High-profile climate change skeptic does an about-face; calls for increased R&D in renewable energy
mscutari | Sep 04, 2010 | Comments 20 |
Danish professor Bjorn Lomborg, cited by many as the world’s most high-profile climate change skeptic, is preparing to renounce such skepticism, and ask for tens of billions of dollars to tackle what he considers “one of the chief concerns facing the world today.”
Lomborg made his reputation for attacking climate scientists and the media for, in his opinion, exaggerating the climate change threat and its effect on humans. He also railed against the costly policies implemented to address climate change.
However, his now calling for over $100 billion annually, arguing that with such an investment, scientists could “essentially resolve the climate change problem by the end of this century,” according to his book to be published in October.
In particular, Lomborg recommends significant investments into researching and developing clean energy sources like wind, wave, solar, and nuclear power.
While Lomborg claims he did not make an explicit about-face on climate change – he acknowledged, for example, the existence of man-made global warming in his first book – he did experience a distinct “turning point” in the Copenhagen Consensus project.
The project asked a group of economists how to best spend $50 billion. And in 2004, the first set of results placed global warming near the bottom of the list. 2008’s list included more ideas for reducing global warming, thereby compelling Lomborg to consider other policies such as planting more trees and the controversial idea of “climate engineering.”
He ultimately concluded that the solution to the global warming problem lay in increased R&D funding, and therefore sought to expand this message in his forthcoming book.
Similar Posts:
- BrightSource Energy on target for Fall ‘2010 start date for the world’s largest solar energy project,
- Why are Democrats running from Clean Energy?
- American firms to have larger role in TX-based, Chinese-built wind farm
- Experiment in urban wind power generation shows promise for Bronx apartment complex
- China opens bidding process for massive solar energy plan construction contracts
Popularity: 19% [?]
Source: The Guardian
Filed Under: News
Comments (20)
Leave a Reply
Additional comments powered by BackType
Actually I think is rationale is a little convoluted. And the numbers seem arbitrary. But…dude came around.
This comment was originally posted on Reddit
He was never a climate change denialist. The only change is in his approach to what to do about it.
This comment was originally posted on Reddit
He was always a denialist. He just claimed to accept the science and then cherry-picked every low estimate, fabricated some stuff and claimed it was no big deal and wasn’t worth spending money on – and certainly not cutting CO2, which he still says in this latest book.
This comment was originally posted on Reddit
One can support massive government investment in renewable energy research, development and implementation without even considering man made climate change. The WH and Congress tying energy policy & funding to climate policy & funding is ridiculous.
This comment was originally posted on Reddit
Holy crap, I just agreed with BlueRock.
This comment was originally posted on Reddit
I’ll be the first to admit that he is an attention whore and probably in love with the position of being a "contrarian". He also has valid points about our priorities and whether we spend our limited attention and resources on the right things. I don’t remember him ever questioning anthropogenic climate change, though. Can you point any specific quotes?
This comment was originally posted on Reddit
Try it more often – I’m always right.
This comment was originally posted on Reddit
I never said he questioned or outright denied ACC. Quite the opposite – he has always claimed to accept ACC. Then he "cherry-picked every low estimate, fabricated some stuff and claimed it was no big deal and wasn’t worth spending money on – and certainly not cutting CO2, which he still says in this latest book." That’s his trick – he claims to accept the science, then twists it to make it seem as though it’s no big deal – which is the polar opposite of what ACC is telling us. Here’s his latest article: [Who’s Afraid of Climate Change?](http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/lomborg63/English) Does that sound like someone who is taking ACC seriously? Note the two comments I left on that article at bottom of page. *Never* trust Bjorn Lomborg.
This comment was originally posted on Reddit
> He was always a denialist. He just claimed to accept the science and then cherry-picked every low estimate, fabricated some stuff and claimed it was no big deal and wasn’t worth spending money on This reminds me of someone. Fortunately that guy went away into his own reddit free of laws of physics, economy and annoying people who know elementary school math.
This comment was originally posted on Reddit
If by "gospel as-is" you mean ’science’ then yes. If by "without questioning" you mean ‘without offering a credible scientific rebuttal’ then yes. Everyone is free to their own opinion, they are not free to make up their own science and reality.
This comment was originally posted on Reddit
Aaaaaaaaand back again.
This comment was originally posted on Reddit
You need to read these – because your grasp of what science is and is not is nonsense: + http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/ + http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm + http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?tip=1&id=6232 + http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/is-climate-modelling-science/ + http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/models-are-unproven.php + http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08ptrs.pdf + http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/howreliable.pdf + http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/not-computer-models/ + http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model#Accuracy_of_models_that_predict_global_warming Climate science is able to tell us with high degree of certainty what is going to happen to this planet on current trajectory. There are a range of estimates – none of them are good. There is only one course to avoid the worst of those estimates – stop pumping billions of tons of CO2 in to the atmosphere every year. Deny that and you deny established science. > …give me a single quote from Lomborg that contradicts the science-of-what-is. If you’d bother reading and following the links I’ve already given you, you’d have seen a clear example. If you are incapable of grasping the evidence I have already presented then repeating it is unlikely to help you. Some people just refuse to accept the obvious truth. Here’s some more you can ignore: http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/
This comment was originally posted on Reddit
Apart from inability to absorb any evidence that contradicts with the nuclear fantasy you girls enjoy, lack of humour is a constant theme as well.
This comment was originally posted on Reddit
My random sample of pages have all fallen under the "what will be" and "what should be" categories. It may not be a statistically valid sample, though… I’m not saying I agree with him, I’m saying that it’s the kind of reasonable argument I’d like to see, not the "la la la I’m not listening" of the denialists.
This comment was originally posted on Reddit
Lack of humor? Are you insulting me because I’m Autistic?
This comment was originally posted on Reddit
No, because you’re humourless. Duh.
This comment was originally posted on Reddit
Where is the metacognition?
This comment was originally posted on Reddit
Lacking in you?
This comment was originally posted on Reddit
I think you are just trying to get in the last word. I didn’t like how you lumped me in with the nuclear utopia crowd. Assuming makes an Ass out of U and Ming. Stop tormenting Ming! (This is a joke, I looked it up.)
This comment was originally posted on Reddit
I’m not! Well, the lazy taunt of "Aaaaaaaaand back again." marked you out as one of the humourless, hysterical nucular fan boys. Ming the Merciless?
This comment was originally posted on Reddit