lomborg

From your own source: > After the publication of The Skeptical Environmentalist, Lomborg was accused of scientific dishonesty.

More correct would be to say, at the time (2006), Lomborg was a denier.

I don't think it's fair to call Bjorn Lomborg a a climate change skeptic.

Yes, and Bjørn Lomborg is a lifelong environmentalist, which I also learned at Infowars.

The ruling sent a mixed message, deciding the book to be scientifically dishonest, but Lomborg himself not guilty because of lack of expertise in the fields in question...

At least I never heard about it before the Lomborg talk.

[3] Lomborg is a leading climate denier, trotted out as a academic expert.

Somewhat more on topic: in the interview I saw Lomborg didn't talk about earmarking or anything like that, he merely said the money would be better spent elsewhere.

There's really just one thing going on here: the Norman Borlaug/Julian Simon/Bjørn Lomborg people and the enviromentalist people have been talking past each other for the last 70 years and this is just more of the same.

This is why Bjorn Lomborg is reviled: not because he doubts that anthropogenic global warming is for real, but because he has the temerity to suggest that the cure (spending a kajillion dollars to achieve relatively small changes in climate) may be worse than the disease.

Your #2 reminds me of something Bjorn Lomborg (yeah yeah, I'm not a fan either - nor a hater, in fact, I just don't know enough about the nuances of the issues involved to have an opinion that's well thought out enough to defend) said in an interview on Dutch television years ago.

Like many climate change skeptics, Lomborg changes his tune--first climate change isn't happening, then it is happening but it isn't our fault, then it is our fault but it's not really that bad, and then finally, it is that bad but cutting emissions and transitioning to sustainable fuel sources isn't the solution.

My "probably" is based on reseach by Bjorn Lomborg [1] and other welfare and environmental economicists.

The article is a rehash of the arguments proposed by (cited) Bjorn Lomborg - who rose to fame / notoriety with "The environmental Skeptic" (not sure if have title right there).

For example, many years ago they published an article[1] saying that a recent conference led by John Bolton[2] came to the same climate-denying conclusion as an earlier conference led by Bjorn Lomborg.[3] The Economist claimed that Bolton's results were independent corroboration for Lomborg's, saying the "conclusions were strikingly similar".

Lomborg has openly stated multiple times that he believes in anthropogenic climate change.

Most environmentalists are not - witness the reaction to Bjorn Lomborg.

I found Economist Bjorn Lomborg's take on climate change to be very impactful...