A well-known climate change skeptic has changed his mind regarding the importance of global warming, and in his new book, he is urging the spending of over $100 billion annually to help fight warming.
Bjorn Lomborg, an academic and environmental author, has held a strong opposing opinion against global warming for some time now, writing books such as “The Skeptical Environmentalist.” In this book, he argues against claims regarding certain aspects of global warming, species loss, water shortages, etc. […] Lomborg has now switched teams and makes this new vision clear in his upcoming book, “Smart Solutions to Climate Change,” which will be published next month.
Lomborg never denied the human role in global warming, but always argued that trying to counter climate change should be a “low priority” when it comes to government spending. […] So what made him change his mind? According to Lomborg, the Copenhagen Consensus project, which is where a group of economists are asked to consider the best way to spend $50 billion, made him reconsider global warming’s importance.
[…]
Lomborg now proposes a global carbon tax to raise $250 billion annually, where $100 billion will be spent on clean energy research and development, $50 billion on climate change adaptation and $1 billion on low-cost geo-engineering solutions. He wants the rest to be spent on better healthcare in poor countries and cleaner water.
3
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
“Lomborg never denied the human role in global warming, but always argued that trying to counter climate change should be a low priority when it comes to government spending.”
Some environmental skeptic. NOT! That’s merely being a spending policy skeptic. He “never denied” AGW. All his “change of heart” proves is, that enough money came along to make him change his “opinion”. Which is hardly solid scientific methodology of research. He wasn’t making any money selling his wishy-washy “Im a skeptic” books. But probably now has a much better book deal, saying “Im a convert”.
Lomborg is about as skeptical as someone who goes from saying “We shouldn’t spend billions looking for life on Mars”, to someone who says “We should spend billions”. Without ever arguing the evidence (or lack thereof) of life on Mars. Did he also change his mind about Blacks being less smart than Whites, because Obama became president? Wow! A crowning victory for GW advocates. Another idiot converted.
Actually spending billions to clean up the environment, isn’t a bad idea. I just don’t want to see the bulk of it going into the pockets of big oil and Al Gore, for conning us into believing their lies. Spend the billions in making electric cars cheap enough for everyone to drive them. And develop cleaner alternative energy sources, that aren’t still controlled by big oil and mineral tycoons. And “former” big oil tycoons. Wonder why T-Boone Pickens (who chairs the hedge fund BP Capital Management) is into Wind Turbines now? They’re the oil wells of the skies. And he’s just gettin in on the ground floor of Wind Energy investments. And probably getting a tax break too.
#61–Skeptic==I apologize for pointing out your head is up your ass. That is only a reflection of my frustration with your refusal to address the issues I raise and your manipulated non-response to your errors I have pointed out. The issues/arguments raised are stated clearly enough for an honest discussion, but you avoid it.
#62–Mike==I agree science does not march in a perfectly straight line. Still there is a long term consensus that has formed. The science is in. All thats left is forming the political will to make changes. Just about impossible to do without “proof” demanded by the Luddites who are more comfortable with the status quo.
#64–Glenn==you say: “Some environmental skeptic. NOT! That’s merely being a spending policy skeptic.” //// Correct and that is all he is now–matching the scope of the spending with the severity and timing of the harm. Lomborg knows the evidence for AGW and its consequences is firming up and as the FACTS HAVE CHANGED, he has changed his opinion. He evidences the mind of a scientist, not that of a religious man or a stooge. Why don’t you join him?
Declaring the science is in doesn’t make it so.
We see papers that show the models do not match the observed evidence since the model forecasts were published.
Another paper that suggests feedback from CO2 warming is negative, which makes the global warming problem go away on its own. Indeed, perhaps that is why the models were so far off to begin with.
Mickey==too trite. The models are “off” because you want daily predictions on what is a 100 year trend. So keep your head in the sand where it keeps the rest of you out of the way. The rest of us will save your ass because we are all in it together, naysayer astrologers same as everyone else.
I’m thinking we will wait for disaster and respond with that sulfur dioxide thing followed by birth control in the water. That ought to address more than one problem don’t ya think?
Those who believe in AGW should immediately commit suicide because they believe their very existence is killing poor mother earth.
I was 69, heh, heh.
His conversion is simple. He wants to join the renters. Why else do apparently logical truth-seeking science educated people advocate non-reality.
They are renters.
No, not the daily predictions. That’s just spin spread by the modelers. At some point, if the models are to be given any value, they have to be disprovable, but for the modelers that is not acceptable.
Santer published a paper that showed how models were doing well. Douglass et al were confused as to why they didn’t use all available data for their comparisons, and issued their own paper showing that Santer et al was flawed, and in fact the models were not valued. The scientists went out of their way to submit a reply in a way that Douglass et al could not respond.
Then Steve McIntyre and McKitrick used even more up to date data and showed that Santer et al’s proof of how well models were doing were invalid.
So in a way, Steve McIntyre has now taken down the hockey stick, the models, and the temperature records(For a while, the error he found in NASA’s code made 1934 the warmest year on record in the US).