Bjorn Lomborg is not a sceptic

For me, climate skepticism is only part of the way towards where we need to get. Until there is actual evidence that the climate is warming because of how we heat our homes and generate electricity, I will remain as I am, completely unconvinced that the whole of this green new deal enterprise is anything other than a scam and a hoax. Bjorn Lomborg signed up early as the “rational” sceptic, but from everything he has ever written and said, his pretending to be on the fence is one hundred percent a pose. No one should pay attention to a word he says. So there he was in The Oz today with this: Throwing trillions at climate policies is sheer folly. I am more into believing that throwing ten cents at climate policies, as in climate change policies, is the folly. This is what Lomborg actually believes:

During the Paris climate summit in 2015, former US president Barack Obama and many other global leaders promised to double global green R&D spending by 2020. Unfortunately, actual spending has barely budged.

But Biden’s plan could change all that.

He laudably suggests spending $US75bn a year on green R&D, which would increase fourfold what the rich world is spending each year. While waste and mismanagement from such a drastic ramp-up are possibilities, Biden’s direction is precisely right.

What a repulsive scoundrel. He’s probably not quite as wealthy as Al Gore, but he has no doubt made his own little pile taking the line he does which allows him to pose as an undecided to gather in those fools who are only half way there under the pretence that they are being properly sceptical.

And let me add in my own two cents worth on The Amazing Randi who really was amazing. His thing was Uri Geller and I learned much from Randi as he exposed Geller for the charlatan he was. What was especially important to me was to find out that there is big money in deceiving the gullible. This is the essence of scepticism, and Randi was the real thing.

If you want to see another climate fraud, let me introduce you to Michael Shermer.

Michael Brant Shermer (born September 8, 1954) is an American science writer, historian of science, founder of The Skeptics Society, and editor-in-chief of its magazine Skeptic, which is largely devoted to investigating pseudoscientific and supernatural claims. The Skeptics Society currently has over 55,000 members. Shermer engages in debates on topics pertaining to pseudoscience and religion in which he emphasizes scientific skepticism.

Shermer, as it says, is the founding editor of Skeptic to which I once subscribed and the very first issue I received was devoted to explaining Climate Change is a genuine problem that needs to be dealt with. I, of course, cancelled my sub on the spot and have never paid the slightest attention to him ever since although he is everywhere. This is what he believes: Why Climate Skeptics Are Wrong.

Is there a consensus on AGW? There is. The tens of thousands of scientists who belong to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Medical Association, the American Meteorological Society, the American Physical Society, the Geological Society of America, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and, most notably, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change all concur that AGW is in fact real. Why? …

There is a convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry—pollen, tree rings, ice cores, corals, glacial and polar ice-cap melt, sea-level rise, ecological shifts, carbon dioxide increases, the unprecedented rate of temperature increase—that all converge to a singular conclusion. AGW doubters point to the occasional anomaly in a particular data set, as if one incongruity gainsays all the other lines of evidence. But that is not how consilience science works. For AGW skeptics to overturn the consensus, they would need to find flaws with all the lines of supportive evidence and show a consistent convergence of evidence toward a different theory that explains the data.

Some sceptic! That Randi, who like Houdini was a magician and able to see through the tricks that Geller and other magicians had devised to fool the public, was not able to see through all this is just how it goes. You can learn a great deal about fraud from his writings. As Randi said, you need a magician to expose a magician.

As for climate change fraud, you need a climate scientist who is willing to take these villains on. Such people are very rare. There is hardly a dollar in it. My only advice, which I learned from Randi and others like him, is to make it your aim in any controversy to investigate the other side. Don’t just read one climate scientist and then read another on the same side. Seek out, as a matter of principle, those who disagree and read carefully what they write. If you don’t do that, they will pick your pocket. With climate change, they will raise the cost of heating and lighting your homes, never mind the cost of production for everything you buy, and while they will become rich building windmills and solar panels, you will become poor. You not only need to become sceptical, you also need to know how to be sceptical.

It’s only when you have read the text above should you then look at the video below: “Michael Shermer with Bjorn Lomborg — How Climate Change Panic Costs Trillions, Fails to Fix Planet”. Both start from the premise there is a problem to be fixed. Once you’ve seen through that, only when you have seen through that, will you be at the beginning of being able to think through these issues. You may never be able to do a thing about it, but at least you will understand the world in which you live.

As Shermer says at the end, “where is the best place to send my money?” (1:19:25). That is just exactly what it’s all about.

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Bjorn Lomborg is not a sceptic

  1. mh

    So many climate grifters have come out of Sweden.

  2. mem

    Lomborg is a a patsy for the left. He takes up media space and resources that might otherwise go to a genuine realist/researcher. If he is not an invention of the climate movement he should be.

  3. Bruce of Newcastle

    True, he’s always been a warmie.
    Anathemized because he suggested a realist approach to the presumed thermageddon.
    He’s jumped the shark now though. The Nude Eel is insane, even just the R&D bits of it.

    The real world data continues to show nothing much is happening, except in the fever dreams of the climatistas, their models and their distorted surface “temperature records”.

  4. a happy little debunker

    For some reason I never thought Lomborg was an AGW skeptic – may be it was because he always claimed to believe in AGW… I just cannot be sure.
    However, I do know that leftists believe he is a ‘climate denier’, whatever that means (possibly that he doesn’t believe that we have a climate) … who knows?

    When he proposed a Consensus Centre with the University of Western Australia – he was trying to bridge the gap between AGW Catastropharians and Everyone Else – but that was beyond the pale for the Catastropharians.
    So, it got shitcanned by Xmassy Pyne after Turnbull defeated Abbott, but before Turnbull’s first cabinet meeting – where ‘proper processes of consultation with cabinet’ were ‘re-established’.

  5. Lazlo

    Every piece of “evidence from multiple lines of enquiry” cited by Shermer actually show that there is nothing unusual happening.

  6. RobK

    Shermer used to be a good read in SciAm before it went feral. I guess he went t with them.
    Lomborg is evidence that there is no discussion to be had. Unfortunately that’s the extent of what he is able to offer. Some of his analysis is informative, if only to highlight the futility of decimating the economy.

  7. Albatross

    Finally you rubes are noticing this?

    Lolbertarianism has proven to be a worse mistake than democracy.

  8. Infidel Tiger

    Bjorn has always been a believer, but not agreed with the methods to combat it.

  9. H B Bear

    Do you still get an invite to the right dinner parties

  10. Fisky

    What a repulsive scoundrel. He’s probably not quite as wealthy as Al Gore, but he has no doubt made his own little pile taking the line he does which allows him to pose as an undecided to gather in those fools who are only half way there under the pretence that they are being properly sceptical.

    Ummm, five minutes ago Lomborg was the bete noire of the Left. I was there, I have the receipts. Every single Leftist hated his guts because he was only a mild warmist, and they still do.

    So not sure why he gets called a scoundrel for basically saying the same stuff over two decades.

  11. Dot

    Shermer is an insufferable fuckwit.

    Get out there and invent something.

    *No, I am a science communicator…*

  12. Bad Samaritan

    Anyone care to explain why they use anomalies rather than actual temps on all these graphs? You may reckon it’s to visually exaggerate the rise in temperature, but what’s the rationale they give?

    And how the anomaly is arrived at?

    It’s an anomaly from what exactly?

  13. iggie

    Here’s how are ‘superiors’ operate.
    First, fabricate a problem to scare us (eg Climate Change).
    Next, make us feel guilty by blaming us for the problem.
    Then offer a solution – you do as we say and/or GIVE US YOUR MONEY.

  14. Bad Samaritan

    debunker (10.15pm). We don’t have a climate. I deny this vehemently. We only have weather.

    Of course you can calculate an average of temps and rainfall and windspeeds etc, but these will all be different even five ks up the road or further inland from nearby coasts….

    I live about halfway between Proserpine and Hamilton Island (the two BOM sites). The Proserpine site’s at the airport 10 ks from the town of Proserpine. Hamilton’s at their airport on the flat area, not at 240 metres on Passage Peak. The “climate” is therefore multi-faceted on Hammo; much cooler and windier on the peak than where the BOM creates it’s version.

    From the BOM site the climate in Prossy (at the airport) shows average temps in Oct to be Max 30.3 and Min 17.4. At Hamilton it’s Max 27.3 and Min 22.0. This is a massive difference in only 25 kilometres. a variation of 13 degrees at one and only 5 at the other. So what’s the climate on the coast at Shute Harbour or Airlie Beach / Cannonvale (on the coast opposite Hammo) where there’s no BOM site? Are they different climates to one another (12ks by road) ? Is Long Island (the next resort to Hammo) a different climate? Probably…since it’s nearly all hills.

    The climate of “The Whitsunday Area” is what?

    An analogy would be cricket batsman’s average (his “climate”). Is his average higher in the first innings or the second? is it higher against spin? Is it higher against fast bowling in the first innings or in the second? Is it higher on hot days than on warm days? WTF? The average does not “exist”.

    BTW: When betting sports the first thing to ignore is averages since they only occur inside the human brain. Like the “climate”, they have no reality!

  15. Years ago Lomborg wrote a book called the sceptical environmentalist. In it his position was that climate change was real and probably humans were causing it but we should adapt to that change like we do to everything else. His thrust was economics that is it is far cheaper to adapt to the result than try to eliminate it. For instance the recent fires in Australia can be addressed by much better forest management. That is what we used to do but the powers that be have been very slack over the years. They have followed the line that back burning destroys essential little microbes! No don’t do that they say we should spend vast amounts of money change our society and reduce the amount of global emissions. Not knowing of such a thing will even work.

    I have not seen that he has diverted from that. I don’t know what he believes but if you want to make an impact on this deep religion of fear certainly his approach has much more possibility of changing things than a direct confrontation. Quite often we approach this with facts and logic that will have no effect on the religious zealot who has many many reasons to continue to believe. If we want to understand environmentalism look to religion not rationality.

  16. Mark M

    How could you r&d solutions to a problem you have no evidence of?

  17. Jonesy

    Bad Samaritan, EXACTLY!

    I drive around this brown land a lot and I bave taken to trying to understand the geology of the various areas. I am amazed at the amount of dune country so close to the murray. We must have had some seriously dry conditions somewhere in our past to allow dune formation. Conditions like this so close to what is our only river that could be classified as perennial. Where I live in Mornington is on top of a huge dune complex. A short distance away is the vast KooWeRup drained.. but sitting atop a vast brown coal deposit. Suggesting this was always a swamp. But was it always? 420 million years ago it was on the bottom of an ocean.

    19000 years ago it was bloody dry here while over in the US, Portland had over a kilometre of ice above it. The oceans were lower than today. The Whitsundays were dry land.

    A trace gas affecting weather is an unsustainable argument. The 400tonne gorilla in the room is water vapour.

  18. Jonesy

    Oh yeh…Lomborg is not and never was a sceptic.

  19. cuckoo

    For AGW skeptics to overturn the consensus, they would need to find flaws with all the lines of supportive evidence

    Er, you mean like people stitching together two different data sets (tree rings and modern instrumental records) and then passing that off as one data set? Especially when the tree ring data in the modern period diverges from the instrumental data?

  20. Bruce


    Not quite the sequence.

    FIRST they develop the solution. This is always potentially a “final” one, but they are “flexible”; i.e., “Be reasonable, see it my way, (or else)”, sort of “flexible”.

    THEN they search for a suitable problem for which the “solution” can be offered / promoted.

    If the problems available “off the shelf” don’t make the grade, then extra effort will be applied to fabricating one.

    WHY? The usual; money and POWER.

    Hence the ages-old cynical line: “Solutions in search of Problems”.

    Or as H. L. Mencken pithily put it:

    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

  21. Terry

    @Bad Samaritan
    ‘So what’s the climate on the coast at Shute Harbour or Airlie Beach / Cannonvale (on the coast opposite Hammo) where there’s no BOM site?’

    Well that’s easy. When we want to show the historical Utopia, it’s the cooler one. When we have your wallet open and are removing your cash, it’s the warmer one.

    But to be perfectly fair and accurate, it’s whatever we tell you it is.

    Now, back to the salt mine. This trough ain’t going to fill itself.

  22. Tom

    The root of CAGW “theory” isn’t CO2. It’s human shame and self-hatred of our success as a species.

  23. Fin.

    Lomborg wants to be feted. He likes free things. From as many sides as possible until his credibility is bankrupt.
    Is he making a play for the high school dropout and her band of thugs?

  24. iggie

    Yes, you’re right -I just took a few short cuts.
    ‘FIRST they develop the solution.’ The solution of course is Socialism/Communism/state control.
    In order to do so you have to get rid of capitalism – Climate Change, Agenda 30 (use fear and guilt to do this).
    You also need to get rid of sovereign borders – Immigration UN style.
    Then you need to destroy western values. To do this you need to make the populace feel guilty about the past so that it appears their values are built on false premises (use white privilege, atonement for past wrongs, etc).
    And bingo, the ground is ready to bring in the solution – socialism, etc – and with that the total control of a demoralised population seeking the redemption our ‘masters’ offer.
    I could be very wrong, though.

  25. John Bayley

    But to be perfectly fair and accurate, it’s whatever we tell you it is.

    If we ‘adjust’ past temperatures sufficiently in the ‘down’ direction, it will always be hotter today than 50 years ago.
    ‘Climate science’ in a nutshell.
    Now, all of you: Hand over your wallets please.

  26. iggie

    Not only ‘down’ for the past, but in the ‘up’ direction for recent years.
    The BoM’s Climate summary for 2011 reports;
    ‘The Australian area-averaged mean temperature in 2011 was 0.14 °C below the 1961 to 1990 average of 21.81 °C. This was the first time since 2001 (also a wet, La Niña year) that Australia’s mean annual temperature was below the 1961–90 average.’
    Now check the BoM’s ‘Australian climate variability & change – Time series graphs’ and note that both 2011 and 2001 are now no longer ‘below the 1961 to 1990 average’. I checked out the average yearly means from 1995 -2017 and found all years have been adjusted up by around 0.1C.
    See here at
    Now the BoM have began adjusting the rainfall records.
    As they say in Russia – ‘The future is known; it’s the past that keeps changing’.

Comments are closed.