Washington post bjorn lomborg

The article discussed Lomborg's views on global warming and his book on the issue, but did not mention that the book has been discredited by several well-known environmental specialists.

The print-edition article, as well as a similar article by Murray and staff writer Debbi Wilgoren that was published on the Post 's website at p. Neither article mentioned that Lomborg's book has been discredited by several well-known environmental specialists. Nor did the articles note that Lomborg has attacked Gore with false representations of Gore's claims.

The article reported that Lomborg was invited, along with Gore, to testify before the House Energy and Commerce Committee and presented a brief history of his position on global warming:. The Democratic presidential nominee will testify about the urgency of addressing climate change in two appearances on Capitol Hill before panels that include skeptics of the sort that Gore probably hasn't met on the red carpet.

For instance, Sen. James M. Inhofe Okla. Gore begins the day in the House, where he will face John D. Lomborg is correct to be concerned about the possibility of bad policy choices. But I have yet to see any option that is worse than ignoring the risk of global warming and doing nothing. Will it be on page one of the Sunday Outlook section? Or Steve Schneider at Stanford. Or a number of others we could suggest. Wheaton, Md. Does it bother Post staff that when it comes to commentary on scientific issues your paper is now viewed as being on par with borderline tabloids like the Washington Times?

Opinions can be voiced by lots of people. And those opinions are not always shared. Willis discussed the details of the IPCC report further:. You have to remember that the sea level projections in the IPCC report had a big asterisk by them.

The report was very clear that the 20 inch projection was probably too low because it did not account for the kinds of dynamic changes in the glaciers and ice sheets that we see today. In fact, the IPCC report was careful to say that they could not place any upper bound on the amount of sea level rise that is likely over the next century. Absolutely not. It was the best we had five years ago, but there has been a lot of work since then, including better observations of the rate of melting from Greenland and Antarctica and better models.

His choice of words is very alarmist and cherry-picking from other alarmists. He is saying that extremists on one side are much more influential than it seems to me that they are. In fact it is the extremists who argue against any response to global warming who have been much more effective so far. He is also wrong in asserting that we know how to adapt to climate change.

If that were true, nobody would be worried about it. How do we adapt to massive extinctions of natural species? How do we adapt to all the major coastal cities of the world having to deal with flooding from stronger storms and rising sea level? Dikes will not do it.