He does, are you rightly mention, study politics. He is not saying that climate change isn't happening, as you would be well aware if you had read his article. He just doesn't think things like the carbon tax is the way to go.
A climate scientist is not the expert at developing the most cost effective way to solve the problem. Dr Lomborg is more than qualified enough to read the scientific reports (ie. the summary for policy makers), and run some numbers from economic experts (ie. the Stern report) to determine what a government should do.
I provided that article because SSP had said:
It is a lot more complex than just panting a veggie patch in the backyard and recycling. When you are talking about trillions of dollars, you would want to be sure that money can provide the desired outcome. Lomborg suggests that there are much better ways to deal with the problem of climate change. It seems that you just don't want to hear them, and would rather think that the only solution is to tax people/businesses. That is not the only solution.What would be the harm in putting in place things to help protect the planet?
I had not heard of the robotic ship idea. But from what I have read, it was not Lomborg's idea. It was a possible solution that was being developed by both British and American climate scientists. He just happened to write about it.
For what it is worth, if you truly want the planet to not warm, that solution would most likely work. Clouds over the ocean would have a cooling effect as it would reflect sunlight from above, but not trap much terrestrial re-radiation. Feel free to laugh at it, but the science says that it is a valid idea. Also sounds quite cheap comparatively. The idea was, after all, developed by climate scientists.
But the global warming agenda is not about keeping the global temperature at the current rate is it?
Legitimate question. If there was a solution that would enable us to keep the planet at the current temperature, would you be happy?