Danes go after Lomborg again.

[kookbreaker]

This time with an independent panel. Well, Scandanavians, at least.

Like a lot of Lomborg criticisms, I see a lot of vagueness, although that could be the fault of the reporter.

Any thoughts?

 

[a_unique_person]

Lomborg himself is very imprecise. I have already raised a few points in previous threads that show his statistical methods are wide open to flaws.

One example is his placing of Australia as one of the countries with plenty of fresh water. Using his statistics, this is true, in practice, the notion is laughable.

 

[CFLarsen]

The institute was created for political purposes: Lomborg immediately got a name for himself in Denmark (and abroad, of course) when he published his book. When we got a rightish government, the institute was created with the sole purpose of getting Lomborg to run it, and to tell the government that they are right in cutting funds for the environment.

The institute has so far published 8 reports, which were scrutinized. None of them had anything to do with scientific principles, and at least two got heavily critized for not even being able to back up the conclusions with facts. There was only one good thing: The reports are written in a clear language.

It's a political appointment, unfortunately. Lomborg's conclusions are not backed scientifically, but mainly politically.

I'd be very careful to support his ideas about the environment if I were you, dear skeptics...

 

[Diamond]

The institute was created for political purposes: Lomborg immediately got a name for himself in Denmark (and abroad, of course) when he published his book. When we got a rightish government, the institute was created with the sole purpose of getting Lomborg to run it, and to tell the government that they are right in cutting funds for the environment.

The institute has so far published 8 reports, which were scrutinized. None of them had anything to do with scientific principles, and at least two got heavily critized for not even being able to back up the conclusions with facts. There was only one good thing: The reports are written in a clear language.

It's a political appointment, unfortunately. Lomborg's conclusions are not backed scientifically, but mainly politically.

I'd be very careful to support his ideas about the environment if I were you, dear skeptics...

I'm against political appointments for scientific posts. Now could you explain the Danish "Committee on Scientific Dishonesty"?

 

[Quasi]

These are the same typical responses to Dr. Lomborg's findings- they completely avoid stating the facts. First, Lomborg did not write the sections on the specific issues in his book, he had environmental experts do that. Further, he is a professor of political science, and has calculated that the cost of increasing humanities life by one year on average for "environmental" issues such as retrofitting power plants compared to mandating seat belts or banning smoking (is about 1 million us dollars to one.) Does it make sense for the US to spend trillions of dollars over the next few dacades to drop emissions for a problem we don't know much about yet? If a mosquito bites your leg, do you cut it off? By maintaining 1990 emissions of CO2 in the US as per the Kyoto treaty, this would deystroy the US economy. Further, where do you think the money will go for the "pollution" trading scam? Right into the South American dictators Swiss bank accounts. So the real question is- how many of you are willing to give up your cars, houses and more than half of your annual income to prevent an issue no one on earth can say how much humans are causing it and how much of it is natural? Further, giving poor nations clean drinking water, food and sanitation will be far cheaper and save far more lives. Malnutrition is still the number one killer of humans. Having said that, who disagrees? Where are your facts? Was it a good idea to go to Iraq, and spend 100 years worth of the alternative energy budget (100 million US/year)? Is it worth it to continue to allow tobacco sales and use? I think not.

 

[CFLarsen]

I'm against political appointments for scientific posts. Now could you explain the Danish "Committee on Scientific Dishonesty"?

From their website (inefficiently translated by me)

The Committees regarding Scientific Dishonesty consist of 3 independent committees:

Health Sciences
Social Sciences, Humaniora
(Natural) Sciences, Farming and Vetenarian and Technical science.

The committees are appointed with warrant in Ministry of Research. Their job is to deal with complaints about scientific dishonesty.

Every committee consists of a chairman and four members. The members are recognized scientists, officially appointed by a Science-forum, after a hearing of the six state research councils. The chairman, who is heading all three committees, is a High Court Judge and appointed by the Minister of Research.

"Scientific dishonesty" is defined as "actions or omissions, by which a forgery or distortion of the scientific message or grossly misleading about a person's contributions in the research". The definition mentions a list of circumstances that apply. For the behavior to be considered scientifically dishonest, it also has to be rendered probable that the actions were intentional or gross negligence.

http://www.forsk.dk/uvvu/nyt/udtaldebat/bl_decision.htm

Now, I know what you are going to say: "Hey, they are politically appointed as well!", and to a degree, you are correct. However, Lomborg's Institute was created with the sole purpose of getting him as chairman and deliver his own brand of eco-political messages, because they fit the current government's views.

Scientific value had nothing to do with Lomborg's position. The people appointed here are selected for their scientific status.


Quasi,

I think you should drop those zany conspiracy thoughts. They are not good for your mental health. Seriously.

 

[Quasi]

What conspiracy? I was merely pointing out that we only have so much tax dollars to spend. It is not unlimited. Tax too much and the economy crashes. So should we spend 20% of our GDP on an environmental issue we don't know enough about? What if you are wrong and GW is only 5% caused by human activity? All that money is wasted. By maintaining emissions at any level, you inhibit economic growth. By inhibiting growth you slow the development of solar/wind etc. by reducing tax income and consumer spending on these issues. It may not be obvious, but when people run low on money, the environment goes out of mind- money is spent on survival. Just look at how dirty biomass fuel is (coal, wood etc.) that is used in dev. nations. And how much does the average African donate to environmental groups/causes? So should we focus on human health and make a reasonable transition to solar and wind a few decades from now when it is cheaper than oil, or spend enormous amounts of money now for what may only be a very small, insignificant gain? Lombards point is this- should we spend trillions over the next few decades by curbing emissions, which is a big unknown as to the outcome, or directly help developing nations by supplying clean water, sanitation etc, which is known to help even if GW is not as bad as the alarmists claim? Where should we spend the money? On what evidence should we make this decision? Lombard collected data from the experts, he has a Ph.D. in political science and translated it into good policy. Where is the specific problem here?

 

[Quasi]

From their website (inefficiently translated by me)



http://www.forsk.dk/uvvu/nyt/udtaldebat/bl_decision.htm

Scientific value had nothing to do with Lomborg's position. The people appointed here are selected for their scientific status.

I read the complaint. You should read Lomborgs response, as well as the Scientific American article, and their threats, and potential lawsuit to Lomborg. They acted like children, the articles were full of ad-hominem attacks and circular reasoning. In the article listed above, I doubt they actually read the book. I am not going to respond, because Dr. Lomborg has done this already. Several members of the "comittee" were criticized in his book. I realize that modern environmentalism has become a religion and many people have strong feelings because of this. I don't personally care too much either way, but the evidence, in my mind, is currently with getting rid of oil ASAP for a variety of reasons, including environmental, and political (choke off the middle east of money.) I find it particularly funny regarding the "not in my backyard" stance of Sen. Kennedy regarding the wind mills they are going to put up in Nantucket Sound here in Mass. I think it is a great idea.

 

[CFLarsen]

What conspiracy?

This one:

Further, where do you think the money will go for the "pollution" trading scam? Right into the South American dictators Swiss bank accounts.

I was merely pointing out that we only have so much tax dollars to spend. It is not unlimited. Tax too much and the economy crashes.

How much? Like the Danish?

So should we spend 20% of our GDP on an environmental issue we don't know enough about?

Who are suggesting this??

What if you are wrong and GW is only 5% caused by human activity?

What if you are not?

All that money is wasted. By maintaining emissions at any level, you inhibit economic growth.

Is economic growth a necessity for survival?

By inhibiting growth you slow the development of solar/wind etc. by reducing tax income and consumer spending on these issues.

Factually wrong. Denmark has a high tax rate and is one of the top exporters of windmill technology.

It may not be obvious, but when people run low on money, the environment goes out of mind- money is spent on survival.

Environment has nothing to do with survival??

Just look at how dirty biomass fuel is (coal, wood etc.) that is used in dev. nations.

They use coal and wood because they don't have the technology we have.

And how much does the average African donate to environmental groups/causes?

They don't have the money.

So should we focus on human health and make a reasonable transition to solar and wind a few decades from now when it is cheaper than oil, or spend enormous amounts of money now for what may only be a very small, insignificant gain?

How do you know that?

Lombards

It's "Lomborg". Get your facts straight.

point is this- should we spend trillions over the next few decades by curbing emissions, which is a big unknown as to the outcome, or directly help developing nations by supplying clean water, sanitation etc, which is known to help even if GW is not as bad as the alarmists claim? Where should we spend the money?

Why is this an "either or"? Fallacy.

On what evidence should we make this decision? Lombard collected data from the experts, he has a Ph.D. in political science and translated it into good policy. Where is the specific problem here?

Lomborg is not a scientist. He holds an M.A. and a Ph.D. in political science. He selects his data. This is a fact. He has a clear political agendum.

I read the complaint.

I did, too. Did you understand it?

You should read Lomborgs response, as well as the Scientific American article, and their threats, and potential lawsuit to Lomborg.

Huh? What "potential lawsuit" from SA are you talking about?

They acted like children, the articles were full of ad-hominem attacks and circular reasoning. In the article listed above, I doubt they actually read the book.

Did you?

I am not going to respond, because Dr. Lomborg has done this already.

Well, that settles it, then.

Several members of the "comittee" were criticized in his book.

(cough)....who makes ad hominae, then?

I realize that modern environmentalism has become a religion and many people have strong feelings because of this.

As they should. It has tremendous impact on everyone's life.

I don't personally care too much either way, but the evidence, in my mind, is currently with getting rid of oil ASAP for a variety of reasons, including environmental, and political (choke off the middle east of money.)

Who advocates this??

I find it particularly funny regarding the "not in my backyard" stance of Sen. Kennedy regarding the wind mills they are going to put up in Nantucket Sound here in Mass. I think it is a great idea.

I bet they will be built with Danish technology.

 

[a_unique_person]

These are the same typical responses to Dr. Lomborg's findings- they completely avoid stating the facts. First, Lomborg did not write the sections on the specific issues in his book, he had environmental experts do that. Further, he is a professor of political science, and has calculated that the cost of increasing humanities life by one year on average for "environmental" issues such as retrofitting power plants compared to mandating seat belts or banning smoking (is about 1 million us dollars to one.) Does it make sense for the US to spend trillions of dollars over the next few dacades to drop emissions for a problem we don't know much about yet? If a mosquito bites your leg, do you cut it off? By maintaining 1990 emissions of CO2 in the US as per the Kyoto treaty, this would deystroy the US economy. Further, where do you think the money will go for the "pollution" trading scam? Right into the South American dictators Swiss bank accounts. So the real question is- how many of you are willing to give up your cars, houses and more than half of your annual income to prevent an issue no one on earth can say how much humans are causing it and how much of it is natural? Further, giving poor nations clean drinking water, food and sanitation will be far cheaper and save far more lives. Malnutrition is still the number one killer of humans. Having said that, who disagrees? Where are your facts? Was it a good idea to go to Iraq, and spend 100 years worth of the alternative energy budget (100 million US/year)? Is it worth it to continue to allow tobacco sales and use? I think not.

The US quite happily spending one billion dollars a week on a pointless war. The stockmarket is booming. The only reason the noise is so load about cutting emissions is that some vested interests may miss out in the changing economy. The GW effect has been the subject of serious scientific study for decades now.

As I said in my earlier post, his use of statistics to analyse some problems is laughable, try telling the average Australian he has plenty of water.

Malnutrition and water are a major killer of human beings, but these problems will only get worse if GW, as predicted, causes huge changes in weather patterns. The human race was once semi-nomadic, when weather changed, whole civilisations would wander slowly around the world. Those days are long gone.