Copenhagen Consensus Centre President Bjorn Lomborg says the reality is we are being “misled” on climate change because they want to “scare us” into spending “trillions of dollars”.
“In the long run we should find a way to avoid fossil fuels and find cheaper green energy, but we’re not there yet,” Mr Lomborg told SKy News host Andrew Bolt.
We are Being ‘Misled’ on the Climate Change Crisis-Bjorn Lomborg
A while back, someone on here at WattsUpWithThat came up with the term:
“The Mainstream Misleadia”
Thanks, Steve, for the resurrection of “Mainstream Misleadia”. I missed it the first time and suspect I may use it in the future to keep it alive.
And while we’re at it, stop calling them “Fossil Fuels” and start calling them “Mineral Fuels”.
Political Framing is everything, this name change to Mineral Fuels will allow us to identify our friends.
I agree. And, they are not fossil anyway. If every plant ever existing on earth were converted to oil instead of composting as usual, that would still not equate to the amount of fuel we have excavated, used, or discovered. So-called fossil fuels are a natural process of earth, and we are unlikely to ever run out. For further information, read Thomas Gold’s Hot Deep Biosphere. Coal is a process produced by methane rising through the earth’s crust, and being consumed by bacteria, where coal is the byproduct. Oil wells refill. How would that happen if it was not still being produced?
It seems the mainstream media isnt the only place with misleading information…
How improbable that the geologic processes of heat, pressure and time can produce diamonds but not hydrocarbons.
There is no methane in the mantle or the core.
I agree that “fossil” is a misnomer for oil. It is more accurate to call it “petroleum” because it does come out from under the rock surface. Coal, on the other hand, contains lots of fossils of ancient vegetation. The unspoken thought lurking behind the “fossil” term is the implication that it is a temporary source which will surely run out “soon”. How soon? Well actually in hundreds of years, maybe.
While it is true that every plant currently on the planet wouldn’t be enough to produce all the oil/gas/coal we have found.
In reality first off, it’s not just plants, it’s also microscopic plants and animals. The total mass of those greatly outweighs the visible plants and animals.
Secondly, it’s not just one years worth of plants, it’s 100’s of millions of years worth of plants.
Finally, there is not and never has been any methane rising through the crust.
You might want to google ‘methane in earth’s crust’ to become informed of what is actually happening, and has been for millions of years. There is enough methane to last for millions more years.
While I appreciate your efforts rallying against the unjust “climate crisis” movement, please stop. It’s comments like this that gives them the ability to use the term “deniers” and lump those of us with legitimate scientific and logical concerns, many of which are quite valid, with…well this.
You know that huge deposit of petroleum resources called the “Permian” that extends from west Texas down to Mexico. Do you know why it’s called that? It’s because those resources are extracted from sedimentary organic material that settled there during the 47 million year Permian period. So let’s say that those resources could last us 1,000 years (BTW this is a huge exaggeration based on the proven resources there). It took 47 million years to give us 1,000 years of energy. That’s not sustainable forever. Fossil fuels are not infinite, and eventually humans will need to find alternative energy sources if we want to continue life as it is today. Fortunately, that time is not now, as there is no climate crises, and we have time to develop the technology to replace these types of fuels. Unfortunately that technology does not exist today as some would lead us to believe.
A wise man once said it is not what we don’t know that is the problem, it is what we know for sure that just ain’t so.
Everyone would do well to learn that what has been believed for years is not necessarily true, in many fields.
For example, fossils in coal may have been there while methane bathed them and turned that into coal. That is provable.
If we’re going to start correctly redefining words, can we throw out the word “capitalism” and use “economic freedom” instead? The 19th Century socialists coined it as a pejorative, and it has somehow maintained it’s panache even though most small business owners could be more accurately described as laborers than capitalists!
Maybe we could also stop with the “climate change” nonsense, and call it “normal Earth weather cycles” instead! 97% of climate seancers agree; the Earth spirits are angry and only large donations will appease them!
Yes, provided you Yanks throw out the word “liberal” and use “statist” instead.
I prefer Conservative and Socialist
Happy to oblige, Neil; although classical Liberals are now considered right wing terrorists here!
Did you mean to misspell Satanist?
we have; but we call them communists and fascist, not statists.
(but it’s all semantics)
I support your comment.
Economic Freedom makes a lot of sense .
There is little freedom under communism with the government controlling almost all economic activity .
Most countries with socialist governments are gradually losing their freedom as socialist governments pass laws to ham string economic activity .
Many socialist leaning governments are extending government departments taking over activities that are much better performed by private enterprise .
Unfortunately the word ” capitalism ” conjures up thoughts of billionares
flying round the world in private jets.
Capital was once an economics word for ‘savings’. The basis for all real investment.
It has been conflated with corporatism (or even cronyism) in Newspeak in order to dirty the word.
Much the same as ‘liberalism’ becoming an oxymoron.
-Ministry of Truth
Heck, we should fully re-brand hydrocarbons.
“Organic, gluten-free, non-GMO energy for sale” should be on the sign of every gasoline station.
I suppose ‘low-carb’ might be stretching it a little too far?
Saw a couple of articles today touting “Climate Collapse”, the new de-rigueur wording for barely discernible temperature rise in the last century and a half….
In place of FF how about “naturally occuring biofuel” or
“naturally preserved sunlight”?
Pretty sure it was me. Given that the internet is an infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of typewriters it is virtually certain I was not the first. N.B. I adopted Giving_Cat for the login process and was previously Rob_Dawg.
Lomborg continues to mislead with such statements as…”Global warming is a real problem”.
Seems he accepts some crap without question. He is doing more harm than good by giving further amo to alarmists who say …”everyone knows there is a crisis, the question now is how to deal with it”. This in turn bolsters the ”deniers” meme. Not helpful, and I have no time for his stance.
Whilst I acknowledge the validity of your assertion, Lomborg had to adopt that approach in order not to be cancelled as a denier himself.
This way, he is still abroad undermining some of the wilder untruths of the movement, instead of being in the ignore box with other deniers.
Perhaps if the tide continues to turn, he will be able to be less devious about it?
Maybe I’m being too ‘tolerant’.
“Lomborg continues to mislead with such statements as…”Global warming is a real problem”.”
Yes, he does.
There is no evidence that warming is a problem. There is no evidence that warming will continue. There is no evidence that CO2 has a discernable effect on the Earth’s temperatures.
So on what does Mr. Lomborg base his claim that global warming is a real problem?
Nothing I can see, and I’ve seen all the arguments Lomborg has seen. The only way to hold Lomborg’s position is to assume things not in evidence. That’s what he is doing. Why? I don’t know.
“In the long run we should find a way to avoid fossil fuels and find cheaper green energy, but we’re not there yet,”
We are being misled by the idea that fossil fuels are in any way damaging. But I suppose that when people find that the complete basis for their religious beliefs and a multi-trillion industry are comprehensively wrong, they can only adjust their mindset in small steps at a time…
I would agree, all fossil fuels are part of the Carbon Cycle to which we owe our existance. The only down-side to them is the particle pollutants that can be emitted by burning them.
I liked the comment that, if we hadn’t used fossil fuels to move our civilisations forward, there wouldn’t be a tree left on the planet.
Observe satellite photos that show both sides of the Haiti-Dominican Republic border.
Same island, different governance, obvious results. Sadly the US has been drifting Haiti rather than Dominican Republic.
And no whales either.
And darn few people. Which seems to be the goal of that crowd.
A few species of sea turtle might also be extinct…..tortoise shell was used for making items that are now made out of plastic.
“….there wouldn’t be a tree left on the planet.”
U.S. forested land area appears to have been basically steady since the 1920s according to the link below. Much of the land clearance before that was admittedly for agriculture as well as for wood fuel. But fossil fuels today get absolutely no credit for their contribution to the lack of human pressure on forestland in the U.S…..and the CO2 that they provide for the trees and plants.
U.S. Forest Facts Trend Data (thoughtco.com)
It’s like living in a thought controlled police-state.
“It’s like living in a thought controlled police state?” LIKE!?
The Big Tech Nazis cooperate with the goverment to promote the Climate Apocalypse, just as they played a major role in downplaying effective treatments while pushing an untested experimental genetic treatment for ChiCom-19. If we’re not rapidly sinking into a totalitarian police state then we must be nearing the final stages of building the Matrix!
I readily acknowledge that the U.S. (and probably our European allies) are starting to take on characteristic similarities to that of police states to some degree. Exactly how much is a matter of debate.
A while back, California passed legislation that requires doctors in that state to toe the party line of the state govt on medical issues such as the COVID vaccine lest they lose their license to practice. If this isn’t an assault on the First Amendment, then nothing is. I have also heard reports of people being fired for stating that all lives matter (to which BLM supporters object). You get the idea.
Coupled with a badly biased mainstream media on climate and fossil fuel issues (among others), we are heading down a road that should not be traversed. And the masses appear totally unaware of it. How far down that road we go in the years ahead definitely has me worried.
I apologize if I seemed a little hysterical, but I thought you were being a little too genteel. Personally, I find myself wanting to read the Old Testament prophets more to find helpful hints on how to deal with our modern idolaters!
I keep hearing Marcellus Wallace, the character played by Ving Rhames in “Pulp Fiction,” say, “I‘ma get medieval on your ass!”
No need to apologize Abolition man. I realize how frustrating it is to live in this day and age when poorly thought-out policies and faulty belief systems and agendas seem to be taking us backwards instead of forward.
If I was being a little too genteel, it is because I usually like to avoid being on the wrong side of people.
Consider the recent studies that concluded that California’s 2020 fire season produced twice (2X) as much CO2 (and put a great deal of other junk into the air) as California’s green energy ‘revolution’ claimed to reduce in the preceding 18 years.
Aside from “greenness”, it is pretty obvious that there is at some point in time an upper economic limit to use of fossil fuels, prior failures of the “peak oil” predictions notwithstanding. At current and projected rates of consumption, the supplies of oil and gas will eventually run out, perhaps somewhere in the hundreds of years from now timeframe. But that’s lots of time to develop alternative sources of energy on a measured, economically efficient basis instead of a panicked wasteful basis demanded by the warmunists who always claim we’re 10 years from the end of the planet as we’ve known it.
The most likely long term solution will involve nuclear fusion, on which considerable progress has been made in the last 5 years. If it takes decades more to develop and deploy fusion energy throughout the economy, that will not be a problem.
Plus, the only thing “Free” about Green Energy is the low density fuel sources. Creating and deploying the billions of pieces of hardware necessary to harvest that low density source at the same rate as current Mineral Fuel Sources is very costly and still requires drilling for Oil and Gas AND mining for Coal.
You still need Petrochemical stocks to produce lightweight Turbine Blades and Coal to produce Strong Steel Supports as well as purify Silica into Silicon for Solar PV Cells.
It seems rather that essentially NO progress towards useable fusion energy production has been made.
Yes, plus the stubborn delusion that there exists “energy” that will be both “cheaper” AND “green.”
BOTH notions are a complete joke.
I think not that they are dangerous or detrimental as fuel but rather that they are too valuable for so many other uses that to stop burning them as soon as possible would be a great long term benefit.
Misleading the public is an essential part of the alarmist’s toolkit. Given that there is no crisis it has to be, right?
Opening the Grauniad online there is a banner advert proclaiming…
no more hot air
The ironic thing being the BBC wetting itself this morning, not about the climate talks, but about a political prisoner of alleged UK nationality – not recognised by Egypt.
It isn’t only ‘the science’ that is filled with assumptions, it’s ‘the political’ too:
“The British right’s hostility to climate action is deeply entrenched – and extremely dangerous”
In Grauniad world any opposition to their insanity is deemed as right wing – automatically, with no thought whatsoever.
I am an old fashioned graduate – long before Tony Blair’s time – and I’m fortunate enough to have been educated before this madness kicked in. I do remember back in the early 90s the primary school telling me that everybody got a medal for participating rather than for coming 1st, 2nd or 3rd, when my youngest son was competing. I could see what was coming when that same year they banned videoing of the Christmas play – parents are obviously all closet paedophiles.
But I, I am opposed to the political system – the Parliamentary dictatorship. It has a thin veneer that appears democratic, but it is anything but. My education tells me that the climate crisis is entirely fake. Yes, the climate is changing, but then it isn’t going to stop doing that as long as Sol orbits galactic central etc.
I suppose as far as the BBC or the Grauniad is concerned I might be ‘right wing’, I’d say that’s a disparaging soubriquet for independent, sensible, common sense thinking and reasoning.
That’s something they abhor.
BBC in overdrive with the situation in Somalia being blamed on ‘climate change’…..
The climate (sarcastically equating weather with climate) crisis here in my part of Colorado today is first having to shovel snow from my driveway, sidewalk and then to navigate the roads in less than ideal conditions.
I keep telling neighbors here in central Florida not to sell their snow shovels.
Looking it up, I found the following definition:- ‘Self–harm is when you hurt yourself as a way of dealing with very difficult feelings, painful memories or overwhelming situations and experiences.’ Well, I guess this explains a lot about Lefties.
No, first, in the long run, we should use gas, oil, coal, hydro and nuclear. Solar and wind are total failures. Period. Full stop. And we are not being “misled” we are being lied to, blatantly and openly lied to.
“we are being lied to, blatantly and openly lied to”.
When I hear people as well researched as Bjorn is telling it as it is, I am both encouraged and at the same time frustrated.
I am encouraged, because a real expert in the field is getting air time to explain the sleight of hand used by the Alarmists. Their overblown methods used to gain semi true but primarily alarming headlines. I am frustrated that he is forced to play along with their global warming is potentially dangerous for mankind story line and the replacement of fossil fuels is something we should be focused on. That implies F Fuels are a main constituent in the modest warming seen since the end of the little ice age ~ 1850. I understand, why he says replacing F Fuels is necessary. It allows him to avoid being cancelled/banned from the mainstream.
Sadly it lends support to the false claims made by the alarmists that F Fuels are bad, because they produce CO2, which we know is good for the ecosystem and mankind overall.
I do not know how to square that science-communication conflict. I am sure Bjorn is far more capable than me so perhaps best to leave him to walk that crazy line.
Lomborg is on the sharknado spectrum.
I too have mixed feelings. Lomborg is very rational and analytical, but begins with the faulty premise that emissions of CO2 represent a problem. Alex Epstein’s points are better, in full support of more fossil fuels, not less. But both accept what is not at all proven or demonstrated reliably – that increased CO2 must drive warming at the surface. I look forward to the time when nature itself will make it plain to both of these influential voices that it was unsound all along to attribute a reported warming trend to CO2 emissions from fossil fuels.
Absolutely correct. I am waiting, and I am a staunch liberal who would like everything to be done to help the third world develop, but I am also a scientist who believes in scientific method. Al Gore is totally ignorant of scientific method as are the Norwegian poohbahs who hand out “peace” prizes.
People like Lomborg and Michael Shellenberger have taken the very important FIRST step to making a recovery from Climate Apocalyptosis! They may still think that CO2 is a problem, but they have attained the realization that the proposed cures are far, far worse than the “disease!”
Further enlightenment will lead them to the realization that CO2 is the very basis of Life on Earth but will it probably be of very little utility in staving off the next period of glaciation!
Lomborg is a clever researcher who wants to stay in the game by being a lukewarmer. I would like him to show me the empirical science that indicates that CO2 levels have anything to do with world temperature or any other climate variable.
Bjorn Lomborg is an economist, and is sticking to his own minefield instead of blundering into the atmospheric physics minefield.
Unfortunately, a lot of people with expertise in a particular area make fools of themselves by making “sage” pronouncements regarding other fields where it is blindingly obvious that they are utterly clueless.
I’ve been looking at the daily January maximum temperatures for the UK from the TORRO website 8 out of 31 temperature records have occurred in the last 20 years , but some of these have only equalled previous records . The site has the whole year records on a day by day basis so it’s quite an interesting read
That would be about the expected stats for relatively continuous average warming of a degree in a hundred years with a superimposed random variability of 1 degree…
Plus, how much more urbanized have the locations of the temperature reading equipment sites become over the years?!
Always good to hear the facts presented about the currently state of the climate. It has warmed and that has been very good for humanity on balance. Unfortunately, Lomborg is still unaware that the warming effect of most greenhouse gases is saturated and no further warming is possible.
The reason no warming is possible is due to 2 key physical aspects of the atmosphere.
1) Due to our gravitational field the atmosphere exists in radiation equilibrium as one progresses outward. This means that energy is transmitted to space almost completely independent of the concentration of a well mixed greenhouse gas.
2) Atmospheric boundary layer equilibrium cancels any low level warming due to increases in downwelling IR.
A good analogy is two large vats of water connected by a tube. One vat represents the boundary layer and the other represents the surface. What happens to the height of the water in the two vats when a cup of water is moved from one vat to the other? They level out quickly. Same thing happens in the atmosphere. Conduction provides the same function as the tube.
And the “media” misled the public about the last tropical storm. Nicole never hit Florida as a hurricane, but only as a tropical storm. Here are the eye-passage winds at Ft Pierce (just south of Vero Beach) … https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/fl/fort-pierce/KFPR/date/2022-11-10
I was in a condo 17 miles south in Jensen Beach before, during and after Nikki was around. My sense is that it was plenty windy. While I slept through the passing of the eye up until then I was a believer of the fact there was a big storm going on. Not sure what the speeds were the shutters were rattling loudly and getting out of my car and walking to get inside I had a time of it. (Not like the TV guy leaning on camera for effect). If not a hurricane then I’ll need to come up with some embellishment to use when I try describe my harrowing experience surviving the storm I slept through. And yes I am OK, thanks for your concern.
The reality was if this was not a Cat 1 then I couldn’t imagine what it would be like in one.
I was worried about my rental car because if it was damaged by flooding I’d have to pick up the tab. Best advice I heard was to park in a multi level garage on a higher floor to avoid such an issue.
According to available data, there are no sustained surface wind observations indicating Nicole hit Florida as a hurricane — unless you can find some.
Not to be impertinent but your feelings don’t dictate what a hurricane is.
I want to post a link that is slightly off topic, but it has relevance. It is a cogent analysis of the impact that systemic lying, from the top to the bottom of society, which in Russian is called ‘Vranyo’, has on the militaries ability to wage war.
Please try and find the time to watch it.
Because the Left is heading in that direction in the West.
I agree, but you have to concede that the right was proceeding in the same direction under Trump
So you are calling Trump and all his supporters liars?
Trump is back. He declared for the presidency last night.
More fun and games with the lying Leftwing Media. They are the example for systemic lying.
Why is it so hard to look at and present data and charts to make the point of no crisis in place of generalized statements? Let the oceans and the satellites speak for a change.
No kidding we’re not there. The world will beat a path to the door for actual practical “green” energy when it exists. It is beyond foolishness to try and force it now.
There is not, and will never be, any practical “green” energy. The current mass stupidity building windmills and solar panels is “investors” flocking to the taxpayer funded government teat for free money.
Lomborg himself starts off by misleading with: “GW is a big problem”…and by this he means AGW.
No. No it is not
Job security must come first.
I suspect he just wants to stay in the game and not be cancelled. The media domination of the “crisis” idea, totally and provably false as it is, is effectively silencing a lot of scientists who know better but want to keep their jobs and their government contracts.
The UK and many other countries have been paying reparations in the form of Overseas Aid to Africa and other countries for decades
We’ve paid enough
No, they need all the help they can get to build roads and bridges, flood control projects, and even drill for oil and other natural resources. That is called “development.” What they don’t need is windmills and the old saw that “small is beautiful.”
Nobody would need to pay them anything if “western” Eco-Nazis would stop putting obstacles in the way of African fossil fuel development instead of facilitating it.
Climate scaremongering, including 50+ years of always wrong predictions of global warming doom, qualifies for words a lot harsher than “being misled”.