Bjorn Lomborg and the Anti-Climate Crowd

Read time: 2 mins

Bjorn Lomborg is breaking bread with another right wing think tank this week. The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research will be hosting the “skeptical environmentalist” for a speech today in the Big Apple.

Lomborg continues to tour the world delivering his message of “don’t worry – be happy” around environmental issues - particularly global warming. In May he will be hosting the Copenhagen Consensus 2008 conference where we can expect to see another contrived conclusion that climate change is too expensive to deal with.

Lomborg's biggest cachet with the media is that he portrays himself as an environmentalist and a one-time supporter of Greenpeace , though the organization has no record of his membership.

Looking closer however, the company Bjorn Lomborg keeps is a long way from the green end of the spectrum.

The Manhattan Institute describes their mission to: “develop and disseminate new ideas that foster greater economic choice and individual responsibility”. They have hosted such anti-Kyoto luminaries as Senior Research Fellow Max Schulz , and Sallie Baliunas - listed as a spokesperson for the Institute in 2004.

Sallie Baliunas is described by as: “a darling of the anti-climate movement, Baliunas has been a central scientist in the fight against action on climate change. She is used by virtually all of the Exxon-funded front groups as their scientific expert.”

As for the Manhattan Institute itself, they received over $200,000 in funding from ExxonMobil since 1998, including $30,000 in 2006.

This is certainly not the first time Bjorn Lomborg has rubbed elbows with the anti climate crowd. Here is photo of speaking at the Adam Smith Institute .

He also accepted an award in 2001 from the Competitive Enterprise Institute . This notorious climate denier group received over $2 million in support from Exxon Mobil since 1998 - some of it specifically earmarked for “global climate change outreach”.

Lomborg’s latest book tour was also sponsored by non-other than the Fraser Institute, something that he admitted during a media interview in 2007 . In 2003-04, Exxon shelled out $120,000 to the Fraser Institute - in part to pay for their anti Kyoto work.

Lomborg often boasts that his message of moderation makes him equally reviled by both ends of the spectrum on climate change. That might be compelling if true. However, he seems awfully well loved by the Exxon crowd. And I haven’t seen Greenpeace offering him any awards…

Get DeSmog News and Alerts


“As for the Manhattan Institute itself, they received over $200,000 in funding from ExxonMobil since 1998, including $30,000 in 2006.

Holy Crap! $200,000 in 10 years!
That works out to something like $9.61/hour.
Someone must investigate this astounding corruption!

From ( –

“Former U.S. presidential candidate Al Gore will be giving his much-publicized presentation, An Inconvenient Truth, to a Saskatchewan audience later this month.

Gore, a former vice-president under Bill Clinton, was invited to speak at Regina’s Brandt Centre April 23 by Premier Lorne Calvert.

SaskTel, the provincially owned phone company, is fronting the $208,000 cost of the event, which includes Gore’s $125,000 speaking fee.”

Gee, at least Exxon is spending their own money.

Got to admire this man.
His honesty is a welcome change from the usual MSM propoganda we hear daily about AGW.
With GW having stoped a decade ago it is getting really tiresome to keep hearing the silly chants of unpresidented this or that.

We need more people like Bjorn to speak out on the what is actually happening.
Which is almost exactly NOTHING.

The good news however is that even the IPCC is begining to change their story and realize just how far off reality they were.

The end is Nye….. finally.

What did Bjorn have to say at his presentation?
I found an interesting quote: “It’s unproductive to have a conversation around the question ‘Does CO2 cause increased warming?’ It’s a fairly simple physical point-yes it does.”
Did he say that?
It seems he had some other very interesting things to say about Global Warming which are at odds with your opinions. Just hearsay of course….

No Question.
How much? That is a big question.
How much is caused by human emissions? Even bigger question.
With so much GOOD science being done in the last couple years that refutes the OLD data that the IPCC used, it is little wonder that the conclusions are all being questioned right to the top of the AGW church.
GW is mostly natural and mostly benificial.

Yet another report says the “effect of Black Carbon in the atmosphere is unaccounted for in model-based estimates used in most studies, meaning that black carbon’s actual warming contribution has been underestimated.”
OK. The models don’t properly account for:
Black Carbon
Water vapor
Cosmic rays
Ocean currents
ADOs, PDOs, ENSOs, Denzos…..
La nina
El nino
Etc, etc, etc.
Tell me again how the IPCC CO2 models are accurate.

Has anyone ever attempted to add up all the Unaccounted bits to see just what is left of the CO2 AGW hypothesis?

Is that relevent?

The hypothysis is mostly correct. It is merely the massively incorrect assumptions on the input side and grosely over stated conclusions on the output side that are at issue. The science in the middle is largely fine.

First you said GW stopped a decade ago.
Then you said CO2 causes warming and then you said GW is mostly natural and mostly beneficial.
Bjorn Lomborg, whom you admire and consider to be a honest man, agrees with AGW and so do you, to at least a degree, when you state that the hypothesis is mostly correct. Yet on another thread you consider AGW to be a myth….

“Tell me again how the IPCC CO2 models are accurate.”

Because CO2 is independent of all of the other factors you listed. The positive ones will cause yet more warming, the negative ones will offset some of the warming. Most of them are positive.

” Because CO2 is independent of all of the other factors ”

LOL….. By virtue of VooDoo or AGW logic.

That was a good one… needed a laugh. thanks.

No, by virtue of the radiative physics of greenhouse gases.

None of the other factors that you listed will change that physics, and greenhouse gas physics will not change the physics of those other factors.

Are you really as dense as you appear to be?

But there are *more* positive feedbacks and negative effects unaccounted for by the models. The uncertainties, most of them candidly stated by IPCC, skew towards AGW being worse than IPCC estimates. Today it was just discovered the pacific coast shell-fish are being exposed to acid about 5 decades earlier than predicted. This is the base of much of the human food chain, even for the idiots and evil people that represent Exxon and others. The paper doesn’t speculate, but I think this means much of our food supply will be toasted soon.
The models to predict El Nino and La Nina. Clouds are a known uncretainty forwarded by the IPCC as an uncertainty. Cosmic Rays are known to be minor effects. This is like debating with Nazis. The global warming deniers are Nazis inb the making; Canada and the USA in 2008 are Germany in the late 1920s. They are responsible for the deaths of tens of millions in the future and will be responsible for billions of deaths if not the extermination of our species. It might make sense for liberals and progressives globally, to consider joining forces with Al-Qaeda, if the oil/coal industry is not put in its place within the next decade or so. Doing so and initiating massive terrorist attack would be a societal good, given continued AGW denial (actions not words) by Bush, Harper and others.
Longberg’s arguments are ingenious in that they are rational. But he doesn’t get that AGW affects freshwater supplies. And his human development utilities can be achieved at the expense of infinitely many other other utilities much more regressive than funding clean energy and conservation. He is still a troll, but at least a reasonable one.

His contented smile is everywhere. Bjorn is the new Pollyanna.

More to the point, Lomborg’s arguments simply factually incorrect.

Same can be said about Baliunas.

No reason to use a weaker argument like ad-hominem, when their actual arguments are so fragile.

“No reason to use a weaker argument like ad-hominem, when their actual arguments are so fragile.”

Heh. You’re obviously not familiar with Smogblog’s mainstay tactic.

(BTW, the “logical science” link is pretty lame – although they do seem to have a sense of irony in naming their web site.)

Thought it was rather effective especially if you skip to the Medieval Period part.

But here’s a more specific link if you like.

I like the LS link though, because it’s rather comprehensive.

Here’s the argument that may even convince the trolls; global warming will cause a beer shortage.

It is not GloBULL warming that is causing beer to increase in price.
It is the Stupid knee jerk reaction of the idiot greenies promoting BIOFUELS.
While beer prices are arguable the worst effect of dumb ideas like that, worldwide famine and clear cutting of forests is also tragic.

I see you didn’t bother to read the blogs I linked to, nor to read the news stories they linked to. You missed the point again, that the changing climate is affecting malt barley crops.