[ceejayoz]

It doesn't take much Googling to prove.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg

> In January 2003, the DCSD released a ruling that sent a mixed message, finding the book to be scientifically dishonest through misrepresentation of scientific facts, but Lomborg himself not guilty due to his lack of expertise in the fields in question.

[shkkmo]

From what I can tell, that book does NOT deny climate change, it denies the efficacy of proposed interventions.

From the Wikipedia page you linked:

> He became internationally known for his best-selling and controversial book, The Skeptical Environmentalist (2001), in which he argues that many of the costly measures and actions adopted by scientists and policy makers to meet the challenges of global warming will ultimately have minimal impact on the world's rising temperature.

Misrepresenting climate science to dispute the efficacy of specific interventions is not the same as misrepresenting science to deny that climate change has human causes.

It does however mean that you should take his opinion on these matters with a grain of salt.

[ceejayoz]

It’s just the next step in the denial. Once “it’s happening” becomes transparently silly to deny, the next step is “fine, it’s happening, but we can’t do anything”.

[mayiplease]

Hold on, what evidence do you have that Lomborg ever held that first position? I've run into interviews with him since forever and remember his position has having been very consistent: climate change is real but not an existential threat and we should be more rational in prioritizing our responses to it. Or something like that.