Talk:Bjørn Lomborg

Denialist
"Lomborg and the Copenhagen Consensus Center do not seem to deny that climate change is happening or man-made, but discuss the economics of the remedies." This is bullshit. Climate change denial does not just mean "deny that climate change is happening or man-made". There are other flavors, and Lomborg has some of them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Well boohoo, Thanks for the link to that attack page, I'll be editing it. So what is your personal definition of climate change denialism, other than wp:i don't like it? Greglocock (talk) 01:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing personal about it. That page is based on reliable sources, and if you try to inject anti-science denialist POV into it, you will fail. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think “climate change mitigation obstructionist” or something of the like would be the most appropriate way to describe him - although this is a bit too much of a mouthful. While Lomborg no longer denies the existence of climate change, it would appear he has spent much of his career as a professional apologist for those who oppose any kind of radical action to mitigate it. Ottawajin (talk) 04:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is supposed to be based on reliable sources. Unless they start calling him that, we cannot start calling him that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No longer? For at least 25 years he's agreed anthropogenic climate change is a thing. First edition of TSE 1998. Greglocock (talk) 09:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah I drink a lot but here are a bunch of reasons not to deal with it is in denial. I agree the climate is warming but... isn't a get-out-of-denial-free card. Lomborg is very much in denial. -- M.boli (talk) 10:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * he's agreed anthropogenic climate change is a thing A tiny, non-threatening thing we can safely ignore. Which it is not. As I said above, There are other flavors, and Lomborg has some of them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Uh, no, he just doesn't think it is a high priority and that adaptation can cope with the short term effects. I was specifically laughing at the 'no longer' phrase. Do you have ANY evidence he has ever claimed it didn't exist? I expect not, in which case 'no longer' is a complete falsehood. Greglocock (talk) 22:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * A climate change denier is somebody who is in denial about the problem of climate change. Doesn't think it is a high priority and adaptation can cope with the short term effects is denialism. M.boli (talk) 05:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you being deliberately obtuse? Yes, I realise the Chicken Littles have redefined the word denial, the point I have been making is that the phrase 'no longer' is absurd. He has acknowledged AGW for at least 25 years, and as I've said if you can't find a RS in which he claims otherwise then 'no longer' is laughable. Greglocock (talk) 05:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Using the phrase "Chicken Littles" for people who represent the scientific consensus is telling. Not that it needed telling anymore.
 * We have the science on one side, and we have Lomborg, you, and others on the other side. Wikipedia follows the science.
 * The words "no longer" are not in the article, and nobody wants to put them there. One user wrote them here. It is pointless to complain about them to other users who did not, or to demand evidence for them from other users who did not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Good, point settled. "No longer" is weasel words. And boring hint consensus !=science. it's politicsGreglocock (talk) 08:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * consensus !=science. it's politics That is just a denialist talking point, not reality. The denialist, non-consensus position is the only political one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

"Warmist"
A drunk who insists their drinking isn't causing problems, and besides a little alcohol is good for you, and there are better things to think about, and maybe next year, is in denial.

Lomborg has devoted much of his professional career to saying a little warming is good for you, and the world could better focus its attention elsewhere, and it isn't causing so much problem, and maybe in a few years we can do something.

It is the same way a person can admit to drinking a lot of alcohol and deny there is a problem. We wouldn't call called them an "alcoholist" or say they are "skeptical." Lomborg is a denier. -- M.boli (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * What do you call the alcoholic who comes up with a more complicated and drastic program every year to stop his drinking? And every year when he presents his new plan he admits that his drinking is a little bit worse, but his plan is better? And in the meantime ignores his cancer and his domestic abuse issue and his inability to pay his mortgage? --2607:FEA8:FF01:4E54:3DBD:5499:8EC2:B712 (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Clarification Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty
The link in footnote [9] is dead, but it remains archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20150316130136/http://www.cprm.gov.br/33IGC/1343527.

I'm adding the full quote: "one couldn't prove that Lomborg had deliberately been scientifically dishonest, although he had broken the rules of scientific practice in that he interpreted results beyond the conclusions of the authors he cited", because I think it is more nuanced than "it misrepresented scientific facts." Pushback welcome, particularly because it might be too long for the header section.

Aristotles (talk) 11:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The report from the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty is available on the web: https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DishonestDane.pdf. It does not contain what you quoted. In sum: by the standards of science, the book is dishonest. But Lomborg doesn't do science in those areas, and the book isn't science, so they can't prove he intended to commit fraud. They sum it up nicely here:

"Subject to the proviso that the book is to be evaluated as science, there has been such perversion of the scientific message in the form of systematically biased representation that the objective criteria for upholding scientific dishonesty-cf. Danish Order No. 533 of 15 December 1998-have been met. In consideration of the extraordinarily wide-ranging scientific topics dealt with by the defendant without having any special scientific expertise, however, DCSD has not found-or felt able to procure-sufficient grounds to deem that the defendant has misled his readers deliberately or with gross negligence."
 * That quote immediately precedes the ruling, which says the same thing. I propose to replace the quote in the article with this one or the ruling. Both versions contain some clear language and some confusing language. -- M.boli (talk) 12:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I worry that I don't see a date and a bunch of signatures in that pdf. How can one be sure it's the official government product, not a draft? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The money quote (as it were), the first sentence in the blockquote above, is also quoted in a contemporaneous article in The Guardian.
 * But I agree finding the report itself would be good. I went looking for it on the agency web site, which has been renamed. The web site didn't seem to have case reports going back that far. It did have annual reports from 2002 and 2003. The 2002 annual report mentions the controversy and says the case report was issued in early 2003, which is consistent with the date on the Guardian article. But the 2003 annual report drops the matter. Some digging is needed. -- M.boli (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Deleting reference to "Business Insider"

 * Since the article is tagged as needing tertiary sources, please don't delete this tertiary source. Also, since the next paragraph starts critiquing Lomborg, I think it is important to maintain the third-party reference to "Business Insider", which confirms that Lomborg is a global player in the area of climate controversies. I would ask you to revert the deletion. --Melchior2006 (talk) 12:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The sentence was added on 24 April 2015 by Tsavage, changed on 8 January 2023 by Espoo, removed on 28 May 2023 by PhotographyEdits with edit summary = "Seems a bit undue weight, feel free to discuss on talk". The cited article is by Joe Weisenthal. To me it seems a bit due weight, though I would advocate revert of Espoo's edit per WP:CLAIM. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * My view coincides with Melchior2006 and Peter Gulutzan, including the latter's preference for the original version--"In 2009, Business Insider cited Lomborg as one of "The 10 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics".--which I consider more straightforward, succinct and neutral. It provides global context to Lomborg's positioning in the overall public climate change debate. I suggest reverting to the original version. Tsavage (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Sure, feel free to revert it. I was a bit too WP:BOLD I guess :) PhotographyEdits (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Spiffy sperry (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Encyclopedic/Informational Tone
I should bring this here to avoid an edit war: I had removed "incorrectly" under "Views on Climate Change" and suggested that any reversion at least offer a source, and be more professional and academic in tone. Someone provided a source, which is appreciated, but added "but he was wrong," which sounds even more polemical, and frankly immature. I reviewed the source and summarized its assertions, but now it has been reverted back to "but he was wrong." Surely there's a more thoughtful and careful way to express whatever it is that needs to be expressed here. Jmaranvi (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That is not a question of tone but of accuracy. We cannot omit that fact or camouflage it behind misleading language.
 * The goal of denialists (like Lomborg) is to generate the impression in the general public that what they say is somehow on the same level as real science, but Wikipedia cannot help them in that dishonest endeavor. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that accuracy is foremost. That's why I think that the article should reflect what the sources say. Nothing more, nothing less. If you want to make stronger claims, find reliable sources that make those claims. Treating the subject of the article as an enemy to be defeated seems like WP:RGW, noble as the pursuit may be. Jmaranvi (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Arcahaeoindris added "incorrectly" on on 17 September 2022. 2604:ca00:11b:99b3::668:20cd removed it on 5 June 2023. Hob Gadling re-inserted it on 6 June 2023. Jmaranvi re-removed it on 1 August 2023.M.boli inserted "but he was wrong" 1 August 2023. Jmaranvi changed to "others have noted that this claim is speculative, and unlikely to hold true, given historical trends" on 1 August 2023. Hob Gadling changed back to "but he was wrong" on 2 August 2023. I believe that WP:BLPRESTORE wording -- "If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first." -- is relevant since Hob Gadling's re-insertion included the same word and M.Boli's change was to something not significantly different. I also regard the citing of the changed words to Caitlyn Kennedy's post which predicts "Over the coming century, human-caused warming will continue, with natural variability periodically speeding up or slowing down the pace from decade to decade." is not proof that Mr Lomborg's prediction is wrong, and it doesn't specifically mention Mr Lomborg's prediction which according to a Guardian blogger was "It does probably indicate that the high temperature increases  - the very scary scenarios that get banded around - are much less likely simply because they are not nearly as likely to compare with the findings of the models compared to reality." In that case WP:SYNTH applies. I conclude that Jmaranvi acted correctly. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to delete Lomborg's prediction entirely. He has written extensively his views on global warming. This is one murky almost off-hand remark. It was specifically referring to a particular "pause", the reference I added is public outreach from NOAA saying the pause on question didn't slow the rate of global warming. So I think it isn't very synthetic, I think it's use to contextualize lomborg is ok. But there is zero reason for Lomborg's prediction to be here. -- M.boli M.boli (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * (I just noticed the continuation of this thread in August.) There were just two honest options here: include his false prediction and add that it is false, or not include it. Both are consistent with WP:FRINGE. Including the claim without adding that it was false would have been dishonest as well as inconsistent with WP:FRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)