This is a fascinating documentary about Bjorn Lomborg, who wrote The Skeptical Environmentalist, and other books discussing Global Warming (or what is now often referred to as "Climate Change"). Bjorn Lomborg has become something of a Boogyman for the environmental left, which perplexes me. Here are the broad strokes of what he believes, as outline in this documentary:
A.) Global Warming is happening
B.) It is contributed to by man's activity (he doesn't specify how much or how little he thinks man's contribution is).
C.) It is a problem that needs to be addressed.
For this he is routinely pilloried by those that...believe in global warming? Doesn't make sense, right? Well, that is because here are a couple of other things he believes:
D.) While Global Warming is a problem it is not going to lead to the end of the world.
E.) There is too much fear mongering and bad science involved in the current debate.
F.) The most commonly proposed solutions (in large part reducing carbon emissions) have enormous costs and provide almost no benefits (for example, about a 0.1 degree reduction in the projected temperature over a CENTURY, at a cost of 180+ TRILLION of today's dollars).
For this he is attacked and insulted. People try to discredit him and ruin his career.
I have watched An Inconvenient Truth, and now I have watched this. While this movie does indeed easily debunk a number of claims made by Al Gore's movie, I wouldn't consider it the Anti-Inconvenient Truth, but it certainly provides a good counterpoint to that film. I would recommend everyone watch both and decide for themselves where they come down on the issues.
I should also add that this is not completely devoted to global warming. There is an underlying theme that advances the proposition that if we want to generally benefit the planet let's be honest about what we can and cannot do, and what things can be done that have a greater impact and/or a lesser cost per "unit" of impact, as opposed to things which are less effective. For example, see the example of the cost and benefit of attempting to attack global warming above, versus attacking, say malaria, which would objectively save millions of lives over the course of a few short years, and it would only cost a fraction of a penny of every dollar being advocated for combating global warming (and with a return on investment of almost ZERO).
What are the most logical items that we can influence to improve the human condition planet wide? What is the biggest bang for the buck? Global warming ranks second to dead last.
You will see a lot of bad reviews from a lot of people with an axe to grind against the subject of this documentary, and most of them will not have watched the movie. I say if you believe in science and open inquiry then why would anyone object to more voices being present in a debate? Watching this film put me in mind of a few quotes by Burke:
* We must all obey the great law of change. It is the most powerful law of nature, and the means perhaps of its conservation.
* Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.
* It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick (sic) to be the most anxious for its welfare.
* The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.
This is a well made and informative film, and the intellectually honest reviewer should credit that, even if s/he disagrees with the subject of this film. See it and decide for yourself.