|
|
|
|
IPCC report contradicts climate change alarmism
Since 1980, climate models have overestimated actual temperature rise by 71-159%. This weakens the argument for widespread alarmism over global warming.
In their latest assessment report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change substantiates that global warming is a problem, but not the end of the world. The report contains none of the media’s typically apocalyptic scenarios, no alarmism, and no demands from natural scientists to cut emissions by X% or to hand out lavish subsidies on solar panels.
 
Lomborg's commentary published in newspapers around the world (e.g. Die Welt, El Tiempo and Jyllands-Posten) is available in 7 languages on Project Syndicate.
|
|
 
Now to find what works
We ought to agree that science does not support the rhetoric of panic and catastrophe. This opens a chance for a more realistic climate debate and smarter approaches to tackle global warming, Lomborg argues in USA Today, Britain's Sunday Times and Swedish Svenska Dagbladet.
|
|
 Extreme Weather
One of the most persistent claims in the climate debate is that global warming leads to more extreme weather. In Washington Post, Lomborg presents evidence why this argument needs to be retired.
|
|
12 minutes on "The Arena"
|
|
The abuse of the precautionary principle
 The EU's vamped-up precautionary principle suggests that people should only do what is entirely safe. This makes a great political sledgehammer—anything can be banned. But the “weaponised†use of the precautionary principle has gone too far.
In the October issue of Prospect Magazine, Lomborg argues that we need to stand up for common sense and rational policies on human health and the environment.
|
|
Making Australia's foreign aid dollar go further
 In two articles for national newspaper The Australian, Lomborg lays out how the new Australian government could spend their development aid the most effective. He also encourages readers to vote how they want to spend Australia's aid budget.
|
|
 Is growth good for Biodiversity?
Lomborg argues that no growth will lead to a much worse long-term outcome for biodiversity.
Do you agree? Vote on The Economist online.
|
|
The irresponsible opposition to Golden Rice
Golden Rice could effectively tackle vitamin A deficiency in developing countries. Yet, Greenpeace and others have tried to block Golden Rice in every possible way, even though science shows no adverse effects on health or the environment. This is morally indefensible.
The article is available in English (National Post) and Danish (Berlingske). Lomborg also discussed the issue with Greenpeace on Danish radio (P1 Debat on DR).
|
|
How Much have Global Problems Cost the World
- A Scorecard from 1900 to 2050
 There are often blanket claims that the world is facing more problems than ever, but there is a lack of empirical data to show where things have deteriorated or in fact improved.
This pioneering initiative to provide answers to many of these questions will undoubtedly spark debate amongst a wide readership.
Coming soon on Cambridge University Press.
|
|
|
Thank you for your continued interest and we hope you enjoy these occasional updates, if you do not wish to receive news about Bjørn Lomborg and the Copenhagen Consensus in the future, you can easily remove your email from our mailing list.
Best wishes,
Zsuzsa Horvath
Executive Assistant to Bjorn Lomborg
US online phone number: +1-347-903-0979
Office cell in Budapest: +36-306920720
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
