Bjorn Lomborg: Al Gore 'Oversold The Message' Of Climate Change (VIDEO)

Watch Bjorn Lomborg on how Al Gore "oversold the message" on climate change and how we should be spending more on alternative energy research:

Why would a climate change activist dare to say that Al Gore "oversold the message" of global warming?

Bjorn Lomborg, author of the highly-controversial book The Skeptical Environmentalist, claims that Al Gore's documentary, 'An Inconvenient Truth,' was designed to scare us "witless."

Lomborg told The Huffington Post that the way Gore raised awareness around the issue of climate change "works very well as a scary way to get everyone's attention," but is an "incredibly poor way to make good decisions" about climate change.

"Unfortunately, for the last eighteen years, we've basically not been doing anything about global warming, because we're making these grand promises that we don't intend to keep."

So then what IS a constructive way to fight global warming, Bjorn?

There's a lot of amazing ideas. We look at a number of these in the film [the new documentary 'Cool It' which is in theaters November 12] solar and wind, of course, but we also look at growing your own oil fields through algae in the ocean, making artificial photosynthesis--a lot of other opportunities!

The trick here is to recognize that, because research is incredibly cheap, we should be funding all of these, and lots of them that we're not talking about. There are lots of great ideas! Most of them aren't working yet--they're much too expensive and most of them won't ever work! But that's okay, because some of them are gonna become so cheap, that they'll be the ones that are going to be parrying the rest of the 21st century.

Comments

[absolument]

09:06 PM on 11/28/2010

In the video above, @ 0:55, Bjorn says:
"OUR analyses show that for every dollar you spend, you save a couple cents of climate damage."

Who is "our"? Do they make their analyses available any way other than buying his book? Anybody here know what analyses he's talking about, and if it's any good?

[Jan Moore]

07:42 PM on 11/27/2010

http://www.desmogblog.com/bjorn-lomborg

Lomborg is listed as a "global warming expert" by the Heartland Institute, which has received hundreds of thousands in backing from the fossil fuel lobby including Koch Industries, EXXON, etc. He is simply a frontman playing a part in the fossil fuel lobby's witch hunt against Al Gore because he dared to tell the truth.

[Poptech]

09:14 AM on 11/28/2010

You are absolutely clueless. The Heartland Institute lists any credible skeptic as a "global warming expert" regardless of their affiliation with the Institute itself.

Your lies and smears are noted.

[Jan Moore]

09:43 PM on 11/29/2010

Oh please, they are still backed BY BIG OIL. Your diversions are noted.

[ObjectiveRealist]

02:29 PM on 11/30/2010

You should be careful with that; even your most devoted followers don't share your blind faith in corporate front groups.

SoCalledHotOne 04:25 AM on 11/29/2010
"Generally, I agree. Money corrupts."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/SoCalHotOne/climate-change-natural-di_n_786718_68961878.html

That particular character asserts that her Al Gore / Club of Rome conspiracy theory is more corrupted, by more money, but in general, fewer and fewer libertarian-leaning folk are falling for your lines. Increasingly, all you have left are neo-cons, and silver hairs who merely selfishly wish to "externalize" the cost of their lifetimes of self-indulgence, to foreign countries and their own progeny, and the latter will all be dead soon.

[Robco1]

01:07 PM on 11/26/2010

Lomburg and the other deniers' tactics with this campaign against Gore is to play the partisan card. They know they can't seriously challenge the data or the science, so instead they are trying to appeal to right-wing tribalism. "I hate that Al Gore (because Rush told me to), and he believes in Global Warming, so therefore I don't believe in Global Warming!"

They rightly recognize that this group is far more easily influenced by affinity to their ideology than by any observable reality.

[AnthropologistAmongApes]

03:02 PM on 11/30/2010

True that! It only works because the right is particularly prone to mistaking symbols for substance.

[Marlyn]

12:16 PM on 11/25/2010

"Why would a climate change activist dare to say that Al Gore oversold the message of global warming?"

For attention.

[Robco1]

12:48 PM on 11/26/2010

Lomburg is not a climate activist. He is a PR operative for the fossil fuel lobby's denialist effort and all of his energy is directed at ensuring nothing is done to address global warming, just as his paymasters want it. He is an ethically-challenged individual who traded his scientific credibility for cash long ago, and has been debunked thoroughly and often. You can read more about it on Grist.org and on Climate Progress here: http://climateprogress.org/2010/11/22/bjorn-lomborg-debunked-op-ed-cool-it/

[ObjectiveRealist]

02:57 PM on 11/30/2010

Both answers are correct.

[ObjectiveRealist]

02:57 PM on 11/30/2010

Both answers are correct.

[Erik Deerly]

02:28 PM on 11/24/2010

Reality to Bjorn Lomborg: The voting American public do not respond to complex issues; they tune out sound bites after 30 seconds. They do, however respond well to scare fear. It is fear that gave us Reagan, Bush Jr., and the wars on communism, drugs, terror, and alien babies.

Following our current trajectory, the human race will absolutely go extinct at some point. This is the sound bite we need to convey, in simple language and along with a solution that does not sound complex or impossible. In the case of something so important AND expensive, what we need is a leader to challenge us to reach the goal, much like Kennedy did in our mission to the moon. As a side note, I wonder how that Kennedy speech would resinate today, with the current Faux News crowd and their hysteric audience of mouth breathers.

[michellejordan]

10:54 AM on 11/18/2010

In these times, where so many issues are pressing, the biggest fire gets the water. This issue has the potential to be forgotten, but thanks in large part to Al Gore's work, global warming is a concern for a growing majority. The man almost single-handedly brought this issue to the attention of the public at large! He knows that consensus building eventually drives policy. It may be a slow process, but sometimes that's what it takes to get into position to make sweeping change. That global warming is in fact true, wasn't brought into question until recently, when consensus began to translate into policy that threatened the bottom line for big business. Their response was to try to discredit the research that went into arriving at the global warming conclusion and to tell us that what we see with our eyes, what we feel on our skin, and what we know in our hearts and minds, is wrong. Evidentally, while big business was counting their money, they failed to notice that humans are evolving to a place where they can SEE the consequences of their actions on the environment. This reaction by big businesses and those that profit from them, is a signal of their fear - it means we're closer than ever to making significant change. It means we can still save the planet. It means we must strengthen our resolve for the fight. So let's be clear on who exactly is afraid. Bjorn, whose side are you on?

[marbiol]

02:43 AM on 11/20/2010

We owe VP Gore a lot of "love" re "climate change". If it wasnt for his efforts the prehistoric global cooling/warming cycles would have reamained unreported to the general public (ie-those who DO NOT read Natl Geographic or take college classes in geology, paleontology, etc)

[michellejordan]

01:51 AM on 11/21/2010

Couldn't agree more, Marbiol.

[Henry Justice]

05:04 PM on 12/04/2010

The planet's climate does not need saving. At present, it is perfectly natural. We can't even stop a snowstorm let alone change the climate. Watch what happens by 2015-2016 if the sunspots wink out (according to the latest theory). This is a water planet, and ice rules the world. CO2 has no major effect on the boogy-man greenhouse effect, which is actually maxed out in the presence of so much water vapor. It may warm up if new GHGs emerge absorbing energy in different wave bands. Water vapor is the major player for now, not CO2 or the GHGs. If the past history of atmospheric CO2 is correct, then it is not a major player for global warming. The link between CO2, the GHE and global warming is just so much hogwash!
The warming always precedes the rise in CO2. So, it appears the warming caused by the atmospheric GHE may, in fact, be more of a constant than a variable given the unlimited availability of water vapor.

[shiragolding]

03:33 PM on 11/17/2010

you might be interested in this interview i did with the director of the film:
http://www.documentary.org/node/20452

[alteredstory]

11:12 AM on 11/16/2010

What scares about this is the tendency to try to force reactionary responses. The responses asked for by climate scientists are the result of careful research, and long, deep thought. The danger isn't there - it's in what will happen in 10 or 20 years, when we are truly entering the crisis stage.

The pattern is already visible in Lomborg: Those who are blocking any action will, when it becomes impossible to keep denying reality, push for geo-engineering solutions as a quick fix. They will suggest cloud seeding or releasing sulfur aerosols into the atmosphere, or other "solutions" with unexplored, unknown, global consequences, and when the scientists and realists say "Wait, we can't do that!" the reactionaries will say something to the effect of "you are quibbling about unfounded fears while we stand on the brink - we don't have time for your elitist studies, it's time for action NOW!"

Consequences be d*mned.

Want another example? When the Gulf Spill happened, Jindal wanted to make his sand barrier islands, and the scientists said "that' a bad idea, you'll mess with the sea floor, change currents in a way that might make erosion WORSE in the swamps you're trying to save, and the islands will disintegrate into the sea in a matter of weeks anyway." He built a couple anyway.

http://climateprogress.org/2010/07/15/bobby-jindal-berms-barrier-islands-fail-wash-away/

Keep fighting for change, and keep an eye on people like Lomborg.

[michellejordan]

10:57 AM on 11/18/2010

I agree - well said

[Luke04]

06:34 PM on 11/19/2010

You don't seem to specify what you mean by "the responses asked for by climate scientists". Are you refering to the only solution to global warming is reducing carbon dioxide? If there is
such "careful research", surely you can provide the link. Or maybe it was in the data destroyed by University of East Anglia scientists to prevent others from seeing.

Let's see, by "those who are blocking any action", I have to assume again since you don't
specify you're refering to reducing carbon dioxide. Once again, is this because this is the only
viable solution to solving the problem accepted by the man-made global warming crowd? So
this means that anyone like Lomborg who dares to suggest alternative solutions, is by default "blocking any action"? This is quite a conundrum because you're rejecting any ideas or
research to combat global warming proposed by scientists, while speaking from a platform of man-made global warming supposedly proven by science.

The barrier islands things was crazy. Woops, didn't the Army Corps of Engineers approve of
this proposal and then the US government or Obama administration gave the go-ahead to
build them? But somehow Jindal is responsible for this "reactionary response" for which you
claim, "he built a couple anyway." Wait a minute, wouldn't the Obama administration and the
Army Corps of Engineers, which is actually building them, actually then be responsible for this "reactionary response"?
http://news.discovery.com/earth/barrier-islands-approved-for-gulf-oil-spill.html

[alteredstory]

09:54 PM on 11/19/2010

Sorry, Jindal was not solely responsible, but he provided the pressure behind it and ranted about inaction when the federal government didn't give him everything he wanted for the few he built. The islands were an example of a method of problem solving- I don't, in this context, care whose fault they were. They were an example of careless action for the sake of appearance rather than out of any sort of information.

As to concrete action, YES, I'm talking about reducing CO2 emissions.

Lomborg hasn't suggested alternate solutions, he's just given vague assertions that they might exist in the future.

As to geoengineering, if you really want to get into it, the only way it would work is if it was constantly maintained - that would mean trillions of tons of sulfur dioxide intentionally pumped into the atmosphere to offset the ever-increasing CO2 content, and as long as the levels were high, we'd have to keep pumping more reflective aerosols into the atmosphere, and nobody's quite sure what the impacts of that will be, aside from the general increase of sulfur in everything.

On top of that, if the aerosols cleared and there was still a high CO2 level, we'd have a sudden surge in heating.

Reduction in CO2 emissions is the only solution that has been proposed by scientists after careful research and thought, and it would be effective because it would strike at the heart of the problem.

[ObjectiveRealist]

03:13 PM on 11/30/2010

What source(s) told you that any University of East Anglia scientist destroyed any data, and why did you believe that/those source(s)? Knowing that the data had been stolen, why were you not skeptical of the first media reports about the stolen data, which stories obviously were fed to the media by the data thieves and their friends?

[fumes]

07:53 PM on 11/15/2010

The search for a chemical trigger to boost oil production in algae was a long, sometimes torturous, journey, according to the three MSU scientists. Not only did they have to find a chemical that would work, but they had to figure out the best time to add it to the algae. Cooksey taught Gardner how to grow the algae they used in their experiments. Gardner grew the algae in beakers and tubes in three labs across campus. Gardner worked for about 1 1/2 years before the trio confirmed that baking soda was the chemical trigger they'd been seeking. They made their initial discovery in two kinds of brown algae and one type of green.
"It was a lot of trial and error and failure," Gardner said. "We finally came across the right combination."
Cooksey said baking soda may work because it gives algae extra carbon dioxide necessary for its metabolism at a key point in its life cycle. If the baking soda is added too early or too late, the algae don't respond. But when added at just the right time in the growth cycle, algae produce two to three times the oil in half the time of conventional growth models. The oil, or lipid, is composed of triacylglycerides, the key precursors to biodiesel and biojet fuel.
"For industry, if you double your output in half the time, that's a big deal," Cooksey said.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-soda-boosts-oil-production-algae.html

[sonofsamphm1c]

10:16 AM on 11/16/2010

One of the sequestration proposals was to store FF carbon by processing it into baking soda.

[sonofsamphm1c]

06:12 PM on 11/15/2010

Since "An Inconvenient Truth" came out Lomborg has hammered Al Gore over sea level rise. He has testified in front of congress about one foot by 2100, knowing full well the scientists who made the one-foot prediction heavily qualified their work with discussions about unpredictable nonlinear losses of the land-based ice that were being observed on Greenland and Antarctica. Rather than heed the warnings, he elected to lie to congress and the American people.

To the extent that a se level scientists had to call him out twice on it. Lomborg response, essentially: stopping him from lying weakened the scientist's case. The man is shameless.

Well, read the latest:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/science/earth/14ice.html

[mozartian]

04:29 AM on 11/15/2010

Better oversold than completely gotten wrong like... oh, i don't know. (cough... the deniers... cough)

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

11:31 AM on 11/16/2010

Really? You think being perceived as a snake oil salesman flying around in a G5 and buying mansions while you pontificate that the unwashed masses should walk, bike and pay carbon taxes is better? He set back your side's argument decades. THe new Congress is not going to even touch this issue and if they are critisized, they only have to point to the lack of doom and gloom and the $9 Million mansion Al Gore bought.

[Monk2001]

04:29 PM on 11/16/2010

So you're on the side of the deniers I take it. Pathetic.

[sonofsamphm1c]

07:09 PM on 11/16/2010

A mansion is a house. He bought a house. Oh my gawd. He also, it is being reported, made millions on the carbon exchange that just closed.

The public's pulse ebbs and flows with the weather. If it gets hot, buy science; if it plateaus, sell science; if it gets cold, sell science, buy denial.

The public has a very short attention span, but when it gets hot, the scientists will once again have their full attention. As the weather goes, science only wins when it gets hot.

[TequilaMockingbird]

09:07 PM on 11/14/2010

Man Made Pollution and Human caused Environmental contamination are the greatest dangers we face as a Species.. The Mutant Chickens will be coming home to roost .. More Disease, More cancers, more Mutations, Autism, etc. etc..   The Ripple effects of collapsing Micro Economies and Micro Climates..

People should be scared..

[StealGeorgia]

04:46 PM on 11/15/2010

They should be especially scared because nothing will get fixed without us fixing it, and we won't. We never have. And this time all we can really do is wait around for the final end. Oh, we will fight it like crazy when the time obvious time comes, but by then it will be too late. It might be too late already, we just don't know.

We might really be doomed this time, and I'm not holding out much hope that we will wake up in time.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

11:33 AM on 11/16/2010

Darwin will sort em out. I am not scared. I am prepared. I don;t think I need to worry, but just in case, I am ready. I don;t want to destroy our economy and create an unstable and potentially violent population based on the weak claims of the Alarmists like Gore. Better to adapt than commit economic suicide. That is the evolutionary way.

[TequilaMockingbird]

11:56 PM on 11/16/2010

Oh.. LOL.. as if our complete and utter financial ruin was caused by Global Warming...  Hahaha.. that is fairly hilarious as Green Energy and a mass rebuilding of our Energy Infrastructure could have solved two of our problems at once..

Wonder what Homo Sapiens will look like after it 'adapts' to the ever increasing levels of toxic substances and dangerous contaminants ?  extra arms and eyes might come in handy... I guess..  ?

[TequilaMockingbird]

11:56 PM on 11/16/2010

Oh.. LOL.. as if our complete and utter financial ruin was caused by Global Warming...  Hahaha.. that is fairly hilarious as Green Energy and a mass rebuilding of our Energy Infrastructure could have solved two of our problems at once..Wonder what Homo Sapiens will look like after it 'adapts' to the ever increasing levels of toxic substances and dangerous contaminants ?  extra arms and eyes might come in handy... I guess..  ?

[rshrink]

08:26 PM on 11/14/2010

Realistically, corporations have incredible power and influence over Americans. They have used all of their power and wealth, to muster up a psychological assault, much like the kind that has been used to sell Palin as a credible candidate for president. Why? We all know the answer to that. They want to keep on making huge profits and maintaining control of our political system. Ordinary citizens are so caught up in their day to day lives, they cannot focus on this problem or organize in such a way as to be able to effectively fight back. The amount of power that the energy industries have is overwhelming and we will all need to organize, and demand and do a better job of voting if we hope to have the kind of impact that is needed.

[Genders]

08:01 PM on 11/14/2010

And you under appreciate it.

[fumes]

07:52 PM on 11/14/2010

''The 1841 sea level benchmark (centre) on the `Isle of the Dead', Tasmania. According to Antarctic explorer, Capt. Sir James Clark Ross, it marked mean sea level in 1841. Photo here taken at low tide 20 Jan 2004.
Mark is 50 cm across; tidal range is less than a metre.''
http://www.john-daly.com/photomrk.htm
-----------------------------
''While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, "If what you're saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?" He looked for a while and was quiet and didn't say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, "Well, there will be more traffic." I, of course, didn't think he heard the question right. Then he explained, "The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won't be there. The trees in the median strip will change." Then he said, "There will be more police cars." Why? "Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up."
http://dir.salon.com/books/int/2001/10/23/weather/index.html

[Shan Wells]

11:51 PM on 11/14/2010

From sarcasm to anecdotes.

[fumes]

08:07 AM on 11/15/2010

lol..

don't you have a 'toon to go do?

the sea level hasn't changed since 1841!

[Henry Justice]

04:43 PM on 12/04/2010

Also, just look at the Tower Bridge in London. It is still the same height above the water line.
Someone please correct me if I am wrong. It's been 20 years since I was there.