In this case, the fake news is a long-debunked “analysis” of the Paris climate agreement by perhaps the single most debunked writer in the entire climate arena: Bjorn Lomborg. Lomborg uses the piece to greenwash the extremely anti-scientific and pro-pollution “climate plan” of President-elect Donald Trump.

Bill Smith originally shared:

Running opinions that haven’t been fact-checked amounts to normalizing the #FakeNews they decry. #WashingtonPost #BjornLomborg

Bjørn Lomborg is not a bad guy. Really. As proof, the film he produced about himself shows him spending time with his sick mother and has testimonials about him from his employees. Surely he must be a wonderful man if the movie he made about himself says so.

Apparently some people think this man is evil. More importantly, interspersed in the array of snappy soundbites in his film (that don't actually say anything of substance), Lomborg has some really confused ideas about the environment. Here's three: A) Scientific solutions exist to totally reverse climate change Among Lomborg's proposals are shooting balloons into the atmosphere filled with special gases, sending fleets of million-dollar boats that spray water to make clouds more dense, farming large swaths of algae and painting streets and rooftops of cities white. These proposals seem rather absurd, and the first two could have many unintended consequences. Do we really know what would happen if we fired ridiculous amounts of mist into the air? Could it create an environmental disaster? The algae proposal could actually work because it is the most natural creation of the proposals but developing algae on such a large scale has never been attempted and could turn out a failure. As for painting streets and rooftops white, well, cities are dirty places. As such the white paint wouldn't last long. Especially as black rubber tires rub against white streets. It would also take a tremendous amount of paint to accomplish this, which could have negative environmental results through the production process. What's dangerous is the underlying assumption of assuming climate change can be fixed even if we continue on our current path. The reason it's called "alternative" energy is because it is the alternative to what we're already doing, which is burning carbon fuels to create energy. We can't think a handful of solutions equals a panacea.