"I am impressed with Bjorn Lomborg."

He's an impressive character. Someone who is able to approach a problem without preconceived notions, gather the facts and reach a reasoned solution or understanding.

He rose to fame with the release of his book "Skeptical Environmentalist". It remains one of my favourites and is the go-to reference for many of the statistics I use. Even if its data is out of date, the footnotes show where he got his original data and therefore where to go to get more up-to-date data.
The book started out as a research efforts to prove conservatives wrong. In particular he wanted to show that Julian Simon, who was saying things like the environment was improving and resources weren't running out, was wrong. Instead he found that, in the main, Simon was right. So he published. But publishing the unwanted truth is never a good idea in leftist circles. Lomborg has been attacked ever since.

Foxy is right that Lomborg isn't a climate sceptic - at least not in the way its meant these days. One quote..."Global warming is real – it is man-made and it is an important problem. But it is not the end of the world."

Generally I've found that when he make a statistical claim you can take it to the bank, although, being human, I'm sure he's made some errors. I've just not seen them.

But it seems Lomborg is "self serving" for some unexplained reasons. That just sounds like something you'd claim when you don't want the offered facts to be true but can't work out how to refute them.

Then again, this assertion came from SR, so its probably prudent to ignore it. After all this is the bozo who thought that an article headed "Sorry, banning plastic bags won’t save our planet" was about getting plastic bags out of local drains....SR being SR.

Dear mhaze,

Lol.

Can't help yourself can you. Okay here we go.

You wrote;

“Generally I've found that when he make a statistical claim you can take it to the bank, although, being human, I'm sure he's made some errors. I've just not seen them.”

Lomborg was asked if he wanted his book reviewed by a body under Denmark's Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MSTI) as an opinion piece or as scientific literature. He chose the later.

They found “the book to be scientifically dishonest through misrepresentation of scientific facts, but Lomborg himself not guilty due to his lack of expertise in the fields in question.”

That is one of the reasons why I don't take him completely on face value. Do you have contrary evidence to show that I should?

You write;

“After all this is the bozo who thought that an article headed "Sorry, banning plastic bags won’t save our planet" was about getting plastic bags out of local drains....SR being SR.”

Bjorn Lomborg writes;”plastics clog drains and cause floods, litter nature and kill animals and birds." BL being BL? Is he another bozo or are you going to keep being hypocritical.

runner,

You will be interested to know that birds have started a fire in a solar plant in California, reducing the output from 250MW to 40MW. Not hideous windmills, but some revenge for their bird brethren taken out by unreliables. The reporter wonders what would happen it birds had been able to knock out coal-powered plants in the past, before the unreliables mania. It's going to cost $8 million to repair the damage. The extra risk that comes from extra complexity and unnecessary interference with reliable power production was noted. Taxpayers had $1.6 billion ripped off them to enable this unreliable monstrosity

No matter how many dollars the anti climate change/environmental concerns are wrong lobby, throw at it, the world is well on the way to changes
Renewable energy is uninterested in its opponents and is [purely based on the economics] on the way to supplying all the power we need
And too most of us want to clean up the planet we are destroying

"They found “the book to be scientifically dishonest through misrepresentation of scientific facts..."

Well in fact 'they' didn't. It wasn't MSTI but DCSD( Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty) who made that finding.

Thereafter MSTI looked into the DCSD's findings and found that they were highly suspect to the point that they regarded DCSD's findings as invalid. Basically they found that the DCSD had skewed the terms of its investigation so as to achieve a preconceived result. (I know someone else who does that!!).

MSTI encouraged DCSD to redo their investigation using better methodology. DCSD didn't do that because such an investigation would show their prejudice.

I agree that many people dislike Lomborg's finding because they challenged many careers and funding sources. So they tried to shout him down. They even tried to pressure the publisher into not publishing because book burning is so 20th century.

What they didn't do was find any errors in his data. Does that sound like anyone else we know?

I'd be fascinated to know if you found out that that the original finding against Lomborg was overturned. Did you know and decide to just hide that fact? Or did you not know because you didn't look any further after you found something (anything)that supported your moronic original claims? Either way, it tells us all we need to know about SR.

"”plastics clog drains..."

Yes Lomborg looks at the issue from all sides as is his wont. Its why he is so valuable to read. But if you think the article was primarily about drains then you have utterly misunderstood it. Perhaps that explains how you misunderstand so much.

SR,

Much of Bjorn's work has been involved with setting up committees to review these issues and prioritize them. That these committees have involved several Nobel prize winning economists. The ruling you mentioned was brought about by environmental activists and was overturned on appeal due to the inability of the society to actually point out these misrepresentations.

"In 2011, and 2012, Lomborg was named a Top 100 Global Thinker by Foreign Policy "for looking more right than ever on the politics of climate change".