Usted no se lo cree

Página referenciada: Bjørn Lomborg, el ecologista séptico

1. Joseph Romm – Lomborg’s main argument has collapsed – Climate Progress – 09/07/2009 – http://climateprogress.org/2009/07/09/bjorn-lomborg-debunking-copenhagen-global-warming-deneir/
   “So in every key respect Lomborg’s argument has collapsed. It was based on false dichotomies, highly selective readings of climate science, absurdly crude assumptions on cost and wildly distorted figures on benefits. If I was the editor of The Economist I would now do two things: I would ask Bjorn Lomborg for my money back and I would apologize to developing nations for having dangerously delayed the effort to tackle climate change.”
2. Joseph Romm – The Lomborg Deception: The Septical Environmentalist (sic) says 16 feet of sea level rise wouldn’t be so bad, absurdly claims it would only “force the relocation of 15 million” people – Climate Progress – 09/10/2007 – https://archive.thinkprogress.org/the-lomborg-deception-the-septical-environmentalist-sic-says-16-feet-of-sea-level-rise-wouldnt-be-so-99e5562f7de3/
   “And while the delegations first fly into Kangerlussuaq, about 100 miles to the south, they all change planes to go straight to Ilulissat — perhaps because the Kangerlussuaq glacier is inconveniently growing. But is it? I questioned this claim — and asked readers for the relevant citation, which they provided. The key article he is drawing this claim from is “Rapid Changes in Ice Discharge from Greenland Outlet Glaciers” from Science in March of this year. The article begins by noting ominously: …”
3. Steven C. Sherwood (2011) – Science controversies past and present – Physics Today 64:39-44 doi:10.1063/pt.3.1295 – 01/10/2011 – Climate Change Research Centre, University of New South Wales – https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/PT.3.1295
   “Debates between mainstream scientists and silvertongued opponents cannot be won by the side of truth no matter how obvious the fallacies may be to an expert. Incredibly, as recently as the mid-19th century, a highly charismatic figure calling himself “Parallax” devoted two decades of his life to crisscrossing England arguing that Earth was flat. He debated legitimate astronomers—sometimes teams of them—in town-hall-type settings and wowed audiences  [ref]. For similar reasons, Einstein himself gave up debating his critics early in the 1920s [ref].”
4. Bjørn Lomborg – Wikipedia, 02/08/2020 – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg
   “Lomborg lectured in statistics in the Department of Political Science at the University of Aarhus as an assistant professor (1994–1996) and associate professor (1997–2005). He left the university in February 2005 and in May of that year became an adjunct professor in Policy-making, Scientific Knowledge and the Role of Experts at the Department of Management, Politics and Philosophy, Copenhagen Business School.
5. Christina Larson and Joshua Keating – The FP Guide to Climate Skeptics: Bjorn Lomborg – Foreign Policy, 26/02/2010 – http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/02/25/the_fp_guide_to_climate_skeptics
   “His contrarian viewpoint has made him a darling of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and other conservative outlets. Yet Lomborg says that his own ideology is «probably left of center, even in Denmark» and wouldn’t necessarily make him feel at home at the Cato Institute.”
6. Graham Readfearn – The Millions Behind Bjorn Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus Center US Think Tank – Desmogblog, 24/06/2014 – https://www.desmogblog.com/2014/06/25/millions-behind-bjorn-lomborg-copenhagen-consensus-center
   “A further declaration made in June 2006 stated Harff was being paid $5000 a month by the CCC. As well as media relations, the document said Harff’s work would include identifying and arranging meetings with members of Congress, the Bush administration and policy makers. Harff and his PR company Global Communicators, a subsidiary of Harff Communications, continue to work with Copenhagen Consensus Center. ”
7. Jeremy Leggett (1999) – The Carbon War. Global Warming and the End of the Oil Era – Routledge – ISBN-13: 978-0415931021 – 360 Págs.
   “The Coalition seemed to have recovered from their disappointment that the convention had actually been negotiated and were on the offensive again. Their new strategy was to try to switch attention away from the developed countries as the main emitters, and the USA as the number one emitter, by pointing to the growth potential for emissions in developing countries. It was a clever and moderately subtle gambit, and it was to be a major theme of the GCC’s efforts at the climate negotiations for a long time after Rio.”
8. Keith Hammond – Astroturf Troopers – Mother Jones, 04/12/1997 – http://motherjones.com/politics/1997/12/astroturf-troopers
   “The Global Climate Coalition (GCC), run by Washington P.R. firm Ruder Finn, represents the big oil, gas, coal, and auto corporations. And while its stated mission is to coordinate «the active involvement of U.S. business in the scientific and policy debates,» a MoJo Wire investigation found that GCC is also coordinating a secret coalition of extreme right-wingers and astroturf groups — fake grassroots lobbyists funded by conservative foundations and corporations — including so-called «Wise Use» radicals, John Birchers, Lyndon LaRouchites, and anti-U.N. New World Order conspiracy kooks.”
9. Graham Readfearn – The Millions Behind Bjorn Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus Center US Think Tank – Desmogblog – 24/06/2014 – – https://www.desmogblog.com/2014/06/25/millions-behind-bjorn-lomborg-copenhagen-consensus-center – autores “In 2009 and 2010, the CCC paid another public relations company — 42West — more than $800,000. One of 42West’s tasks was to help spruik Lomborg’s 2010 film Cool It, based on his book of the same name.”
10. Joseph Romm – Bjorn loser: After grossing $63k, Lomborg’s box office bomb “Cool It” comes out on DVD – Climate Progress, 05/04/2011 – https://archive.thinkprogress.org/bjorn-loser-after-grossing-63k-lomborgs-box-office-bomb-cool-it-comes-out-on-dvd-437b72d047a0/
    “Bjorn Lomborg’s effort at mass miscommunication, Cool It, will indeed go down as one of the great box office bombs. According to Box Office Mojo, after grossing a whopping $58,179 in its debut month of December, it grossed $4, 534 from 12/1 to 12/24 before it was pulled from theaters. That would be $189 per day, or roughly $24 per theater. Ouch!”
11. Michael E. Mann (2012) – The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines – Columbia University Press – Penn State Earth System Science Center – ISBN-13: 978-0231152549 – 384 Págs.
    “A favorite tactic of contrarians is to attempt to usurp the mantle of the great paradigm breakers of scientific history such as Wegener or even that patron saint of paradigm breakers, Galileo himself. Indeed, there is even a term for the phenomenon: the ‘Galileo gambit.’ [ref] Yet for every Wegener, Galileo, or Copernicus, there are a thousand charlatans, pretenders, and false prophets. Almost invariably, the culture of science allow them a chance to make their case.” (p. 94)
12. Kåre Fog – School Pupils Abandoned to The Mercy of Lomborg – Lomborg Errors – http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/Faadebate2008.htm – Visitado el 11/10/2020
    “The 450 school pupils have no chance on earth to see what lies behind these seemingly objective figures. They do not know that the figures have arisen by discounting calculations and that Lomborg has cheated in these calculations. He has used one discount rate for climate projects, and another discount rate for the remaining projects.”
13. Copenhagen International School hosted its 4th International Youth Conference where the theme this year was climate change – The Copenhaguen Post, 08/11/2007 – http://www.cphpost.dk/news/community/93-community/3759.html
    “Every second year, the senior students from the Copenhagen International School (CIS) hold an International Youth Conference. They choose a topic, invite schools from Denmark and Sweden to participate, organise catering, select panellists and speakers, and organise the programme for the day. In short, this is their conference and they take responsibility for it all.”
14. Kåre Fog – Derogation of opponents – Lomborg errors, visitado el 12/10/2020 – http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/GroundlessDerogation.htm
    “About half of all chapters have this structure. The same is approximately true for the sections of `Cool It!´.  … After you have studied Lomborg´s books, you have become deeply convinced that one should not listen to the alarmists. And Lomborg tells you who the alarmists are. ”
15. Bjørn Lomborg – Smarter Thinking on Climate Change – Project Syndicate, 10/09/2010 –http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/smarter-thinking-on-climate-change
    “We would effectively be spending $40 trillion every year by the end of the century to do just over $1 trillion worth of total good. In fact, this estimate is wildly optimistic. The calculation assumes that over 100 years, politicians everywhere in the world will consistently enact the most efficient, effective laws imaginable to reduce carbon emissions. Dump that far-fetched assumption and the cost could jump by a factor of ten or even 100. To put it starkly, such drastic carbon cuts are likely to do a lot more damage than climate change to our quality of life (especially for those in the developing world).”
16. Kåre Fog – Common misunderstandings – Lomborg errors – http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/misunderstandings.htm – Visitado el 21/10/2020
    “Common misunderstandings: Lomborg is/was a professor at Aarhus University … Lomborg is a statistician … Lomborg was a greenpeace activist … Lomborg was not allowed to defend himself vis-a-vis Scientific American … The plaintiffs sent hundreds of pages to the DCSD that I was not allowed to reply to … Lomborg was cleared of all charges by the Danish ministry of Research in December 2003 … 300 Danish professors have signed a petition supporting Lomborg´s work … The expert panel at the Copenhagen Consensus conference ranked projects according to their benefit/cost ratio … The European Environmental Agency (EEA) has asked Lomborg to participate actively in the ranking of projects in the EU environmental policy … The United Nations Development Programme is making plans to hire Lomborg in a project where UN ambassadors will be ranking projects along lines similar to those of Copenhagen consensus. ” [Fog demuestra cada una de esas falsedades en esta página]
17. John P. Bluemle (2002) – Book Review: The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World – Geotimes – http://www.geotimes.org/april02/geomedia.html
    “Lomborg’s book was controversial when it was published in 1998 in Danish. The English translation, released in 2001, is now causing controversy in England and the United States.”
18. Matt Ridley – The Greens have got it wrong – The Daily Telegraph, 27/08/2001 –http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/4725285/The-Greens-have-got-it-wrong.html
    “Its importance lies partly in its relentless statistics. With 173 charts, nine tables and a staggering 2,930 footnotes, The Skeptical Environmentalist will be a source of reference for years to come … Probably the most important book on the environment ever written.”
19. Denis Dutton – Greener Than You Think – The Washington Post, 21/10/2001 – http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A12789-2001Oct18
    “The book’s longest, most detailed chapter is on global warming and the Kyoto Treaty. Lomborg agrees that a warming trend is real but says that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change exaggerates the possible threats and present-day proportions of global warming.”
20. Doomsday postponed: The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World, by Bjorn Lomborg – The Economist, 06/09/2001 – http://www.economist.com/node/770765
    “This is one of the most valuable books in public policy – not merely on environmental policy – to have been written for the intelligent general reader in the past ten years … The Skeptical Environmentalist is a triumph.”
21. Graham Readfearn – The Millions Behind Bjorn Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus Center US Think Tank – Desmogblog, 24/06/2014 – https://www.desmogblog.com/2014/06/25/millions-behind-bjorn-lomborg-copenhagen-consensus-center
    “According to Lomborg, his syndicated columns are read by more than 30 million people around the world in more than 30 newspapers translated into 19 different languages. He has written books, made documentary films, given TED talks and been invited to share his controversial views on television shows across the world.”
22. Kåre Fog – How Lomborg benefits from support from an editor-in-chief – Lomborg errors – Visitado el 10/10/2020 – http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/Politiken1998.htm
    “Bjørn Lomborg´s sudden change in his attitude to environmental issues happened in February 1997 during a study tour in the USA. When he returned to Denmark in the summer of 1997, he already had plans to write newspaper articles against the common beliefs on the environment … but a main obstacle would be the opposition to be expected from the major Danish social liberal newspaper, viz. Politiken. This obstacle disappeared, however, when Lomborg made contacts to Politiken´s editor-in-chief, Tøger Seidenfaden.”
23. Naomi Oreskes (2004) – Science and public policy: what’s proof got to do with it? – Environmental Science & Policy 7:369-383 doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2004.06.002 – Professor of History Science Studies Program University of California, San Diego
    “The heart of Bjørn Lomborg’s recent critique of environmentalism is that many assertions of the environmental movement are unproven and therefore provide no good grounds for sensible public policy. Current debate, he argues in The Skeptical Environmentalist, is based “more on myth than on truth (Lomborg, 2001, p. 32)”. We all want our views to be based on truth, and many of us look to science to provide truth. But the truth is not always convenient, and it is rarely convenient for everyone, generating incentive for manipulation and misrepresentation of information. This is particularly true in the domain of environmental policy.”
24. Gerard H. Roe and Marcia B. Baker (2007) – Why Is Climate Sensitivity So Unpredictable? – Science 318:629-632 doi:10.1126/science.1144735 – Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of Washington – http://climatechange.pbworks.com/f/Why+is+climate+sensitivity+so+unpredictable+G.H.Roe+et+al+Science+2007.H.Roe+et+al+Science+2007.pdf
    “We show that the shape of these probability distributions is an inevitable and general consequence of the nature of the climate system, and we derive a simple analytic form for the shape that fits recent published distributions very well. We show that the breadth of the distribution and, in particular, the probability of large temperature increases are relatively insensitive to decreases in uncertainties associated with the underlying climate processes.”
25. Stephen Schneider (2002) – Global Warming: Neglecting the Complexities – Scientific American –Department of biological sciences and senior fellow at the Institute for International Studies at Stanford University + editor of Climatic Change and the Encyclopedia of Climate and Weather – http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=misleading-math-about-the
    “Second, it is ironic that in a popular book by a statistician one can’t find a clear discussion of the distinction among different types of probabilities, such as frequentist and Bayesian (that is, «objective» and «subjective»). He uses the word «plausible» often, but, curiously for a statistician, he never attaches any probability to what is ‘plausible’.”
26. Bjorn Lomborg (2001) – The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World – Cambridge University Press – ISBN-13 : 978-0521010689 – 540 Págs.
    “We have to ask ourselves whether the marginally improved environment that we get from B1 instead of A1 is worth so much that we would be willing to have our children give up 50 percent more in income in the developed world ($73,000 vs. $110,000 in 2100).2315 And we have to ask ourselves whether it is worth it for the future inhabitants in the developing world to give up some 75 percent more income to live in a B1-world ($40,000 vs. $70,000).”
27. Referencia pendiente
28. M.G. Morgan and M. Henrion (1992) – Uncertainty: a guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis – Cambridge University Press – 26/06/1991 – Carnegie Mellon University, Pennsylvania
    “The authors explain the ways in which uncertainty is an important factor in the problems of risk and policy analysis. This book outlines the source and nature of uncertainty, discusses techniques for obtaining and using expert judgment, and reviews a variety of simple and advanced methods for analyzing uncertainty.”
29. Bjørn Lomborg – Global warming: why cut one 3,000th of a degree? – The Times, 30/09/2008 – http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4849167.ece
    “Many of the proffered global warming policies are designed to help politicians bathe in the warm glow of good intentions, with little or no regard to the mounting costs and infinitesimal benefits … Computer modelling – using DICE (dynamic integrated model of climate and the economy) – shows that the net effect of the UK renewables effort is impossibly tiny. The temperature increase by 2100 without Mr Brown’s plan would have been 2.4536181 ºC. With the best-case scenario the huge UK effort means that the temperature at the end of the century would be 2.4532342 ºC. The effect is a difference of about 0.00038 ºC – or about one three-thousandth of a degree in a hundred years. This is the equivalent of delaying the temperature increase by the end of the century by a little less than a week.”
30. John Rennie (2002) – Misleading Math about the Earth. Science defends itself against The Skeptical Environmentalist – Scientific American, enero 2002 – http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=misleading-math-about-the  –
    “His seemingly dispassionate outsider’s view, [the scientists] told us, is often marred by an incomplete use of the data or a misunderstanding of the underlying science. Even where his statistical analyses are valid, his interpretations are frequently off the mark–literally not seeing the state of the forests for the number of the trees, for example.”
31. Kevin Berger – Entrevista a Bjorn Lomborg. Bjorn Lomborg feels a chill – Salon, 29/08/2007 – http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/08/29/bjorn_lomborg “Lomborg, 42, rose to infamy by way of a Ph.D. in political science and a love affair with statistics. Today he is an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School and the director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, where he strives to devise economic solutions to the world’s pressing problems.”
32. Bjorn Lomborg (2001) – The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World – Cambridge University Press – ISBN-13 : 978-0521010689 – 540 Págs.
    “Sub-Saharan Africa has by far the greatest numbers of starving people – almost 33 percent were starving in 1996, although this was down from 38 percent in 1970 and is expected to fall even further to 30 percent in 2010. ” (p. 45)
33. Stuart Pimm and Jeff Harvey (2001) – No need to worry about the future: Environmentally, we are told, ‘things are getting better’ – Nature 414:149-150 doi:10.1038/35102629 – https://www.nature.com/articles/35102629
    “Lomborg’s great optimism about humanity’s future shows up in the way he presents statistics. In the hell-hole that is so much of sub-Saharan Africa, “starving people” constituted “38 percent in 1970 … [but only] “33 percent … in 1996. [The percentage is] expected to fall even further to 30 percent in 2010.” The absolute numbers of starving are curiously missing from these paragraphs. Roughly, the region’s population doubled between 1970 and 1996.”
34. Björn Lomborg (2008) – Let the data speak for itself – The Guardian, 14/10/2008 – https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/oct/14/climatechange-scienceofclimatechange
    “Over the past two years, sea levels have not increased at all — actually, they show a slight drop. Should we not be told that this is much better than expected?“
35. Joseph Romm – Debunking Bjørn Lomborg: Part II, Misrepresenting Sea Level Rise – Climate Progress – 14/09/2007 – http://climateprogress.org/2007/09/14/debunking-bjorn-lomborg-cool-it-sea-level-rise/
    “Lomborg is a champion cherry-picker when he isn’t just getting his facts wrong, as I argued in Part I. He has a deceptively misleading – and outright erroneous – discussion of sea level rise projections in Cool It … This all goes beyond cherry-picking and sloppiness — it is outright deception. And Cool It has much more intellectually dishonesty.”
36. Antonio Cerrillo – Lomborg, negacionista del cambio climático, se arrepiente – La Vanguardia, 01/09/2010 – https://www.lavanguardia.com/deportes/motociclismo/20100901/53993474713/lomborg-negacionista-del-cambio-climatico-se-arrepiente.html
    “‘También ha sido de los que decían que el cambio climático era un caballo de Troya de la nueva izquierda. Pero era maniqueo’, explica Pablo Ángel Meira, profesor titular de Educación Ambiental de la Universidad de Santiago de Compostela. “Rechazaba combatir el calentamiento al contraponerlo a la lucha contra la pobreza o el sida. Pero nunca lo comparó con el dinero que va a armamento, ni dijo que combatir el calentamiento es también luchar contra la pobreza’.”
37. Dana Nuccitelli – The Australian quantum theory of climate denial – Guardian Environment Blogs, 02/05/2014 – http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/may/02/australian-quantum-theory-climate-denial
    “Murdoch’s The Australian is a prime example, having in recent months run stories claiming that global warming isn’t happening, is happening but isn’t due to carbon dioxide emissions, and is happening, is due to carbon dioxide, but isn’t anything to worry about. Two of those articles were written by Bjorn Lomborg, a favorite of The Australian. Just a few days ago, the newspaper published another Lomborg piece, this one blaming virtually all of the world’s problems on renewable energy. Fossil fuels are lovely – status quo it is! … In its state of quantum climate denial, The Australian is happy to swallow Lomborg’s flawed economics arguments, or take any other position that justifies the status quo.”
38. Stephen Schneider (2002) – Global Warming: Neglecting the Complexities – Scientific American –Department of biological sciences and senior fellow at the Institute for International Studies at Stanford University + editor of Climatic Change and the Encyclopedia of Climate and Weather – http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=misleading-math-about-the
    “On page xx of his preface, Lomborg admits, «I am not myself an expert as regards environmental problems»–truer words are not found in the rest of the book, as I’ll soon illustrate.”
39. John P. Holdren (2002) – A Response to Bjorn Lomborg’s Response to My Critique of his Energy Chapter – Scientific American – http://www.ems.psu.edu/~radovic/SciAm_JHResp.htm
    “Other mistakes that are individually less important add up to a pattern of random incompetence. The sad fact is that Lomborg’s understanding of the energy issue is so superficial – and his reading of the literature he cites so uncomprehending and uncritical – that he is doing an actual disservice by trying to propagate what he imagines he has learned about it.”
40. Bjorn Lomborg – The Skeptical Environmentalist Replies – Scientific American, May 2002 – http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-skeptical-environment
    “The Kyoto Protocol will do very little good – it will postpone warming for six years in 2100. Yet the cost will be $150 billion to $350 billion annually. Because global warming will primarily hurt Third World countries, we have to ask if Kyoto is the best way to help them. The answer is no. For the cost of Kyoto in just 2010, we could once and for all solve the single biggest problem on earth: We could give clean drinking water and sanitation to every single human being on the planet. This would save two million lives and avoid half a billion severe illnesses every year. And for every following year we could then do something equally good.”
41. Peter Gleick (2001) – Where’s Waldo? A Review of The Skeptical Environmentalist – Union of Concerned Scientists, 06/11/2001 – Pacific Institute for Studies In Development, Environment, and Security  – http://www.pacinst.org/publications/essays_and_opinion/lomborg_review_by_gleick_for_UCS.pdf
    “Waldos: Conceptual confusions; Selective choice of problems; Selective use of data, misuse of data, misinterpretations, inappropriate precision, errors of fact; Misreadings and misrepresentations; Simplification or gross generalization; Confusion of observed trends and future projections; Hidden value judgments; Biased optimism.”
42. Bjørn Lomborg – Lomborg’s reply to Scientific American January 2002 – Green Spirit, 04/01/2002 – http://www.greenspirit.com/lomborg/ScientificAmericanBjornLomborgAnswer.pdf
    “Finally, and ultimately much more important, is the fact that things are improving and this runs counter to the general doom-and-gloom message which runs through public discourse. I’m glad that Lovejoy in general agrees to this, but of course it also further undermines the basic thrust of the Scientific American critique.”
43. UCS Examines ‘The Skeptical Environmentalist’ – Union of Concerned Scientists – https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/ucs-examines-skeptical-environmentalist
    “These reviews show that The Skeptical Environmentalist fits squarely in a tradition of contrarian works on the environment that may gain temporary prominence but ultimately fail to stand up to scientific scrutiny. Others, such as Julian Simon and Gregg Easterbrook, have come before him, and others no doubt will follow.
44. Kåre Fog – Lomborg Errors – http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/ – Visitado el 10/10/2020
45. Kåre Fog (2005) – The Real Nature of the Opposition Against B. Lomborg – Journal of Information Ethics 14:66-76 doi:10.3172/JIE.14.2.6621092005
    “The latest revision was in January 2005, when the catalogue included 101 errors and 187 flaws, i.e., 288 in total. Only chapters 10, 16, 23 and 24 in TSE have been scrutinized thoroughly … 47 errors in the catalogue were designated as cases where the text beyond reasonable doubt is deliberately misleading or deliberately manipulating (i.e., «lies»). Twentyeight further cases are designated as «gross negligence,» «unacceptable bias,» «probably deliberately misleading» or as other similar types of misleading text. In total, this yields 75 cases of probably or definitely deliberate deception. As to the remaining 204 errors, they always go in the same direction, viz., to the side of supporting Lomborg’s antienvironmentalist view.”
46. Hans Henrik Brydensholt – Decision regarding complaints against Bjorn Lomborg – Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty, 07/01/2003
    “DCSD deems it to have been adequately substantiated that the defendant, who has himself insisted on presenting his publication in scientific form and not allowing the book to assume the appearance of a provocative debate-generating paper, based on customary scientific standards and in light of his systematic onesidedness in the choice of data and line of argument, has clearly acted at variance with good scientific practice … Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty … The publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice.”
47. Kåre Fog (2005) – The Real Nature of the Opposition Against B. Lomborg – Journal of Information Ethics 14:66-76 doi:10.3172/JIE.14.2.66 – https://bit.ly/2GGbmc4
    “The 24 scientific members of UVVU, representing the social, natural and medical sciences, and the chairman, a high court judge, deemed Lomborg’s book «objectively dishonest.» By this they meant that what he wrote was, by an objective evaluation, not true, whether he was consciously aware of it or not. UVVU refrained from deciding whether Lomborg was «subjectively dishonest,» i.e., whether his errors were deliberate. Lomborg appealed the decision of UVVU to the Danish Ministry of Research. In December 2003, the Ministry ruled that UVVU was not legally competent to judge on objective dishonesty, and it therefore annulled UVVU’s verdict. Their competence, it was held, exclusively covered «subjective dishonesty,» i.e., deliberate cheating, an issue on which, unfortunately, they had not pronounced.”
48. Bjorn Lomborg (2008) – En frío. La guía del ecologista escéptico sobre el cambio climático – Espasa Calpe, Barcelona
49. Kåre Fog – The film `Cool It! – Lomborg Errors – Visitado el 10/10/2020 – http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/Coolitfilm.htm
    «As to Schneider, Timoner says that «I actually had to talk Schneider into participating as he was throwing me out his office». Also, persons closely affiliated with Schneider say that the interview was made in an unethical way. Those parts of the interview with him that have been included in the film, are not very representative of his opinions when he was alive. Now that he is dead, we cannot obtain his comments to the way he is presented in the film. For instance, Schneider was very much against geo-engineering and adaptation as methods to `fix´ the climate problem in an easy way. This attitude is mentioned directly in his obituary here. So when Lomborg has dedicated the film to Schneider, this is not an honour. Rather, you might think that it is an insult.»
50. Sir Guy Green (2008) – Skepticism in Science – The Skeptic 28:1 – 21/09/2008 – http://www.skeptics.com.au
    “Not all Lomborg’s critics used verbal abuse. In September 2001 at the launch of Lomborg’s book in an Oxford bookshop Mark Lynas, a widely published writer on climate change, decided to present his thoughtful, scholarly conclusions about the book by smashing a pie in Lomborg’s face.”
51. Joseph Romm – Bill Gates disses energy efficiency, renewables, and near-term climate action while embracing the magical thinking of Bjorn Lomborg (and George Bush) – Climate Progress, 26/01/2010 – http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/26/bill-gates-energy-efficiency-insulation-renewables-and-global-climate-action-bjorn-lomborg/
    “Yes, even the very rich are very confused about energy efficiency, renewable energy, climate policy, and global warming — mainly because they keep bad company … The Gates’ Foundation mostly ignores global warming (see here); Warren Buffett are so wrong — and outspoken — about cap and trade (see here); Gates and Buffett visited the Athabasca tar sands — the biggest global warming crime ever — to satisfy “their own curiosity” but also “with investment in mind” … Now Gates has launched an amazing series of myth-filled missives and misfires this month, many of which channel Bjorn Lomborg (aka the Danish delayer) in their disdain of near-term climate action and embrace of, yes, geo-engineering.”
52. Howard Friel (2010) – The Lomborg Deception: Setting the Record Straight about Global Warming – Yale University Press, New Haven, – ISBN: 978-0300161038 – 270 pp. – Comentario en: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/non-fiction/article7097185.ece
    “It therefore seemed useful to identify the two main strains of arguments in his work as they pertain here. Thus, “Lomborg’s Theorem” refers to his claim that anthropogenic (man-made) global warming is “no catastrophe.” And “Lomborg’s Corollary” represents his contention that since global warming is no catastrophe, there is little need to incur the costs of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions to the extent urged by concerned experts to avoid the worst impacts of global warming…. The aim [of this book] is to show that Lomborg’s Theorem is grounded in highly questionable data and analysis, and that there is little if any factual or analytic basis for the theorem.”
53. Kåre Fog – About deliberate errors – Lomborg errors, Visitado el 10/10/2020 – http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/deliberate.htm
    “In Scientific journals, not least Nature, Science and Scientific American, the reviews were very negative because specialists were able to see that many of Lomborg´s claims simply were not true. Likewise, the more recent book by Howard Friel, `The Lomborg Deception´, documents many errors, especially in Lomborg´s book `Cool it´. And here at the Lomborg-errors web site are listed a total of more than 500 errors for the two books, some of them minor errors, but others are gross and severely misleading … Many of the errors are of such a type that if they were corrected, then Lomborg would no longer be able to make the points that he is making. So there is an obvious suspicion why he would not acknowledge them – if he did, he would have to change or modify many of his conclusions – just those conclusions that appeal to many readers. It is my assertion that in general, the errors presented on this web site do hold up under scrutiny.”
54. Justin Kruger and David Dunning (1999) – Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments – Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77:1121-1134 – Cornell University – http://psych.colorado.edu/~vanboven/teaching/p7536_heurbias/p7536_readings/kruger_dunning.pdf
    “People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it.”
55. Bjørn Lomborg – A Response by Bjorn Lomborg to Howard Friel’s ‘The Lomborg Deception’ – Lomborg.com,, Visitado el 23/02/2010 – https://www.lomborg.com/sites/lomborg.com/files/bl_reply_to_howard_friel_0.pdf
    “Unfortunately, it is obvious that Friel has no interest in fair-minded criticism or honest disagreement. Rather, he seems determined to portray me as devious, deceptive, and intellectually dishonest. Ironically, in his zeal to do so, he repeatedly commits the very sins he accuses me of—selective or incomplete quotation, misrepresentation of source material, and even outright fabrication. Rather than engaging with my books on their own terms, he caricatures my work and then attacks it.»
56. Sharon Begley – Book Review: The Lomborg Deception – Newsweek, 22/02/2010 – http://www.newsweek.com/id/233942
    “Lomborg has written a 25-page response to Friel’s accusations, which his publicist shared with me  … Lomborg casts aspersions on Friel’s motives and accuses him of «selective or incomplete quotation, misrepresentation of source material, and even outright fabrication.» … I can’t recommend reading The Lomborg Deception straight through. But anyone who picks up Cool It (particularly any students) should have Lomborg Deception within reach to decide for themselves whether Lomborg’s main claim to authority—that environmentalists make it up while he provides accurate facts—is so much hot air.”
57. Howard Friel (2010) – The Lomborg Deception: Setting the Record Straight About Global Warming – Yale University Press – ISBN-13 : 978-0300161038 – 272 Págs.
    “Thomas E. Lovejoy: I remember my frustration at inadequate citations, so much so that I characterized them in the review as a “mirage in the desert.” I reviewed only the forest and biodiversity aspects of the book as that was my particular expertise and assignment, and three others from different fields reviewed other aspects of the book. Little did I know that the entire volume was similarly flimsy. I do recall at the time that fellow conservation biologists attending a Lomborg talk would correct his science, only to find the same assertions made in subsequent talks as if the corrections had never occurred. That left me disinclined to engage with Lomborg. Science and public understanding do not advance on the basis of assertions as opposed to conversations and discussion. ”
58. Kåre Fog – The functioning of the Environmental Assessment Institute – Lomborg errors – Visitado el 10/10/2020 – http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/lomborgstory15.htm
    “The new National Environmental Assessment Institute (in Danish: IMV = Institut for MiljøVurdering) was due to start functioning during the spring of 2002. The number of members of the board of governors was to be raised to 7, and the staff increased to 10. By June 1st 2002, this had been accomplished. Lomborg was not content  … Lomborg contacted the prime minister, who overruled this decision and demanded that Lomborg have his way. This seems to demonstrate the close connection between Lomborg and the prime minister. By 2004, the staff at the Institute comprised the director (Lomborg), plus 15 graduates, 3 non-graduates, and 7 student assistants.”
59. Joseph Romm – Lomborg’s main argument has collapsed – Climate Progress,09/07/2009 – http://climateprogress.org/2009/07/09/bjorn-lomborg-debunking-copenhagen-global-warming-deneir/
    “Lomborg has been remarkably successful in persuading people that tackling climate change is a low priority. His Copenhagen Consensus was a study paid for by The Economist … Perhaps the part of Lomborg’s argument that has appeared most convincing is his cost benefit analysis. It took some effort to unpick this but it revealed some interesting evidence about his methods …”
60. Kåre Fog – The functioning of the Environmental Assessment Institute – Lomborg errors – Visitado el 11/10/2020 – http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/lomborgstory15.htm
    “There was also a suspicion that the true purpose of the conference would be to have Nobel Prize winners declare that protection of the environment is relatively unimportant and should be downgraded. On 27th Nov. five out of seven members therefore announced that they would leave the board. This means that, from that date, only 2 board members remained.»
61. Frank Ackerman (2008) – Global crises, economists’ solutions? – Journal of Industrial Ecology 9:249-251 doi:10.1162/jiec.2005.9.4.249 – Global Development and Environment Institute, Tufts University
    “Despite the grand name, the process achieved a consensus among just eight like-minded senior economists, sitting in judgment on analyses and critiques offered by a few dozen other economists … In fact, six of the panel members are from U.S. universities, one from Switzerland, and one from Hong Kong. None represents views outside the mainstream of the American economics profession, with the partial exception of Bruno Frey, the Swiss economist … Now that its political implications are all too clear, some of the participants feel that the results of the Copenhagen Consensus are misleading. On that point, finally, it is easy to agree with them.”
62. HIV/AIDS, Hunger, Free Trade and Malaria Top Experts’ List – Copenhagen Consensus, 28/05/2004 – http://copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/CC04-final_result.pdf
    “Free trade is number three on the expert list. The costs will be very low. The benefits will be extremely high – namely up to $2400 billion a year … 15. Climate: Optimal carbon tax; 16. Climate: The Kyoto Protocol; 17. Climate: Value-at-risk carbon tax.”
63. Copenhagen Consensus – Wikipedia, 11/04/2020 – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_Consensus
    “Members of the panel including Thomas Schelling and one of the two perspective paper writers Robert O. Mendelsohn (both opponents of the Kyoto protocol) criticised Cline, mainly on the issue of discount rates. (See «The opponent notes to the paper on Climate Change» [27]) Mendelsohn, in particular, characterizing Cline’s position, said that ‘[i]f we use a large discount rate, they will be judged to be small effects’ and called it ‘circular reasoning, not a justification’.”
64. Sophie Elmhirst – The NS Interview: Bjørn Lomborg – New Statesman, 24/09/2010 – http://www.newstatesman.com/environment/2010/09/interview-gay-climate
    “You’ve said that being openly gay is a civic responsibility. What do you mean? When I grew up, I didn’t see many likeable role models. You could either be a ballet dancer or someone extreme whom people would snigger at. I’d like to show the next generation that you can be regular, ordinary and successful. How has your sexuality affected your career? I didn’t want to be the gay guy who talks about the environment. I wanted to be the guy who talks about the environment who happens to be gay. I think that has turned out pretty well.”
65. Kåre Fog – The functioning of the Environmental Assessment Institute – Lomborg errors – Visitado el 11/10/2020 – http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/lomborgstory15.htm
    “Lomborg and Anders Fogh Rasmussen had been educated at the same institute at Aarhus University, and although Lomborg is much younger than Rasmussen, it seems that they were already personally acquainted before 1998. So when Lomborg contacted Rasmussen in 2000, he was not just a stranger to him, but an acquaintance, probably even a close acquaintance. At the election in November 2001 … Anders Fogh Rasmussen became the prime minister, and one of his first decisions was that an Environmental Assessment Institute should be established.”
66. Andrew Jamison (2004) – Learning from Lomborg: or where do anti-environmentalists come from? – Science as Culture 13:2173 doi:10.1080/0950543042000226602
    “The government has cancelled state support to several large wind-energy projects and closed down a number of programmes in environmental research and public policy—the so-called green jobs fund, for example, and the green guides programme within public organizations—that had been supported by the previous government’s ministry of the environment, and which have generally received positive evaluations, as well as a good deal of international interest. In pursuing his objectives, Fogh Rasmussen has been highly influenced by the teachings of Bjørn Lomborg.”
67. Richard Littlemore – Lomborg: Argument today; «proof» tomorrow – Desmogblog, 28/09/2009 – http://www.desmogblog.com/lomborg-argument-today-proof-tomorrow
    “This raises a question of accountability. Lomborg starts a «Consensus Center» with seed funding from the right-wing Danish government of the day, but he doesn’t share all of details of his ongoing income. Using that anonymous funding to commission a study by Tol, Lomborg then bases his own arguments on the purported results of Tol’s work. So, we’re left looking at a study paid for, at least in part, by anonymous funders on behalf of a guy (Lomborg) whose reputation for accuracy is getting worse every time he opens his mouth.”
68. David Cromwell and David Edwards – The Neverending ‘Wakeup Call’ – Media Lens, 02/04/2014 – http://medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=761:the-neverending-wakeup-call&catid=52:alerts-2014&Itemid=245
    “Entirely missing from ‘mainstream’ coverage were salient facts about Tol’s ideological stance and wretched background … In 2009, Tol was listed as an adviser to the Nigel Lawson-chaired Global Warming Policy Foundation, the notorious pro-business climate denialist ‘thinktank’. Two years earlier, in 2007, Tol was among the US Senate Republican Party’s ‘list of scientists disputing man-made global warming claims’. Tol ‘dismissed the idea that mankind must act now to prevent catastrophic global warming’. He outrageously scorned the Stern review on the economics of climate action, and the urgent need for concerted action, as ‘preposterous’, ‘alarmist and incompetent.’.”
69. Bjørn Lomborg – Smarter Thinking on Climate Change – Project Syndicate, 10/09/2010 – http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/smarter-thinking-on-climate-change
    “At the same time, we convened a second, equally stellar group of economists, including three Nobel laureates, to examine all of the research and rank the proposals in order of desirability. Cambridge University Press is publishing their research and findings this month, under the title Smart Solutions to Climate Change. The book includes a chapter by prominent climate economist Richard Tol, who has been a contributing, lead, principal, and convening author for the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In his chapter, Tol shows why grand promises of drastic, immediate carbon cuts are such a flawed strategy.”
70. Bruno Latour (2017) – Où atterrir? Comment s’orienter en politique – Editions La Découverte – Sciences Po – ISBN-13: 978-2707197009 – 155 Págs.
    “Alors que le public aurait pu trouver une issue de secours, les climato-sceptiques se sont mis devant elle pour leur en interdire l’accès. Quand viendra le temps de juger, c’est ce crime-là qu’il faudra instruire [ref]. On ne se rend pas assez compte que la question du climato-négationnisme organise toute la politique du temps présent [ref].”
71. Bjorn Lomborg – Chill out – The Washignton Post, 07/10/2007- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100501676.html
    “Environmental groups say that the only way to deal with the effects of global warming is to make drastic cuts in carbon emissions — a project that will cost the world trillions … The research I’ve done over the last decade, beginning with my first book, «The Skeptical Environmentalist,» has convinced me that this approach is unsound; it means spending an awful lot to achieve very little. Instead, we should be thinking creatively and pragmatically about how we could combat the much larger challenges facing our planet.”
72. A biased economic analysis of geoengineering – Real Climate, 11/08/2009 – http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/08/a-biased-economic-analysis-of-geoengineering/comment-page-5/
    “Bjorn Lomborg’s Climate Consensus Center just released an un-refereed report on geoengineering, An Analysis of Climate Engineering as a Response to Global Warming, by J. Eric Bickel and Lee Lane.”
73. Gary W. Yohe et al (2008) – Climate Change: Copenhagen Consensus 2008 Challenge Paper – Copenhagen Consensus Center, 03/04/2008 – Department of Economics, Wesleyan University; Economic and Social Research Institut;  Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit; Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University; Electric Power Research Institute – 4 autores
    “We also have to admit that our proposals do not «solve the climate problem». Our portfolio approach lowers the average global temperature rise in 2100 from about 3.5°C to a little below 3.0°. If such changes are likely to be ‘dangerous’ in the sense used by the UNFCCC, then the Copenhagen Consensus budget constraint has been overly restrictive.”
74. Ben Webster – Climate change real, deadly says David Attenborough, – The Australian – 02/01/2015 – – https://www.theaustralian.com.au/world/the-times/climate-change-real-deadly-says-david-attenborough/news-story/1c32b1805658789d012d016b4da84311
    “Dr Lomborg said that the UN should focus on more cost-effective environmental policies … Pursuing this 2C target is very costly and not guaranteed to be successful. Much better, then, to target a maximum of, say, 3C rise, which will cost about $40 trillion but avoid most damages. ”
75. Lomborg says armada could halt global warming – The Copenhagen Post, 07/08/2009 – https://web.archive.org/web/20100811100015/http://cphpost.dk/news/international/89-international/46513-lomborg-says-armada-could-halt-global-warming.html
    “The latest idea to best tackle global warming from controversial environmental commentator Bjørn Lomborg and his Copenhagen Consensus group is a proposal to build an armada of ships that will sail the world’s oceans, producing vast clouds from sea water to reflect the sun’s rays … The ensuing clouds would then reflect sunlight back into space and dampen temperatures on Earth. The cost of such an undertaking is projected to be 45 billion kroner. ”
76. Mitchell Anderson – Lomborg’s Robot Navy – Desmogblog, 10/08/2009 – https://www.desmogblog.com/lomborgs-robot-navy
    “Now he is championing the dangerous prospect of geo-engineering as his latest reason to ignore ballooning carbon emissions. Specifically he believes a fleet of 1,900 robotic ships patrolling the Pacific Ocean churning seawater into the upper atmosphere will negate the need to do anything about climate change. Problem solved! This loopy prospect emerged from the Copenhagen Consensus – Lomborg’s personal climate conference where hand-picked attendees parrot his fringe notion that climate change is simply to expensive to deal with. Real economists around the world have come to exactly the opposite conclusion. ”
77. Joseph Romm – Caldeira calls the vision of Lomborg’s Climate Consensus “a dystopic world out of a science fiction story” – Think Progress, 05/09/2009 – https://archive.thinkprogress.org/exclusive-caldeira-calls-the-vision-of-lomborgs-climate-consensus-a-dystopic-world-out-of-a-science-a36ff9c6bb31/
    “The vision of Lomborg’s Climate Consensus is ‘a dystopic world out of a science fiction story … Geoengineering is not an alternative to carbon emissions reductions … If emissions keep going up and up, and you use geoengineering as a way to deal with it, it’s pretty clear the endgame of that process is pretty ugly.”
78. Copenhagen Consensus 2004
79. Gary Yohe – Climate change is real, compelling and urgent – The Guardian. 22/08/2008 – – https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/aug/22/climatechange.carbonemissions
    “As one of the authors of the Copenhagen Consensus Project’s principal climate paper, I can say with certainty that Lomborg is misrepresenting our findings thanks to a highly selective memory … In short, we never advocated research into new technologies as a stand-alone way to fight climate change, nor did we accept Lomborg’s dismissive attitude toward the threat climate change poses.”
80. John Quiggin (2006) – Stern and the critics on discounting – John Quiggin’s Blog, 20/12/2006 – Australian Research Council Federation Fellow + School of Economics and School of Political Science and International Studies, University of Queensland – http://johnquiggin.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/sternreviewed06121.pdf
    “One part of the debate over delta can be dismissed pretty easily. Many of the critics on this point have confused delta and r, apparently assuming that delta is a discount rate, rather than a subsidiary factor determining the discount rate. Examples of this confusion include Kling, Lomborg, and McArdle.”
81. Kåre Fog – Criticism of «Copenhagen Consensus 2008» – Lomborg errors
    “Higher ranks are given to treatments of malaria (benefit/cost 20:1), child diseases (benefit/cost 20:1), and heart diseases (benefit/cost 25:1). However, in these cases, a discount rate of 3 % was used. If the same discount rate is used for research in low-carbon technologies, this would have a benefit/cost ratio of 28.5:1 and thus be more favourable than treatment of the diseases referred to. But by using another discount rate for global warming issues (4 %) than for other issues (3 %), Lomborg and his team just manage to avoid spending some of their imaginary sum on something related to global warming. That is to cheat.”
82. Annalee Armstrong – Trump administration drops social cost of carbon from $51 to $1 – Standard & Poors SNL, 23/10/2017 – https://www.snl.com/web/client?auth=inherit#news/article?id=42286458&KeyProductLinkType=4&cdid=A-42286458-11818
    “The conservative Heritage Foundation has argued for a 7% discount rate, Senior Research Fellow David Kreutzer said in a June 2016 report. Suggesting that the climate change discount rate should reflect the best rate of return that reasonably can be expected in capital markets, Kreutzer said the U.S. stock markets have generated a 7% rate of a return and therefore the same value is appropriate for the social cost of carbon.”
83. Jennifer Jacquet et al (2013) – Intra- and intergenerational discounting in the climate game – Nature Climate Change 3:1025-1028 doi:10.1038/nclimate2024 – Environmental Studies, New York University
    “Although temporal discounting has long been known to matter in making individual choices [ref], the extent of temporal discounting is poorly understood in a group setting. We represent the effect of both intra- and intergenerational discounting4, 6, 7 through a collective-risk group experiment framed around climate change … We find that intergenerational discounting leads to a marked decrease in cooperation; all groups failed to reach the collective target. Intragenerational discounting was weaker by comparison. Our results experimentally confirm that international negotiations to mitigate climate change are unlikely to succeed if individual countries’ short-term gains can arise only from defection.»
84. Lomborg calls for a carbon tax – Mongabay, 17/06/2009 – http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0617-lomborg.html
    “Lomborg says a carbon tax «could address what he calls a ‘market failure’ in the development of solar-power systems and wind turbines effective enough and cheap enough to compete with fossil fuels.»
85. Juliette Jowit – Bjørn Lomborg: $100bn a year needed to fight climate change – The Guardian, 30/08/2010 – http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/30/bjorn-lomborg-climate-change-u-turn
    “Examining eight methods to reduce or stop global warming, Lomborg and his fellow economists recommend pouring money into researching and developing clean energy sources such as wind, wave, solar and nuclear power, and more work on climate engineering ideas such as cloud whitening» to reflect the sun’s heat back into the outer atmosphere. In a Guardian interview, he said he would finance investment through a tax on carbon emissions that would also raise $50bn to mitigate the effect of climate change, for example by building better sea defences, and $100bn for global healthcare.”
86. Antonio Cerrillo – Lomborg, negacionista del cambio climático, se arrepiente – La Vanguardia, 01/09/2010 – https://www.lavanguardia.com/deportes/motociclismo/20100901/53993474713/lomborg-negacionista-del-cambio-climatico-se-arrepiente.html
    “En vísperas de la próxima aparición de un nuevo libro, Lomborg hace un llamamiento para que se destinen miles de millones de dólares para afrontar el cambio climático.”
87. L T.N. Jenkins (1998) – Economics and the environment: a case of ethical neglect – Ecological Economics 26:151-163 doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00063-3 – Institute of Rural Studies, University of Wales – http://upi-yptk.ac.id/Ekonomi/Jenkins_Economics.pdf
    “There is also a tendency to argue (e.g. Ross, 1988) that regulatory control, proper pricing, the use of incentives, and the establishment of property rights are purely technical attempts by public policy to correct ‘market failure’ and to recognise economic value which markets would otherwise disregard. However, the correction of market failure is not purely a technical matter: it also has a moral aspect in that, to its advocates, the institution of markets makes human society morally preferable, just as cultivated gardens are preferable to purposeless and imperfect nature.”
88. Eric Pooley (2010) – The Climate War: True Believers, Power Brokers, and the Fight to Save the Earth – Hyperion – Deputy editor of Bloomberg BusinessWeek, a former managing editor of Fortune and a former national editor, chief political correspondent and White House correspondent for Time – ISBN-13: 978-1401323264 – 481 Págs.
    “Danish statiscian Bjorn Lomborg soon turned up àfter Inhofe intervention] and happily told [Copenhagen] reporters that a deadlocked COP 15 ‘might not be so bad if it causes us to change track and stop trying o reduce emissions.”
89. James Hoggan – Bjorn Lomborg’s Climate Confusionist Spin Is Never Ending – Desmog. 17/09/2010 – https://www.desmogblog.com/bjorn-lomborg%E2%80%99s-climate-confusionist-spin-never-ending
    “Bjorn Lomborg is in the spin business, plain and simple.  In his Wall Street Journal op-ed this week, the Danish game theorist pretends to be so surprised that people were confused by his ‘change of heart’ last month – when he suddenly recognised that climate change is “one of the chief concerns facing the world today” and advocated for a $100 billion annual investment and a carbon tax – after years spent arguing that the world shouldn’t spend a penny on the problem.  Hardly surprising to anyone who has followed Lomborg’s long trail of disingenuous spin, the ‘change of heart’ was nothing more than a ploy manufactured to tease his forthcoming book.  ”
90. Bjorn Lomborg (2001) – The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World – Cambridge University Press – ISBN-13: 978-0521010689 – 540 Págs.
    “Economic analyses clearly show that it will be far more expensive to cut CO2 emissions radically than to pay the costs of adaptation to the increased temperatures.”
91. Bjørn Lomborg (2010) – Smart Solutions to Climate Change: Comparing Costs and Benefits – Cambridge University Press – Copenhagen Consensus Centre – ISBN-13: 978-0521763424 – 436 Págs.
    “It is unfortunate that so many policy makers and campaigners have become fixated on cutting carbon in the near term as the chief response to global warming … If we care about the environment and about leaving this planet and its inhabitants with the best possible future, we actually have only one option: we all need to start seriously focusing, right now, on the most effective ways to fix global warming.”
92. Miles Grant – Washington Post Doubles Down on Fact Free Climate Denial – Grist, 28/09/2009 – http://www.grist.org/article/washington-post-doubles-down-on-fact-free-climate-denial
    “Is there any media outlet that enables global warming denial more effectively than the Washington Post? After today’s op-ed from one of the top deniers in the world, the latest in a long line of denial op-eds, you have to wonder … So when … runs an op-ed from a character like Bjorn Lomborg, it takes on an air of authority with the Beltway crowd that Lomborg clearly doesn’t deserve.”
93. Pasta a recerca i prou
94. Timothée Parrique et al (2019) – Decoupling debunked – Evidence and arguments against green growth as a sole strategy for sustainability – European Environmental Bureau, 08/07/2019 – https://mk0eeborgicuypctuf7e.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Decoupling-Debunked-FULL-for-ONLINE.pdf
    “There are at least seven reasons to be sceptical about the occurrence of sufficient decoupling in the future. Each of them taken individually casts doubt on the possibility for sufficient decoupling and, thus, the feasibility of “green growth.” Considered all together, the hypothesis that decoupling will allow economic growth to continue without a rise in environmental pressures appears highly compromised, if not clearly unrealistic. 1 Rising energy expenditures … 2 Rebound effects … 3 Problem shifting … 4 The underestimated impact of services … 5 Limited potential of recycling … 6 Insufficient and inappropriate technological change … Cost shifting.”
95. Elizabeth A. Stanton, Frank Ackerman and Sivan Kartha (2011) – Inside the Integrated Assessment Models: Four Issues in Climate Economics – Climate and Development 1:166-184 doi:doi:10.3763/cdev.2009.0015 – Stockholm Environment Institute – http://sei-us.org/Publications_PDF/SEI-InsidetheIntegratedAssessmentModels-09.pdf
    “In a global climate policy debate fraught with differing understandings of right and wrong, the importance of making transparent the ethical assumptions used in climate-economics models cannot be overestimated. Negishi weighting is a key ethical assumption at work in climate-economics models, but one that is virtually unknown to most model users. Negishi weights freeze the current distribution of income between world regions; without this constraint, IAMs that maximize global welfare would recommend an equalization of income across regions as part of their policy advice. With Negishi weights in place, these models instead recommend a course of action that would be optimal only in a world in which global income redistribution cannot and will not take place.”
96. Elizabeth A. Stanton (2009) – Negishi Welfare Weights: The Mathematics of Global Inequality – Climatic Change 107:417-432 doi:10.1007/s10584-010-9967-6 – Stockholm Environment Institute – http://sei-us.org/Publications_PDF/SEI-WorkingPaperUS-0902.pdf
    “This means that any regionally disaggregated welfare-optimizing IAM includes both a social welfare function defined as the sum of regional welfares and measured in cardinal units, and the principle of diminishing marginal returns—exactly the theoretical combination against which Robbins and Little cautioned. Negishi weights counteract the model’s resultant preference for equalizing incomes across regions, thereby making the implicit assumption that utility in richer regions is more important to global social welfare than utility in poorer regions.”
97. Kåre Fog – 2006 onwards: The Copenhagen Consensus Center – Lomborg errors, visitado el 10/10/2020 – http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/lomborgstory18.htm
    “The Copenhagen Consensus Center made preparations for Copenhagen Consensus 2008, and received for this purpose a grant of 4.5 million DKr. (0.6m Euro) from the Danish Ministry of Development. In addition, it has received funding from Danida (Danish International Development Agency). Since 2006, the staff has gradually increased, and in 2008 it numbered about 9 permanent positions and some temporary appointments.”
98. Kåre Fog – 2006 onwards: The Copenhagen Consensus Center – Lomborg errors, visitado el 10/10/2020 – http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/lomborgstory18.htm
    “A spokesman from the Danish People´s Party said that they wanted Lomborg to make critical evaluations up to the UN global climate conference in Copenhagen 2009, in order that the government may keep its feet firmly planted on the ground, and avoid too much «hallelujah» in connection with the climate summit. Therefore, the Copenhagen Consensus Center, which already has yearly grants of 2.5 million DKr. for each of the years 2007-2012, had its grant raised to 7.5 million DKr. (about 1 million €) for the year 2009. For this money, the center must ‘throw light on benefits and costs associated with various possible solution models in relation to an international climate agreement.’.”
99. Kåre Fog – 2006 onwards: The Copenhagen Consensus Center – Lomborg errors, visitado el 10/10/2020 – http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/lomborgstory18.htm
    “In November 2009, Lomborg got even larger amounts from the Danish government, and that happened in the same way: the Danish People´s Party demanded that Lomborg and his institute should receive an additional amount of 18 million Dkr. (about 2.4m €), of which 2.5m Dkr. should be an extra appropriation for each of the years 2010-2013, and 8m Dkr. should be used for the Copenhagen Consensus conference in 2012. Because of the political situation in the Danish parliament, the government was once more forced to accept this. It is not readily understood why the Danish People´s Party supports Lomborg so strongly.”
100. Kåre Fog – 2006 onwards: The Copenhagen Consensus Center – Lomborg errors, visitado el 10/10/2020 – http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/lomborgstory18.htm
     “By the end of 2009, the total allotments to Lomborg – first to the Environmental Assessment Institute, and later to the Copenhagen Consensus Center – amount to a total of 138m DKr, or about 18.4m €. However, even though Lomborg gets special money grants from the Danish government, Lomborg complains that the government has practically stopped listening to him after 2004 when Connie Hedegaard became minister, first the minister of environment, and since 2007 minister for climate issues.”
101. Spin, science and climate change – The Economist, 18/03/2010 – http://www.economist.com/node/15720419
     “Action on climate is justified, not because the science is certain, but precisely because it is not … The notion that the scientific establishment has suppressed evidence to the contrary has provided plenty of non-expert politicians with an excuse not to spend money reducing carbon. So the scientists’ shameful mistakes have certainly changed perceptions. They have not, however, changed the science itself. As our briefing explains in detail, most research supports the idea that warming is man-made.”
102. Bjorn Lomborg (Ed.) (2009) – Global Crises, Global Solutions – Cambridge University Press – Copenhagen Consensus Centre – ISBN-13: 978-0521517218 – 710 Págs.
     “Reseña del editor: The first edition of Global Crises, Global Solutions was nominated as one of the books of the year by The Economist in 2004. This second edition asks: if we had more money to spend to help the world’s poorest people, where could we spend it most effectively?”
103. Graham Readfearn – The Millions Behind Bjorn Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus Center US Think Tank – Desmogblog, 24/06/2014 – https://www.desmogblog.com/2014/06/25/millions-behind-bjorn-lomborg-copenhagen-consensus-center
     “The main trustee at Randolph is Heather Higgins, the president and CEO of Independent Women’s Voice and the chairman of its sister organization Independent Women’s Forum. Higgins is the daughter of R. Randolph Richardson, a member of the family that sold Vick Chemical Company to Procter & Gamble for $1.2 billion.  Staff writers of both organisations regularly express scepticism about the science of human-caused climate change and cite Lomborg’s views approvingly.” A recent article from IWF senior fellow Vicki Alger claimed “a majority of scientists believe that global warming is largely nature-made” — ignoring several studies that show the vast majority of research from scientists studying climate change believe exactly the opposite. IWF funders include the Charles R. Lambe Foundation, controlled by Charles Koch, and Donors Trust, a fund for conservative philanthropists that has pushed millions into organisations promoting climate science denial and fighting laws to cut greenhouse gas emissions.”
104. Jane Mayer (2016) – Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right – Bantam Dell – ISBN-13: 978-0385535595 – 464 Págs.
     “The hedge fund manager Paul Singer, chairman of the Manhattan Institute and a major contributor to the Republican Party, didn’t attend, but his close aide Annie Dickerson appeared on his behalf. Singer’s company, Elliott Management, had a unique niche in the financial world. It bought the distressed debt of bankrupt companies and countries and then demanded to be paid in full or, if necessary, took them to court. Critics had called the tactic immoral particularly when applied to impoverished countries, castigating him as a «vulture capitalist» who profited off poverty, but Singer had accumulated a fortune estimated at $ 900 million from the practice.” (p. 256)
105. Graham Readfearn – Exclusive: Bjorn Lomborg Think Tank Funder Revealed As Billionaire Republican ‘Vulture Capitalist’ Paul Singer – Desmogblog, 09/02/2015 – http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/02/09/exclusive-bjorn-lomborg-think-tank-funder-revealed-billionaire-republican-vulture-capitalist-paul-singer
     “A billionaire “vulture capitalist” and major backer of the US Republican Party is a major funder of the think tank of Danish climate science contrarian and fossil fuels advocate Bjørn Lomborg, DeSmogBlog has found. New York-based hedge fund manager Paul Singer’s charitable foundation gave $200,000 to Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus Center (CCC) in 2013, latest US tax disclosures reveal. The grant to Lomborg’s think tank is revealed in the tax form of the Paul E. Singer Foundation covering that foundation’s activities between December 2012 and November 2013. Singer, described as a “passionate defender of the 1%”, has emerged as a major force in the Republican party in recent years and was a key backer and influencer during Mitt Romney’s failed tilt at the Presidency. The $200,000 grant represented almost one third of the $621,057 in donations declared by the Copenhagen Consensus Center in 2013.”
106. Sara Diamond (1995) – Roads to Dominion: Right-Wing Movements and Political Power in the United States – Guilford Press, New York – ISBN-13: 978-0898628647 – 445 Págs.
     “Fusionism represented the kind of breakthrough ideological transformation that can either help catalyze a new movement or lead an already existing one through a period of impasse. Fusionism, simply put, was the historical juncture at which right-wing activists and intellectuals focused, diversely, on the libertarian, moral-traditionalist, and emerging anticommunist strains of conservative ideology, recognized their common causes and philosophies, and began to fuse their practical agendas.” (p. 29)
107. 2014 Top Donors to Outside Spending Groups – Open Secrets, visitado 30/10/2020 – https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?cycle=2014&disp=D&type=V&superonly=S
     “Singer, Paul E., Elliott Management, $10,522,824.”
108. Paul Johnson – Message from the Vice-Chancellor on the Australian Consensus Centre – The University of Western Australia, 08/05/2015 – http://www.news.uwa.edu.au/201505087564/message-vice-chancellor-australian-consensus-centre
     “By its very nature a centre of this sort requires co-operation of a wide range of people across many fields … Unfortunately, that work cannot happen here. I have today spoken to the Federal Government and Bjorn Lomborg advising them of the barriers that currently exist to the creation of the Centre and the University’s decision to cancel the contract and return the money to the government.”
109. Andrew Burrell – Lomborg centre: Flinders uni students ready to fight – The Australian, 26/07/2015 – http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/lomborg-centre-flinders-uni-students-ready-to-fight/story-e6frg6xf-1227456007466
     «Flinders University is facing a backlash from its academics and students over revelations it has held talks with the Abbott government about setting up a $4 million policy centre linked to controversial Danish academic Bjorn Lomborg.”
110. Andrew Burrell – Bjorn Lomborg: I’m not a climate-change denier – The Australian, 27/07/2015 – http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/bjorn-lomborg-im-not-a-climate-change-denier/story-fn59niix-1227457819219
     “Controversial Danish academic Bjorn Lomborg has rejected claims he is a “climate-change denier” and has called on his opponents in Australia to stop misrepresenting his views. His comments came as Flinders University vice-chancellor Colin Stirling defended the Adelaide institution’s decision to explore the possibility of working with Dr. Lomborg, saying he believed universities should “experiment bravely”.”
111. Bjørn Lomborg (2015) – The Nobel Laureates Guide to the Smartest Targets for the World 2016-2030 – Copenhagen Consensus Center – ISBN-13: 978-1940003115 – 154 Págs.
112. Paul Karp – Experts reject Bjørn Lomborg’s view on 2C warming target – The Guardian, 21/05/2017 – https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/21/experts-reject-bjorn-lomborg-centres-view-that-2c-warming-target-not-worth-it
     “In 2015 the education department abandoned plans for Lomborg to set up an Australian Consensus Centre, but gave the Copenhagen centre $640,000 to support its Smarter UN Post-2015 Development Goals project … Bjørn Lomborg centre got $640,000 for report saying limiting warming rise to 2C not worth it The report said the 2C target was “relatively ineffective or there is large uncertainty in the benefit-cost ratio” because it was “extremely costly due to a lack of low-carbon energy sources”. ”
113. Julie Hare – Government funded Lomborg’s ‘vanity’ book: Senate Estimates – The Australian, 21/10/2016 – http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/govt-funded-lomborgs-vanity-book-senate-estimates/news-story/c910a37727718a081b303897238a3913
     “Taxpayers contributed $640,000 to a book edited, written and published by Bjorn Lomborg and his Copenhagen Consensus Centre which was ridiculed in Senate Estimates on Thursday as “vanity publishing”. The book, The Nobel Laureates Guide to the Smartest Targets in the World, also came under attack for receiving special purpose funding without having to undergo normal peer review processes of Australian researchers. Labor’s Deborah O’Neill pushed departmental officials and Education Minister Simon Birmingham on what the $640,000 bought, but there was little clarity after thirty minutes of questioning.”
114. Bjorn Lomborg – Trump’s climate plan might not be so bad after all – The Washington Post, 16/11/2016 – https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-climate-plan-might-not-be-so-bad-after-all/2016/11/21/f8c37aa8-acef-11e6-a31b-4b6397e625d0_story.html
     “My calculations using the best peer-reviewed economic models show the cost of the Paris  … would reduce GDP by more than $150 billion annually. So Trump’s promise to dump Paris will matter very little to temperature rises, and it will stop the pursuit of an expensive dead end. … Statements by Trump’s campaign also indicate that the next administration will create a global development and aid policy that recognizes that climate is one problem among many. ”
115. Bjørn Lomborg – Desmogblog, Visitado el 28/10/2020 – https://www.desmogblog.com/bjorn-lomborg
     “Lomborg published a book titled False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet. It was promoted by the Institute for Energy Research and the Hoover Institution among other groups … The thesis of the book, reported in a review at the New York Times, was that “Activists have been sounding a false alarm about the dangers of climate change. If we listen to them, Lomborg says, we will waste trillions of dollars, achieve little and the poor will suffer the most.”.”
116. Bjørn Lomborg – Using Data to Find the Middle Ground – Project Syndicate, 23/03/2017 – https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/cost-benefit-analysis-policy-choices-poor-countries-by-bjorn-lomborg-2017-03
     “Although out of favor with the Trump presidency, free trade is a right-wing staple. But, by establishing the benefits to the world’s worst-off, the research also provides reasons for the left to reconsider their opposition to it. Conversely, another highly recommended development priority, improved access to contraception and family planning, is strongly supported by the left and often opposed by the right … Cost-benefit analysis should not be the only input to a government’s decision-making. But for countries like Bangladesh and Haiti, it provides a vital, independent injection of data on which sound decisions can be based.”
117. DICE 3ºC òptim
118. Allister Thomas – Activist investor and ‘skeptical environmentalist’ face off on climate change – Energy Voice, 10/10/2019 – https://web.archive.org/web/20191016141304/https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/209477/stormy-discussions-on-climate-change-at-stavanger-event/
     “It’s the equivalent to about one recession over the next 50 years,” he said. “That’s a problem, but it’s certainly not the end of the world.”
119. Allister Thomas – Activist investor and ‘skeptical environmentalist’ face off on climate change – Energy Voice, 10/10/2019 – https://web.archive.org/web/20191016141304/https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/209477/stormy-discussions-on-climate-change-at-stavanger-event/
     ”’If you want to help people,’ he said, ‘you have to ask yourself do we want to help future generations by cutting carbon emissions and hence having them experience less climate change or do we want them to be more resilient against climate change by making sure they get out of poverty and get richer?’.”
120. Bob Ward – False Alarm by Bjorn Lomborg; Apocalypse Never by Michael Shellenberger – review – The Guardian, 09/08/2020 – https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/aug/09/false-alarm-by-bjorn-lomborg-apocalypse-never-by-michael-shellenberger-review
     “A graph in Lomborg’s book shows that he has used Dice to predict that 4.1C of global warming by the end of the century would only reduce global economic output, or GDP, by about 4%. He also finds that even more extreme warming of 7C would lead to a loss of GDP of just 15%. These are hard to reconcile with the scientific evidence that such temperature changes would utterly transform the world … Lomborg doubles Nordhaus’s estimates of the costs of global action and concludes that the “optimal” level of global warming, balancing both damages and emissions cuts, would be 3.75C by 2100. ”
121. Kate Andrews, Bjorn Lomborg and Matt Ridley – Don’t Panic! How to talk about climate change – The Spectator, 25/08/2020 – https://www.spectator.co.uk/podcast/don-t-panic-how-to-talk-about-climate-change
     “Can the conversation around climate change all too often get heated, hysterical, and panicked? Should we be appealing for more calm in the climate debate? In the first of this mini podcast series featuring Bjorn Lomborg and Matt Ridley, host Kate Andrews challenges Bjorn and Matt on their views over the best way to conduct what some say is the most important debate of our lifetimes.”
122. Graham Readfearn – The Millions Behind Bjorn Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus Center US Think Tank – Desmogblog, 24/06/2014 – https://www.desmogblog.com/2014/06/25/millions-behind-bjorn-lomborg-copenhagen-consensus-center
     “The impression back in 2012 might have been that Lomborg’s think tank was struggling for cash, but a DeSmogBlog investigation suggests the opposite. The nonprofit Copenhagen Consensus Center (CCC) has spent almost $1 million on public relations since registering in the US in 2008. More than $4 million in grants and donations have flooded in since 2008, three quarters of which came in 2011 and 2012. In one year alone, the Copenhagen Consensus Center paid Lomborg $775,000.  Lomborg is the blonde-haired political scientist, economist and “skeptical environmentalist” who is a beacon for many climate change contrarians and so-called “luke warmists” around the world.”