The author is a long time climate change denier. He's apparently just moved onto a different phase of the denial strategy now that AGW is largely undeniable.
Other posts here attack the content of the post, which works better. It's probably also fair to critique the general approach if it is disingenuous in context.
I'd like to coin the term "nuance-denier" so that we can insert it jingoistically into the lexicon. It applies to anyone who is incapable of admitting that most humans don't hold a rigid set of views that can be encapsulated by pithy, pejorative labels.
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.
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.
Please cite this.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/aug/30/bjorn-lo...
* Anthropogenic global warming, overall warming of Earth's climate caused or produced by humans