A well-known pattern of efficient reading is to scan the first and last paragraphs of an article. Applying this strategy to Mr. Lomborg's offering here we see that he finds it relevant to note that he has published "a new peer-reviewed paper" in his first paragraph. And in his last paragraph he concludes "we should make green energy so cheap nobody can resist it."



So at first we can take note of how few authors on this blog ever bother to mention they have published "a new peer-reviewed paper" because most authors here published mainly in academic peer-reviewed journals, and never find it relevant to mention that fact. Mr. Lomborg, on the other hand, refers commenters to the Huffington Post. Readers might suspect that Mr. Lomborg is more of a blogger than an academic. Or perhaps something in between. But in any case we can all congratulate him on a "peer reviewed" publication. Or on the other hand, we might consider ourselves to be his peers, and expect a solid argument here.



Unfortunately M. Lomborg's "conclusion" raises the serious question of which form of energy could be more cost-effective than the profligate dispensation of green solar and wind power across the entire face of our globe. Sun and wind are free. And what's more, you can spill a big bunch of sunshine and nobody will mind. All we have to do is collect it, and that is no longer a challenging technical problem.



Bjorn, what part of "free" do you not understand?