Bjorn Lomborg on why we shouldn’t act on climate change.

5 thoughts on “Bjorn Lomborg on why we shouldn’t act on climate change.”

  1. Wow thats really amazing seeing such comments from the Australian commenters. The Australian is pretty much the bastion of conservative news in Australian newspapers & thoroughly delights in attacking the pro agw side of the debate. Its commenters are usually all too willing to denigrate anything AGW or progressive in nature. What a refreshing change.

    On an alternative note. This is one of my favourite sites for discovering Bjorn Lomborgs lies, by Kare Fog of Denmark:

    It covers the Lomborg deception & more. One of Lomborgs infamous techniques is his bait & switch technique.

    E.g. Sure AGW is a problem, but shouldnt we be spending valuable captial & resources on :

    a) ending famine
    b) ending poverty
    c) ending disease
    d) ending war
    e) ending attacks on corporate profits

    While the above points are certainly good points, one has to ask, what has prevented them doing it for the past few centuries before the topic of AGW had even presented itself? Its just a delaying technique & doesnt take into account that scientists on the pro agw side & military advisers are saying that those above points will be much more severe if we dont do anything about global warming.

    To attempt to fix one of those points above without fixing global warming would be like trying to fill a bucket that has a large hole in it. Eventually you have to concede that you have to fix the bucket.


  2. The article, ” Cars, bombs, and climate change” and this one indeed make final- The earth anyways does not matter to up humans. The cost is not that high- so keep on the deforestation and indirect killing of animals. Not interested! thank you.


  3. Ah, but if we just stay the course the magic of the invisible hand – the one true unassailable constant in a complex and often bemusing world – will ensure we’ll all be so wealthy by 2080 that each of us, Bangladeshi or Brisbanite, will be able to afford their own personal seawall. How could that be a problem? How could you fail to see the beauty of the one true idea?

    More to the point, how could anyone claiming to be a ‘conservative’ swallow any of this nonsense? A suggestion for an alternative energy source – use the high-speed rotation of Adam Smith in his grave to power a small turbine!…


  4. Bill, I’m not sure how to take your post. I cant tell whether you are for or against AGW by what you say.

    Its quite apparent that the conservatives here in Australia are not supporting any of Adam Smiths free market economic philosophies. Take climate change out of the picture entirely & its clear we have issues with energy. Not so much in the supply side, as there is plenty of fossil fuels to last us a few hundred years, there is nuclear & there is renewables.

    But the costs are just becoming obscene to consumers & the conservatives appear to oppose competition in this field from renewables. The last thing they want is for voters to think green is good & ultimately for their votes to slip into the hands of green parties because of that. If the renewables sector were given the same amount of subsidies that the fosil fuel sector attracted, then we would have a very different energy supply market now.

    Instead, what we have is a monopoly on energy. Something the fossil fuel sector would like to hold onto & something that the conservatives seem to embrace, which is diametrically different than what Adam Smith advocated.

    Tony Abbott first said “climate change is absolute crap” to support his right leaning friends. Then does some fence sitting having a bet both ways fashion, so as to appeal to the centrists in his party & the AGW believing public says:

    “I agree that the science is far from settled. Still, it’s common sense to take prudent precautions against potentially serious risks.

    So the prudent precautions would be a tax payer big government funded green army, tree planting & a suggestion to fossil that they self regulate? Like thats gonna happen. Their approach is opposite of what Howard, not considered to be a centrist by any means, pioneered & what Rudd ultimately took up. A free market approach.

    In opposition to the free market approaches of Adam Smith, the conservatives are backing monopolies & fending off the free market.They are stifling competition & preventing a chance for our energy needs to decrease in price & at the same time helping to prevent the earth heating too quickly & also mitigating risk. Arent conservatives supposed to be pro business & about mitigating risk?

    They are pretty much putting their head in the sand on both counts.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s