Interactive PowerBasic Forum

General Category => Contentious discussions about anything, the world, politics and health topics. => Topic started by: Charles Pegge on July 23, 2023, 06:51:35 AM

Title: Dr Bjorn Lomborg / Effective Economics / Climate Alarmism
Post by: Charles Pegge on July 23, 2023, 06:51:35 AM

Climate Alarmists Are Getting This All Wrong - Dr Bjorn Lomborg | Modern Wisdom 617

Chris Williamson
20 april 2023



-->


Bjorn Lomborg-- The Cost of Climate Alarmism
Steamboat Institute
14 mar 2022

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAVdi3Xm7f4
Title: Re: Dr Bjorn Lomborg / Effective Economics / Climate Alarmism
Post by: Theo Gottwald on July 23, 2023, 10:40:27 AM
NONE of their predictions EVER - 0 - came true.
How often must someone tell you lies until you stop believing them?

Decades.jpgClimate34.jpg
Ice Age3.png

This is what its all about. The amount of CO2 in the air is minimal.
If you see a green dot - that is the CO2 they tell you that can change the temperature.
How can anyone believe this after having chemistry in school?
Luftzus.jpg

... and has not changed.
CO234.jpg
Title: Re: Dr Bjorn Lomborg / Effective Economics / Climate Alarmism
Post by: José Roca on July 23, 2023, 12:18:02 PM
I don't know how you listen to those people who only try to provoke to earn money, without having any idea what they are talking about.

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 him 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; he chose the latter, clearing the way for the inquiry that followed.[8] The charges claimed that 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 that sent 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 fields in question.[19

Not guilty due to his lack of expertise in the fields in question. Enough said.