{"id":425139,"date":"2026-02-07T12:47:11","date_gmt":"2026-02-07T19:47:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=425139"},"modified":"2026-07-01T17:47:54","modified_gmt":"2026-07-02T00:47:54","slug":"bjorn-lomborg-the-usa-should-keep-funding-the-ipcc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=425139","title":{"rendered":"Bjorn Lomborg: The USA Should Keep Funding the IPCC"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"Person<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

From Watts Up With That?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Essay by <\/strong>Eric Worrall<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"A
Left: President Trump Signing Executive Orders. Right: Bjorn Lomborg, founder of the Copenhagen Consensus Center<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Apparently, the IPCC is the main bulwark *against* climate alarmism?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

How Trump can buy some global climate sanity for less than $2 million<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The IPCC\u2019s rigor keeps a lid on alarmism. The U.S. is needed to make sure that doesn\u2019t change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

February 4, 2026, at 6:15 a.m. ESTYesterday at 6:15 a.m. EST<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Bjorn Lomborg<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bjorn Lomborg is president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, a visiting fellow at Stanford University\u2019s Hoover Institution and author of \u201cFalse Alarm\u201d and \u201cBest Things First.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Trump administration\u2019s effort to audit international commitments<\/a> through the lens of fiscal discipline and national interest is forcing a reckoning for global institutions. While some of these bodies may struggle to justify their continued funding under rigorous scrutiny, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change<\/a> deserves a reconsideration.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\n

Here is the inherent dilemma: The IPCC has long been the world\u2019s most effective bulwark against<\/em> climate alarmism. By rigorously summarizing the underlying science \u2014 which remains largely unalarming \u2014 it has restrained extreme narratives and forced policy debates back to evidence. \u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The United States faces a choice at this pivotal moment. Withdrawing completely, as the Trump administration has said it will do<\/a>, means surrendering influence over the IPCC\u2019s direction \u2014 ceding control to alarmists, adversaries and less rigorous voices. The result will be more politicized exaggeration, more scare stories and more global alarmism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Staying in the IPCC could also avoid an even worse barrage of scare stories. For example, IPCC reports have long shown little support for the recurrent claims about surging hurricanes, floods, droughts and wildfires. Yet the selection of authors for the next major report \u2014 due in 2029 \u2014 tilts toward \u201cextreme event attribution<\/a>\u201d advocacy, which yields not scientific insight, but narratives better suited for media impact and litigation against fossil fuel companies. One of the new lead authors has pushed her own politics by linking climate change<\/a> to issues like inequality, colonialism and racism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2026Read more: https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/opinions\/2026\/02\/04\/ipcc-trump-climate-science-global-warming-sanity\/<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Bjorn Lomborg founded the Copenhagen Consensus Center<\/a>. He mostly takes the position of agreeing with IPCC science but arguing against the economic fundamentals of proposals for radical climate action.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
The Bjorn Lomborg Conundrum: Sceptic but Not Quite<\/a><\/blockquote>