Talk:Bjørn Lomborg

The Guardian article

The 30 August 2010 Guardian article is a fairly big deal, and deserves to be handled carefully. link. I added a sentence to the lead, but it deserves more coverage in the body, although perhaps additional sources will help. In view of the implied major change of position (although I think there's less than meets the eye), it would be helpful if editors proposed how it should be handled (new section, a sentence in an existing section, wait for more sources, etc) so the inclusion in the body can be done properly.--SPhilbrickT 23:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian seems to have some sort of exclusive on this story at the moment. Perhaps we should wait for other media to break the story as well? --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop talking nonsense. The Guardian has no exclusive, except that about they actually read what he wrote instead of what they think he wrote. Greglocock (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

No wait; category removal

Why wait? Yahoo News has also announced (31 August) his moving away from global warming skepticism. Given his change, I have removed his name from environmental skepticism.Dogru144 (talk) 10:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Obviously since I wrote that 2 days ago, the story has been widely reported in all media, and thus that particular reason to wait is no longer valid. However the book itself will only be released in October, so all we have to go on is the story in the Guardian (which all the other media seems to rely on), that seems to me somewhat of a shaky foundation to remove categories and what not. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No need to be mealy mouthed about it,. He has accepted GW since 2008 in published sources. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/hot-air-from-obama/story-e6frg6zo-1111118315425

"Yes, global warming is happening, and mankind is partly responsible" Greglocock (talk) 01:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I can only ask: "Where were you in 2008?". As far as I know this recent discussion is about the interview in the Guardian and his forthcoming book. --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed edit

I'd like to discuss the sentence:

In 2010, in conjunction with an announcement of a forth-coming book,
 Lomborg reversed his position away from opposition to global warming theories.

A brief history:

• user:Dogru144 added "reversed his position away from opposition to global warmingtheories."
• User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris reverted, noting in an edit summary "...not strictly correct"
• User:Tjmayerinsf, with no edit summary, reverts the revert

Let's remember that it is helpful to use edit summaries, and when material is contentious (and add, edit, revert, and re-revert qualifies), it is best to discuss on the talk page and reach consensus.

To be blunt, it is wrong to say imply that Lomborg was opposed to global warming theories. His past opposition related to mitigation plans, and cost benefit analyses of those proposals, but he largely accepted the IPPC report and its conclusions. We need look no further than this article itself:

Global warming is happening. It's a serious and important problem ...

—Bjørn Lomborg, Bjørn_Lomborg#Further_books

Note that this is a direct quote, not simply some editors (possibly misunderstood) summary.

My suggested wording:

In 2010, in conjunction with an announcement of a forth-coming book,
 Lomborg revised his position regarding mitigation of anthropogenic global warming.

Does anyone disagree?--SPhilbrickT 14:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but I think it'd be helpful to the reader if it were stated the positions he revised from, and revised to, and possibly why (depending upon sourcing, of course). -Atmoz (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion. Some of the answers are hinted at in the source, but let me see if I can dig up some other sources, to make sure it is solid.--SPhilbrickT 16:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Expanded wording to reflect the suggestion of Atmoz

In 2010, in conjunction with an announcement of a forth-coming book,
Lomborg revised his position regarding mitigation of anthropogenic global warming.
He has consistently supported the position that global warming
exists, but cost benefit analyses, as calculated by the
Copenhagen Consensus ranked climate mitigation initiatives low
on a list of international development initiatives when first
done in 2004. That ranking improved in 2008, and improved further
with an examination of a broader list of possible solutions.

The support for the statement that he was supported the existence of global warming is in the Dykes article:

Lomborg's essential argument was: Yes, global warming is real and human behavior is the main reason for it, but the world has far more important things to worry about.

He is explicitly quoted with a source in Bjørn_Lomborg#Further_books.

The mention of the 2004 ranking is in the Jowit article:

But he said the crucial turning point in his argument was the Copenhagen Consensus project, in which a group of economists were asked to consider how best to spend $50bn. The first results, in 2004, put global warming near the bottom of the list, arguing instead for policies such as fighting malaria and HIV/Aids.

The change of the ranking in 2008 is cited in Jowit:

But a repeat analysis in 2008 included new ideas for reducing the temperature rise, some of which emerged about halfway up the ranking.

The new analyses are cited in Jowit:

The difference was made by examining not just the dominant international policy to cut carbon emissions, but also seven other "solutions" including more investment in technology, climate engineering, and planting more trees and reducing soot and methane, also significant contributors to climate change, said Lomborg.

--SPhilbrickT 20:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that's much better, although I would be hesitent to say the "ranking improved". Perhaps something along the lines of: "In 2008, the issue of global warming saw an increase in its priority ranking, culminating with examination of a broader list of possible solutions." -Atmoz (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the concern about the word "improved"; adopted your suggested wording.--SPhilbrickT 00:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that he has "revised" his position, which suggests he believes his earlier beliefs were wrong. Rather than performing original research to interpret his words, why not simply lists the facts? He's never believed emissions reductions would pay off. His later work expands on that to state that other solutions might. Fell Gleaming^talk 18:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that approach as it seems to be the difference between TSE and now, he has taken notice of new information and revised his stance. Would that others in the debate were as open minded. Greglocock (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Lomborg is the only person in the debate who has modified their stance as a result of receiving new information? And if he were really open minded, he wouldn't ignore or dismiss so much relevant information. 98.108.230.174 (talk) 04:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Lomborg has not replied to the criticism from Kåre Fog

In the section `Continued debate and criticism´ I read: `Lomborg has on numerous occasions commented and defended himself against Kåre Fog's critique, especially in the web-book "Godhedens Pris".[20][21]´ This is not true. The book "Godhedens Pris" is from 1999, whereas the complaints at DCSD were from 2002 and the Lomborg-errors web site was established in 2004. See more details here: www.Lomborg-errors.dk/LomborgonLomborgerrors.htm Concerning the thorough criticism on the Lomborg-errors web site, it is peculiar that Lomborg has never publicly commented on any points of criticism raised there.

As I am personally involved, I am not allowed to make any Wikipedia changes myself. But I hope somebody else will make appropriate changes so that the text can be correct. Kåre Fog Kåre Fog (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Shrugs, the Fog website hasn't been mentioned in RS (it is mentioned in blogs) for about two years, from what I can see on google. Wiki does not exist to give oxygen to self publicists. Greglocock (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey Greg, is there a special reason the civility policy doesn't apply to you? Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 08:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

potential resource

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/11/28/the_global_thinkers_20_most_recommended_books?page=0,3

4) Getting Better: Why Global Development Is Succeeding and How We Can Improve the World Even More (2011) by Charles Kenny Recommended by Bjorn Lomborg and Steven Pinker

99.19.42.30 (talk) 07:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is his Reading List: "Getting Better, by Charles Kenny; The God Species: How the Planet Can Survive the Age of Humans, by Mark Lynas; The Quest, by Daniel Yergin." 99.181.130.83 (talk) 09:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)