The first thing I do when a skeptic makes claims, I check their claims of “peer-review”. I find out where they are publishing to see if they are publishing in credited journals.
The journal he says he published in Global Policy Journal a journal that focuses more on policy implications, than climate, though, as long as we’re all aware of that, that is perfectly ok.
Here is a list of credited journals and it’s not there.
Does that mean he’s wrong? No, but it always get’s my BS detector going. Let’s dig deeper…
Ok, next we look at the body of his work. What are his academic creds? How many papers has he published? On what topics? Are his articles cited?
He’s submitted 15 papers (the paper you cite I assume would be 16 as it’s not on the list), of which 5 have been cited.
Ok, but maybe of those 5 a few are heavily cited?
Not so much. Of those 5 he has a total of 54 citations, 42 of them come from a paper on the prisoner’s dilemma. Of his papers cited 1 is a paper on the environment that’s been cited 4 times from a journal called “Michigan Law Review”.
Here is his citation record:
Just for reference, here is a person in a similar field who is established and recognized by his peers:
Then I went out and looked at the kinds of information he was publishing and it became clear he cannot be taken seriously as he cherry picks data in order to tell the story he wants people to hear:
In an opinion piece in the Guardian he wrote:
Since 1992, we have had satellites measuring the rise in global sea levels, and they have shown a stable increase of 3.2mm per year (1/8 of an inch) – spot on compared to the IPCC projection. Moreover, over the last two years, sea levels have not increased at all – actually, they show a slight drop. Should we not be told that this is much better than expected?
Here is a graph I found online exposing the nonsense of that statement.
Now there’s lot’s more that exposes the “work” Mr. Bjorn has done, but I will spare you.
So you will forgive me, I do not think Lomborg is a scientist who just happens to have a different opinion from the majority. First of all, there is very little indication that he is actually working as a scientist, given his near-zero scientific track record since his Ph.D. work. Second, the arguments he presents to the wider public on the sea-level rise can hardly be seen as made in good faith – rather, they appear to me to be carefully crafted (and admittedly rather eloquent) distortions, aimed to deceive his lay audience about the seriousness of the threat. In short, I would consider much of Lomborg’s writing propaganda and the evidence of his peer-review submissions and acceptance and his cherry picking of data to deceive his audience makes him suspect at best.