For me, the interview was very interesting because of the approach Lomborg took; he took middle of the road, based on common sense, which ought to bridge the gap between Dems and Repubs. I thought you might find that interesting.
I confess I thought you felt climate change probably isn't real. Personally, I feel the scientific evidence isn't compelling—because it is so corrupted/biased. I might have confused you with myself! ;-/
My thinking is:
(1) The science is hopelessly contaminated by government /influencers
(2) burning a billion years worth of fossil fuels in 150 years OUGHT to change the climate
(3) At the end of the day, “Climate change”, real or not, isn't - and shouldn't be – anywhere near the top of our present moment dangers.
(4) Even if global warming is both real, and dangerous, there isn nothing much we can do about it now, beyond beginning to prepare for it. Instead of probably wasting trillions to “fight” it, with high-tech and doubtful usage restrictions, we should deal with more vital, more economic issues.
Anyway, sorry for mistaking your position and, especially, for coming across impolitely. The first was ignorance. The second was ignorance +bad communication.
| 