Fester,
The frightening part is that the more 'educated' are the dumb ones who believe all this hype.
Our problem is not pollution s such, it's the pollution of minds which in turn cause environmental degradation. Just think how much pollution all round could have been avoided if the "educated" had their merit examined before being listened to ?
Just to avoid any opportunistic confusion please think of the difference between learned people & mere educated. I have witnessed literal village idiots making more intelligent decisions than the experts imposed upon us by Govt.

Fester,

It seems Lomborg was very selective with his data in the talk you linked to. As a result of this, all his claims are misleading to varying degrees. I counted 16 erroneous claims in total. I’ll address the five worst for now.

That the percentage of the Earth's surface burned by wildfires has decreased from 4.2% in 1900 to about 3% now is correct, but Lomborg fails to mention contributing factors to this such as changes in land use and fire suppression efforts. More importantly, though, is the increase in the intensity and the destructiveness of wildfires today due to the hotter and drier conditions brought on by climate change.

The argument that more people die from cold than from heat is true and has historically been the case for as long as we can tell. But the point is that heat-related deaths are on the rise due to climate change. This trend is particularly concerning as the frequency and intensity of heatwaves increases.

His point about net-zero policies costing a quarter of global GDP each year is accurate if you only look at the higher end of cost estimates and ignore the significant long-term economic benefits of transitioning to a low-carbon economy. Numerous studies have found that the costs of inaction on climate change are far greater than the costs of implementing net-zero policies; in part accounting for.

Lomborg’s assertion that we are 150 to 250 years away from achieving 100% renewable energy is overly pessimistic. Technological advancements, decreasing costs, and increasing political and public support are accelerating the transition to renewable energy much faster than Lomborg suggests, and achieving 100% renewable energy is feasible within this century with the right policies and investments:

http://www.nrel.gov/news/features/2022/re-futures.html
http://www.irena.org/Digital-Report/World-Energy-Transitions-Outlook-2023
http://www.iea.org/news/rapid-progress-of-key-clean-energy-technologies-shows-the-new-energy-economy-is-emerging-faster-than-many-think

Finally, with a clear consensus backed by 99.9% of the over-66,000 relevant peer-reviewed studies​, coupled with the IPCC’s predictions often proving to have been too conservative when they come to fruition, debunk Lomborg’s claim that science is presented with exaggeration and bias.

John,

Lomborg has been consistent in his message over the years, one of skepticism of catastrophists, technical optimism, and a belief that the best strategy for a civilisation is to develop a prosperous economy with the resources to solve problems.

It is ironic to see France hailed for its low cost/low emission nuclear. It was founded from catastrophism relating to the oil shock of the early 1970s, ending in failure some fifteen years later with the oil shock obviated by technological advances and leaving the French with expensive power.

Australia is following the same catastrophist motivation today with the pursuit of wind and solar. Unlike nuclear, the destruction of the environment is huge, with wind factories sited on the ridges of the Great Dividing Range, those natural wildlife preserves protected by their topography being destroyed without constraint. And unlike nuclear power plants, those dysfunctional wind and solar factories will be toxic junk long before anyone might have thought them a good idea, leaving only memories of the genocide of our natural heritage and the destitution that they brought.

You might be interested in a talk hosted by the American Nuclear Society in June about nuclear waste. It isn't the problem that you seem to think it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_S1zKs8ubs

John,

You criticise Lomborg for his criticism of heat related deaths. I think you misrepresented his criticism, but that is not a concern for me. What I'd point out to you is that the number of deaths from extreme temperature is falling. Would you acknowledge that as a positive for global warming?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/interactive/2023/hot-cold-extreme-temperature-deaths/