Copenhagen Consensus Cool it Cool It is a groundbreaking book that transformed the debate about global warming by offering a fresh perspective based on human needs as well as environmental concerns. Sundance ward winning director Ondi Timoner filmed a documentary with the same name based on the book and following Bjorn Lomborg for almost a year. He asks why the debate over climate change has stifled rational dialogue and killed meaningful dissent. Cool It promises to be one of the most talked about and influential books of our time. Click here for Scandinavian translations and reviews Danish, Norwegian, Swedish.
|Published (Last):||6 October 2010|
|PDF File Size:||2.46 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||17.24 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Career[ edit ] Lomborg lectured in statistics in the Department of Political Science at the University of Aarhus as an assistant professor — and associate professor — In , Lomborg published four essays about the state of the environment in the leading Danish newspaper Politiken , which according to him "resulted in a firestorm debate spanning over articles in major metropolitan newspapers. He later edited Global Crises, Global Solutions, which presented the first conclusions of the Copenhagen Consensus, published in by the Cambridge University Press.
On 22 June , Lomborg announced his decision to resign from this post to go back to the University of Aarhus,  saying his work at the Institute was done and that he could better serve the public debate from the academic sector.
Lomborg right with DeAnne Julius center and Stephen Sackur left , at WTTC Global Summit Lomborg and the Environmental Assessment Institute founded the Copenhagen Consensus in , which seeks to establish priorities for advancing global welfare using methodologies based on the theory of welfare economics. A panel of prominent economists was assembled to evaluate and rank a series of problems every four years.
The project was funded largely by the Danish government and was co-sponsored by The Economist. In , Lomborg became director of the newly established Copenhagen Consensus Center , a Danish government-funded institute intended to build on the mandate of the EAI, and expand on the original Copenhagen Consensus conference.
In July , Flinders University senior management began quietly canvassing its staff about a plan to host the renamed Lomborg Consensus Centre at the University, likely in the Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences. The Australian Youth Climate Coalition and The Climate Feedback reviewers assessed that the scientific credibility ranged between "low" and "very low".
The Climate Feedback reviewers come to the conclusion that in one case Lomborg "practices cherry-picking",  in a second case he "had reached his conclusions through cherry-picking from a small subset of the evidence, misrepresenting the results of existing studies, and relying on flawed reasoning",  in a third case "[his] article [is in] blatant disagreement with available scientific evidence, while the author does not offer adequate evidence to support his statements",  and, in a fourth case, "The author, Bjorn Lomborg, cherry-picks this specific piece of research and uses it in support of a broad argument against the value of climate policy.
He also misrepresents the Paris Agreement to downplay its potential to curb future climate change. In the chapter on climate change in The Skeptical Environmentalist, he states: "This chapter accepts the reality of man-made global warming but questions the way in which future scenarios have been arrived at and finds that forecasts of climate change of 6 degrees by the end of the century are not plausible".
But it is not the end of the world. Lomborg was asked whether he regarded the book as a "debate" publication, and thereby not under the purview of the DCSD, or as a scientific work; he chose the latter, clearing the way for the inquiry that followed.
Due to the similarity of the complaints, the DCSD decided to proceed on the three cases under one investigation.
In January , the DCSD released a ruling that sent a mixed message, finding the book to be scientifically dishonest through misrepresentation of scientific facts, but Lomborg himself not guilty due to his lack of expertise in the fields in question. In March , the DCSD formally decided not to act further on the complaints, reasoning that renewed scrutiny would, in all likelihood, result in the same conclusion. He also rejected what he called "the Galileo hypothesis", which he describes as the conception that Lomborg is just a brave young man confronting old-fashioned opposition.
Fog and other scientists have continued to criticize Lomborg for what one called "a history of misrepresenting" climate science. The university accepted the offer, setting off a firestorm of opposition from its faculty and students and from climate scientists around the world. In April the university reversed the decision and rejected the offer.
The government continued to seek a sponsor for the proposed institution. In April he gained further attention when he issued a call for all subsidies to be removed from fossil fuels on the basis that "a disproportionate share of the subsidies goes to the middle class and the rich" The verdict of the Danish Committees for Scientific Dishonesty fueled this debate and brought it into the spotlight of international mass media. By the end of Lomborg had become an international celebrity, with frequent appearances on radio, television and print media around the world.
He is also a regular contributor to Project Syndicate since Lomborg responded on his own website , quoting the article at such length that Scientific American threatened to sue for copyright infringement. Mahlman , Edward O. Leading economists provide a short survey of the state-of-the-art analysis and sketch out some policy solutions for which they provide cost-benefit ratios.
He argues that "