Bjorn Lomborg - Activists are Forcing Bad Decisions

HikerGuy83

Diamond Member
Dec 26, 2021
3,845
2,807
1,938
I have only recently heard about this guy, but his message is spot on in my estimation.


I am more than willing to talk to folks about this if they are not frothing at the mouth and making all kind of insane claims.

But the idiots who block Burning Man and who interrupt sporting events are killing themselves.

Lomborg is not a climate scientist. But he is a poly scie/statistician so he knows how to read data.

From his article:

Climate economic studies convincingly show that one of the best investments to fix climate in the medium run is to invest heavily in green R&D. Because research is cheap, we can explore many avenues, from better renewables and battery storage, to carbon capture and fusion, fission, carbon-neutral oil-producing algae, and more. If we can innovate on the price of green energy down below that of fossil fuels, everyone will switch — not just well-meaning rich people, but also most Chinese, Indians and Africans. The models show that each dollar invested in green energy R&D will avoid eleven dollars of climate damage.

***********

Indeed, one of the UN Climate Panel authors warned against this: “We risk turning off the public with extremist talk that is not carefully supported by the science.”

**************

There is a picture of Greta...with this caption.....

Swedish activist Greta Thunberg has helped fuel the belief among young people that they will die of climate change.

Love it.

Especially when all the yacking is about the science.....

The UN Climate Panel’s middle-of-the-road estimate for the end of the century is that we will be even better off. There will be virtually no one left in extreme poverty, everyone will be much better educated, and the average income per person in the world will be 450 percent of what it is today. Yet, because climate is a real challenge, it will leave us less well off. Based on three decades of studies, the UN and the world’s only Nobel climate economist estimate global warming will reduce the 21st century welfare increase from 450 percent to “only” 434 percent of today’s income.

Meaning that even factoring in climate change.....things are still looking pretty rosey.

More to follow from the article:
 
“You’ll die of old age, I’ll die of climate change”.

C2604F43-7BE0-4C52-B436-F19530529D44_jpe-2429453.JPG
 
I have only recently heard about this guy, but his message is spot on in my estimation.


I am more than willing to talk to folks about this if they are not frothing at the mouth and making all kind of insane claims.

But the idiots who block Burning Man and who interrupt sporting events are killing themselves.

Lomborg is not a climate scientist. But he is a poly scie/statistician so he knows how to read data.

From his article:

Climate economic studies convincingly show that one of the best investments to fix climate in the medium run is to invest heavily in green R&D. Because research is cheap, we can explore many avenues, from better renewables and battery storage, to carbon capture and fusion, fission, carbon-neutral oil-producing algae, and more. If we can innovate on the price of green energy down below that of fossil fuels, everyone will switch — not just well-meaning rich people, but also most Chinese, Indians and Africans. The models show that each dollar invested in green energy R&D will avoid eleven dollars of climate damage.

***********

Indeed, one of the UN Climate Panel authors warned against this: “We risk turning off the public with extremist talk that is not carefully supported by the science.”

**************

There is a picture of Greta...with this caption.....

Swedish activist Greta Thunberg has helped fuel the belief among young people that they will die of climate change.

Love it.

Especially when all the yacking is about the science.....

The UN Climate Panel’s middle-of-the-road estimate for the end of the century is that we will be even better off. There will be virtually no one left in extreme poverty, everyone will be much better educated, and the average income per person in the world will be 450 percent of what it is today. Yet, because climate is a real challenge, it will leave us less well off. Based on three decades of studies, the UN and the world’s only Nobel climate economist estimate global warming will reduce the 21st century welfare increase from 450 percent to “only” 434 percent of today’s income.

Meaning that even factoring in climate change.....things are still looking pretty rosey.

More to follow from the article:



Lomborg's first huge mistake is accepting the Co2 FRAUD's "data" without noticing it is almost entirely fudged. Lomborg is

NOT SKEPTICAL ENOUGH


and has no clue about what really does cause Earth climate change...
 
Lomborg's first huge mistake is accepting the Co2 FRAUD's "data" without noticing it is almost entirely fudged. Lomborg is

NOT SKEPTICAL ENOUGH


and has no clue about what really does cause Earth climate change...

I understand your statements. While I am still learning, I will stay out of that conversation.

I think the main point here is (and conservatives could learn from this) that your messaging matters.

Climate change or no, nobody is paying much attention to these kooks.
 
I understand your statements. While I am still learning, I will stay out of that conversation.
I think the main point here is (and conservatives could learn from this) that your messaging matters.
Climate change or no, nobody is paying much attention to these kooks.
You just paid attention to a, kook

whoever this idiot is, he believes in man made climate change and that CO2 is the problem. In this statement, he is clearly advocating to spend money on CO2 induced climate change.

So what is it that you like about this person? Clearly he is wrong, it is just a fluff article selling the same bad solution to a problem that does not exist
Spending 16 percent of a nation’s income to solve a smaller part of a 3.6 percent problem is bad policy. Moreover, it is unlikely to happen. We need smarter solutions.
 
Lomborg is not a climate scientist. But he is a poly scie/statistician so he knows how to read data.
The critical point. And Lomborg is not a statistician and there is NO overlap between political science and any of the physical sciences. So your contention that he "knows how to read data" is simply not supported.

From his Wikipedia article:

Education​

Lomborg was an undergraduate at the University of Georgia, earned an M.A. degree in political science at the University of Aarhus in 1991, and a PhD degree in political science at the University of Copenhagen in 1994.
 
The critical point. And Lomborg is not a statistician and there is NO overlap between political science and any of the physical sciences. So your contention that he "knows how to read data" is simply not supported.

From his Wikipedia article:

Education​

Lomborg was an undergraduate at the University of Georgia, earned an M.A. degree in political science at the University of Aarhus in 1991, and a PhD degree in political science at the University of Copenhagen in 1994.

The current climate idiocy is political.
 
The current climate idiocy is political.
Denialism being the "climate idiocy" and it lacking the support of any valid physical science , it could be political. However, since it all originates with the PR lies of the fossil fuel industry, I'm not certain it even qualifies as that. It's all simply lies regurgitated by the uninformed.
 
Denialism being the "climate idiocy" and it lacking the support of any valid physical science , it could be political. However, since it all originates with the PR lies of the fossil fuel industry, I'm not certain it even qualifies as that. It's all simply lies regurgitated by the uninformed.

Even if we agreed with your dishonest "science", your government mandated "solutions"
are political idiocy.

It's all simply lies regurgitated by the uninformed.

And funded by our tax dollars, but enough about you.
 

Forum List

Back
Top