1. Assume global warming is true, and assume that humans cause it. (I understand this is controversial, but let’s start with that assumption.)
2. Even if global warming is true, and even if humans cause it, that doesn’t mean we should drop everything else, and proceed to costly, alarmist measures to try to stop it.
3. Rather, economic studies show that efforts to stop global warming are unlikely to be successful with today’s technologies, that the economic benefit of rushing to implement them is minimal at present, and that they will be so costly that they’ll hurt the global economy badly.
4. Applying cost-benefit analysis, we are better off in the short term spending our money on other, more beneficial projects to improve the lot of humanity such as better nutrition for expectant mothers and their children.
5. We should also spend money on research efforts to develop new technology to address global warming at a fraction of what it would cost us today, reducing the unacceptably high current cost.
6. When that new technology is developed, we then can address global warming at a fraction of what it would cost today.

Lomberg is a friend, not an enemy. His proposal is clever, because he accepts the premise that global warming exists, and that humans cause it. He then says, “Cost-benefit analysis must be applied to the issue, meaning we shouldn’t bankrupt ourselves trying to resolve global warming on an emergency basis. Rather, we should invest in more beneficial activities while investing in new technologies to reduce carbon emissions at a much lower cost.” He’s arguing against the alarmists, not for them.

I’m concerned when theorists conclude there is a “consensus” that agrees it to be true, and then shuts out any disagreement. What makes them right and others wrong?

It’s time to re-think the science of man-made global warming altogether.