlig bil og skifte til sparepærer. Han taler ikke om gevinsten ved rent faktisk at køre mindre og spise mindre kød. Når man fx spiser 1 kg oksekød, kan det drivhusgas-mæssigt sammenlignes med at køre 100 km i bil.
ZrednaZ 6 months ago
Det er flot at Lomborg får sådan et interview. Vi bør lytte til mandens pragmatiske tilgang til problemet. COP15 har bevist, at man desværre ikke kan tvinge landene til at reducere deres CO2-udslip. I sidste ende tænker amerikanerne og kineserne jo kun på deres pengepung, og i et demokratisk samfund vil politikerne naturligvis afspejle det i deres holdninger. Det smukke ved Lomborgs forslag er, at man kan poste relativt mange penge i R&D uden at hæve borgernes energipriser mærkbart.
ZrednaZ 8 months ago
Bjørn Lomborg is a moron. He never even studied anything climate-related and his books have been found to contain plenty of 'scientific dishonesty'. The only reason Lomborg himself wasn't found guilty was because they found him too ignorant of the actual subject. They didn't believe he knew enough about the climate to make all those "mistakes" on purpose. lol
Look it up on Google or whatever... Bjørn Lomborg and 'DCSD investigation'
You might as well ask your hairdresser for climate advice.
gnawershreth 9 months ago
@gnawershreth agree he does not know much about climate, he is an economist, and therefore looks at the debate with other eyes, and that's why he is important, we can have just as many climate scientists, but if the only thing they appear to mean that we are a technological step backward, then they are not worth much
MrBandholm 9 months ago
@MrBandholm
It would be fine if he would concentrate on the FACTS instead of making up his own. Like you said, he doesn't know much about the climate, so he shouldn't try to argue with the scientists who actually know what they're doing. If he wanted to be a little useful, he should stick to the reports made by climate scientists and try to work out the most cost effective way to handle those issues.
Currently he's a complete joke in the scientific world.
gnawershreth 9 months ago
@gnawershreth that is not entirely true, his has a think tank in which several of the best economists participate, as his places emphasis on is that we must prioritize what we should spend money on, to help as many as possible ... and to that you can not use a climate scientist, and that is as said his starting point. that Lomborg spends most of his time on the climate issue, primarily due to being used an awful lot of money at exactly the climate, and most of the money is not used well enough.
MrBandholm 9 months ago
@MrBandholm
It doesn't matter how many economists you get together though. They shouldn't even have a say in the actual climate "debate" as they know nothing about it. It's like asking marine biologists about economic issues. It's not their field of expertise.
They might be able to add something useful in regards to economy (like, how much would it cost to....) but they shouldn't try to argue about the facts of global warming. That's not the job of economists.
gnawershreth 9 months ago
@gnawershreth Years ago he questioned by the evidence the scientists had found that today is his main messages that the world community should take a step back and choose which actions you want to do, and above all that we must make clean energy cheap, since in the long path will work better, both economically and environmentally
MrBandholm 9 months ago
@gnawershreth but that is not think tank goal, nor the economists for that matter, although Lomborg tidliger mingled, their goal and task is to look at how to get madeso many of the steps as the earth's population will benefit from For a specified amount, and they, with Bjorn Lomborg in the lead, touched and say that what you do not have any effect and that the agreement to make as a result of the scientists will have no effect ...
MrBandholm 9 months ago
@gnawershreth Lomborg held not too long ago a lecture which was broadcast on Danish television, where he went in and took hold of many of the solutions and problems that scientists had found, and from it he could with his background in the economy, see which picks up there would appreciate sensible and what could not be achieved ...
MrBandholm 9 months ago
@MrBandholm
I am Danish as well, so I'm well aware of his.. Well, BS tbh.
I agree that clean energy needs to be cheaper than it is today. If you don't have any money, you won't be getting a windmill (or whatever.) It's that simple.
However, if he would just accept the facts instead of making up his own, he'd also realize that if things are as bad as predicted, we need to do SOMETHING now.. Regardless of the costs. Saving money is no good if we won't have a livable world to spend money in.
gnawershreth 9 months ago
@gnawershreth jamen så slår jeg over i dansk ;)
det er ikke så simpelt, idet det meste af energiproduktionen bliver lavet af private virksomheder og/eller statsejede virksomheder, og de har i stort set alle tilfælde penge nok til at investere i teknologien... og han acceptere jo netop de grundlæggende problemer, men det er jo ikke ham der sidder og tager beslutningerne, han rådgiver, og her på det seneste har han talt for at man skulle til at gøre noget istedet for bare at holde møder i kbh
MrBandholm 9 months ago
@MrBandholm
Det er korrekt, at han i den senere tid er begyndt at forhold sig mere til facts, men det er bare lidt sent, synes jeg. Bedre sent end aldrig måske, men han har bare forspildt sin chance, vil jeg mene. Når man først har udgivet bøger, som er 'Scientific dishonest', så er man svær at tage seriøst. Vi aner ikke, hvad der er facts og hvad der er hjemmestrikket, når det kommer fra ham i dag.
gnawershreth 9 months ago
@gnawershreth selvfølgelig kan man det, og ved man det. Det først man gør er at se på de nye tiltag han har lavet, og her finder vi ud af at han ikke selv har lavet undersøgelser han præsentere, men at han har lavet dem i samråd med nogen af verdens mest anerkendte økonomer, bakket op af forskellige teams af forskere der udtaler sig om deres felter, derved ved vi at tingende må være iorden faktuelt, derefter høre vi på hvad han siger og bestemmer om det giver mening... svære er det ikke.
MrBandholm 9 months ago
@gnawershreth jeg synes at du ligger for meget ansvar over på Bjørn Lomborg, han er ikke en beslutnings tager, og selv om han har meget medie dækning er det ikke hans skyld at der ikke bliver taget større eller bedre tiltag for miljøet, det er politikerne og storkapitalen. om han har forspildt sin chance ved jeg ikke, det må vel være de bedste løsninger som vi bør forfølge, og hans mål de sidste år har jo ikke været andet, end at få så meget for pengene som muligt
MrBandholm 9 months ago
@MrBandholm
Problemet med global warming er bare, at.. 99.9% af faktiske klimaforskere er på den ene side af "debatten", og den anden side består af diverse folk hyret af højrefløjen og 'big business' med det ene formål at så tvivl om de rigtige forskeres resultater. Sjovt nok kommer modstanden ofte fra undersøgelser lavet af kulfirmaer eller andre, som kan score kassen på IKKE at gøre spor for miljøet.
Blandt egentlige klimaforskere er der slet ingen debat. Derfor virker det hele som en farce.
gnawershreth 9 months ago
@gnawershreth de er enige i at det e et problem, men størrelsen på problemet er de ikke enige om, her tænker jeg på hvor meget vandstanden vil stige, det er ikke så længe siden at det kom frem at FNs klima panel kom med en undskyldning om at man havde regnet ca 300 år forkert grundet en koma fejl, men som du selv siger der er ingen væsentlig debat om at der er problemer, vi gør bare ikke noget ved de problemer, og her er det jo faktisk tiltrods for Lomborg... med der er en helt anden disktution
MrBandholm 9 months ago
@MrBandholm
Han har netop selv været en del af det problem, som har gjort, at handling er blevet udskudt. Han forsøgte gang på gang at argumentere mod bedrevidende, og det var skyld i en masse spild af tid og omkostninger.
At han er hyret af højrefløjen og er alt andet end upartisk betyder måske, at han ikke bryder sig om realiteterne, men det ændrer altså ikke spor på deres validitet.
Facts er facts om man bryder sig om dem eller ej.
gnawershreth 9 months ago
Euro trash!!
MrSeekerofjustice 9 months ago
sjov
999mads 9 months ago
Bjørn im Poud of you.
MrYmerboy 9 months ago
i love the way he says "thou shall not invent" - clearly not a religeous man :) and correct
dantheman500 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
LOLOLOLOLOL!! Stupid European!!
MrSeekerofjustice 9 months ago
Love his accent, no telling he is Danish at all :)
dipsyhappy 9 months ago
holy shit, this guy looks like a skinny gordon ramsey...
SASJKL 10 months ago 26
This has been flagged as spam show
If Bjorn Lomborg can get just a few % of Americans to think a little more on the environment and maybe get them to save a bit of fossil fuel ect then we have come a long way.
YouAquaDj 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If Bjorn Lomborg can get just a few % of Americans to think a little more on the environment and maybe get them to save a bit of fossil fuel ect then we have come a long way.
YouAquaDj 10 months ago
If Bjorn Lomborg can get just a few% of Americans to think a little more on the environment and maybe get them to save a bit of fossil fuel ect so we have come a long way.
YouAquaDj 10 months ago
Endelig en dansk klima nørd i fjernern' xD!
ParkourFlamesTV 10 months ago 39
@ParkourFlamesTV enig! :D
Roemming 3 months ago
@ParkourFlamesTV
Han er ikke klima-nørd. Han er anti-klima idiot, som bare prøver at være sjov. Han har intet. Han er analytiker og slet ikke med speciale i klimaforandringer. Tossen har afsporet klimadebatten i et årti. Han elsker multinationale og Bush, så der kommer kun Lo.. ud af hans mund. Han er dybt tragisk!!!
freechristiania 1 month ago
@freechristiania
Alene dit profilnavn siger vel egentlig det hele.
Det lyder til, at du ikke kan klare personer, der har en anden mening end dig.
Det er så fucking typisk og forudsigeligt, især fra venstrefløjen.
Du er velkommen til at nævne faktuelt forkert ting i det han siger....
Hvis der er en der er "dybt tragisk" her, så er det vist dig.
Btw: Ryd Christiania! Kan ikke klare at se på den lorterede længere!
Nuke the shit! Folkeaktier....hahahaha.....jeg griner min røv i laser
MK3B4YV6 3 weeks ago
@freechristiania
Må jeg se din kandidatgrad
TheFutski 3 weeks ago
Mr. Lomborg has had a long and varied career in the field of entertainment starting with two years teaching statistics at the political science department at the University of Aarhus. His talents are mainly political as demonstrated by his ability to survive repeated accusations which include, but are not limited to, the fabrication of data, misrepresentation of others, and misleading use of statistical methods.
epjanson1 10 months ago
Det er alligevel imponerende, at han taler SÅ godt engelsk - det havde jeg ikke regnet med. Det er ikke det vi plejer at høre, når Danmark er repræsenteret ude i den store verden. Flot, Bjørn!
MrNikolaiHS 10 months ago 6
I got it!! a windmill with solar cells in the water on fire :-D
shikaka78 10 months ago
Gap in denmark!?
ContainerDK 10 months ago
@Unaki88 erm.... the english Keyboard do not have Ø
Darknessknight38 10 months ago 3
@Darknessknight38 well it seems like it those. Otherwise you would not be able to write Ø.
Unaki88 10 months ago
@Unaki88 i am from denmark, hehe.... :P
Darknessknight38 10 months ago
@Darknessknight38 Fint så behøver jeg ikke at skrive på engelsk. Jeg kan ikke lige huske, hvordan man gøre det, men man kan indtaste en kode på sin pc så man f.eks. får et spansk tastatur.
Unaki88 10 months ago
Its Bjørn Lomborg NOT Bjorn Lomborg!
Unaki88 10 months ago
10:27 Letterman's like "fuck you, you fucking Dane!"
dinoBIF123 10 months ago
Bib Letterman, talk with a blonde bom Shell instead, you can't handle scientists.
MYNNEZ 10 months ago
is this a "voice over "... ? He´s from Denmark for gods sake ! It blew me away !!
micro2ne 10 months ago
@micro2ne mener du hans sprog?
Nogle danskere kan rent faktisk godt tale engelsk - en stor del af den danske ungdom, som er vokset op med engelsk er rent faktisk meget gode
Bare ærgerligt vi skal høre på folk som Løkke, Villy og Foghs engelsk - DET er dårligt
MrMartinnyholm 10 months ago
is this a "voice over "... ? He´s from Denmark for gods sake !
micro2ne 10 months ago
Lomborg is a lot more trustworthy than any politician on the planet !!!!!
nf1204 10 months ago 7
Last time i heard about fiddeling with the numbers it was the climate scientists that did the fiddeling....
hanjohnson1 10 months ago
Last time i heard about fiddeling with the numbers it was the climate scientists that did the fiddeling....
clausenogbach 10 months ago
Bjørn Lomborg has been known to fiddle with the numbers. He has a point, but as a person he is not trustworthy.
anotherelvis 10 months ago
@anotherelvis Bjørn Lomborg dosn't fiddle the numbers.. He and the company Copenhagen Consensus Center uses information given by the UN climate administry.. They don't make reseaches themselves, but want to make a statement in handling the global challenges.
stenvag 10 months ago
@stenvag I have talked to people that worked at his evaluation institute. They said he was a liability for the institute, because he was more of a politician than a researcher, and because he twisted the results to fit to his needs. Now he has been removed as a leader for the insitute.
anotherelvis 10 months ago
@anotherelvis No he is still the director?
stenvag 10 months ago
Ja, bare se de danske el-afgifter. Dem udnyttet politkerne til skatter. De er kun glade for situationen. 80% procent af dine el-afgifter er skatter.
larscp 10 months ago 2
Danes are the happiest people on the planet and thats a fact, sure we have idiots/retards. But most people can think for themselves and are not easily scared...
Actually we have seen when our poiticians try to scare us into doing something, we dump em and kick em out of office.
And Bjørn hes one that knows what he talks about, but politicians like easy solutions so they wont listen =( Expet our last Prime Minister whos now NATO´s general secretary, Anders Fogh Rasmussen.
TNTMasterSC2 10 months ago
@TNTMasterSC2
No most people don't think for themselves. If this was a fact Helle Thorning (social democrats) would not get into power after next election (according to the poles). After next election most likely a former communist Ole Sohn will be minister of the treasury. Scary shit.
BarrySlisk 10 months ago
Lomborg points out the alternative way - I like the vision. Let´s put up something to go for. Come on, world!
kloeverman 10 months ago
@rassen100: Socialistisk svin. Blæs din dårlige ånde mod dine vindmøller, - hvis du kan løsrive dig fra sofaen og din afhængighed af amerikansk TV.
uA702 10 months ago
Letterman is out of his depth here. It's admirable that he wants to take on a real serious subject, but he and his audience are infinitely better suited to chat with the newest flavor of the month with big tits about her plans for Halloween.
iamlrrr 10 months ago 36
@iamlrrr absolutely, but can u imagine if it wa jay leno and HIS audicene? the horror.
QueerSwede1 10 months ago
@iamlrrr hahaha.. So true! :D
degner89 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I must say that I find it funny how some people think that anything they dont agree with is socialist - to be honest it says more about them that the person they are talking about
neghwar 10 months ago
@neghwar Ja, det tror jeg også på. Du har måske helt ret min ven. Knus
larscp 10 months ago
Comment removed
neghwar 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@rassen100: Socialist pig! Go blow your bad breath at your windmills, - if you can dislodge yourself from the sofa and your addiction to American TV.
uA702 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ha ...skide olie svinende, forgældede amerikanere, så kan i lære det !!
rassen100 10 months ago
SÅDAN BJORN
timjohan 10 months ago
Proud to be danish!
leaa1995 10 months ago
@leaa1995
Why? - because a Danish person is talking to David Letterman? You make Denmark sound like a really shitty place with nothing in particular to be proud of ...
CapKorzeniowski 10 months ago
@CapKorzeniowski Maybe because Lomborg challenges the general thought of the world (Regarding global warming) and do not care if 90% of the world disagrees with him... and considering Denmarks size we should be proud of a lot of things but if you do not know any of them them then you should maybe not be proud of your universal knowledge...
Mech0z 10 months ago 2
@Mech0z
I just find it a bit hilarious that whenever you see a clip of something Danish - Oh land or Agnes Obel singing some song, Danish troops in Helmand etc. you'll meet this "proud to be Danish"-comment. It's completely out of context and only describes DK as being a very small country in every meaning of the word. - And since I'm Danish I could give you a long list of reasons "to be proud of" and "not to be proud of" ;)
CapKorzeniowski 10 months ago 27
@CapKorzeniowski Proud to be danish.
TheFrankyboy75 10 months ago
@TheFrankyboy75
No thank you, I've already got a penguin ;))
CapKorzeniowski 10 months ago
@TheFrankyboy75 Hell yeah!
dinoBIF123 10 months ago
Nice to see how well is dressed for the show. I bet scientists fear clothing stores
MrGjoertsvang 10 months ago
@CapKorzeniowski Ja glimrende eksempel på janteloven.. noget der er "not to be proud of" !!!
Donau005 9 months ago 2
@CapKorzeniowski riiight... unlike the americans... Owait! Personally i couldnt care less but saying this when compared to americans then we are nowhere near them...
Cattaclysmic 9 months ago
@CapKorzeniowski "And since I'm Danish I could give you a long list of reasons "to be proud of" and "not to be proud of" ;)" So what, could'nt every one?
1Fog1 6 months ago
@1Fog1
- hmmm ... no! I know one or two who simply wouldn't be able to do that, but unlike me they don't have the advantage of being Danish ... I think the term "being in context" would be more interesting/relevant to you ;)))
CapKorzeniowski 6 months ago
@CapKorzeniowski om man er dansk eller ej kan man altid finde noget i sit ophav, som man ikke er stolt af. Danmark er et af de lande der har absolut mindst af noget vi ikke kan være stolte af.
1Fog1 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@CapKorzeniowski
Denmark is a socialist Hell hole. What is there to be proud of?
BarrySlisk 10 months ago
@BarrySlisk
Well, complain all you like. But America, when you get the, just remember we where there first! :)
Illyrien 10 months ago
@BarrySlisk it really isn't. You should come and visit :)
TAzDK 10 months ago
@TAzDK
I live here :) I pay at least 50% in various taxes and VAT (MOMS) which does not allow me to save for bad times. This is a big problem now that my girlfriend has been unemployed for over a year. In about 1 year unemployment benefits will run out. It can take up to a year to sell a house so this means that we should start putting the house up for sale now. So one person in the household is unemployed for a year and we are fucked. Without all that tax we could have saved up for this.
BarrySlisk 10 months ago
@BarrySlisk what country exactly can you go without a job for a year and not have a problem, what country do you earn so much you can save it all up? im 19 years old and i live like a king compared to people with a great education in other countries. other than that, the most of the money you pay in taxes will come back to you or the people you love, through education, medical help and so on.
domie1991 10 months ago 4
@BarrySlisk
The fact: If you didn't pay those taxes, you would have used all that extra money you've had in your wallet on unnessecary goods instead of saving.. And then you'd be fuck'd now, if you didn't get unemployment benefits.
And maybe you should start looking for a job for her, instead of complaining about how miserable your life is on Youtube? :)
AndrzK 10 months ago
@AndrzK
No I certainly wouldn't. I don't complain for the fun of it, but to educate people that socialism is not the way to go.
BarrySlisk 10 months ago
@BarrySlisk
Pure socialism is not the way to go, no. But pure capitalism isn't either.
You have to mix them, and when you do that, you get a wellfare society - like Denmark.
Social security, freedom, and also economical growth. :)
Socialistic ideas are simply a must if you want to build a safe and secure society. If you look at a country like America, so many people are poor and in a bad situation, because society won't help them.
I feel sorry about your situation though.
AndrzK 10 months ago
Comment removed
xaviqaz 10 months ago
@AndrzK
I think there is too much socialism in the mix. I don't see the point in me paying taxes to you can go to the theatre and you paying taxes so I can go to the museum. Middle class should be able to take care of themselves. We should pay taxes to pay for police, millitary, justice, roads etc. and those people who are not capable of taking care of themselves. I actually think we do too little to help people who are handicapped or have handicapped children for example.
BarrySlisk 10 months ago
@BarrySlisk
Well state-funded support for unnecessary things is not a good idea in these times of financial crisis, comrade. But there are so many tax-funded things I couldn't live without. Healthcare, SU, education etc.
I couldn't live in a country where I had to pay just these three! I wouldn't go outside my house, especially not in gunslinging America, if I had to pay if I was hospitalized. But maybe I'm just part of the lower middleclass, and cannot understand the ways of the rich :)
AndrzK 10 months ago
@AndrzK
Of course you could live without those 3. You just can't imagine it, just like people in the sovietunion couldn't imagine a free market.
I don't think however that people should lie in the streets with cancer ect ;) I think the hospitals should be privatized and the middle and upperclass should pay their own insurrance. Poor people should get one paid by the state. But hospitals operating in a free market would have incentives to improve and do things more effective due to competition.
BarrySlisk 10 months ago
Comment removed
FredeMagi 10 months ago
Comment removed
FredeMagi 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BarrySlisk We have a lot of things to be proud of. Among sport people we have Caroline Wozniacki, Lotte Friis and so on.. and that is just one of many things
FredeMagi 10 months ago
@FredeMagi: How was it again, didn't Caroline flee to Monaco for tax reasons, and is Lotte still on dope to stay afloat ??
uA702 10 months ago
Comment removed
uA702 10 months ago
@CapKorzeniowski It's not very often that a Dane guests David Letterman, and when it happens the english will almost never be on this level. :D
And no, Denmark doesn't have many things to be proud of, just like many other countries.
knoxpuffer 10 months ago
@CapKorzeniowski We have a lot to be proud of and this is just an example. Denmark is not a shitty place, but it is a small country so it is something out of the ordinary when a fellow dane makes an international contribution.
1Fog1 6 months ago
@leaa1995
OK, but Bjørn better know what he´s talking about then. I´m not so sure he really does... or anyone does. He has certainly a point or two, but he does not know how to fix global warming... it´s far too complex. Anyway keep up the good work Bjørn.
Ingenusernamesledig2 10 months ago
There's an agenda on this show! It's funny to watch them trying to make people think that they have truth. It's s funny. David Letterman has been told what to say. Haha do you think he is 'Just having a chat' with this dude. It's a script and it's funny to watch!
ChoHorpe 10 months ago