I am only interested in Lomborg as a metaphor, and as a marketing vehicle.  I have no interest in demonizing him, since he is really only a role player in a drama which dwarfs the roles of all but a very few key decision makers, who fall into two not mutually exclusive groups: first, the people who manage the flow of funds to think tanks to produce the appearance of intellectual rigor for global deniers; and second, the people who manage the flow of funds to elected officials and candidates who act to prevent or slow down action against global warming. To the extent that there is personal information about Lomborg on this site, it has to do with his role, not his personality or his personal morals.

The fundamental misleading argument in Lomborg’s analysis is his assertion of a phony “center” or “middle” occupied by the clear-thinking author, surrounded to his left by people who want to take immediate action against global warming (“extremists”), and to his right by people who deny that global warming is happening (“deniers.”). The metaphor suggests an old-time balance beam, with Lomborg balancing carefully in the middle between equal but opposing forces.

But in science, one is looking not for balance, but for the best possible explanation of the phenomenon at hand. If the evidence suggests that global warming is happening, then in the end, there is no “center” no “middle” position. Lomborg’s use of this metaphor has the effect of confusing his readers, because only a small number of scientists disagree with the IPCC consensus that global warming requires our species to make an unprecedented effort to stop before we cause irreparable damage to the entire planet.

The image of polar bears setting out in the open ocean towards ice floes too far for them to reach has become the most emotionally powerful image of global warming and the horror of the massive extinction of species that global warming will accelerate.

Given the power of the drowned polar bear metaphor, Lomborg had to disarm this image first to protect the rest of his arguments.

Lomborg cites studies showing that the number of polar bears has increased from 5,000 in the 1960s to 25,000 today, a gain he attributes to “stricter hunting regulation.” As sea ice disappears, polar bears “may eventually decline, though dramatic declines seem unlikely.” He quotes a single Canadian government polar-bear biologist, who tells Lomborg that polar bears “are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at the present.” And as for the photos of floating dead bears, “Actually, there was a single sighting of four dead bears the day after ‘an abrupt windstorm’ in an area housing one of the increasing bear populations.”

Over at Grist, Joseph Romm has also been sniffing around Lomborg’s polar bear chapter. Like Daniel Berger at Salon (see Question 11), Romm has also done his homework, reeling off study after study that make mincemeat of Lomborg’s claim. (“Debunking Bjorn Lomborg: Part 1: The great polar bear irony,” September 18, 2007). For example, Romm cites a recent U.S. Geological Survey report on the state of polar bears, which concludes:

“Projected changes in future sea ice conditions, if realized, will result in loss of approximately 2/3 of the world’s current polar bear population by the mid 21st century. Because the observed trajectory of Arctic sea ice decline appears to be underestimated by currently available models, this assessment of future polar bear status may be conservative.”

You can read more of Romm's coverage of polar bears, global warming, and Lomborg here and here.

One of Lomborg's rhetorical conceits is his claim that he is standing in the middle between global warming "extremists" and global warming deniers. As the Wall Street Journal put it, "Standing in the practical middle is Bjorn Lomborg, the freethinking Dane...."