Bjørn Lomborg

Bjørn Lomborg ( Danish: [bjɶɐ̯n lʌmbɒˀw] ; born 6 January 1965) was a Danish author and adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School as well as President of the Copenhagen Consensus Center . He is former director of the Danish government’s Environmental Assessment Institute (EAI) in Copenhagen . He became Internationally Berninahaus for his best-selling and controversial book, The Skeptical Environmentalist (2001), in welke he argues dat many of the costly maatregelen and actions eerste by scientists and policy makers to meet the challenges of global warming will ultimately harbor minimal impact on the world’s rising temperatures. ^[1]

In 2002, Lomborg and the Environmental Assessment Institute founded the Copenhagen Consensus , a project-based conference where prominent Economists SOUGHT to Establish Priorities for advancing global welfare using methods based on the theory of welfare economics .

In 2009, Business Insider Cited Lomborg as one of “The 10 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics”. ^[2] While Lomborg campaigned Against the Kyoto Protocol and other maatregelen to cut carbon emissions in the short-term, have argued for adaptation to short-term temperatures Rises, and for spending money on research and development for longer-term environmental solutions. His issue is not with the reality of climate change, but Rather with the economic and political approaches being tasks (or not taken) to meet the challenges of that climate change. He is a strong advocate for focusing attention and resources on what he perceives as far more to influence world problems, zoals AIDS, malaria and Malnutrition. ^{[3] [4]} In his critique of the 2012 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development , Lomborg stated: “Global warming is at no means our main environmental threat.” ^[5] In 2011 and 2012, Lomborg was named a Top 100 Global Thinker in Foreign Policy “for looking more right than ever on the politics of climate change”. ^[6]

Education

Lomborg spent a year as an undergraduate at the University of Georgia , earned an MA degree in political science at the University of Aarhus in 1991, and a Ph.D. degree in political science at the University of Copenhagen in 1994.

Career

Lomborg lectured in statistics in the Department of Political Science at the University of Aarhus as an assistant professor (1994-1996) and associate professor (1997-2005). He left the university in February 2005 and in May of that year became an assistant professor in Policy-making, Scientific Knowledge and the Role of Experts at the Department of Management, Politics and Philosophy, Copenhagen Business School . ^[7]

Early in his career, his professional areas of interest lay in the simulation of strategies in collective action dilemmas , simulation of party behavior in proportional voting systems , and the use of surveys in public administration . In 1996, Lomborg’s paper, “Nucleus and Shield: Evolution of Social Structure in the Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma”, was published in the academic journal , American Sociological Review . ^[8]

Later, Lomborg’s interests shifted to the use of statistics in the environmental arena . In 1998, Lomborg published four essays about the state of the environment in the leading Danish newspaper Politiken , welke volgens to him “resulted in a fire storm debates tension over 400 articles in major metropolitan Newspapers.” ^[9] This led to the The Skeptical Environmentalist , Whose English translation was published as a work in environmental economics at Cambridge University Press in 2001. He later edited Global Crises, Global Solutions , welke Presented the first Conclusions of the Copenhagen Consensus, published in 2004 by the Cambridge University Press. In 2007, he authored a book entitled Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming .

In March 2002, the newly elected center-right prime minister , Anders Fogh Rasmussen , appointed Lomborg to run Denmark’s new Environmental Assessment Institute (EAI). On 22 June 2004, Lomborg announced his decision to Resign from this post to go back to the University of Aarhus, ^[10] saying his work at the Institute was done and therein have Could better serve the public debate from the academic sector.

Copenhagen Consensus

Lomborg and the Environmental Assessment Institute founded the Copenhagen Consensus in 2002, welke seeks to Establish Priorities for advancing global welfare using methodologies based on the theory of welfare economics. A panel of prominent Economists were assembled to evaluate and rank a series of problems everytime four years. The project was funded largely by the Danish government and was co-sponsored by The Economist . A book summarizing the Conclusions of the Economists’ first assessment, Global Crises, Global Solutions , edited by Lomborg, was published in October 2004 in Cambridge University Press .

In 2006, Lomborg became director of the newly Agent Copenhagen Consensus Center , a Danish government-funded institutes intended to build on the mandates of the EAI, and expand on the original Copenhagen Consensus conference. ^[11] Denmark withdrew zijn funding in 2012 and the center faced imminent closure. ^{[12] [13]} Lomborg left the country and reconstituted the Center as a nonprofit organization in the United States. ^{[14] [15]} The Center was based out of a “Neighborhood Parcel Shipping Center” in Lowell, Massachusetts , though Lomborg himself was based in Prague in the Czech Republic. ^[16] In 2015, Lomborg DESCRIBED the Center’s funding as “a little more than $ 1 mA year … from private donations”, ^[13] or welke Lomborg himself was paid $ 775,000 in 2012. ^[16]

In April 2015 it was announced dat an alliance tussen de Copenhagen Consensus Center and the University of Western Australia mention anything about sea the establishment of the Australian Consensus Centre, a new policy research center at the UWA Business School. The University DESCRIBED the Center’s goals as a “focus on Dankzij an economic lens to proposals to beste good for Australia, the region and the world, prioritizing Those initiatives welke produce the musts social value per dollar spent.”. ^[17] This appointment cameramen under intense scrutiny, bijzonder als Leaked documents revealed therein the Australian government had approached UWA and offered to fund the Consensus Centre, information subsequently confirmed by a senior UWA Lecturer. ^[18] Reports indicated therein Prime Minister Tony Abbott ‘s office was rechtstreeks verantwoordelijk for Lomborg’s elevation. ^[19] $ 4 million of the total funding for the Center was to be provided by the Australian federal government, ^[13] with UWA not contributing ANY funding for the center. ^[20]

On 8 May 2015 UWA canceled the contract for hosting the Australian Consensus Centre as “the Proposed center was untenable and lacked academic support.” ^{[21] [22]} The Australian federal education minister, Christopher Pyne , zegt dat he mention anything find Another university to host the ACC.

In July 2015, Flinders University senior management Began quietly canvassing zijn staff about a plan to host the renamed Lomborg Consensus Centre at the University, LIKELY in the Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences. A week later the story was broken on Twitter by the NTEU (National Tertiary Education Union) ^[23] and Scott Ludlam. ^[24] The story Appeared the next day in The Australian, ^[25] but DESCRIBED as “academic conversations” with no mention of Bjorn Lomborg’s Involvement and portrayed as a grassroots desire for the Centre at the University. ^[26] The volgende week, a story Appeared in the Guardian quoting two Flinders University Academics and an internal document demonstrating staff’s with ring rejection of the idea. ^[27] Flinders staff and students vowed to fight Against the establishment or ANY Centre or ANY partnership with Lomborg, ^[28] Citing his Lack of scientific credibility, his Lack of academic legitimacy and the political nature of the process or Establishing the Centre with the Abbott federal government. The Australian Youth Climate Coalition and 350.org launched a national campaign to support staff and students in hun rejection or Lomborg. ^[29]

On 21 October 2015 education minister Simon Birmingham Told a senates committee the offered funding was withdrawn leg. ^[30] It was subsequently unclear Whether the Australian Government mention anything about honor zijn original commitment and transfer the funds directly to the Centre to cover the costs incurred, met bepaald Lomborg’s unique expertise and contribution to this club.

The Skeptical Environmentalist

In 2001, he attained significant attention by publishing The Skeptical Environmentalist , a controversial book Whose main thesis is dat many of the most-publicized claims and predictions on environmental issues are wrong.

In the chapter on climate change in The Skeptical Environmentalist , he states: “This chapter accepts the reality of man-made global warming but questions the way in welke future scenarios port leg arrived at and FINDS therein forecasts of climate change or 6 degrees by the end of the century are not plausible. ” ^[31] Cost-benefit analysis , calculated by the Copenhagen Consensus , ranked climate mitigation initiatives lowest on a list of international development initiatives als first done in 2004. ^[32] In a 2010 interview with the New Statesman , Lomborg Summarized his position on climate change: “Global warming is real – it is man-made and it is an important problem. But it is not the end of the world.” ^[33]

Formal accusations of scientific dishonesty

After the publication of The Skeptical Environmentalist , Lomborg was formally Accused of scientific dishonesty by a group of environmental scientists, who brought` a total of three complaints Against im to the Danish Committees on Scientific dishonesty (DCSD), a body under Denmark’s Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MSTI). Lomborg was Asked Whether he regarded the book as a “debate” publication, and thereby not under the purview of the DCSD, or as a scientific work; have Chose the Latter, clearing the way for the inquiry therein Followed. ^[34] The charges claimed therein The Skeptical Environmentalist contained deliberately misleading data and flawed Conclusions. Due to the similarity of the complaints, the DCSD decided to Proceed on the three cases under one investigation.

In January 2003, the DCSD released a ruling therein cents a mixed message, finding the book to be scientifically dishonest through misrepresentation of scientific facts, but Lomborg himself not guilty due to his Lack of expertise in the areas in question. ^[35] That February, Lomborg Filed a Complaint Against the decision with the MSTI, welke had oversight over the DCSD. In January, 2003, the Ministry annulled the DCSD decision, Citing procedural errors, zoals Lack of documentation or errors in the book, and the DCSD Asked to re-examine the case. In March 2004, the DCSD formally decided not to act further on the complaints, reasoning dat renewed scrutiny mention anything, in all likelihood, lead to the conclusion together. ^{[34] [36]}

Response of the academic community

The original DCSD decision about Lomborg provoked a petition ^[37] signed by 287 Danish Academics, primarily social scientists, who criticised the DCSD for Evaluating the book as a work of science, whereas the petitioners Considered it CLEARLY an opinion piece by a non-scientist . ^{[38] [39]} The Danish Minister of Science, Technology, and Innovation dan Asked the Danish Research Agency (DRA) to form an independent working group to review DCSD practices. ^[40] In response to this, Another group of Danish scientists Collected over 600 signatures, primarily from the medical and natural sciences community, to support the continued existence of the DCSD and Presented hun petition to the DRA. ^[38]

Recognition

The alumni network of the Cambridge Programme for Sustainability Leadership (CPSL) voted The Skeptical Environmentalist onder zijn list of the top 50 sustainability books. ^[41]

Continued debate and criticism

The rulings of the Danish autoriteiten in 2003-2004 left Lomborg’s critics frustrated. Lomborg claimed vindication as a result of MSTI’s decision to set aside the original finding or DCSD.

The Lomborg Deception , a book by Howard Friel , claims to offer a “careful analysis” of the ways in welke Lomborg has “Selectively used (and sometimes distorted) the available evidence”, ^[42] and dat het sources Lomborg zorgt in the Footnotes do not support-and in some cases are directly Contradiction to-Lomborg’s assertions in the text of the book; ^[43] Lomborg has denied claims prosthesis in a public response. ^[44] Lomborg has Provided a 27-page argument-by-argument responses. ^[45] Friel has written a reply to this response, ^[46] in welke he admits two errors, but otherwise in general rejects Lomborg’s arguments.

A group of scientists published an article in 2005 in the Journal of Information Ethics , ^[47] in welke ze concluded therein must criticism Against Lomborg was Unjustified, and therein the scientific community misused hun authority to suppress Lomborg.

The claim dat het accusations Against Lomborg ulcers Unjustified was challenged in the next issue of the Journal of Information Ethics ^[48] by Kåre Fog, one of the original plaintiffs. Fog reasserted his contention dat, on Despite the ministry’s decision, must of the accusations Against Lomborg ulcers valid. He’ll be rejected what he called “the Galileo hypothesis” In this housing have describes as the conception dat Lomborg is just a brave young man Confronting old-fashioned Opposition. Fog and other scientists harbor continued to criticize Lomborg for what one called “a history of misrepresenting” climate science. ^{[49] [50]}

In April 2015 Lomborg gained remit attention as a climate contrarian als have Issued a call for all subsidies to be removed from Fossil Fuels on the basis that ‘a disproportionate share of the subsidies goes to the middle class and the rich “… making fossil fuel as “Inexpensive dat consumption increases as, tHUS exacerbating global warming.” ^[51]

In 2014, the government of Australia offered the University of Western Australia $ 4 million to Establish a “consensus center” with Lomborg as director. The university accepted the offer, setting off a fire storm or Opposition from zijn faculty and students and from climate scientists around the world. In April 2015 the university reversed Itself and rejected the offer. The government continued to seek a sponsor for the Proposed institution. ^[52] On 21 October 2015 the offered funding was withdrawn. ^[30] (For further details see the “Copenhagen Consensus” sub-section of the ” Career ” section, Above.)

Personal life

Lomborg is gay and a vegetarian . ^[53] As a public figure he has leg a participant in information campaigns in Denmark about homosexuality, and states that ‘Being a public gay to my view a civic Verantwoordelijkheid. It’s important to show dat the width of the gay world can not save be DESCRIBED with a tired stereotype, but goes from leather gays on parade wagons to suit-and-tie yuppies on the direction floor, as well as everything in between. ” ^[54]

Recognitions and awards

• The Global Leaders of Tomorrow (Class 2002) – World Economic Forum (2002) ^[55]
• The Stars of Europe (category: Agenda Setters) – BusinessWeek (17 Jun 2002): “No matter what they ‘think of his views, nobody Denies therein Bjorn Lomborg has shaken the environmental movement to zijn core.” ^[56]
• The 2004 TIME 100 (in Scientists & Thinkers) – TIME (26 Apr 2004): “Our list of the Most Influential people in the world today: He just Might Be the Martin Luther of the environmental movement.” ^[57]
• Top 100 Public Intellectuals Poll (# 14) Foreign Policy and Prospect Magazine (2005) ^[58]
• Top 100 Public Intellectuals Poll (# 41) Foreign Policy and Prospect Magazine (2008) ^[59]
• 50 people who Could save the planet – The Guardian (5 Jan 2008) ^[60]
• Glocal Hero Award – Transatlantyk – Poznan International Film and Music Festival (2011) ^[61]
• FP Top 100 Global Thinkers – Foreign Policy (2012): “For taking the black and white out of climate politics” ^[62]

Discussions in the media

After the release of The Skeptical Environmentalist in 2001, Lomborg was subjected to intense scrutiny and criticism in the media , where his scientific Qualifications and integrity ulcers zowel attacked and defended. The verdict of the Danish Committees for Scientific dishonesty fueled this debate and brought` it withinto the spotlight of international mass media . By the end of 2003 Lomborg had Become an international celebrity, with frequent appearances on radio, television and print media around the world.

• Scientific American published strong criticism of Lomborg’s book. Lomborg Responded on his own website , quoting the article at zoals dat length Scientific American Threatened to sue for Copyright Infringement . Lomborg Eventually removed the rebuttal from his website; it was later published in PDF format on Scientific American ‘ s website. ^[63] The magazine ook printed a response to the rebuttal. ^[64]
• The Economist defended Lomborg, claiming the panel or experts dat had criticised Lomborg in Scientific American was zowel biased and did not actually counter Lomborg’s book. The Economist argued dat het panel’s opinion had come under no scrutiny at all, and therein Lomborg’s responses had not been reported. ^[65]
• Penn & Teller: Bullshit!  – The US Showtime television programs featured an episode entitled “Environmental Hysteria” in welke Lomborg criticised what he claimed was environmentalists’ Refusal to accept a cost-benefit analysis of environmental questions, and stressed the need to prioritise some issues Above Vodafone. ^[66]
• Rolling Stone stated, “Lomborg pullovers off the remarkable feat of welding the techno-Optimism of the Internet age with a lefty’s concern for the fate of the planet.” ^[67]
• The Union of Concerned Scientists Strongly criticised The Skeptical Environmentalist , claiming it to be “seriously flawed and failing to meet basic standards of credible scientific analysis”, accusing Lomborg or presenting device data in a fraudulent way, using flawed logic and Selectively Citing non-peer reviewed literature. ^[68] The review was conducted by Peter Gleick , Jerry D. Mahlman , Edward O. Wilson , Thomas Lovejoy , Norman Myers , Jeff Harvey , and Stuart Pimm .

Publications

• Lomborg, Bjørn, “Nucleus and Shield: Evolution of Social Structure in the Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma”, American Sociological Review , 1996.
• Lomborg, Bjørn, The Skeptical Environmentalist , Cambridge University Press, 2001.
• Lomborg, Bjørn (ed.), Global Crises, Global Solutions , Copenhagen Consensus, Cambridge University Press, 2004
• Lomborg, Bjørn (ed.), How to Spend $ 50 Billion to Make the World a Better Place , Cambridge University Press, 2006. ISBN 978-0-521-68571-9
• Lomborg, Bjørn (ed.), Solutions for the World’s Biggest Problems – Costs and Benefits , Cambridge University Press, 2007. ISBN 978-0-521-71597-3 , offering an “overview … or twenty-three of the world’s Biggest problems Relating to the environment, governance, economics, and health and population. Leading Economists bieden a short survey of the state-of-the-art analysis and sketch out some policy solutions for welke ze bieden cost-benefit ratios. “
• Lomborg, Bjørn, Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming , 2007, argues Against taking immediate and “drastic” action to curb greenhouse gases while simultaneously stating that ‘Global warming is happening. It’s a serious and important problem … ” . He argues that ‘… the cost and benefits of the Proposed maatregelen Against global warming. … Is the worst way to spend our money. Climate change is a 100-year problem – we should not try to fix it in 10 years . “
• Lomborg, Bjørn, Smart Solutions to Climate Change, Comparing Costs and Benefits , Cambridge University Press, November 2010, ISBN 978-0-521-76342-4 . ^{[69] [70]}
• Lomborg, Bjørn, The Nobel Laureates Guide to the Smartest Targets for the World 2016-2030 , Copenhagen Consensus Center, February 2015. ISBN 978-1940003115

Documentary film

Bjørn Lomborg released a documentary feature film, Cool It , on 12 November 2010 in the US. ^{[71] [72]} The film in part explicitly challenged Al Gore ‘s 2006 Oscar-winning environmental awareness documentary, An Inconvenient Truth , and was Frequently Presented by the media therein light, as in the Wall Street Journal headline, “Controversial” cool It ‘Documentary Takes on’ An Inconvenient Truth. ” ^{[73] [74]} Reviews ulcers algemeen favorable, with a media critic collective rating of 51% from Rotten Tomatoes ^[75] and 61% from Metacritic . ^[76] The Atlantic review DESCRIBED it as “An urgent, intelligent and entertaining account of the climate policy debate, with a strong focus on cost-effective solutions.” ^[77]

References