Thiessen repeated a large number of Lomborg’s claims in his article without fact-checking or verifying these claims by consulting with scientists who actually have expertise on these topics. Unlike scientists, Lomborg writes books and social media posts about a variety of topics, but he does not submit scientific research on these topics to peer-reviewed journals. If Thiessen lacks the scientific knowledge to challenge Lomborg’s claims, he could have done what professional journalists do: reach out to experts to gain insight from them.
Search Results for bjorn lomborg
Scientific studies show that climate change is already contributing to increased heat-related mortality and global warming will further increase health outcomes related to heat stress. Reports that take into account the ensemble of scientific publications show that climate change is overall having negative consequences for human societies and ecosystems, contrary to what cherry-picking can lead some to believe.
“This article is very interesting because it exemplifies a highly-misleading rhetorical practice that is effective, frequently used, but not easily recognized by the public: “paltering”… A successful palterer will try to avoid being untruthful in each of his/her utterances, but will nonetheless put together a highly misleading picture based on selective reporting, half-truths, and errors of omission…”
“This article presents a highly biased view of global warming, only presenting the “positive” aspects of it. As the author is criticizing media doing the opposite (always showing the bad side of climate change) it is a shame the author didn’t present a balanced view here.”
“Lomborg is using scientific ‘language’ to suggest that climate change will have insignificant health impacts; this goes against a vast body of evidence. The notion that benefits from warmer winters could be more important than risks from hotter summer in terms of human health is plain wrong.”
“Tries and fails to make a convincing case for why humans need to worry about climate change less than they currently do.”
“The article’s scientific credibility is very low. The author cherry-picks data, makes broad generalizations and characterizations based on incomplete or flimsy reasoning, and repeatedly misinterprets technological and economic progress in justifying false claims and misinformation minimizing global warming impacts.”
“This article is a mixture of misdirection, misleading claims, and outright falsehoods. The author attempts to paint a picture of current climate change as simply a continuation of natural changes that have occurred in the past. But this neglects the clear evidence that climate change over the last two centuries has been shown to be largely man-made, that it is much more rapid that anything we have seen in the last two thousand years if not longer, and that it is occurring in the context of a globe with more than 7 billion human inhabitants.”
“the usual mix of misdirection, falsehoods and tirades against ‘brigades’ who supposedly say this and that but are never clearly identified”.
In his speech, Abbott repeated common climate change contrarian talking points that are either incorrect, fallacious, unsupported, misleading, or cherry-picked. Read below for detailed reactions from scientists.
Climate Feedback produces analyses and evaluations – we call them “feedbacks” – of influential reporting on climate change. Our feedbacks are already helping readers around the world distinguish between news stories based on science and those that only claim to be. Last week we published an in-depth review of the latest article by Bjørn Lomborg … Continued