Well that's surprising. You leap to believe the non-climate scientist who agrees with you. How about that?
Burn the witch Lomborg!
How melodramatic. Did any scholars “burn” Erich von Daeniken? Or did they simply do what is incumbent on professionals in a democratic society – expose von Daeniken’s claims to the disinfecting light of critical scrutiny? That is all that has been done by climate scientists, economists and investigative journalists to Lomborg’s claims.
I guess I’ll never understand people like you. If I were encountering something new, something which I’d cared enough to start a post about, I’d make a conscientious effort to do the requisite reading before posting. Obviously, you didn’t read the links, to say nothing of doing a little additional follow-up. This sort of carelessness is convenient if one wishes to suffer from confirmation bias, but an intrepid searcher after truth would have to do much better. S/he would have to make an effort to know what s/he is talking about.
As you would have known had you read the link, Howard Friel’s book does not pretend to be an original, peer-reviewed work of climate science (or even of the economics of climate science.) Instead, it’s an investigative journalist’s inquiry into the quality of Lomborg’s scholarship.
Anyone with an ounce of intelligence and diligence – any good student, for example - could do what Friel does - check Lomborg’s own references. Indeed, it’s the only way to sort through the noise in the current global warming “controversy” – if you can speak of controversy where more than 97% of all climate scientists agree that the past half-century’s dramatic increase in global temperatures is largely man-made.
To cite one just example, Friel shows how Lomborg ransacks portions of the IUCN reports on polar bears while ignoring others. Again and again, in one paragraph after another, Friel quotes from Lomborg’s
own sources to demonstrate that Lomborg misrepresented findings, ignored key conclusions, overgeneralized, withheld key evidence, referenced non-existent figures, drawing conclusions that are not supported by his own sources, etc. And he did so much of it that Friel could fill up a densely but concisely worded book dedicated solely to Lomborg’s research methodology. Read it and see if you don’t agree that The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It are appallingly sloppy and dishonest books, riddled with willful errors and misrepresentations on every page.
How do I know Friel is right? I didn’t take Friel’s word for it. I went over many of the cited references myself. (I own hard copies of both the latest IPCC and the ACIA , but virtually all of the references are available online anyway).
The second link I sent you should have been self-explanatory. It is a critical examination of Lomborg’s
economic methodology by an
economist.
Oh, and now you know why real climate scientists don’t bother with Lomborg.
Lomborg doesn’t do any peer-reviewed climate science.
~There is a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in.~
reply
share
HarpoSpoke
9 years ago
As you would have known had you read the link, Howard Friel’s book does not pretend to be an original, peer-reviewed work of climate science (or even of the economics of climate science.) Instead, it’s an investigative journalist’s inquiry into the quality of Lomborg’s scholarship.
And like I said, of course you have no problem believing a non-climate scientist when he agrees with your politics.
~Sig~
Proud member of the Facebook Let Me In group, DoYouLikeMe.proboards,
abbyandowen.webs.com
reply
share