The film `Cool It! ´
first third of the film
    General about the film                                                                    middle third of the film                                                                last third of the film

The film "Cool It" by Ondi Timoner, presenting Lomborg´s approach to global warming

Review of the film´s contents  based on notes taken when watching a presentation. These notes are incomplete and not necessarily very accurate. Preliminary critical comments are inserted on certain subjects.

Introductory part: the effects of scaring people

The globe is shown as seen from space, and then as seen on children´s drawings. We hear children´s voices talking about global warming. They say "The ice is gonna melt" and the animals will die, the trees will die, and we will also die. Asked when it will happen, children say that it will happen soon. A girl says "It scares me so much".
    Comment: The postulate is that `alarmists´ scare the wit out of defenseless children. This is hardly an accurate characterization of the public debate on global warming. One may wonder how the scene with the school children was arranged. The children must have got a recent input about global warming from their teacher. Was this arranged in order to make the children sufficiently upset and scared?

Discussion among adults. Claim: people don´t do enough. But Lomborg says that the impetus to do something means that trillions of dollars go to the wrong solutions. This leads to that people see Lomborg as a traitor. 

Rajendra Pachauri, head of IPCC: We must prevent a catastrophic outcome.
Lomborg: if we only listen to the worst case scenarios, we are likely to be spending our money on the people who shout the loudest.

Scenes from Bjørn Lomborg´s life:
Scene from a Copenhagen street, Lomborg on a bicycle (he does not ride polluting cars!).
Lomborg recounts details from his childhood. He did not want to kill animals, so he chose to be a vegetarian. When young, he participated in the stop-nuclear-power movement. Already as a small boy, he said to his playmates: "Why don´t we build a wind mill?" So they started to dig up the parent´s garden to prepare for the wind mill. Again as a young man, he was concerned about pollution of the coastal waters of Denmark by nitrates.
"I was a member of greenpeace"
   Comment: This claim has not been verified. See here.

Checking Julian Simon
In 1997, when Lomborg was applied at Aarhus University, he attended a conference in Los Angeles. During the stay there, he happened to see an interview with economist Julian Simon in an article in the Wired Magazine. The article claimed that the environment was in a good state, which was provoking. Lomborg thought that this was right wing propaganda. But he changed his mind when he checked the data. When back in Denmark, he got Simon´s book, and organized that a class of his students used half a year to go through the whole book and check the data. The conclusion was that in the main, Simon was right. This is not a doomed planet.
   Comment: This is the story that Lomborg has given right from the start to explain his motivation. It is hardly fully true, and there remains a suspicion that it should rather be conceived as a `cover story´. There are indications that Lomborg had made his conclusion about the veracity of Simon´s claims already before the alleged `check of data´ in the following autumn. Also, a closer study reveals that Lomborg´s first book is not a critical review of Simon´s book, but rather an extension of Simon´s presentation, partially even using phrases similar to those of Simon, and with no clear criticism of any part of Simon´s book.
See here.

Copenhagen Consensus
Conferences dedicated to cost-benefit analysis.
Scenes from discussions at the `Copenhagen Consensus on Climate´ in Washington, September 2009. We see some `top economists´, e.g. Thomas Schellling, Nancy Stokey.
Next: David Young, head of communications at the Copenhagen Consensus Center, saying that Lomborg does not deny man-made global warming. Cut from BBC HARDtalk 2002, where Lomborg says "Global warming is happening" (but not that it is clearly man-made!).
Next: Gwyn Prins, British Economist: Why is it so difficult to limit the human influence on climate?
Zsusza Horvath, Lomborg´s assistent: We cannot solve the climate problem if the cost is too high.
Stephen Schneider appears here in the first of many small shots in the film.

The DCSD case
Read about the complaint to the Danish Committees for Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) here.
Support to Lomborg from top economist Jagdish Bhagwati.
Retired British economist Freeman Dyson (who is against the Kyoto protocol): "Lomborg is someone I admire very much."
A newspaper headline appears: "Lomborg is the devil incarnate".
   Comment: Nobody ever called Lomborg the devil incarnate. That was a journalist´s interpretation of the debate. See here.

- Lomborg says that the committes could not prove him dishonest. The intent of the complaint was political.
   Comment: The committees declared that Lomborg was systematically one-sided in the choice of data, but did not declare that this bias was deliberate. As to the intents motivating the complaint, Lomborg is not right. The complaint was started by me (Kåre Fog), and the only person who knows the motives for this first complaint, is therefore me. I can say that my motives were not political. Rather, my motive was that I do not accept that people lie and mislead deliberately without being called out on it.

Lomborg: It could have cost me my job. The day when the decision of the DCSD was announced, was the worst day of my life.
   Comment: In the situation, as it was, it should have cost him his job. The complaint was lodged by me precisely on the day when Lomborg applied for the position as director of the newly made Environmental Assessment Institute, which was set up especially for him. The person (Lomborg´s former teacher) who solely decided who got the position, did not even bother to read in Lomborg´s book, and ignored the proofs of Lomborg´s pervasive deliberate dishonesty which had been brought to his attention. It is a scandal that Lomborg got the position in spite of that.

Peter Pagh, Danish professor of environmental law, who helped Lomborg to have the verdict annulled: "They made him a liar. That made me very angry and upset."
   Comment: Lomborg was not `made´ a liar. There were several solid proofs that he was indeed a liar . Pagh failed to study the evidence for this and only heard Lomborg´s version of the conflict. Lomborg has a very well developed ability to persuade people not to hear the other side of the conflict, see here.

A Dutch professor, Arthur Rörsch, gathered forces in Holland in defense of Lomborg. He and coworkers produced an article in the Journal of Information Ethics; the title page is shown. The article demonstrated that the accusations against Lomborg were mainly unfounded and that Lomborg made only a small number of mistakes.
   Comment: For a balanced presentation, it would have been necessary to mention also that the paper was countered by a reply article by Kåre Fog in the following number of Journal of Information Ethics. All claims by Rörsch et al. were repudiated there (see references here).

The film defends the right to free speech and free research. It criticizes that a scientific debate became a public debate and a political issue.
   Comment: Here, everything is turned upside down. Lomborg did not produce a scientific debate. He made a shortcut by making the debate public and a political issue right from the start, instead of having a debate first with scientific peers. Only in that way could he publish claims that were deliberately misleading. The complaints about dishonesty lodged by me and others were an (aborted) attempt to have the scientific facts clarified.

Rajendra Pachauri: The conflict has over time become softened. He criticizes that `they´ (the plaintiffs or the committee members) just came up and said that he is dishonest.
   Comment: This is, once more, a distortion of the facts. I and others did not just come up and say that Lomborg is dishonest. We procured copious documentation for the dishonesty. Unfortunately, in the ruling of DCSD, no concrete mention is made of any of the documentation that was procured. They just said that the documentation was a part of the case and as such also a part of the decision. So the documentation was there, but Lomborg who pleads to be innocent, falsely claims that there were no proofs against him. Unfortunately, he manages to persuade people like Pachauri that this was so, and unfortunately, such people fail to hear the other side before they make their judgment.

Lomborg and his mother
We see Lomborg visiting his mother, who is now suffering from a beginning Alzheimer´s disease and lives at a residential home for the elderly. He calls her every day, and tries to visit her at least once per month.
It is not obvious why this scene is included here. However, in comments to the film, Lomborg has explained that the never-failing support from his mother was the main reason why he could withstand the storms caused by the harsh criticism.

Lomborg´s secretary describes how much Lomborg travels around in the world. As an example, we hear about his participation in a malnutrition conference.

Hearings on energy policy
Scenes are shown from March 2007 when Al Gore testified at a joint meeting of two subcommittees in the US House of Representatives. Here, he called for an immediate freeze on CO2 emissions. We see the scene - arranged by Lomborg - when Al Gore shakes hands with Lomborg. Lomborg comments on this, correctly, that the smile on Al Gore´s face shows that this happened the second before he realized who he was actually greeting.
The USA did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. According to Lomborg, that was good. If fully implemented, the Kyoto Protocol would cost $180 billion per year, and reduce the global temperature by only 0.008° in the year 2100.
Lomborg: "It´s about time we realise that the current approach is broken."
The EU will cut 20 percent of its CO2 emissions by 2020. That will cost $250 bn a year, and it will reduce global temperture by 0.1° F by 2100.
Scenes from the COP15 meeting in Copenhagen in 2009.
Lomborg: "We need to tackle climate change smartly."
We hear Daniel Kammen, lead author of the IPCC report section on renewable energies.
Lomborg: There are many meetings, but no action. People talk of cutting C emissions, but it will raise the price of energy.
We hear James Hansen, climate scientist at NASA.
We hear Newt Gingrich saying that Obama´s proposed global warming bill will raise energy prices dramatically.
   Comment: Gingrich´s figures seem to be vastly exaggerated (link). They also overestimate the costs to an American family by a factor of about ten because they disregard that about 90 percent of the tax revenue is returned to the public (link).

Next section