Main Edition
US
FR
July 19, 2023 - 3:30pm
A spell of extremely hot weather has hit Europe this month, bringing with it a raft of apocalyptic headlines. Named Charon, after the boatman in Greek mythology who navigated the river Styx into Hades, the heatwave has immediately been linked to climate change and, by extension, humanity’s faltering attempts to combat it.
Bjørn Lomborg is the former director of the Danish government’s Environmental Assessment Institute in Copenhagen, as well as an author widely known for his bestselling book The Skeptical Environmentalist, which challenged the pessimism of climate change orthodoxy.
He spoke to UnHerd’s Freddie Sayers this week to argue that, in the short to medium term at least, rising temperatures actually provide humanity with positive opportunities, and can save rather than eradicate lives.
Based on two studies from medical journal The Lancet — one which compares annual heat deaths to annual cold deaths, and another which measures the impact of temperature changes on mortality over time — Lomborg suggested that rising temperatures are saving on average well over 150,000 lives a year (Figure 1).
“While you see heat deaths going up, as you would expect, you also see cold deaths going down,” the writer said. “Over the last two decades, temperature has saved more lives than it’s cost. It has caused about 116,000 more heat deaths, but it’s avoided about 283,000 cold deaths each year.” As a result, “we’re now saving about 166,000 lives because of higher temperatures.”
Scientific studies frequently point out that cold temperatures are more deadly than high ones — by a factor of ten, according to the Lancet (Figure 2) — but Lomborg argues that this fact is still too often overlooked.
“Every country in the world has more deaths in the winter than in summer,” he claimed. “It’s mostly because as temperatures get colder, people’s […] blood vessels constrict to keep [their] core body temperature warm enough — that increases your blood pressure. So we know that, everywhere, blood pressure increases as you get colder. And that means you have more risk of strokes and blood clots and so on.”
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeHe’s not a climate change skeptic, he’s a moderate and realist.
Refreshing.
It is refreshing to read, but to be fair, he’s named his own book the Skeptical Environmentalist. The environment takes more than just climate change into account, as does his thesis.
No, he’s not. He is a total fraud and his organisation is funded by climate sceptics.
https://www.desmog.com/bjorn-lomborg/
.
What is it that is fraudulent about Lomborg?
When you have no counter argument and the evidence is all on Lomberg’s side, all that is left is insult and attack. Best of luck with that approach persuading anybody !
What is fraudulent about him? That he doesn’t bow to the Gods of windmills and solar panels? Just drove through half of Europe the last few days and noticed, that a third of windmills weren’t working. They spoilt beautiful landscapes and made me think about the foolish religious belief in renewable energy . Certainly these people aren’t concerned about preserving the environment.
.
What is it that is fraudulent about Lomborg?
When you have no counter argument and the evidence is all on Lomberg’s side, all that is left is insult and attack. Best of luck with that approach persuading anybody !
What is fraudulent about him? That he doesn’t bow to the Gods of windmills and solar panels? Just drove through half of Europe the last few days and noticed, that a third of windmills weren’t working. They spoilt beautiful landscapes and made me think about the foolish religious belief in renewable energy . Certainly these people aren’t concerned about preserving the environment.
You mean Man Made Climate Change sceptic. Nobody in their right mind challenges Climate Change. But he would be probably read by less people, if he challenged the doctrine of Man Made Climate Change. Would like to hear him debate sceptic physicists on that subject. But it is refreshing, that he is not buying into the Religion of Climate Change and is a realist, although he doesn’t come up with alternatives to fossil fuel. Guess, once nuclear becomes cheaper and more efficient, it will become our main form of energy. Right now we have no cheaper alternative than fossil fuels.
Obviously you didnt read the research that HE submitted. I guess he was depended on the intellectual laziness of unherd readers such as yourself. Shame on Unherd for no not researching this as well. Here is what one of the studies stated:
For both cold and heat, the effect was noticeably larger for the oldest age group, with 82 (72 to 91) and seven (six to eight) excess deaths per 100 000 person-years. This excess represented around 60% of the total burden for both cold and heat. In contrast, there was around one death per 100 000 person-years in the youngest age group for cold, and less than one per 100 000 person-years for heat. The impact of cold is important everywhere, but is generally smaller in the western region and larger in the northern and eastern regions, with a maximum of 240 (151 to 327) raw excess deaths per 100 000 person-years due to cold in Latvia. There is wider heterogeneity in the effect of heat, which is low in the northern region, with the exception of Latvia and Lithuania, and much higher in the southern region, with a maximum of 37 (25 to 49) excess deaths per 100 000 person-years in Croatia.”
So clearly the offset of “lives saved” by the so called reduced in cold weather spans does not result in a plus in lives saved.
It is refreshing to read, but to be fair, he’s named his own book the Skeptical Environmentalist. The environment takes more than just climate change into account, as does his thesis.
No, he’s not. He is a total fraud and his organisation is funded by climate sceptics.
https://www.desmog.com/bjorn-lomborg/
You mean Man Made Climate Change sceptic. Nobody in their right mind challenges Climate Change. But he would be probably read by less people, if he challenged the doctrine of Man Made Climate Change. Would like to hear him debate sceptic physicists on that subject. But it is refreshing, that he is not buying into the Religion of Climate Change and is a realist, although he doesn’t come up with alternatives to fossil fuel. Guess, once nuclear becomes cheaper and more efficient, it will become our main form of energy. Right now we have no cheaper alternative than fossil fuels.
Obviously you didnt read the research that HE submitted. I guess he was depended on the intellectual laziness of unherd readers such as yourself. Shame on Unherd for no not researching this as well. Here is what one of the studies stated:
For both cold and heat, the effect was noticeably larger for the oldest age group, with 82 (72 to 91) and seven (six to eight) excess deaths per 100 000 person-years. This excess represented around 60% of the total burden for both cold and heat. In contrast, there was around one death per 100 000 person-years in the youngest age group for cold, and less than one per 100 000 person-years for heat. The impact of cold is important everywhere, but is generally smaller in the western region and larger in the northern and eastern regions, with a maximum of 240 (151 to 327) raw excess deaths per 100 000 person-years due to cold in Latvia. There is wider heterogeneity in the effect of heat, which is low in the northern region, with the exception of Latvia and Lithuania, and much higher in the southern region, with a maximum of 37 (25 to 49) excess deaths per 100 000 person-years in Croatia.”
So clearly the offset of “lives saved” by the so called reduced in cold weather spans does not result in a plus in lives saved.
He’s not a climate change skeptic, he’s a moderate and realist.
Refreshing.
I don’t know how someone can listen to Bjorn Lomborg with an open mind and criticize him. It’s flabbergasting really.
You didn’t notice his book title ‘False Alarm’ is an obvious appeal to confirmation bias…?
You didn’t notice his book title ‘False Alarm’ is an obvious appeal to confirmation bias…?
I don’t know how someone can listen to Bjorn Lomborg with an open mind and criticize him. It’s flabbergasting really.
He may be right about deaths, but I would need to understand more. We have also had very cold winters despite 1.2C of warming. Are these going to reduce?
What about sea level rise, extinctions…?
That’s the problem with Lomborg, I’d say. If you are looking for the most cost-effective solution to well-defined short-term problems I am sure his advice is excellent. But the big risk with the climate is with uncertain, very-high-risk longer-term problems. And by focusing on the simpler short-term stuff he is implcitly downplaying the bigger long-term risks.
After all, the big worry is not that we have a single, major heatwave, but that it is a possible symptom of much bigger problems to come.
The problem with this argument is we’re not doing anything to combat climate change today. Wind and solar are not the solution. It’s a sinkhole of govt money. If we were building a bunch of nuclear power stations, I would totally buy into that – but we’re not. India and China will continue to increase their emissions and the west will be left with a bunch of intermittent, unreliable power plants.
Think outside the box.
Look at energy demand; separate industrial demand from domestic. Decentralise generation: local domestic needs could be satisfied by municipal generating stations using wind-solar-bio and other renewable alternative input to satisfy domestic demand.
“A bunch of nuclear reactors…?” Why bother?
We have the best and biggest at a safe distance and it does not pollute the environment with deadly waste. We have also science that could learn how plants manage to live on sunlight they discovered a billion of years ago.
Think outside the box.
Look at energy demand; separate industrial demand from domestic. Decentralise generation: local domestic needs could be satisfied by municipal generating stations using wind-solar-bio and other renewable alternative input to satisfy domestic demand.
“A bunch of nuclear reactors…?” Why bother?
We have the best and biggest at a safe distance and it does not pollute the environment with deadly waste. We have also science that could learn how plants manage to live on sunlight they discovered a billion of years ago.
“…A possible symptom…” isn’t much of an excuse for the near universal hysteria. By the same thinking every meteor shower is a possible symptom of an approaching killer comet.
You are treating this as if it was an isolated, one-off weather event. It is not. There is excellent and well-supported scientific reasons to think that the climate is likely to be changing drastically – even if no one can say for sure exactly how drastically.
If astronomical observations had shown that a swarm of killer comets were heading straight for the inner solar system, then, yes, every comet passing would be a cause for worry.
Why do you believe the Climate is changing drastically? In the U.K. in the last 20 years the Climate hardly changed. There was an increase in temperatures before and overall the temperatures increased by about 1.1C since the 19th century Industrial Revolution, coming out of a mini Ice Age.
Just saw a chart about the U.S. heatwaves and the current one isn’t any bigger than extended heat wave in the 1930s.
Why do you believe the Climate is changing drastically? In the U.K. in the last 20 years the Climate hardly changed. There was an increase in temperatures before and overall the temperatures increased by about 1.1C since the 19th century Industrial Revolution, coming out of a mini Ice Age.
Just saw a chart about the U.S. heatwaves and the current one isn’t any bigger than extended heat wave in the 1930s.
You are treating this as if it was an isolated, one-off weather event. It is not. There is excellent and well-supported scientific reasons to think that the climate is likely to be changing drastically – even if no one can say for sure exactly how drastically.
If astronomical observations had shown that a swarm of killer comets were heading straight for the inner solar system, then, yes, every comet passing would be a cause for worry.
The problem with this argument is we’re not doing anything to combat climate change today. Wind and solar are not the solution. It’s a sinkhole of govt money. If we were building a bunch of nuclear power stations, I would totally buy into that – but we’re not. India and China will continue to increase their emissions and the west will be left with a bunch of intermittent, unreliable power plants.
“…A possible symptom…” isn’t much of an excuse for the near universal hysteria. By the same thinking every meteor shower is a possible symptom of an approaching killer comet.
What about sea level rises? It’s been rising for centuries, due to the earth warming for centuries, and the rate isn’t increasing.
Meanwhile the likes of Obama and Pelosi happily buy expensive properties adjacent to the sea (and there appears to be no monetary devaluation of such property in regard to their location). And they’re still building hotels in the Maldives etc, despite their melodramatic protestations about disappearing into the ocean.
Extinctions are another matter, though the human causes for these are often not to do with climate change.
I suppose we just move New York somewhere else
I suppose we just move New York somewhere else
Part of his point, it seems to me, is that the alarmist activists have not been honest in their public presentation of the data.
They’ve done the same with sea level issues, never admitting that there has been a general rise since the end of the Ice Age, well known and fairly well understood by people who study this. And the same with the extinctions crisis. Darwin’s theory directly explains that most species eventually die out; with no help from the humans. In both cases the numbers are not nearly as “existential” as we’re being led to believe.
The strange commonality with most of these doomish predictions is a devotion to the idea of stasis; everything is supposed to remain just like it was at some imagined point in the past. Kind of childish, really.
That’s the problem with Lomborg, I’d say. If you are looking for the most cost-effective solution to well-defined short-term problems I am sure his advice is excellent. But the big risk with the climate is with uncertain, very-high-risk longer-term problems. And by focusing on the simpler short-term stuff he is implcitly downplaying the bigger long-term risks.
After all, the big worry is not that we have a single, major heatwave, but that it is a possible symptom of much bigger problems to come.
What about sea level rises? It’s been rising for centuries, due to the earth warming for centuries, and the rate isn’t increasing.
Meanwhile the likes of Obama and Pelosi happily buy expensive properties adjacent to the sea (and there appears to be no monetary devaluation of such property in regard to their location). And they’re still building hotels in the Maldives etc, despite their melodramatic protestations about disappearing into the ocean.
Extinctions are another matter, though the human causes for these are often not to do with climate change.
Part of his point, it seems to me, is that the alarmist activists have not been honest in their public presentation of the data.
They’ve done the same with sea level issues, never admitting that there has been a general rise since the end of the Ice Age, well known and fairly well understood by people who study this. And the same with the extinctions crisis. Darwin’s theory directly explains that most species eventually die out; with no help from the humans. In both cases the numbers are not nearly as “existential” as we’re being led to believe.
The strange commonality with most of these doomish predictions is a devotion to the idea of stasis; everything is supposed to remain just like it was at some imagined point in the past. Kind of childish, really.
He may be right about deaths, but I would need to understand more. We have also had very cold winters despite 1.2C of warming. Are these going to reduce?
What about sea level rise, extinctions…?
Resist the tribe! Let’s be rational and act on what is achievable whilst adapting and investing in climate change.
Resist the tribe! Let’s be rational and act on what is achievable whilst adapting and investing in climate change.
I don’t believe Lomborg is a fraud or a fool. But I do think people should read Rob’s links (above) and also The Lomborg Deception by Howard Friel (Yale UP).
I don’t believe Lomborg is a fraud or a fool. But I do think people should read Rob’s links (above) and also The Lomborg Deception by Howard Friel (Yale UP).
Test
In the short to medium term, lol
Mere catnip for the convinced.
Lies, damned lies and statistics.
And this lad is a mere stats man, for heaven’s sake.
He knows nothing about science.
https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/a-closer-examination-of-the-fantastical-numbers-in-bjorn-lomborgs-new-book/
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/08/bjorn-lomborg-just-a-scientist-with-a-different-opinion/
The Unherd blob needs to find a more credible teat to suckle on.
Maybe you should find another teat…
Maybe you should find another teat…
Mere catnip for the convinced.
Lies, damned lies and statistics.
And this lad is a mere stats man, for heaven’s sake.
He knows nothing about science.
https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/a-closer-examination-of-the-fantastical-numbers-in-bjorn-lomborgs-new-book/
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/08/bjorn-lomborg-just-a-scientist-with-a-different-opinion/
The Unherd blob needs to find a more credible teat to suckle on.
Sorry, one result of the climate change is a weakening of the Gulf stream, which will ultimately make Britain’s climate more like that of Nova Scotia.
Moreover, my village has experienced an unprecedented three floods in two decades–unprecedented in the past. Dozens of homes were affected.
So when I see drought in British summers, and unprecedented floods in the winter, I begin to suspect it’s not natural.
Figures don’t lie, but liars sure do figure….
I live in western Canada. Forest fires have increased here. Yet forest fires in Canada have decreased, and forest fires globally have decreased.
“Statistics on the fires — which help place their scope in historical context — continue to show how extreme they are. And they’re part of a trend toward larger, fiercer fires and more-damaging fire seasons.
The fires have burned the most land on record so early in the season — more than 4.7 million hectares (11.6 million acres). And already, even though the fire season is just underway, more area has burned than in all but three entire fire seasons since modern records began in 1983.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2023/06/12/canada-record-wildfire-season-statistics/
Again, Jim, not very reassuring.
“Statistics on the fires — which help place their scope in historical context — continue to show how extreme they are. And they’re part of a trend toward larger, fiercer fires and more-damaging fire seasons.
The fires have burned the most land on record so early in the season — more than 4.7 million hectares (11.6 million acres). And already, even though the fire season is just underway, more area has burned than in all but three entire fire seasons since modern records began in 1983.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2023/06/12/canada-record-wildfire-season-statistics/
Again, Jim, not very reassuring.
I live in western Canada. Forest fires have increased here. Yet forest fires in Canada have decreased, and forest fires globally have decreased.
Sorry, one result of the climate change is a weakening of the Gulf stream, which will ultimately make Britain’s climate more like that of Nova Scotia.
Moreover, my village has experienced an unprecedented three floods in two decades–unprecedented in the past. Dozens of homes were affected.
So when I see drought in British summers, and unprecedented floods in the winter, I begin to suspect it’s not natural.
Figures don’t lie, but liars sure do figure….
Very telling article, this is typical Lomborg misleading his audience. He makes a compelling argument about deaths by heat, yet this is just a massive strawman. The big problems from climate change are drought, floods, famine and political upheaval. But most of all mass migration from the affects of the above.
Name me one major food crop that has suffered a decline in yield over the last 35 years? Ag yields have increased tremendously and 800 million people have been lifted out of poverty. According to NASA, the world is 5% greener than it was in 2000. Up until the Covid crisis, when 165 million people slipped back into poverty, we have made great progress on hunger.
Spot on, Sir!
Spot on, Sir!
Lomberg cites studies and provides compelling numbers. You do neither. Reputable studies for deaths from drought, famine and floods are needed and compelling evidence they are predominantly linked to warming.
There are reams of reports detailing this.
IPCC https://www.ipcc.ch/
UN https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/reports
What do these reports say? You provide a link to IPCC report AR6, which does not support claims of increased deaths due to climate.
In the AR6 report, Chapter 11, Weather and Climate Extreme Events in a Changing Climate, concludes that changes in the number and intensity of severe weather events have not been detected, nor can any changes be attributed to human caused climate change. There is high confidence in heat extremes, which shouldn’t shock anyone, considering global temps have risen 1.3 degrees since 1860. However, there is low confidence for drought, flooding, heavy precipitation and severe weather events like hurricanes.
All of this is stated in the IPCC report you link to.
And he disappeared… Thank goodness.
Jim, this is from Chapter 11 of AR6:
“At the global scale, and also at the regional scale to some extent, many of the changes in extremes are a direct consequence of enhanced radiative forcing, and the associated global warming and/or resultant increase in the water-holding capacity of the atmosphere, as well as changes in vertical stability and meridional temperature gradients that affect climate dynamics (see Box 11.1). Widespread observed and projected increases in the intensity and frequency of hot extremes, together with decreases in the intensity and frequency of cold extremes, are consistent with global and regional warming,”
Doesn’t sound so reassuring.
And he disappeared… Thank goodness.
Jim, this is from Chapter 11 of AR6:
“At the global scale, and also at the regional scale to some extent, many of the changes in extremes are a direct consequence of enhanced radiative forcing, and the associated global warming and/or resultant increase in the water-holding capacity of the atmosphere, as well as changes in vertical stability and meridional temperature gradients that affect climate dynamics (see Box 11.1). Widespread observed and projected increases in the intensity and frequency of hot extremes, together with decreases in the intensity and frequency of cold extremes, are consistent with global and regional warming,”
Doesn’t sound so reassuring.
What do these reports say? You provide a link to IPCC report AR6, which does not support claims of increased deaths due to climate.
In the AR6 report, Chapter 11, Weather and Climate Extreme Events in a Changing Climate, concludes that changes in the number and intensity of severe weather events have not been detected, nor can any changes be attributed to human caused climate change. There is high confidence in heat extremes, which shouldn’t shock anyone, considering global temps have risen 1.3 degrees since 1860. However, there is low confidence for drought, flooding, heavy precipitation and severe weather events like hurricanes.
All of this is stated in the IPCC report you link to.
There are reams of reports detailing this.
IPCC https://www.ipcc.ch/
UN https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/reports
The opposite is true, the planet was never as green (stats from,NASA)and fertile.
Name me one major food crop that has suffered a decline in yield over the last 35 years? Ag yields have increased tremendously and 800 million people have been lifted out of poverty. According to NASA, the world is 5% greener than it was in 2000. Up until the Covid crisis, when 165 million people slipped back into poverty, we have made great progress on hunger.
Lomberg cites studies and provides compelling numbers. You do neither. Reputable studies for deaths from drought, famine and floods are needed and compelling evidence they are predominantly linked to warming.
The opposite is true, the planet was never as green (stats from,NASA)and fertile.
Very telling article, this is typical Lomborg misleading his audience. He makes a compelling argument about deaths by heat, yet this is just a massive strawman. The big problems from climate change are drought, floods, famine and political upheaval. But most of all mass migration from the affects of the above.
Okay, he might be right with cold weather causing more deaths than warm. But seriously using one metric is just dumbfoolery at its peak. What about rising sea levels, food shortages, ocean acidification, wildfires etc etc. They’re nothing to worry about, right? Duh
That’s what Lomborg does, he takes a narrow subject to make an appealing point of view. Absolute charlatan funded by the sceptic industry.
What about the single supposed cause: man made CO2? We need CO2 for plants to survive and there is a lower limit of 150ppm; below which crops stop growing. We are at 440ppm and rising – good; late 1700’s – 180ppm – widespread famine. Jurassic period between 5000 and 8000ppm – big plants, big herbivores -> big carnivores. Go figure. Oh, and go study the El Nino/Nina effect and the Milancovich cycle. But that will be science wouldn’t it? Not hip in the groupthink religion.
Is any of this happening? Global forest fires have decreased. Sea levels are rising, no question, but they have for thousands of years and we know countries like Holland have adapted to this. 800 million people have been lifted out of poverty in the last 35 years. Ag yields continue to rise.
And it’s not just cold deaths. All climate related deaths have dropped a staggering 94% over the last 80 years. And it’s year over year.
So not to worry about sea level rise? Antarctic temperatures are rising even faster than projected, Antarctic ice is melting faster than expected, and a complete melting of the ice (admittedly only likely if we burn every last drop of fossil fuel in the ground, and even then not for a century or more) would raise sea levels 200 feet, enough to drown every coastal city, where 37 percent of global population lives. And, you know, there are people who would like to burn every last drop of fossil fuel in the ground.
I think that’s worrisome.
So not to worry about sea level rise? Antarctic temperatures are rising even faster than projected, Antarctic ice is melting faster than expected, and a complete melting of the ice (admittedly only likely if we burn every last drop of fossil fuel in the ground, and even then not for a century or more) would raise sea levels 200 feet, enough to drown every coastal city, where 37 percent of global population lives. And, you know, there are people who would like to burn every last drop of fossil fuel in the ground.
I think that’s worrisome.
Well he cites studies and numbers from the most reputable sources (UK Lancet for instance). Where is your evidence, your sources? Raising some objections on the basis of vague notions of this or that being more deadly doesn’t work in Science or any field of human endeavour requiring rigour and scrutiny.
That’s what Lomborg does, he takes a narrow subject to make an appealing point of view. Absolute charlatan funded by the sceptic industry.
What about the single supposed cause: man made CO2? We need CO2 for plants to survive and there is a lower limit of 150ppm; below which crops stop growing. We are at 440ppm and rising – good; late 1700’s – 180ppm – widespread famine. Jurassic period between 5000 and 8000ppm – big plants, big herbivores -> big carnivores. Go figure. Oh, and go study the El Nino/Nina effect and the Milancovich cycle. But that will be science wouldn’t it? Not hip in the groupthink religion.
Is any of this happening? Global forest fires have decreased. Sea levels are rising, no question, but they have for thousands of years and we know countries like Holland have adapted to this. 800 million people have been lifted out of poverty in the last 35 years. Ag yields continue to rise.
And it’s not just cold deaths. All climate related deaths have dropped a staggering 94% over the last 80 years. And it’s year over year.
Well he cites studies and numbers from the most reputable sources (UK Lancet for instance). Where is your evidence, your sources? Raising some objections on the basis of vague notions of this or that being more deadly doesn’t work in Science or any field of human endeavour requiring rigour and scrutiny.
Okay, he might be right with cold weather causing more deaths than warm. But seriously using one metric is just dumbfoolery at its peak. What about rising sea levels, food shortages, ocean acidification, wildfires etc etc. They’re nothing to worry about, right? Duh
Lomborg is not a neutral voice in this subject. He’s making a living from being a climate sceptic and creating material that will appeal to that group. Confirmation bias through and through. It’s this kind of stuff that future generations will look back on and hold their heads in despair.
You are hysterical. Now calm down and stop bombarding this forum with nonsense.
One should be able to block trolls like your antagonist, as on the Spectator’s website. The modus operandi of this one is clear: scream, assert, denounce – or “SAD”. Reasoning with creatures like this is futile, they will not engage, they will supply no evidence (beyond links to articles, which is no more than a dodge) and they return to perform the same ugly tricks again and again.
Just hilarious. The audience here are in a curious right wing bubble that seem to prefer an echo chamber, dissenting voices therefore decribed as trolls. Top tip – the subject of climate change is not a political value.
Another example of S.A.D. Sad, really.
Only here to keep the left wing bubble honest!
Another example of S.A.D. Sad, really.
Only here to keep the left wing bubble honest!
Just hilarious. The audience here are in a curious right wing bubble that seem to prefer an echo chamber, dissenting voices therefore decribed as trolls. Top tip – the subject of climate change is not a political value.
One should be able to block trolls like your antagonist, as on the Spectator’s website. The modus operandi of this one is clear: scream, assert, denounce – or “SAD”. Reasoning with creatures like this is futile, they will not engage, they will supply no evidence (beyond links to articles, which is no more than a dodge) and they return to perform the same ugly tricks again and again.
The big money is on the alarmist side.
Clearly not. JSO resport to geurrilla tactics because they don’t have money – Exxon pay PR firms and people like Lomborg to discredit the science.
Errr, JSO are funded by rich Americans who are happy to see people’s lives in Europe disrupted by deranged, misanthropic zealots, as well as the green energy magnate Dale Vince, who knows what side his bread’s buttered when it comes to the eternal income stream of public subsidies.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12230763/Wealthy-entrepreneur-bankrolling-Just-Stop-Oil-turns-unproductive-climate-mob.html
In any case, of course Just Stop Oil have money – you’re forgetting about Tarquin, Lady Henrietta and Indigo’s bounteous trust funds. That’s why they don’t need to work and can spend so much time inconveniencing people who do.
The alarmist arguments seem to fall in three categories:
1. Appeal to authority
2. Call people names
3. Make emotional pleas
An argument isn’t wrong because Exxon funded it. I’ve been down this road with Robbie before and shown him compelling evidence that alarmists receive much much more funding than skeptics. It doesn’t make a difference.
I salute your patience, Jim.
Of course alarmists receive more funding than skeptics. For one thing, nearly 100 percent OK, around 97 percent) of climate scientists are alarmists. There aren’t many people for Exxon et al to give money to. For another thing, although Exxon is very big, it’s not bigger than all the governments and foundations in the world, who all believe in climate change (well, we don’t know about North Korea), and therefore have more money to give than Exxon. The valid comparison to make your point would be: does someone or some group that stands to make money from reducing CO2 emissions give more money to climate change alarmists than Exxon gives to skeptics? Of course not.
I salute your patience, Jim.
Of course alarmists receive more funding than skeptics. For one thing, nearly 100 percent OK, around 97 percent) of climate scientists are alarmists. There aren’t many people for Exxon et al to give money to. For another thing, although Exxon is very big, it’s not bigger than all the governments and foundations in the world, who all believe in climate change (well, we don’t know about North Korea), and therefore have more money to give than Exxon. The valid comparison to make your point would be: does someone or some group that stands to make money from reducing CO2 emissions give more money to climate change alarmists than Exxon gives to skeptics? Of course not.
The alarmist arguments seem to fall in three categories:
1. Appeal to authority
2. Call people names
3. Make emotional pleas
An argument isn’t wrong because Exxon funded it. I’ve been down this road with Robbie before and shown him compelling evidence that alarmists receive much much more funding than skeptics. It doesn’t make a difference.
Errr, JSO are funded by rich Americans who are happy to see people’s lives in Europe disrupted by deranged, misanthropic zealots, as well as the green energy magnate Dale Vince, who knows what side his bread’s buttered when it comes to the eternal income stream of public subsidies.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12230763/Wealthy-entrepreneur-bankrolling-Just-Stop-Oil-turns-unproductive-climate-mob.html
In any case, of course Just Stop Oil have money – you’re forgetting about Tarquin, Lady Henrietta and Indigo’s bounteous trust funds. That’s why they don’t need to work and can spend so much time inconveniencing people who do.
Clearly not. JSO resport to geurrilla tactics because they don’t have money – Exxon pay PR firms and people like Lomborg to discredit the science.
He’s making a living from meticulously argued books and articles presenting compelling evidence. He was director of the Danish government’s Environmental Assessment Institute at one point. He believes that Science – real Science – listens to all evidence (for and agains) t and is not some close minded cult that attempts to smear anyone who disagrees with them
His arguments are indeed compelling and well presented, which appears to give him integrity. As in the article above, it’s a solid discussion and well supported.
It is however just a big strawman, deaths from heat as detailed are not a climate change issue, it’s utterly ridiculous.
All his work is like this.
His arguments are indeed compelling and well presented, which appears to give him integrity. As in the article above, it’s a solid discussion and well supported.
It is however just a big strawman, deaths from heat as detailed are not a climate change issue, it’s utterly ridiculous.
All his work is like this.
I get very suspicious of “right side of history” arguments – this is an indication of a lack actual substantive arguments.
What does climate sceptic mean? A bit more specific please. Do you mean a Man Made Climate Change sceptic or just a Climate Change sceptic? Nobody in their right mind is a Climate Change sceptic as it is taking place since the creation of Earth. He is also not a Man Made Climate sceptic as he always points out.
You are hysterical. Now calm down and stop bombarding this forum with nonsense.
The big money is on the alarmist side.
He’s making a living from meticulously argued books and articles presenting compelling evidence. He was director of the Danish government’s Environmental Assessment Institute at one point. He believes that Science – real Science – listens to all evidence (for and agains) t and is not some close minded cult that attempts to smear anyone who disagrees with them
I get very suspicious of “right side of history” arguments – this is an indication of a lack actual substantive arguments.
What does climate sceptic mean? A bit more specific please. Do you mean a Man Made Climate Change sceptic or just a Climate Change sceptic? Nobody in their right mind is a Climate Change sceptic as it is taking place since the creation of Earth. He is also not a Man Made Climate sceptic as he always points out.
Lomborg is not a neutral voice in this subject. He’s making a living from being a climate sceptic and creating material that will appeal to that group. Confirmation bias through and through. It’s this kind of stuff that future generations will look back on and hold their heads in despair.