Why Bjorn Lomborg must be silenced

The 'science' v 'deniers' argument presents a handy dividing line for the adversarial system in which politicians thrive.

Climate 'scientists' and academics are probably the professions most determined to confine the terms of the debate – 'climate science' v 'deniers'. They tread a delicate line, caught between their dogma and the logical extension of their beliefs. They have encouraged the belief that it is already too late, but insist that we need to do something anyway. They rely on the predictions of computer models, but need to hide the fact that these models predict that even if carbon 'pollution' reduction targets are met, it will make virtually no difference to the outcome.

They speak of the future death of many as predicted by their interpretation of their models, and ignore the certainty of the millions who will suffer death and illness now.

Of all the groups I have mentioned, this is the group most dependent on government funding, and the tradition of scientific scepticism will be sacrificed to the cause of tenure and maintenance of the status quo.

The GFC showed that some businesses were too big to be allowed to fail.

Now there is 'consensus' regarding the 'science' of climate change, and this 'consensus' cannot be allowed to fail. There are too many parties benefitting from the resulting flow of dollars. There is no room for 'contrarians'.

Even discussion of his thinking is dangerous – the future of the planet is at stake. Bjorn Lomborg must be silenced.