About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

How will right-wing media react to former climate skeptic Lomborg?

August 31, 2010 4:24 pm ET — 35 Comments

Right-wing media have frequently cited Bjorn Lomborg to downplay the danger of global warming. In his forthcoming book, Lomborg will reportedly declare global warming a "chief concern facing the world today" and recommend spending $100 billion annually on clean energy technology financed by a global carbon emissions tax.

Lomborg: Global warming "a challenge humanity must confront"

Bjorn Lomborg's new book declares global warming "a challenge humanity must confront." On August 30, U.K.'s The Guardian reported of Lomborg, "[t]he world's most high-profile climate skeptic is to declare that global warming is 'undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today' and 'a challenge humanity must confront.' " In his latest book, which will be published next month, Lomborg will reportedly call for "[i]nvesting $100bn annually" so that "we could essentially resolve the climate change problem by the end of this century." Lomborg recommended "pouring money into researching and developing clean energy sources such as wind, wave, solar and nuclear power," and advocates for a "tax on carbon emissions that would also raise $50bn to mitigate the effect of climate change."

Previously, Lomborg said climate change "is emphatically not the end of the world." In his 2007 book, Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming, Lomborg stated that while "climate change is a problem ... it is emphatically not the end of the world." He also contended that "the benefits from moderately using fossil fuels vastly outweigh the costs. Yes, the costs are obvious in the 'fear, terror and disaster' we read about in the papers every day, but the benefits, though much more prosaic, are nonetheless important." Lomborg also suggested that the money spent combating climate change would be better spent in other areas that do more "social good."

Right-wing media has frequently cited Lomborg to minimize threat of global warming

Conservative media figures and outlets have frequently cited or hosted Lomborg to downplay the potential danger of global warming; to make the point that attempts to prevent it would be overly expensive and ineffective; or to promote the idea that public officials should instead focus on more pressing issues. Fox example:  

Lomborg appeared in 2006 Fox News special that centered upon purported lack of "scientific consensus about" impact of climate change. On May 21, 2006, Fox News aired a special titled Global Warming: The Debate Continues. As Media Matters has previously noted, the special gave viewers the impression that there is a significant divide among scientists regarding the cause and effects of global warming. One of these contributors was Lomborg, who claimed that climate change was not an imminent threat and that "the data, the facts tell you that many, many things are moving in the right direction."

Beck hosted Lomborg to discuss how "our priorities are all mixed up" on climate change. On the September 21, 2006, edition of his CNN Headline News show, Glenn Beck hosted Lomborg to discuss how "our priorities are all mixed up" on climate change and his decision to switch from being an environmental activist to a "skeptical environmentalist." On the show, Lomborg claimed that "climate change is happening, but the real question we have to ask ourselves is: How much can we do against it? And how much is it going to cost?"

Beck featured Lomborg in two-hour special on "the other side of the climate debate." On May 2, 2007, Beck aired a two-hour special on "the other side of the climate debate" titled Exposed: The Climate of Fear. In the special, Beck introduced Lomborg as "an expert on the economic impact of global warming," but noted that he is "not a scientist." Lomborg said during the interview:

With global warming you're going to see more heat deaths, but what most people don't tell us is we're also going to see much less cold deaths.

And actually, many more people die from cold than from heat, so for England alone you mentioned the number 2,000 people. Actually that's what we expect will die from more heat waves in 2080, but what we have to remember is that 20,000 fewer will die from cold each year in 2080.

Now I'm not sitting and saying we should go for global warming, but I'm saying we need to know both.

He also said, "We worry intensely about climate change, but the point is we can do very little good at very high cost."

NRO's Goldberg called the science of the environmental movement into question citing research by Lomborg. In a May 20, 2008 column in the Los Angeles Times, National Review Online's Jonah Goldberg criticized the "irrational" environmental movement for "claiming to be so much more rational and scientific than those silly sky-God worshipers and deranged oil addicts." Goldberg used Bjorn Lomborg's analysis of the Kyoto Protocol to bolster his argument by falsely suggesting that climate change is not a grave threat to the polar bear population. Goldberg suggested that, contrary to the statements of environmentalists, the polar bear population is "thriving," and that, according to Lomborg, adopting provisions of the Kyoto protocol "would save exactly one polar bear."

Lomborg repeatedly appeared on Hannity & Colmes to claim that effects of global warming are "exaggerated." Lomborg was a guest on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes twice in 2007 to discuss climate change and its potential effects [via Nexis]. On March 21, Lomborg criticized Al Gore for his "wildly exaggerated stories about what's going to happen" and "using the catastrophe sense to push through legislation ... that are actually fairly bad, in the sense that they will cost a lot and do very little good." On September 4, Sean Hannity introduced Lomborg as an author who "debunks numerous popular myths about global warming, such as sea levels rising, decreasing polar bear populations and the recent increase of hurricanes." In his appearance, Lomborg discussed rising sea levels that result from global warming and claimed that he doesn't believe we will "incur a huge catastrophe" as a result.

NewsBusters writers frequently cite Lomborg in their attempts to minimize threat of climate change. On numerous occasions, writers at NewsBusters have criticized media reports on climate change using Lomborg's writings and statements as evidence that "there are far more serious problems" than global warming "facing the planet." For example, Noel Sheppard highlighted author Michael Crichton's praise of Lomborg's book, and said of Lomborg, "It is plain to see why Lomborg is such a controversial figure, as he is not afraid to call a spade a spade regardless of who might find such straight talk inconvenient."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Invent a Scandal (August 31, 2010 4:33 pm ET)
      20  
      Lomborg is a member of ACORN. He's an atheist who has said, "Church people are dumb."

      He doesn't like America very much. Drudge Report is currently investigating him. Preliminary reports seem to suggest he's a communist.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Disputed Zone (August 31, 2010 4:33 pm ET)
      10  
      They will now ignore him.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by alienofwar (August 31, 2010 5:22 pm ET)
      9  
      They will throw him under the bus just like they have done to all others who came out of the closet. They have no shame.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by HeeNow (August 31, 2010 7:28 pm ET)
      2 24
      It doesn't really matter.

      The U.S. will NEVER pass cap & trade legislation, especially now that the European community has largely suspended it due to third-world corruption (who could have guessed that?).

      This is a non-story, dreamed up by MMFA.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mary59 (August 31, 2010 7:56 pm ET)
        16 1
        Non story, eh? Perhaps some action will eventually be taken, considering reality might just take over.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by n'est-ce pas (August 31, 2010 9:19 pm ET)
        17 1
        The U.S. will NEVER pass cap & trade legislation,


        Boy, you're dumber than the average wingnut. The U.S. passed cap & trade legislation with the Clean Air Act of 1990...and it worked beautifully. The good news for you is, a wingnut saying something stupid is a non-story.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by New Frontier (August 31, 2010 10:08 pm ET)
        14  
        It doesn't really matter.
        Sure thing. That's why you left a 41-word post about it--because it's a non-story.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (September 01, 2010 1:37 am ET)
        8 2
        Duh, the story isn't ABOUT whether or not the USA will pass cap and trade legislation.

        It's about how a former climate change skeptic has changed his tune, doofus!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by historygeek001 (September 01, 2010 12:57 pm ET)
        2  
        HeeNow translated: "Please don't pay attention to this guy."
        Report Abuse
    • Author by wesley (September 01, 2010 8:38 am ET)
      2 18
      -- How will right-wing media react to former climate skeptic Lomborg? -- mmfa

      Most likely in the same manner as mmfa in this article...skewing the facts to support their agenda.

      Lomborg is not an AGW skeptic...not 5 years ago...not 1 year ago...not last week...and not today. He has always believed in AGW and the IPCC reports.

      Lomborg is an economist...believing in all kinds of environmental threats...and his efforts have not been to debunk them but to identify the best ways to "spend money" to combat them.

      mmfa is all wet in this attempt to portray Lomborg as a "former skeptic who has now seen the light".
      Report Abuse
      • Author by whatIthink (September 01, 2010 9:17 am ET)
        10  
        Google...learn how to use it before relfexively shooting off your mouth and confirming your ignorance.

        Paddling across the ice, polar bears are beautiful animals. To Greenland — part of my own nation, Denmark — They are a symbol of pride. The loss of this animal would be a tragedy. But the real story of the polar bear is instructive. [/b]In many ways, this tale encapsulates the broader problem with the climate-change concern: once you look closely at the supporting data, the narrative falls apart[/b]

        Even with the most extreme estimates of Greenland melting over a couple of years (sic!), a sea-level rise would take one thousand years.

        The reality of climate change isn’t necessarily an unusually fierce summer heat wave. More likely, we may just notice people wearing fewer layers of clothes on a winter’s evening.

        On average, global warming is not going to harm the developing world.

        Just search his name.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by neon desert (September 01, 2010 9:18 am ET)
        11  
        On May 21, 2006, Fox News aired a special titled Global Warming: The Debate Continues. As Media Matters has previously noted, the special gave viewers the impression that there is a significant divide among scientists regarding the cause and effects of global warming. One of these contributors was Lomborg, who claimed that climate change was not an imminent threat and that "the data, the facts tell you that many, many things are moving in the right direction."
        If claiming climate change is NOT an imminent threat isn't a qualification of being a "skeptic", please - what are YOUR standards?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by wookie (September 01, 2010 9:51 am ET)
        9  
        Ah, so we are going with the "he never was on our team" approach. Sort of like when people would quit the Bush administration and write critical books.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by ilikeike (September 01, 2010 10:14 am ET)
           
        there may be some truth in what you say but fox news and other climate change deniers in the media( seemingly the only place where it is denied) have always held him up as their poster boy for denying climate change. they misrepresented his arguments constantly ,trying to cash in on his prominence and labelling him as a supporter of their position, which he wasnt.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by cugagcmu805031 (September 02, 2010 12:47 am ET)
        1  
        It didn't seem to matter late last year and earlier this year when the right was pushing the opinions of a group of climate change skeptics, many of whom weren't trained in climate science.

        Now, all of a sudden, Lomborg's being an economist by training is important and a reason to smear him.

        Hypocrite. This is one of the people that the right was touting as an expert a few short months ago, just like the guy who works at the EPA trained in, iirc, physics that the non-news network had on one of its programs to rail against climate change.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by MiddleLeft (September 03, 2010 3:36 pm ET)
           
        Lomborg is not an AGW skeptic...not 5 years ago...not 1 year ago...not last week...and not today. He has always believed in AGW and the IPCC reports.

        mmfa is all wet in this attempt to portray Lomborg as a "former skeptic who has now seen the light".

        Both of you are wrong.

        The fact is while the AGW community acknowledges his "conversion" many do not believe it is genuine. Lomborg realizes he can no longer deny the steady stream of evidence so has taken the "fall back position" of some deniers of accepting the theory but disputing the solution. Instead of cutting carbon he will say we should spend more money on research for a technological solution while acknowledging that increased efficiency has economic advantages.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by magnolialover (September 01, 2010 9:37 am ET)
      6  
      Simple. Under the bus he goes.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by afisher (September 01, 2010 9:56 am ET)
      7  
      If you go to the Right-Wing websites, there is NO reporting on Lomborgn. The process is that if there is an event that contradicts their stance on an issue, they just ignore it.

      I wandered over to theblaze (nope, they wouldn't send me a password) and the only statement on the environment was a whine about the IPCC. These sites don't bother to put a date on these issues for a reason. They just leave their talking point and stop the conversation. Unfortunately, followers don't know or care if the article is timely. And certainly those at FNews, et al. will not bother to inform their followers of actual news that may challenge / change their POV.

      FNew et al: Keep pouring the kool-aid and many keep drinking the swill, telling their followers that the GOP will make everything right with the world (the end of that statement was not published) that we largely destroyed.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by alienofwar (September 01, 2010 12:39 pm ET)
        3  
        Well just like they ignored the stories which reported the innocence of the individuals at the center of the so called "Climategate" investigations. Fox "News" did one little report in the middle of the day and that was all. All those days and weeks reporting a fake scandal and yet one little new report finding out there was no scandal.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by highliter (September 01, 2010 4:54 pm ET)
        8
      Oh no we got an environmentalist left wing nut bag with a bomb at the discovery building. This is all Al Gore fault with his fear mongering and hate! Hope Al enjoy the blood on his hands.

      Note the sarcasm, but this is what would be said if there was any way possible to link this guy to the right.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by n'est-ce pas (September 01, 2010 5:06 pm ET)
        3  
        Link this guy to the right like how he's repeating FAIR anti-immigration talking points from a report they just released?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by RiffRabbit (September 01, 2010 5:26 pm ET)
        4  
        That guy's causing trouble in my hometown, and it doesn't matter what his politics are. He just hates people, particularly babies, and I suspect he is crazy. However, as people have already pointed out, this Lee guy is definitely anti-immigration, too.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mary59 (September 01, 2010 10:10 pm ET)
          4  
          But back to Lomborg--wasn't he that annoying supervisor in "Office Space"? And did he really take the stapler?
          Report Abuse
      • Author by cugagcmu805031 (September 02, 2010 12:50 am ET)
        3  
        Does the word "anchor baby" in his manifesto ring any bells for you?
        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.