The low down on Lomborg

Here are the top four reasons why Lomborg’s arguments about climate change are flawed. Last week’s announcement that the University of Western Australia would no longer house Bjorn Lomborg’s ‘Consensus Centre’ was a fantastic outcome for science. However, the fact that the Centre is still trying to establish itself in Australia is deeply troubling.

Misinformation is harmful. Just as false information about the ‘benefits’ of tobacco misled the public and damaged health, so false information about climate change and its impacts can mislead the public and decision-makers, delaying much needed action to stabilise the climate system.

Climate Council: 13 May 2015

Lomberg, Newman and inaction


Lomborg’s 7 Nobel Laureats are not what they seem

Bjorn Lomborg continues to push the case for his think tank’s methodology to be given a $4 million taxpayer funded home somewhere in Australia. So does the government, the ministers and the conservative commentators who support him.  But, as with many claims related to Lomborg’s think tank, including using the Nobel name as a form of marketing, it pays to look at the details. Unless, that is, you believe in working with Nobel laureates from beyond the grave.
(Independent Australia: 27 May 2015)–or-even-alive-,7763

Clive Hamilton: The Lomborg ruse.

No one in Australia has more relentlessly attacked  environmentalists, climate science, carbon taxes and the aspirations of the United Nations than Murdoch columnist Andrew Bolt. So what does it mean when Bolt sings the praises of a man who is a declared environmentalist, accepts the body of evidence for climate change, supports a carbon tax and is a strong supporter of the United Nations?
(Clive Hamiltion: 23 May 2015)

Leave a Reply