Talk:Bjørn Lomborg

This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed. If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

	This Economists related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Economist?

Should we list Lomborg as an economist? He's sometimes cited as such, but his doctorate is actually in political science and most of his work was in statistics before he started doing environmental econ. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Your call IMO. Тай^{говорить} 15:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess I'll note that but leave the econ sidebar on since that's what he's known for now. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

He

Looks like Jason Bateman--User:Brxbrx/sig 04:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

More like Gordon Ramsay, of expletive laden cheffing fame178.167.254.94 (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Header Quote

Is the Quote at the top ironic? It may have gone over my head but it looks like spin. The quote comes from Lomborg himself, where he was framing himself as a victim of a witch hunt...He got paid 750,000 that year from the CCC alone. I don't think Helle Thorning-Schmidt would say "you might be right," to Lomborg in private, she would be more likely say "your a fucking douche" or IMHO. He's a master of spin.

"How about "His t-shirts are expensive b/c they r made from hopes&dreams of future generations" - Quoted in http://www.readfearn.com/ EARL

OR

"Why is this man smiling? Because $775K/year buys a sh*tload of black T-shirts. #Fakeskeptics" From Capital Climate quoted in http://www.readfearn.com/

Skinnytony1 (talk) 09:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Wingnut welfare, Danish style

Now that Denmark once again has a centre-right government there has been rumblings that Lomborg should get his government grant for his (un)think tank back (the former centre-left government cut him off, apparently thinking that lukewarmer anti-environmentalism shouldn't be financed by the taxpayer). I will be Jack's complete lack of surprise if/when that happens as the most anti-environmentalist political parties in Denmark, the Liberal Alliance and the Danish People's Party, both did well at the 2015 general election with the latter becoming the biggest party on the right and the second-largest party in the Danish parliament (yes, it's bigger than the party which provides the current PM...). Even more so as the PM's party is also no fan of environmentalism, not least due to its ties to agribusiness and the farmers' lobby (basically touting the "We can't afford environmentalism"-claim). Anyway, it would seem that Lomborg might be interested in popping back to Denmark as his lukewarmer shilling in the U.S. appears to have been less financially lucrative than he expected, not to mention the usefulness of being a shill with such a semi-official seal of approval. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hurrah for Conservatives (for now)! The Danish Conservative party, though reduced a number of MPs small enough to hold their meetings in a phone booth, is still necessary for the centre-right government's parliamentary majority and the Conservatives have now put a damper on anti-environmentalist hopes of government welfare for Lomborg by saying that they really need to see what he has to offer before they'll agree to open the public coffers. Granted, it was hardly a straightforward rejection, but it wasn't a ringing endorsement either. So, perhaps Lomborg won't get his government grant back; the age of miracles may not have ended yet. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

An absolute disgrace

I came here expecting to see a rational analysis but find instead just a polemical hatchet job.

This article is an absolute disgrace. ^{— Unsigned, by: Michael C Price / talk / contribs}

Lol if you're not gonna be specific in your criticisms why even bother dropping a garbage comment here? The most generic "absolute disgrace", "not rational", "hatchet job", shit people say whenever we're lambasting flat earthers, dinosaur deniers, anti-vaxxers, chemtrail conspiracy theorists, and whatever. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 17:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

if you need specific examples then you are out with the fairies. We obviously have different standards as to what pertains to decency and fair play. I came here expecting to find a balanced article, with pros and cons for and against Lomborg. Guess that was too much to hope for. As it all it tells me is that the editors are completely biased and have nothing substantive to contribute. Michael C Price (talk) 12:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Have removed the description of BL as a "rodeo clown". Let's try and present a rational analysis, guys? No doubt it will be reinserted. Very sad. Michael C Price (talk) 12:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

First step would be for you to point out what you think the problem is with the article. Also see "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I have already pointed a general and a specific problem. Michael C Price (talk) 09:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

All you've said its that this article is a "polemical hatchet job". You have to be more specific than that. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 09:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

If it's so self-evident, then point it out rather than just asserting what it is. Pretend I'm a moron. It should be easy to point out the obvious problems to morons. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 05:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)