Hodjanernes Blog

26 maj 2017

Køb ikke automatisk organiske fødevarer

Filed under: Almindelig fornuft, Klima, Medicin, TrumfEs, Videnskab — Tags: — trumfes @ 09:22

Bjørn Lomborg gør op med de mange myter om organiske fødevarer

Han kommer med ganske mange argumenter

Men han mangler alligevel et: alle de mange gange, hvor producenter af organiske fødevarer er blevet grebet i fusk !

16 januar 2017

Bjørn Lomborg forklarer, hvorfor Paris klimaaftalen ikke er noget værd

Filed under: Greenies, Klima, TrumfEs — Tags: , — trumfes @ 12:24

En masse fine mål, som koster det hvide ud af øjnene og – måske – påvirker 0.02 grad

Som sædvanlig en god video af Prager University

cartoon_climate_science

28 juli 2016

Bjørn Lomborg spørger: hvad er det, der er så alarmerende ved klimaændringer?

Filed under: Greenies, Klima, Politisk korrekte, TrumfEs, Videnskab — Tags: , — trumfes @ 14:06

Jeg skal love for at han taler flot engelsk !

<

5 december 2015

Bjørn Lomborg på Prager University

Filed under: Almindelig fornuft, Klima, TrumfEs — Tags: , — trumfes @ 13:15

“Is Climate Change Our Biggest Problem? ”

Sund fornuft !

IPCC

Jeg er (også) imponeret over , hvor godt han taler engelsk/amerikansk !

27 september 2011

Rød dobbeltmoral

En rød regering vil tage bevillingerne fra Bjørn Lomborg.

Waffen-SF’eren Ida Auken udtaler:

“Vi vil prioritere anderledes end VK-regeringen. Vi har ikke tænkt os at lave vennetjenester og finanspolitik efter ideologiske mærkesager.”

Socialakrobaten Mette Gjerskov siger om samme sag:

“Vores udgangspunkt er naturligvis, at penge, som gives til mennesker, der ikke er enige i klimapolitikken, er smidt ud af vinduet.”

metroXpress 27. september 2011

30 juni 2006

Miljøforkæmperen Christian Ege diskuterede i DR2-Deadline med Bjørn Lomborg

Og kom med følgende påstand: “hvis vi ikke gør noget for klimaet breder ørkenerne sig”

så er det da morsomt at jeg lige faldt over denne her forleden dag:

China’s deserts are shrinking annually at a rate of about 3,000 square miles.

A senior forestry official said that the new finding sharply contrasts with the 4,000 square mile annual expansion at the end of the 20th century, the official news agency Xinhua reported.

Zhu Lieke, deputy director of the State Forestry Administration said data showed the desertification that started in China in the late 1990s has been “primarily brought under control.” Addressing the Beijing International Conference on Women and Desertification, Zhu said that although China is much more aware of the problem than in the past, “the work in this regard remains tough.”

Chinese officials say desertification affects the lives of 400 million people and causes annual economic losses of 54 billion yuan ($6.75 billion).

The Chinese government spends about 2 billion yuan ($250 million) a year fighting desertification.

PHYSORG  via GreenieWatch

Se også http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com

24 maj 2006

En ubelejlig sandhed om Al Gore

Berlingske Magasin promoverer i sin mandagsudgave Al Gore’s nye film ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ om ‘drivhuseffekten’.

På spørgsmålet om, hvad der har ændret sig, siden Bjørn Lomborg var på Time Magazines liste over verdens 100 vigtigste personer, og hvor det nu er Gore der er på listen, svarer Gore (der er kendt for at have udtalt, at det er ham, der har opfundet Internet):

“Jeg vil ikke skabe kontrovers i Danmark, men det tog det videnskabelige miljø et stykke tid rent faktisk at læse og dissekere Lomborgs værk, og da de havde gjort det, var konklusionen, at det er grinagtigt. Det tages ikke længere seriøst.”

Det er interessant, fordi Daily Ablution netop har kommenteret en yderst ensidig artikel i The Independent om Bjørn Lomborg.

Scott Burgess skriver blandt andet:

“However, science writer Matt Ridley, holder of a doctorate in zoology from Oxford, has – and he calls Mr. Lomborg’s work “brilliant and powerful“. Lewis Wolpert – professor of biology at University College London and Fellow of the Royal Society – concurs, calling it “essential reading” which “provides understanding of the problems, the risks and the solutions.”

The Independent påstår, at Bjørn Lomborgs bog ikke er peer-reviewed:
“Yes,  despite Mr. Hari’s smear, the book was itself peer-reviewed by
Cambridge University Press, as Chris Harrison of the publishing division confirms (PDF):

“As a University Press, we insist on a peer review process for every book we publish. It has become part of the anti-Lomborg folklore that his book bypassed the usual Cambridge peer review process and was cynically spirited through the system by an ignorant social science editor. This is a charge that has been repeated in many of the public and private attacks on the press, and it is unfounded. Indeed, The Skeptical Environmentalist would never have been published by Cambridge had it not been for peer review.”

As it happens, Cambridge, anticipating controversy, went out of its way to perform an exceptionally rigorous peer review:

“Indeed, of the four referees who looked at the English translation of a substantial part of Lomborg’s original Danish script, three – all from top-ranking environmental studies departments – were chosen from the list used by my colleagues to advise on our environmental science publishing programme rather than from my usual list of social science referees. One was a climate scientist; one was a specialist in biodiversity and sustainable development and one an economist with an expertise on the economics of climate change who was also an IPCC reviewer. Only one of the four reviewers was from a ‘pure’ economics department.”

Either Mr. Hari is ignorant of this, or he’s simply lying. Neither possibility does much for the credibility of his position.”
Det samme kan man vel sige om Gore – enten er han lige så dum, som han tilsyneladende altid har været, eller også lyver han.

Det her er også meget grinagtigt Mr. Gore:

“Mr. Hari seems not to have done so, accusing Mr. Lomborg of “calling for clean drinking water while arguing that we should do nothing about run-away global warming“.Of course, Mr. Lomborg does nothing of the sort. Instead, recognising that there will be tradeoffs in the drive to reduce emissions (i.e., that it will cost an exhorbitant amount to do so), he proposes as optimal a reduction of about 6% of current emissions, increasing to 10% by 2100 (Skeptical Environmentalist, page 307). According to Yale environmental economist William Nordhaus (who arrived at this scenario), this would result in a temperature increase slightly less than that expected under Kyoto.So, far from “junking the whole idea of restraint and opting for climatic anarchy” – as Mr. Hari accuses Mr. Lomborg of doing – the latter is actually advocating something believed to be more effective than the hallowed Kyoto Protocol.”

For mig at se, har Al Gore ikke læst Bjørn Lomborgs bog, og han aner ikke, hvad der står i den, og har end ikke gjort sig den ulejlighed bare at få den refereret. Journalisten, der selv bringer Lomborg på banen, agerer bare som ‘mikrofonholder’, han ved åbenbart selv intet om, hvad Lomborg har skrevet.

Ifølge Daily Ablution vil Bjørn Lomborg svare på artiklen i The Independent. Al Gore virker så useriøs at det ikke kan betale sig med ham.