Upload

Bjørn Lomborg: The Skeptical Environmentalist

by mcglue • 10,270 views

Controversial Danish economist Bjørn Lomborg explains why it's important to question orthodox opinion -- even the widespread fear of global warming.

Report spam or abuse
The man speaks the truth, Cuts through the bull. Cool It.
Report spam or abuse
@darlingelf You mean the 'experts' to make their living off of grant money generated by global warming hysteria? Or 'experts' like Al Gore who think the earth's core is the same temperature as a star?
Report spam or abuse
If anyone is interested, the American economist he is talking about is Julian Simon.
Report spam or abuse
@cyberben3d The environmental movement is a religion in which "humans" are essentially the "sinners" who are destroying the earth. It's not about facts, most environmentalists are religious wackos. They don't care about the earth, they just want to execute a religious crusade against people (specifically so-called "conservative") for not "loving mother earth" enough.
Report spam or abuse
Malaria--one of the "do good" things he mentioned controlling--is spreading rapidly due to global warming. It's all connected!
Report spam or abuse
Including spelling mistakes, phrases he didn't like and very very very little mistakes in the sources. Hey says it indeed IS a problem. But not a catastrophic one. Read the book before you comment, please.
Report spam or abuse
I thing everyone can make up his mind on his own. Maybe the websites lomborg-errors(dot)dk or the the links about Bjørn_Lomborg at realclimate(dot)org(slash)wiki can help a little. P.S.: The numbers of errors and flaws found in his books have even increased.
Report spam or abuse
Just think about it: " "The Skeptical Environmentalist" in total (up to now): 110 errors, 208 flaws, 318 in total. "Cool it!", British edition: 23 errors, 59 flaws, 82 in total (up to now, with about 33 % of the book investigated)." (according to Kåre Fog - last updated: 4.1.2008 - referring to Lomborg's books)
Report spam or abuse
In my experience there is a huge number of people who seem to "want" to believe that humans are bad for the earth. The so called "experts" you refer to have lambasted him as a complete fraud without even beginning to address the bulk of his arguments, which are very powerful because they attack the fundamental assumptions made in the IPCC rather than just trying to convince us that he is right.
Report spam or abuse
I think everyone can make up his mind on his own. Perhaps the websites lomborg-errors (dot) dk or realclimate (dot) org can help a little. So just take a visit. P.S.: The number of errors, misrepresentations and flaws found in his books have even increased.
Report spam or abuse
The problem with NOT putting up 'inefficient' windmills and 'waiting' for effecient ones to come along before erecting them is that without starting on the project in the first place, the more refined designs have less likelihood of coming into existence. IMO.
Report spam or abuse
@BiomimicryArch cool it. You're just expressing rank prejudice. We should be validating the bejesus out of the data before we launch into a crash program to save the climate.
Report spam or abuse
Yeah, his argument is malaria can be controlled with DDT, but DDT was outlawed due to some bs from environmentalists, which led to the death of thousands of humans who had committed no crime other than getting bit by a mosquito.
Report spam or abuse
Bjorn Lomborg is a master of rhetorical and statistical trickery. Those of you that are interested in a critique of his analysis might want to look at the rebuttal I delivered when I opposed him at a major construction industry conference in the UK. You can see my talk on Youtube in three parts (24 mins in total) by writing 'pawlyn' into the search field.
Report spam or abuse
Sign in to add this to Watch Later

Add to