Academia

Academic Mob Chases 'Climate Change Contrarian' Bjorn Lomborg Off Campus

Want an independent thinker out of your university? Instigate a "passionate emotional reaction" against him.

|

"Are you now or have you ever been a climate contrarian?"

How long before this McCarthyite question is asked of everyone who enters into academia, in order to weed out those who refuse to bow and scrape before green orthodoxy?

If you think this sounds like a far-fetched proposition, consider a recent scandalous act of academic censorship at the University of Western Australia (UWA). And consider, more importantly, the lack of outrage it caused in the West's professorial circles.

It involves Bjorn Lomborg, the blonde-haired, Danish annoyer of environmentalists everywhere.

Bjorn Lomborg

Famous for his book The Skeptical Environmentalist—in which he argued that, yes, climate change is real, but, no, cutting back on economic growth won't help—Lomborg has been a brilliant piece of grit in one-eyed green thinking for more than a decade.

The Australian government, headed by the semi-skeptical Prime Minister Tony Abbott, decided to offer a base to Lomborg for his greenish but pro-growth analysis and agitation.

It asked him to bring his Copenhagen Consensus Center, the U.S.-based, Danish-funded not-for-profit think-tank he's been running since 2006, Down Under. It would now be based at UWA, would be renamed the Australia Consensus Center, would be funded to the tune of 4 million Australian dollars, and would continue to stoke heated debate about whether mankind really is on the precipice of eco-doom (no) and whether more growth, not less, is the most sensible solution to the problems we face (yes).

Well, that was the plan. But it was scuppered by what can only be described as a ramshackle modern-day Inquisition, which found Lomborg guilty of the crime of denial—not of God, but of climate-change alarmism—and had him cast out of UWA.

As soon as it was revealed, last month, that Lomborg would be coming to UWA, eco-friendly but debate-unfriendly agitators started to bristle and fume.

The Guardian questioned his fitness for academic life. At UWA, there was a rowdy gathering of academics and students, described by one witness as being "like a Rolling Stones concert," at which there was apparently "riotous applause" when a speaker called on UWA to "end [its] deal with the climate change-contrarian." Sounds less Rolling Stones gig, and more controversy-allergic mob.

The UWA Student Guild also insisted Lomborg should be kept out of UWA. The language the Guild used was striking: it accepted that Lomborg "doesn't refute climate change itself," but pointed out that he does have a "controversial track record [as a] climate contrarian." So this was about keeping controversy off campus, protecting UWA, not from scientifically incorrect thinking, but from contrarian thinking. It was a demand for nothing less than political censorship, of a thinker who dares to think differently to the mainstream on the issue of climate change.

And here comes the truly shocking bit: the academic mob was successful. UWA capitulated and called off its deal with Lomborg, citing the "strong and passionate emotional reaction" from academics, students, and sections of the media.

So the emotionalism of people who dislike a certain way of thinking overrides the right of that way of thinking to be expressed, explored, even to exist on campus. What a terrifying precedent UWA has set. Want a thinker out of your college? Then instigate a "passionate emotional reaction" against him. UWA has effectively institutionalised a mob veto over academic freedom.

The silence from western academia has been striking: very few voices have piped up to condemn UWA's reneging on an academic deal after a noisy few had a "passionate emotional reaction" against it.

In fact, some academics have cheered UWA's decision. A lecturer at the Australian National University took doublespeak to dizzy new heights when, in The Guardian, he said UWA's erection of a Lomborg-deflecting forcefield was actually academic freedom in action. Yes, he said, universities partake in the "soft censorship of bad ideas… it's called learning."

This is a highly disingenuous reading of what learning means. Learning is a process of testing, discussion, submitting your ideas to debate and standing by them as the brickbats of disagreement and counter-argument come flying in. This is why academic freedom is so important: the liberty to think and speak and argue is the only real way of getting to the truth of a matter, and in the process boosting our understanding of the world.

In the Lomborg scandal, this process was circumvented. Lomborg's center was pre-emptively denied the right to put its case in Australian academia, by "passionate emotional" protesters who think they already know The Truth on climate change: that it's happening, it's terrible, and we will only alleviate its worst impacts by putting restraints on humanity's material aspirations.

This isn't learning, far less academic freedom in action. Rather, it echoes the old, pre-modern view of a university as, in essence, a bookish guardian of ecclesiastical authority. Only now it's eco-authority that is protected from intellectual poking and awkward analysis, ringfenced from ridicule just as surely as the pointy-hatted overseers of universities in the pre-Enlightenment era also ringfenced ideas that they just knew were true.

UWA's backtracking on its Lomborg deal is the bastard offspring of two of the more censorious strains in the 21st-century West.

First, eco-intolerance, the use of medieval-echoing slurs like "Denier" to demonise those who doubt the gospel of climate-change alarmism, and the elbowing-out of polite society anyone who thinks climate change is not actually the end of the world.

And secondly, creeping campus conformism, a growing problem everywhere from America's Ivy League to Britain's dreaming spires to Australia's colleges. Whether students and academics are "No Platforming" offensive politicians, disinviting un-PC speakers, or giving "riotous applause" to the demand that a climate contrarian be denied university space, the one place you would expect intellectual tolerance to exist—the academy—is becoming more and more intolerant.

Smash together eco-correctness with the West's scarily cavalier attitude to the great modern ideal of academic freedom, and what do you have? A serious, valuable thinker like Lomborg being chased from a university by a passionate emotional mob. We need to make a fuss about this, before more people start getting the idea that they have the right to shout down and silence anyone who dares to be contrary.

NEXT: Court: Actor Can't Force Removal of Innocence of Muslims Trailer

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. That’s it I’ve had it. I believe in free speech, but if this is the game then fuck it. I want all self proclaimed communists and Marxists locked the fuck in jail. They’re too damn dangerous to speak.

    Oh wait that’s disingenuous of me? Well we happen to know already that communism killed 100 million last century, so all the neveau Marxists are guilty by association and really really need to rot in a cell.

    These AGW assholes on the other hand want to put deniers in jail because climate change is surely any time now going to lead to millions of deaths, I mean it’s unavoidable sometime in the near (or is it far) future it’s sure to happen just like all, some? a couple? one? of their previous predictions have. Right?

    1. Jail? When you go to war, you don’t jail your enemies.

      1. Too true. My bad.

      2. remember too that the American marxists psychos don’t just want equal wages, no private property, worker’s paradise, et al….they truly want to see rich people shot and dissenters placed in gulags. They would go full che Guevara if they had the chance.

        The average American leftists has been perfectly brainwashed.

        Just ask Tony and buttface.

        1. And when they find themselves standing in front of the firing squad as well, they still won’t get it.

    2. Don’t throw them in jail. They would LOVE to be thrown in jail, it would fit all their bogus “Martyred by The Establishment” fantasies. Instead, it is high time that various Universities were reminded that they are not self-supporting Monastic retreats of Higher Morality, but public institutions. They live on public grants and alumni giving, and neither the public officials making the grants nor the alumni sending the gifts have been doing their jobs.

      Were I Tony Abbott I would be telling the academics that they can pipe the F*ck down or do without next year’s appropriations.. Were I an alumnus of that open air sanitarium, I would be organizing my fellows to write the Head Nutter a sharp letter, reminding him that money doesn’t appear out of thin air.

      That and mockery are our best weapons against these pillocks. And they HATE being mocked, which is why they absolutely cannot STAND Rush Limbaugh. Other talk-radio personalities seem o take themselves and the Liberal Intellectual Radical Progressives terribly seriously. Limbaugh mocks them, and also himself.

      Mockery is their Kryptonite.

      1. I agree fully. “Look,” congress needs to say, “Free speech on campus, everywhere at all time, or we cut you off the teat of taxpayer money. You want to teach whatever you want to whomever you want? Great, call up the big brains at Hillsdale College and follow their example.”

    3. Well, good luck with that.

      The tough thing about having principles is you have to stick to them or you are just as bad as they are.

      And guilt by association is a load of crap.

      1. Marxists believe in guilt by association, though. I find its far more entertaining to hold people to their own standards, not to my own.

        1. /\ This /\

        2. Then you don’t have standards at all. I can derive some pleasure seeing people held to their own standards. But I’m not going to promote it as a good thing.

          The belief in guilt by association is one of the many bad things about Marxists. It’s no less bad when you do it. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

      2. “And guilt by association is a load of crap.”

        You can’t make a blanket statement like that either way. It all depends on the level of association.

        1. Right, if these are the same people who vote to steal my liberty and the fruits of my labor, they are guilty enough to warrant any punishment. Doesn’t matter if they consider themselves Marxists or not, the tag just makes it easy to identify the slimy dick bags.

      3. Marxists are all about “the collective” and no individual is as important, therefore “guilt by association” is their own petard they want to use against the walls of our culture of individualism.

  2. You know who else led a ramshackle modern-day Inquisition…

    1. Someone with a comphy chair?

    2. Monty Python?

    3. That guy with the moustache. Fuck me, what’s his name?

      Lenin?

    4. Mel Brooks?

      1. +1 its better to lose your skullcap than your skull!

  3. Is it just me, or does that guy look like Julian Assange and Gordon Ramsay had a love child?

    1. Dreamy he is !

  4. “would be funded to the tune of 4 million Australian dollars”

    Taxpayer dollars? That would’ve been the reason to protest.

  5. universities partake in the “soft censorship of bad ideas… it’s called learning.”

    Yes, yes, of course.

    1. I wonder if they read the story of Gallileo. And, if they do, I wonder whose side they take.

      1. No, Gallileo had a falling out with the Church. See, that’s the RIGHT kind of people to have a falling out with. Lomborg had a falling out with the consensus mob. That is the WRONG kind of people to have a falling out with.

        1. No, Gallileo had a falling out with the Church.

          He had a falling out with an official church. Otherwise, not seeing any real difference here.

        2. Well technically they are both consensus mobs.

      2. The Galileo story is a bit more complex and nuanced than is appreciated in popular imagination.

        1. Sorta. His models had the overwhelming benefit of being, observably, more right than wrong.

  6. If you read the critics comments it seems they think they don’t just disagree with the fellow, they think his views are outrageous and in bad faith, therefore they should not be engaged and should go away. Sounds like they’d make good regular posters here!

    1. Moar SJW tears please !!!!

    2. Hey Bo.
      Knock Knock.

    3. The Botard being Botarded….”surprise, surprise, surprise” – Gomer Pyle USMC

    4. The view that NOT destroying the world economy for the sake of the POSSIBILITY of a few cm rise in sea levels over the next few hundred years is so outrageous, isn’t it?

      No wonder Botarded has caught on, what a fucking moron.

  7. Passionate emotion is what you fall back on when you know your position is not demonstrably true.

    1. Or when you’re too afraid to even find out if it’s demonstrably true.

      1. * fingers in ears* “LaLaLaLa can’thearyou lalalalalalalalalala”

  8. I’ve had dealings with Australian academia before. To compare the state of academic freedom in Australia to the U.S. is like asking why there are no Austrian economists in the economics department of Peking University. Long story short, I submitted a paper to an open-source journal run by Australian National University that was a response to another academic’s paper on the Rohingya situation. I pointed out several errors in her claim that the field of Buddhist Studies ignores any sort of critical reflection of Buddhist doctrine and that the situation in Burma was a bit more nuanced than Burmese Buddho-Fascists rounding up innocent Rohingya to send them to the crematories.

    The editor of the journal accused me of being “uncivil”. There is more to the story, but I’m not in a position to share.

    1. I can’t, I mean can’t, imagine HM being uncivil…

      1. HURP DURP!1! Why U neglekt Ur Kidz Bro?

      2. And you wonder why people call you a troll.

        1. Insufferable douches gonna insufferalbly douche Irish.

    2. The editor of the journal accused me of being “uncivil”.

      What?! With this playing in the background?!

    3. isn’t it amazing how in this day and age that just disagreeing with someone is considered both uncivil and micro aggressive. when in reality it is the new censorship by those who want to plug their ears and yell lalala like children.

    4. I read that as Australian economists and pictured Freddie H with two week unshaven growth, dirty rumpled shirt, and a bush hat.

  9. Religious fervor is not proof.

    1. A lecturer at the Australian National University … said, universities partake in the “soft censorship of bad ideas… it’s called learning.”

      And governments partake in the “hard censorship of bad ideas… it’s called re-education.”

      1. So now soft censorship is banning something… Hard censorship is…?

    2. Oddly enough, it is for the so-called skeptics at NESS.

  10. Since Lomberg cannot be called in good faith a “denier”, it’s evident that their beef with him is that he doesn’t subscribe to their socialist “solutions”. That’s what these watermelons are really all about: placing all economic activity under government control.

    1. Yep, I have long since realize that you can agree completely with the Global Warmists, but if you don’t get on your knees and bow to Marx, you are a “denier”.

      1. This is blindingly obvious for many reasons.

        The number one red flag for me was that they continue to oppose nuclear power. Sometimes they will even publicly state that if we use nuclear we won’t have to “change our lifestyles”, in the requisite socialist-progressive manner.
        These people honestly WANT the economy to collapse so they can force a massive economic restructuring and rationing of electricity. It’s how they intend to centralize control of the economy.

        1. Do you ever listen to yourself? As has been explained to you a hundred times, while there may still be some debate among environmentalists about nuclear power, nobody thinks we should favor fossil fuels over it. The biggest opponents of nuclear power should be libertarians, as it is an industry that simply cannot exist without heavy government subsidy.

          The rest is paranoid ranting, of course.

          1. You dont favor nuclear power over fossil fuels seeing how concerned you are about agw????????

            Massive government subsidies huh….sounds right up your alley!!! Cough solar cough wind

          2. the only reason nuclear energy can’t exist without government funding is because of oppressive government regulations beyond anything required for the proper safe handling of nuclear energy. The government does this all the time, it creatse laws that people can’t abide by without government help thus securing the governments position and growth.

            1. That’s been explained and ignored hundreds of times.

              1. Yea Tony is a clueless moron the more STEM-y something gets the stupider it becomes.

            2. Limited liability counts as a subsidy. As I said, nobody would take on the risk without codified government protection.

              1. I would take that risk because i am serious about climate change and not reverting back to colonial standards of living.

                Sounds like you arent

              2. Limited liability counts as a subsidy.

                No matter how often you assert this, it never stops being false and idiotic.

              3. We don’t know that this is true. Given the long track
                record of safe operation in France, UK, Germany, Japan,
                and US (even including Fukishima and 3-mile Island)
                and newer generations of power plants might very
                well be insurable.

            3. This just isn’t true. France has more reasonable nuclear regulations and it is still just as costly. Nuclear is every bit as much an unsustainable subsidy whore as ‘renewables’.

              1. Although nuclear does have the advantage of working, in that it can provide continuous power.

                If we’re going to subsidize things, I prefer to at least subsidize things that work.

              2. Sorry Cyto. The French managed to build their entire nuclear base for about half what us Americans did. The vast majority of nuclear electric cost is in the original construction, so I must insist France is not equally costly.

          3. It may or may not be mainstream among environmentalists. But I do encounter people who do really think that people should revert to a simpler and more primitive way of life to save the planet fairly often. Perhaps thinking that such people are the mainstream of the environmentalist movement is a bit paranoid, but they do exist in pretty good numbers.

            1. The mainstream idea is to maintain and improve a modern standard of living.

              1. How do you keep the standard of living as is when you said below yesterday all emissions from fossil fuels need to stop.

                Whats your proposal for combatting while maintaing the standard of living? Show your plan abates the problem

                1. “Whats your proposal for combatting while maintaing the standard of living?”

                  Good intentions. If they don’t work out, well the intentions were good!

              2. “The mainstream idea is to maintain and improve a modern standard of living.”

                That isn’t the idea its the sales pitch. IE “If you like your health care plan”

          4. That’s bullshit. The nuke industry is hobbled by the NRC.

            1. Yes, and it would still be unprofitable without it.

              1. Would breeders be unprofitable?

  11. Every time I hear ‘the science is settled’ I think of the guy that proved most ulcers were caused by bacteria and could be cured with antibiotics..He was right.

    1. When I hear “the science is settled” I don’t think of just Barry J. Marshall (your example) but also Alfred Wegener (plate tectonics), Ignaz Semmelweiz (surgical sanitation), Karl Gauss (non-Euclidean geometry), Nicola Tesla (AC, wireless power transmission, and brushless motors), Edward Jenner (smallpox vaccine) … the list of names under “Science: ridiculed and later vindicated” stretches ever onward.

      Ultimately, “The science is settled” is **not** a scientific argument: science never settles on final answers but always probes for further refinement. When you see that argument in a debate, what you are being told is “I will not engage with any new facts or arguments on this topic”.

      1. You are also being told, “I don’t understand how science works.”

    2. Regardless of if it’s scientifically accurate, at this point the AGW crowd is about as dedicated to the scientific method as flat Earth creationists are.

      Also: luminiferous aether, expanding Earth theory, phlogiston theory, miasma theory, and Einstein’s static universe.

      Science that has been “settled” for decades or centuries is routinely proven wrong. It’s the nature of science.

      1. I always tell people the following:

        “If it’s science, it’s not settled;
        If it’s settled, it’s not science.”

  12. Strong and passionate feelings do not make truth.

  13. Coincidentally, I just started reading Henry C. Lea’s A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages.

    I’m usually against new “centers” (or whatever) being slapped down on my campus from outside, but my reasons have to do with money and not ideology. He may have $5M now but when labor gets back into power they will cut off at least some of the funding and then the university will be expected to pick it up, as well as carve out space for it. They *always* end up sucking up resources from other areas, regardless of what they tell you up front.

  14. Right again, Brendan. Lomborg’s a smart guy. You wonder why he ventured into unfriendly territory. The more pertinent question is why universities have become so friendly to mobsters, not of the Sicilian sort, but of the kind you describe here.

    Politics has always had an element of mob activity in it. I’ve had a lifelong distaste for public demonstrations, and I realize now that the line between a street demonstraton and a mob is not that wide. The university used to be chided as an ivory tower, meaning a place cut off from real life. What elements of real life did the university distance itself from? Mobs, censorship, thought police, propaganda, political campaigns, social coercion: all those things that remind us politics is a dirty business in the real world. Universities have always had politics, too, of course, but they made an effort to minimize its worst qualities. Not any more. Now universities appear to _welcome_ these distasteful qualities when they show up, and show them right through the gates.

  15. …How did this astonishing development occur? A key reason is poor leadership. Students take their cues from their professors. Your article mentions that _professors_ as well as students participated in the effort to prevent Lomborg from coming to the university. They set a good example, don’t they? Students don’t always follow their professors’ lead, but professors do have a powerful influence.

    As both an undergraduate and a graduate student, I had professors who highly valued the qualities you mention, as well as all the classic liberal virtues we associate with finding the truth: free thought, open argumentation, due consideration of all positions. Openness means that no argument appears too contrarian to be tendered a fair evaluation. No voice diverges so far from the main stream of thought that colleagues act to silence it. Academic leaders reject no individual merely because of the way he or she thinks.

    These weren’t only ideals. We had people who actually practiced them. I wonder how many are left.

  16. It isn’t enough to believe in climate change.

    You must also insist on sacrificing our standard of living to fight it?

    Yeah, that’s a problem.

  17. “Smash together eco-correctness with the West’s scarily cavalier attitude to the great modern ideal of academic freedom, and what do you have? A serious, valuable thinker like Lomborg being chased from a university by a passionate emotional mob.”

    There is a larger context in which this happened in Australia.

    Australia was one of the first governments with a onerous carbon tax. This was initiated by the Gillard’s Labor government–the first woman to become Australia’s prime minster–in a coalition with Australia’s version of the Green Party. This carbon tax was considered by environmentalists around the world to be the model upon which other anti-greenhouse gas regimes would rolled out around the world. Australia’s model was to be the model for the world.

    To oversimplify things a bit, the carbon tax was wildly unpopular once it was implemented, it was ultimately repealed, and Gillard’s Labor government was sent packing. In other words, implementing the “solution” to climate change was so massively unpopular, that if their carbon tax were the model for the rest of the world, then any government that implemented it must want to commit political suicide.

    1. To say that the left in Australia met this realization with seething hatred would be an understatement, and the rejection of Lomborg should be seen within that context. In fact, bringing Lomborg to Australia in the first place should be seen within that context–it’s a move meant to rub salt in the Labor’s/the Greens’ open wounds. This should further emphasize the point that AGW isn’t really about science anymore–and it hasn’t been for a decade, at least.

      AGW and climate change is about politics–not science. The science is beside the point.

      1. And the politics it’s about is closer to religion, since it rejects historic proof of its failings, and relies on dogmatic belief instead.

  18. You guys love to say what science is not. Science is not celebrity and a contrarian position (the Galileo hypothesis, i.e., “Galileo, therefore I’m right!”). Lomborg is unquestionably a non-expert with a political agenda. Refutations of his methods and theses are numerous and substantial, if anyone cares to read them. No field of science should be subject to Fox News-ification (elevating nonsense only because it offers “balance” to a supposed debate). A field as politicized as this one will be at particular risk of this. Lomborg’s case is ironic because deniers (that’s most of you) endlessly parrot talking points about uncertainties in this field, yet Lomborg’s (nonscientific, ideological) predictions about future costs are to be taken as gospel?

    Not everyone gets a seat at the table just because he wants one. The bottom line with Lomborg is that the same scientists whose work he uses to draw conclusions disavow his interpretation and use of their data. Of course, obviously, it is all of them who are biased and agenda-driven, while this one nonscientist whose fame relies completely on his contrarianism, has found the right answer (because you like that answer better).

    1. Curious but are a scientist and expert since you continue to lecture others about the science of climate change? Otherwise how can you have an opinion on the matter using your “logic”?

      1. Are you*

      2. This moron argued vehemently that CO2’s feedback with H20 was not what was theorized as the mechanism whereby CO2 could potentially cause warming.

        He is a fucking idiot. Anytime you show a quote from Popper or a vid of Feynman or explain that doubling sensitivity is probably lower than the IPCC models assume OR ANYTHING ELSE remotely related to this subject, you are just wasting your time.

        1. Tony care to refute eggs post? I admit in the past you only mentiom co2 as cause of the warming and not feedback of vapor. You seem to contradict yourself

          1. For Tony CO2 is like a religious icon. He worships it, thinks it has power but doesn’t understand the power.

    2. So numerous you couldn’t be bothered to cite even one of them.

      1. Lol yet there isnt anything political about these scientists wrt to funding.

        Tony cause fox news brings to light the dirty deeds of team blue and it hurts your feelings of superiority….that doesnt make it nonsense

      2. Sorry I didn’t realize your Google was broken.

        Of course Bjorn Lomborg is not a climate change denier, like almost everyone here, he’s simply a nonscientist who let his political views lead him to writing a book drawing conclusions from faulty approaches to science. Or as you all might say, good enough!

        1. I didnt make any of the claims about this guy. Just said climate scientists have a political interest to meet a narrative

          Are you a scientist? If noHow can you say bjorn is wrong?

        2. I notice you still can’t lay a finger on any of Lomborg’s points.

        3. So Tony, you cite the witch hunt by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty and you expect people to take you seriously?

        4. One committee in Denmark whose approach in the case was so outrageous that hundreds of mostly lefty scientists called for it to be disbanded? Also one that quietly let those charges drop? This is what you deem evidence? This comes from the same school of evidence that considers Mccarthyism and the salem witch trials authoritative bodies.

          That doesn’t even pass the stupid test.

    3. I do indeed love to say what science is not. So I will do so now.

      Science is not the sort of thing that can tell you what policies will be effective in mitigating or adapting to climate change, whatever the cause. There is no reliable scientific theory that can make any useful predictions about whether a carbon tax or solar subsidies or whatever will be an effective and cost efficient way to control CO2 emissions or mitigate the effects of climate change.

      So, let’s assume that the science is all good and global warming predictions are close to correct. It still doesn’t matter what climate scientists think the best policy solutions are. Just as most people here aren’t experts on climate science, the scientists are not experts on politics or economics and should stop pretending that they are.

      1. Which scientists are doing that?

        1. All of the ones advocating for ‘renewable’ energy.

    4. So tony: you do not understand the word hypothesis.

      If you cannot prove it, it is simply a theory.
      Explore and research all you want but don’t destroy economies and rob the poor and poverty stricken in undeveloped countries access to cheap energy.

      Twerps like you are most dangerous because you are completely ignorant of market economics and you use non-sense like anthropogenic climate change/warming/sustainability/eco-derp as your religion/nationalism.

      You are the type of dipshit that stifles the progress of the human condition because you read a book once.

      Luddite shit bag

      1. It seems like you might not understand the word “theory” as used in science. Hypotheses in science are never proven (though they are often disproved). Everything that science says is “simply a theory”. The proposition that the Earth orbits the Sun along with the other planets is simply a theory. An extremely well supported theory, but a theory nonetheless. The most science can say about any theory is that so far it is in accord with experiment. When people use “proof” when talking about science, they just mean that the theory is so well supported that they have a very high confidence that the theory is correct.
        The problem with climate science isn’t a misunderstanding about any of that. It is (in my opinion) bad standards of what constitutes a well supported theory or model.

        1. Beat me to it.

          timbo needs to read some Popper or listen to this video

      2. theory, hypothesis, consensus, whatever. Point being that is NOT proven. Responsible science should know better than to take such a grand leap on something this large that has only been under research for a relatively short period of time.

  19. It is sad, but progessivism is an apparently incurable disease. And apparently, the only way to make progressives leave you alone is to kill them.

    The way to have peaceful coexistence, is to minimize the impact of one on another. This minimization is what progressives can’t tolerate. ALL must not only obey them, but all must agree with them.

    It is clear why Progressivism can only lead to war, there is simply no way to effectively negotiate with them other than brute force.

    In this case, maybe the AU government should just defund the university as a first step toward closing it. I assume they would understand THAT.

    1. The cure to proggies is to get rid of the power they’d use against you. Once that happens they dry and die.

    2. Altruistic looters want more than anything else for you to go along with calling them “progressive.” What is more, every time we use “liberal” to refer to a closet socialist we earn nothing from them save contemptuous admission to the Order of Useful Idiots.

  20. Tony the climate has changed with and without man throughout time and will continue to do so….yes or no?

    Are you most concerned about co2 with respect to agw? Or something else?

    Are you in favor of nuclear power?

    1. The climate has never, or extremely rarely, changed with the currently observed rapidity. If it does, it usually accompanies mass extinction events. Climate change is not neutral or beneficial just because it may have happened naturally before. I’m concerned with massive unstoppable global climate change. I’d be just as concerned if it had non-human causes. I am fine with nuclear power, but then I’m OK with big government subsidies for energy. Puzzling that a libertarian would be.

      Do the oil companies pay you or do you suck their cock for free?

      1. How do you propose stopping climate from changing? Like volcanos erupting?

        What is the current observed rapidity and how have you discerned this against a few billion years of earth history?

        What is evidence now of climate change? With such a small sample size i dont think you can claim this as reminder that weather isnt climate

      2. Tony is co2 your biggest concern for warming? Your answer will be telling

        1. Not so telling as your lame regurgitation of denier bullshit.

          1. Who said i was denying? Asking you to explain your views isnt denying fyi. I havent given you my position. You assumed that

          2. Tony are you saying co2 is the only green house gas that causes temps to go up? What about methane? That isnt co2 fyi

            Nasa.gov says water vapor is a major player which is its own feedbact…sort of contradicts your link

          3. Tony are you saying co2 is the only green house gas that causes temps to go up? What about methane? That isnt co2 fyi

            Nasa.gov says water vapor is a major player which is its own feedbact…sort of contradicts your link

      3. The climate is a coupled non-linear system, it can change on it’s own….you fucking dumbass.

        The time span of the past few million years has been punctuated by many rapid climate transitions, most of them on time scales of centuries to decades or even less. The most detailed information is available for the Younger Dryas-to-Holocene stepwise change around 11,500 years ago, which seems to have occurred over a few decades.

        From this paper…

        Sudden climate transitions during the Quaternary

        by Jonathan Adams (1.), Mark Maslin (2.) & Ellen Thomas (3.)

        Progress in Physical Geography

        Fucking clueless useful, fucking idiot.

        1. Bailey is also nearly as clueless as Tony.

          1. He’s too busy fisting kittens to read. Just tell him whose money he should steal to give to whatever the cool cause is these days.

            1. I meant tony and not bailey. Baily is redeemable.

      4. The climate has never, or extremely rarely, changed with the currently observed rapidity.

        You really are an ignorant idiot Tony.

        http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html

        Until a few decades ago it was generally thought that all large-scale global and regional climate changes occurred gradually over a timescale of many centuries or millennia, scarcely perceptible during a human lifetime. The tendency of climate to change relatively suddenly has been one of the most suprising outcomes of the study of earth history, specifically the last 150,000 years (e.g., Taylor et al., 1993). Some and possibly most large climate changes (involving, for example, a regional change in mean annual temperature of several degrees celsius) occurred at most on a timescale of a few centuries, sometimes decades, and perhaps even just a few years.

      5. Um, Tony —

        The Younger Dryas: “The change was relatively sudden, taking place in decades, and resulted in a decline of 2 to 6 degrees Celsius, advances of glaciers and drier conditions, over much of the temperate northern hemisphere. It is thought to have been caused by a decline in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, which transports warm water from the equator towards the North Pole, and which in turn is thought to have been caused by an influx of fresh cold water from North America into the Atlantic.” (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas)

        Acemoglu and Robinson (Why Nations Fail) write:
        “About 15,000 BC, the Ice Age came to an end as the Earth’s climate warmed up. Evidence from the Greenland ice cores suggests that average temperatures rose by as much as fifteen degrees Celsius in a short span of time. This warming seems to have coincided with rapid increases in human populations as the global warming led to expanding animal populations and much greater availability of wild plants and foods. This process was put into rapid reverse at about 14,000 BC, by a period of cooling known as the Younger Dryas, but after 9600 BC, global temperatures rose again, by seven degrees Celsius in less than a decade, and have since stayed high. Archaeologist Brian Fagan calls it the Long Summer.”

  21. OK, maybe I’m old-fashioned, or maybe I’m just fucking stupid, but I thought people went to college to learn things. Kinda like, you know…. school. But apparently the students now know everything and only are looking for adults to reinforce what they already “know”. What’s the point?

  22. Tony do you support ethanol in cars? Your answer will be telling

    1. Tony supports agitating as many people on this board as possible. All actions flow from that.

    2. No. Industry boondoggle that does nothing to help.

      1. Would you be in favor of getting rid of thr industry? I notice you said does nothing to help. Was expecting a little more provided you have a basic understanding

  23. Tony do you support the elimination of beef?

    1. I support finding ways to make beef production environmentally neutral.

      1. How do you prevent cows from farting?

        1. Skip the cow part. Grow meat in labs.

          1. What regulations and or bans would be put on it?

          2. Labs are generally pretty energy intensive affairs. From the construction, commute of the workers, to temperature control, lights, etc.

            Hardly environmentally neutral.

            I wonder if it would be more or less neutral than letting beef grow on cows as we do now? More than likely no-one can actually answer that.

            1. Tony don’t care. It LOOKS cool and neutral so it must be.

          3. Could be wrong, but wasn’t it you used to rail against gmo’s?? Lab grown, or genetically modified….. what makes one bad and other good?

  24. Tony do you support eugenics and genocide as a way to combat climate change?

    Fun fact: people exhale co2. Population is increasing…do you think plants are

    1. No.

      The problem is not CO2 that was a part of the natural carbon cycle. The problem is CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels that were buried in the earth.

      1. What if there are less plants and more peeps?

        No concern about water vapor huh? Might want to research the effects. Thought you were an expert

  25. Tony do you have the urge to throw me in jail for questionning your god-like worldview?

    1. You know he does.
      They know never to say it directly although they are too stupid not to wear it on their shoulder.

      The beauty of utter stupidity is that it always manifests itself in many obvious ways over time.

    2. No. I support global action yesterday so we don’t have to take even more drastic action tomorrow.

      1. So what is your proposed resolution from yesterday? Give me a 5 or 10 point plan from 30,000 feet please.

      2. Why do you fist kittens, Tony? They don’t like it. You should stop.

      3. What does this global action consist of and how have you determined that it would abate the issue?

        1. Cause of the problem: excess greenhouse gas emissions. Beginning of a solution: stop emitting them. I don’t claim to be an expert on science or policy. I’m just here to call you guys idiots for denying the problem exists at all.

          1. You talked about action yesterday but dont have a plan…interesting.

            Water vapor traps heat more than co2 fyi

            1. Thank you. Kindly look above and follow the link I provided.

              1. I’d say there is a positive feedback loop for water vapor…no? Water vapor increases temps which increases more water vapor. Not sure CO2 is the main player

                1. which increases water vapor which increases temps and so on*

                2. And even that’s simplistic. Evaporation is one of the most efficient cooling methods out there. Your body does it, and scientists do it to get very close to absolute zero.

                  Not to mention that once water then condensate into rain higher in the atmosphere, it helps bring temperatures down where it lands.

                  Thinking you can solve for all these subtle effects of every single variable, and bring a consensus on climate to the table, is naive or arrogant. We can’t model weather prediction more than about a week in advance, we can’t model or predict stock market prices beyond a very narrow scope, and we certainly can’t model the Earth’s temperature beyond a useless time frame.

                  The insistence on actually avoiding talking about current technological solutions to what is maybe a problem, and focusing on behavior modification of the entire human species, is telling.

                3. Water vapor is The Forgotten Greenhouse Gas.

            2. My buddy’s mother makes $75 every hour on the laptop . She has been laid off for seven months but last month her pay check was $18875 just working on the laptop for a few hours.
              Look At This. ???? http://www.jobsfish.com

          2. What about in the age of the dinosaurs? There were higher levels back then

          3. Tony, if we eliminate all emissions from smokestacks and cars, what about all of the commerce that will grind to a halt? What about all of the people that will freeze to death and starve?

            Will you please address how much of a role fossil fuels paly in modern mega agriculture and how it efficiently feeds the growing population? What about the haber-bosch process in fertilizers? These are modern marvels that have advanced the human condition and provided the wealth and rise from poverty that has never been seen in history. it is truly the grandest result of the wonders of capitalism.

            http://www.wisegeek.com/what-i…..rocess.htm

            Also, please comment on the inefficiency and cost prohibitive nature of solar and wind. In theory these are good ideas and will likely one day have to be employed, but as long as we can exploit cheap energy now, why not put the solution in the hands of for profit, private enterprise when the necessary time comes? Or should we rely on government dictum with blanket policies for all?

            After all, if we are so adept at creating this calamity, then why could we not fix it with the same nimble minds that we have available in Washington and the UN?

            1. I agree with Bjorn Lomborg that we should eliminate all subsidies for fossil fuels, including the subsidy of allowing for free pollution of the environment, which should help the market move in the right direction.

              1. How would fining for pollution stop climate change if you still pollute?

                How do you feel about wind and solar killing birds? What forms of energy do you propose?

              2. Re: Tony,

                I agree with Bjorn Lomborg that we should eliminate all subsidies for fossil fuels, including the subsidy of allowing for free pollution of the environment

                CO2 is not a pollutant. Also, you use the word “subsidy” without realizing its meaning. It is one thing to transfer money from one set of pockets to another set ?a subsidy?, but quite another to assert that normal human activity amounts to a “subsidy.” The notion is ridiculous and self-contradictory. It would be like advocating for the total abandonment of the Earth lest we “pollute” it.

                Yet you have the gall of speaking of “delusions”.

                1. Using tonys logic i am subsidizing him living right now since i am allowing him to live which produces a carbon footprint

          4. There is no ‘problem’ and we’re not going to stop emitting CO2.

    3. It is not productive to argue with mystics. Michael Crichton, the doctor who wrote Jurassic Park and State of Fear, explains to a young brainwashee that “environmentalism” is a religion just like communism and national socialism are religions. His 4-minute video has probably saved thousands of children from the clutches of these brutes.

      Look for Michael Crichton on environmentalism as a religion…

  26. Tony did you know co2 isnt the only driver of climate fyi

    1. True. Water vapor is a major greenhouse gas, and it is not mentioned in the Kyoto Protocol. See the American Chemical Society… http://www.acs.org/content/acs…..e-co2.html
      Observe also that the ecological nationalsocialists never say how much additional heat is being trapped Tell me the excess heat balance in Watts and I’ll design you orbiting mirrors to reflect it elsewhere.

  27. Tony what sort of measures do we need to take, what is your implementation plan and can you show with graphs how plan abates problem?

    What if the temp goes down next year or stays flat like this year even with more emissions. This year the temp was 1/5 of the margin of error for last year so it was essentially the same in math speak

  28. Tony do you not drive a car? What about mow the lawn? How do you charge your phone or computer? Batteries were made with nasty chemicals fyi.

    Im just curious since you said we need to stop emitting above if you dont use any electricty or fossil fuels…off the grid so to speak. Or do as i say not as i do?

    1. The fact that I am unwilling or unable to adopt a lifestyle that burns no fossil fuels, despite being a person who actually cares about the problem, is evidence for why centralized action is needed. Individuals changing their behavior is nice, but it is not a solution to a global problem.

      1. Re: Tony,

        The fact that I am unwilling or unable to adopt a lifestyle that burns no fossil fuels, despite being a person who actually cares about the problem, is evidence for why centralized action is needed.

        Do YOU need to be compelled to do it, by government? The fact that you’re unwilling is evidence of your hypocrisy, not of government inaction. We’re not the ones yelling “The end is nigh!” in our pajamas – YOU are.

        Individuals changing their behavior is nice, but it is not a solution to a global problem.

        So the problem is that we’re too egotistical, Tony? Are we all sinners? Are you calling for a Climate Change jihad? All shall submit or die?
        What is your idea?

        1. Same as with any other major effort, whether it’s fighting a war, building an infrastructure, going to the moon, or what have you. Collective effort is not just useful, it’s sometimes necessary. Though to your credit if we’d always lived by your ethical requirements we’d probably never have gotten to agriculture, so this problem wouldn’t exist.

          1. Re: Tony,

            Same as with any other major effort, whether it’s fighting a war, building an infrastructure, going to the moon, or what have you.

            The difference is that neither amounted to anything productive. Infrastructure can mean lots of things and most was either built privately or through the insistence and lobbying of cronies.

            Collective effort is not just useful, it’s sometimes necessary.

            I do know you love sensational collective projects.

            Though to your credit if we’d always lived by your ethical requirements we’d probably never have gotten to agriculture, so this problem wouldn’t exist.

            Agriculture was the result of individual observation, especially by women. Even the cannibal tribes of New Guinea cultivate corn and fruit plants. None of that requires scores of slave labor, which is exactly what you’re advocating.

      2. Ah the “you should do this but i cant be bothered by it!”

        So what would this centralized plan look like? No electricity?

        Tony lead by example….words consistent..i may follow suit. Perhaps then we show others how serious the cause is

        1. Re: Frankjasper1,

          Tony lead by example

          He couldn’t care less about leading by example. The guy is riddled with jealousy, so he wants government to impose these restrictions on every single one of us so he doesn’t feel like the fool on the hill. He doesn’t want to look as ridiculous as Ed Begley Jr, pedaling at his battery charger all day, eating chicken feed and composting his own shit ?IF that was something the little Marxian tool wants to do. But the joke is on him: The idiot thinks he’s going to be one of the apparatchiks instead of one among the number of hapless peons when the revolution comes.

      3. The fact that I am unwilling or unable to adopt a lifestyle that burns no fossil fuels, despite being a person who actually cares about the problem, is evidence for why centralized action is needed.

        MAXIMUM ULTRA-TARD

      4. No one is stopping you from putting a wood shop in your garage and burning wood for heat and cooking. You can live off the land and abandon fossil fuels if you want. I wish all of you guys would. Then you would understand what a great things have come from exploitation of natural resources. Of course for profit companies should not be allowed to pollute at will but that should be a subject reserved fro the courts and violations of sane laws and property rights only.

  29. I think that what some people forgot, or never knew, is that science is set of theories that attempt to describe the world. Scientists are not priests with some kind of irrefutable knowledge whispered in their ear by an omnipotent deity. Their theories are just explanations that fit the observations and using them to predict the future is a calculated risk based on best guesses at their probability of being true. Believing in a scientific theory is the same mechanism as believing in a religious tenet and what you might expect from the unscientific and not from those who practice science. Being scientific means talking about probabilities and not certainties, you have to admit that in all things you might not be correct. Reason (excuse the pun) proves validity, not truth.

    However, if you need that certitude then there are options. Anything outside of science allows belief to outweigh evidence and consensus and charm, or fear and ridicule, can prove your point to everyone who, like you, wants to believe. The standards are different, people just want something that seems believable to them. It doesn’t have to be well thought out, it doesn’t need to be rational, it doesn’t need to be a balanced opinion because once they believe they will defend their beliefs and think they are noble doing all kinds of wrong things because they are the righteous, a category of people who believe they are right and cannot be wrong.

    Just my opinion and there is a probability that I am wrong.

  30. “A serious, valuable thinker like Lomborg…”

    Nonsense. The man is an ideologue with one solution to all problems. He makes no attempt to hide it. Growth. That’s his solution. We even more people emitting more greenhouse gases. It’s fanaticism and the university is correct in letting Lombard look elsewhere for employment.

    1. Re: mtrueman,

      Nonsense. The man is an ideologue with one solution to all problems. He makes no attempt to hide it. Growth.

      Nonsense. The Warmists are ideologues with one solution to all problems. They make no attempt to hide it. Government. That’s their solution. We need more people under the tutelage of government. It is fanaticism.

      1. “Government.”

        Govenment promotes growth. They pay lip service to it and try to encourage growth. Have you ever heard of a politician running on a platform against growth? I don’t think they exist. Even in the world’s most leftist regime, Venezuela, consumption of fossil fuels are encouraged through subsidies, just like the USA. Governments are every bit as pro-growth as Lombard. How can you have missed that?

        1. Re: mtrueman,

          Govenment promotes growth.

          Are you saying governments are talking both sides of their mouths?

          They pay lip service to it and try to encourage growth.

          Are you saying that all those talks about curbing emissions is just… just… a sham?

          Even in the world’s most leftist regime, Venezuela, consumption of fossil fuels are encouraged through subsidies

          Subsidizing is one thing, mtrueman. Lomborg is not talking about subsidies, he’s talking about fixing the problems of access to capital for poor people, which will help make their use of resources more rational.
          Neither is anybody here talking about subsidies. Also, you’re conflating two different phenomena: one is economic growth by individual choice; the other is artificial growth by inflation and malinvestment. The fact that you are unable to differentiate one from the others indicates your lack of knowledge in economics. You should refrain from opining on such matters until such time you familiarize yourself with them.

          1. “Are you saying governments are talking both sides of their mouths?”

            I’m saying governments promote growth, as does Lomborg.

            “Are you saying that all those talks about curbing emissions is just… just… a sham?”

            I wasn’t saying that. I think they more or less sincerely wish to curb emissions. It’s just their desire for growth is stronger.

            “The fact that you are unable to differentiate one from the others indicates your lack of knowledge in economics.”

            Don’t you see the economics is irrelevant? More emissions are more emissions. Whether due to subsidies or private choice is irrelevant. The physics are the same either way. Mother Nature doesn’t take our intentions into account. A terrible injustice, I agree, but that’s the world we live in.

            1. Re: mtrueman,

              I’m saying governments promote growth, as does Lomborg.

              And I am saying you’re conflating two things. Government-promoted “growth” is completly artificial.

              Don’t you see the economics is irrelevant? [???] More emissions are more emissions.

              Ah, I see ?you’re a zealot who wants people to stop emitting CO2. You want them to stop sinning. Got it.

              1. “Government-promoted “growth” is completly artificial.”

                Either way you cut it, the greenhouse gases are not artificial. They are real. That’s what counts in physics.

                “Ah, I see ?you’re a zealot who wants people to stop emitting CO2.”

                You can put it that way if you want. But the question is what does Lomborg want? He wants to cut emissions of greenhouse gases by increasing emissions of greenhouse gases. Surely you must see the contradiction there. It’s not hidden away somewhere. It’s about as plain as plain can be.

    2. “WAH STOP SAYING THINGS I DON’T LIKE” /mtruederp

      1. “WAH STOP SAYING THINGS I DON’T LIKE”

        But I love nonsense. I truly do. Alice in Wonderland is one of my best loved books. My favourite TV character is Green Acres’ Hank Kimball. Do I think Hank or the Mad Hatter deserve a teaching position in Australia? No. Not even Western Australia.

  31. Just so it wouldn’t get lost….

    How do you propose stopping climate from changing? Like volcanos erupting?

    What is the current observed rapidity and how have you discerned this against a few billion years of earth history?- Tony’s claim

    What is evidence now of climate change? With such a small sample size i dont think you can claim this as reminder that weather isnt climate- Tony’s claim

    1. Re: Frankasper1,

      How do you propose stopping climate from changing?

      That is why Climate Change is the perfect excuse for little Marxians to promote the imposition o socialist states all over. If Climate changes for the better (depending on whose standard you apply) the little Marxians can take the credit and if Climate changes for the worse, they can claim that there hasn’t been enough efforts applied ?which follows even more regulations, more plans and public trials and executions of accused saboteurs and counter-revolutionaries. You know, the whole nine yards.

      1. Life is too short to waste your brain on paranoid delusion.

        1. Well when you frame the argument so you can be correct eithet way.

        2. Re: Tony,

          Life is too short to waste your brain on paranoid delusion.

          I guess then that you are not serious when you say: “The fact that I am unwilling or unable to adopt a lifestyle that burns no fossil fuels,[…] is evidence for why [sic] centralized action is needed. Individuals changing their behavior is nice, but it is not a solution to a global problem.”

          So it is YES, I want world government but then NO, you’re being delusional. Either it is one thing, or it is the other ?it can’t be both. But, hey, I don’t expect little Marxians to show appreciation for avoiding these self-contradictions and intellectual dishonesty.

    2. At least you’re asking questions. I urge you to go to http://www.google.com and type them in there. I trust you learned what counts as a reliable source when you took middle school science. If not, I guess I can help you out.

      1. You made the claim of obsereved rapidity compared to rest and there is evidence of climate change.

        Back it up….substantiate it.

        When folks make claims….others ask them to back up and then the response is “google is your friend” ….that tells me you are talking out of your arse.

      2. Tony, per above:
        I agree. Let’s abolish all subsidies for farming, big oil, wind, and solar. let’s see what industries survive.

        If we get rid of wind and solar subsidies, they go away immediately. Neither technology has ever been without 100% subsidy. Wind has proven a failure without subsidy since the first major projects in the 50s-60s. Solar is what is called diffused energy. I cannot and will never compete with fossil fuels, nuclear, or even hydro at all on a Klw/Hr basis. The diffused energies of wind and solar are far too expensive to produce and wind carries with it an extremely expensive maintenance record especially in the environments that produce the best wind.

        As usual, the desires of folks that hate business at the core of the argument do not understand the necessity of the profit motive.
        As much as Marxism cannot stand the notion, innovation and progress only come from the business driven profit motive.
        Attempts by gov’t to allocate capital towards pet projects only results in a distortion of prices and always busts when the subsidy runs out. There has to be a willing buyer and I’ll bet you are not willing to buy wind only energy at its true cost per kilowatt hour. No one is.

  32. Just so it wouldn’t get lost….

    How do you propose stopping climate from changing? Like volcanos erupting?

    What is the current observed rapidity and how have you discerned this against a few billion years of earth history?- Tony’s claim

    What is evidence now of climate change? With such a small sample size i dont think you can claim this as reminder that weather isnt climate- Tony’s claim

  33. Anyone who says they can see effects of climate change now is a liar. Climate is a trend over time.

  34. Hi Brendan,

    Bjorn lomborg is brilliant? For stoking the egos and pocketbooks of right-wingers who think co2 in the air is a commie plot. Nah. People who line their pockets with right-winger’s money have been around for a century or so. He just knows where the money is.

    As for this “controversy”, Brendan, you don’t think universities deny academic positions based upon what the professors there perceive as lack of merit? That happens like every day, man. Why doesn’t this guy just take his travelling road show to hillsdale college. There are plenty of people there who think that God has ordained them with their fortunes and is modulating the climate.

    1. Re: American Stolid,

      Hi Brendan,

      Hi, imbecile. Glad you made it this late.

      For stoking the egos and pocketbooks of right-wingers who think co2 in the air is a commie plot.

      No. The commie plot is this notion circulating through social and print media that the coordinated efforts by world governments are going to achieve the Nirvana the little Marxians are peddling.

      you don’t think universities deny academic positions based upon what the professors there perceive as lack of merit?

      But without discounting the possibility that they would also do deny academic positions based on what the professors there perceive as a lack of commitment to established orthodoxy, don’t you think?

      There are plenty of people there who think that God has ordained them with their fortunes and is modulating the climate.

      There are plenty of us who are non-believers and who also find the Climate Change Catastrophism peddled by some to be utterly unconvincing, the ramblings of fools or shysters. By the way, welcome back, shyster.

    2. Actually, the argument against global warming aka climate change aka climate disruption alarmism (the repeated name changes are a result of the failure of the evidence to match the predictions, which would matter to you if you had any idea what the scientific method actually is) has little to do with Bjorn Lomborg, who merely believes that it will be less expensive to deal with the consequences than to try to prevent it.

      Note that despite the various smear terms (such as “climate denier”), no one denies that carbon dioxide has increased, and few deny that there has been global warming or that climate changes (in fact, the skeptics argue, correctly, that such changes occur in natural cycles). Lomborg, as noted, doesn’t even deny that global warming is anthropogenic to some degree (and in fact many other skeptics would agree). You’d know all this if you were an informed individual instead of an ovine ideologue.

      Incidentally, the infrared wave-lengths blocked by carbon dioxide are also blocked by water vapor. The result is that the law of diminishing returns applies to the greenhouse effect, but (as far as I know) is ignored by the climate models.

      1. If we have to argue things like “the infrared wave-lengths blocked by carbon dioxide are also blocked by water vapor” then maybe you– not me– should take a refresher course on basic chemistry. See: http://chemistry.illinoisstate…..olvibs.pdf

    3. Shit for brains late for the Loss.

  35. Science has no room for inquisitions; the science is never settled completely (as was demonstrated spectacularly when relativity overtook Newtonian mechanics in the early 20th century). Such closed-minded intolerance is the hallmark of a militant cult, not science. Such behavior has made me more skeptical about the global warming aka climate change aka climate disruption alarmists, which I now regard as nothing but a scam.

  36. C’mon. Just because various responses to AGW may affect economies doesn’t mean the guy deserves to be victimized like this. And, just because he is a ‘contrarian’ doesn’t mean his science is worth a damn and he should get a large amount of public funding. This dude is a charlatan milking those who do not want any impediments to their preferred economy.

    How about this: I believe the moon is flat. I can ‘prove’ it… I mean, we’ve never seen its other (dark) side from Earth, right? Now I’m a scientist and – more importantly – a contrarian… and someone in power will believe my shit, so I now deserve (no, my indignance demands!) a large public grant because those people in power believe in my shit… never mind that my ideas/science have never been validated. Harrumph!!!!

    1. People in power don’t believe anything other than what they can manipulate the herd with. If nothing else, the fact that the herd of sheep around the world is on lockstep with whatever politicians say about global warming should be sign number one that this is worthy of suspicion.
      The herd is almost always wrong because they are driven by the collective thinking of the time. Hence sheep or schools of fish simply reacting to the guy in front of them.

      Name a mainstream, major power wielding politician anywhere in the world that does not or has not gotten on board with the global warming crisis.

  37. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobnet10.com

  38. I agree he shouldn’t get public money…neither should the multitude of AGW alarmists who are also charlatans.

    When you talk about a “preferred economy” it means it not your state controlled preferred economy, amirite?

    Fuck off, slaver.

  39. BTW Frankjasper1, good job trolling the Tonytroll.

  40. This whole debate is proof that mankind in general is really not all that bright. We aren’t much more than sophisticated monkeys. Anytime a debate is shut down because it is not politically correct is another example of the inquisition in action. It is little more than a modern witch hunt and even sadder still is that this is occurring in the universities.

  41. I see the usual assholes are up for a game of ‘can’t counter his argument but I can’t shut up either’. Hence the whiny about Lomborg and his ‘ideology’ of not driving mankind into mass poverty.

    1. I countered Tony’s original assertion

      Tony|5.19.15 @ 11:48AM|#

      The climate has never, or extremely rarely, changed with the currently observed rapidity.

      With this…

      Eggs Benedict Cumberbund|5.19.15 @ 12:04PM|#

      He has yet to comment. He just makes up shit he hears on Kos or HuffPo or maybe RealClimate or other bullshit sites with an agenada.

      1. Tony’s a comment section certified cull.

  42. “Anthropogenic Climate Change” is Tony’s little cue to chime in. And he almost certainly will, since he sees at the best opportunity on Earth for ignorant fascists like himself to self-award themselves more power to be even bigger and more ignorant fascists. Doesn’t matter we’ve already passed some of the deadline dates for action before horrific disaster would take the world down and nothing’s happened.

    Healthy skepticism, Tony, you need to get a little of your own.

    1. *sees it

  43. What’s the opposite of diversity? University.

  44. George Orwell made reference to “bought minds,” and this is exactly what we see in militarized police unions AND hawkers of ecological national socialist pseudoscience. Just as Klan belt police forces recycle shellshocked military brainwashees into no-questions-asked hitmen for whoever claims victory by secret ballot, they who preside in subsidized classrooms will actually think the thoughts that the law of supply and demand places before them with incentives.

    Granted, the money really belongs to someone else, from whom it is taken by force, but that money is as real as any they’ve ever seen. What could be better than getting paid for sacrificing others to purity laws you’ve been paid to believe are right?

  45. “academic mob” is an oxymoron, isn’t it? Or is it not when most of them are morons?

  46. The money is easy to make, once you know how to make it. The problem is, people don’t know what products make money and how to promote those products. What if I told you I can help you make $1,000 within a month, and give you the life you deserve.

    See Here Details:……………… http://www.Times-Report.com

  47. Nathaniel . although Stephanie `s rep0rt is super… I just bought a top of the range Mercedes sincee geting a check for $4416 this last four weeks and would you believe, ten/k last-month . no-doubt about it, this really is the best-job I’ve ever done . I actually started seven months/ago and almost straight away started making a nice over $79.. p/h….. ?????? http://www.netcash9.com

  48. Nathaniel . although Stephanie `s rep0rt is super… I just bought a top of the range Mercedes sincee geting a check for $4416 this last four weeks and would you believe, ten/k last-month . no-doubt about it, this really is the best-job I’ve ever done . I actually started seven months/ago and almost straight away started making a nice over $79.. p/h….. ?????? http://www.netcash9.com

  49. Never ends, rightwing website omits important info, things called ‘facts’. What angers people is another Koch paid con-man playing the sheep for all it’s worth, but obviously reason,com is just like FOX, a propaganda wing for industrial waste scumbags, hows the Koch Kash working for ya?

  50. Same group of people who excommunicated scientists for proposing the heliocentric model. Global warming has become the new religion with the fascism of governmental force thrown in for good measure.

  51. Johnny Fuckerfaster!

  52. We can be “Yanks” so we can also be ‘ Deniers’. I cherish my role as a denier. I keep looking for that climate model that actually shows what Lomborg denys.

  53. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.gowork247.com

  54. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.gowork247.com

  55. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.gowork247.com

  56. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobnet10.com

  57. This reminds me of the democrat party in the US, which had a “strong and passionate emotional reaction” to integrating blacks into the white public school system. It should be treated with the same level of disgust and condemnation as that bigotry was.

  58. RE: Academic Mob Chases ‘Climate Change Contrarian’ Bjorn Lomborg Off Campus

    Bjorn Lomborg is a heretic.
    There can be no heresy in the religion of climate change.
    There can only burning him and people like him at the stake.
    How else are “researchers,” “scientists” and “experts” get their grant money from the taxpayers if people like Lomborg starting exposing climate change a hoax that it really is?
    Did the honest scientists every think of this?

  59. The climate is always changing
    spring
    summer
    fall
    winter
    repeat

  60. Ah! Another Kristallnacht!
    Infiltrating and subverting ecological national socialists since 1978 has stripped away the mystique. The movement is a push for totalitarianism in which industrial society is gulled into making transfer payments to dictatorships where no individual rights or economic freedom are allowed. The mutation simply replaces racial “purity” with environmental “purity.” The grasping at other people’s money is stirring up the same breed of morons incapable of defining energy or naming the dimensions of its units of measure. But this much is true: strangling power generation shortens life expectancy by increasing the death rate. Econaziism is thus a health hazard of the first magnitude.

    1. The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

      So far, I see no shop windows smashed, and no one is asking deniers to wear armbands.

  61. Thanks for letting us know that Lomborg is blonde-haired, because we all know (wink wink) that this means he is reliable.

  62. There is a difference between allowing dissenting views on campus and using scarce campus resources to support a snake-oil salesman. Giving Lomborg the prestige of a university as the home for his center damages the brand for serious scholarship.

    But if you are willing to commit on the basis of principles, perhaps a deal is possible: Lomborg gets his university center, and James Hansen gets to set up a climate change center at the Cato Institute!

  63. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ???????? http://www.factoryofincome.com

  64. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ???????? http://www.factoryofincome.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.