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.
