There is no need to further debunk Lomborg. Dari's only claim AGAINST the naysayers (of Lomborg) is that they are all out with an agenda. Questioning the motives of an individual instead of making useful points against them is an example of an ad hominem attack.
Of course, Lomborg himself has his own agenda; there is no admission of that. And so does The Economist. Assuming for a minute that both the scientific community and the economic community have agendas, what stands without doubt is that the Scientific Community trumps the Economic Community on having credibility in scientific matters. Therefore, Lomborg's work - being only supported by people with the same agenda as him and who have no authoritative voice in scientific matters - simply doesn't hold up to criticism.
As well, Dari's claims that Lomborg's critics don't have any evidence against the book is not true; they don't say stuff like "we don't agree with him, he sucks!", instead they issue apropos statements regarding his poor research methodology which causes him to arrive at conclusions after misinterpreting data. These are statements, when issued by eminents in their respective fields at Top 10 Ivy League schools, that are never made unless supported by fact. In fact, the article outlines that those scientists did analyse Lomborg's work, and provide a report on their findings.
At this point, it doesn't matter if you're right-wing or left-wing; the only reason to continue to support Lomborg is if you are a brainwashed ideologue.