Bush Misuses Science, Report Says

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
the massive rise of the left and tree hugging part of the scientific community to rebuke Lomborg's classical piece is a testament to its accuracy.

What exactly is classical about Lomborg's work?

Wouldn't you expect the tree huggers to challenge scientific work that implies environmental protection should be a low priority?

Does your statement mean that every time a Bush mouthpiece decries "revisionist history" . . . it's the Bush administration's attempt to shout down the truth?
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
1
76
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: Dari

just because Scientific American says something, it doesn't mean its true. Furthermore, you have to look at whose writing the article for SA. He could be some tree hugger editor whose agenda is far removed from science and rationale.

Lomborg has an agenda far removed from science and rationale. It's astonishing that people fall for this crap.

Reviewing Lomborg?s claims are Dr. Peter Gleick, an internationally recognized expert on the state of freshwater resources; Dr. Jerry Mahlman, one of the most highly regarded atmospheric scientists and climate modelers; and top biologists and biodiversity experts Dr.?s Edward O. Wilson, Thomas Lovejoy, Norman Myers, Jeffrey Harvey and Stuart Pimm.

These separately written expert reviews unequivocally demonstrate that on closer inspection, Lomborg?s book is seriously flawed and fails to meet basic standards of credible scientific analysis. The authors note how Lomborg consistently misuses, misrepresents or misinterprets data to greatly underestimate rates of species extinction, ignore evidence that billions of people lack access to clean water and sanitation, and minimize the extent and impacts of global warming due to the burning of fossil fuels and other human-caused emissions of heat-trapping gases. Time and again, these experts find that Lomborg?s assertions and analyses are marred by flawed logic, inappropriate use of statistics and hidden value judgments. He uncritically and selectively cites literature -- often not peer-reviewed -- that supports his assertions, while ignoring or misinterpreting scientific evidence that does not. His consistently flawed use of scientific data is, in Peter Gleick?s words "unexpected and disturbing in a statistician".


Text

the massive rise of the left and tree hugging part of the scientific community to rebuke Lomborg's classical piece is a testament to its accuracy.

You want to believe this crap so bad that no matter how many well-regarded scientists show it to be false you will call every last one of them a "tree-hugger". You really can't dispute their claims at all can you? So you just resort to the desperate tactic of calling them names.


Lomborg debunked some more.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: Dari

just because Scientific American says something, it doesn't mean its true. Furthermore, you have to look at whose writing the article for SA. He could be some tree hugger editor whose agenda is far removed from science and rationale.

Lomborg has an agenda far removed from science and rationale. It's astonishing that people fall for this crap.

Reviewing Lomborg?s claims are Dr. Peter Gleick, an internationally recognized expert on the state of freshwater resources; Dr. Jerry Mahlman, one of the most highly regarded atmospheric scientists and climate modelers; and top biologists and biodiversity experts Dr.?s Edward O. Wilson, Thomas Lovejoy, Norman Myers, Jeffrey Harvey and Stuart Pimm.

These separately written expert reviews unequivocally demonstrate that on closer inspection, Lomborg?s book is seriously flawed and fails to meet basic standards of credible scientific analysis. The authors note how Lomborg consistently misuses, misrepresents or misinterprets data to greatly underestimate rates of species extinction, ignore evidence that billions of people lack access to clean water and sanitation, and minimize the extent and impacts of global warming due to the burning of fossil fuels and other human-caused emissions of heat-trapping gases. Time and again, these experts find that Lomborg?s assertions and analyses are marred by flawed logic, inappropriate use of statistics and hidden value judgments. He uncritically and selectively cites literature -- often not peer-reviewed -- that supports his assertions, while ignoring or misinterpreting scientific evidence that does not. His consistently flawed use of scientific data is, in Peter Gleick?s words "unexpected and disturbing in a statistician".


Text

the massive rise of the left and tree hugging part of the scientific community to rebuke Lomborg's classical piece is a testament to its accuracy.

You want to believe this crap so bad that no matter how many well-regarded scientists show it to be false you will call every last one of them a "tree-hugger". You really can't dispute their claims at all can you? So you just resort to the desperate tactic of calling them names.

The litany and the heretic

Why has Bjorn Lomborg created such a stir among environmentalists?


?I'M AFRAID there isn't much scientific controversy about Mr Lomborg. He occupies a very junior position in Denmark (an ?associate professor' does not exactly mean the same thing that it does in the United States), he has one possibly very flawed paper in an international journal on game theory, no publications on environmental issues, and yet manages to dismiss the science of dozens of the world's best scientists, including Nobel laureates, Japan and Crawford prize-winners and the like. As any sensible person would expect, his facts are usually fallacies and his analysis is largely non-existent.?

Those contemptuous words from Stuart Pimm, a professor of conservation biology at Columbia University, are fairly representative of the response from many environmental scientists and activists to Bjorn Lomborg's recent book, ?The Skeptical Environmentalist?. In the weeks since the book's release, virtually every large environmental group has weighed in with a denunciation. Numerous heavyweights of science have penned damning articles and reviews in leading journals. Dr Pimm, for one, railed against Dr Lomborg in Nature, while Scientific American recently devoted 11 pages to attacks from scientists known for their environmental activism.

Dr Lomborg's critics protest too much. They are rattled not because, as they endlessly insist, Dr Lomborg lacks credentials as an environmental scientist and is of no account, but because his book is such a powerful and persuasive assault on the central tenets of the modern environmental movement.

Just the facts

Curious about the true state of the planet, the author?who makes no claims to expertise in environmental science, only to statistical expertise?has scrutinised reams of official data on everything from air pollution to energy availability to climate change. As an instinctive green and a former member of Greenpeace, he was surprised to find that the world's environment is not, in fact, getting ever worse. Rather, he shows, most environmental indicators are stable or improving.

One by one, he goes through the ?litany?, as he calls it, of four big environmental fears:

? Natural resources are running out.

? The population is ever growing, leaving less and less to eat.

? Species are becoming rapidly extinct, forests are vanishing and fish stocks are collapsing.

? Air and water are becoming ever more polluted.

In each case, he demonstrated that the doom and gloom is wildly exaggerated. Known reserves of fossil fuels and most metals have risen. Agricultural production per head has risen; the numbers facing starvation have declined. The threat of biodiversity loss is real but exaggerated, as is the problem of tropical deforestation. And pollution diminishes as countries grow richer and tackle it energetically.

In other words, the planet is not in peril. There are problems, and they deserve attention, but nothing remotely so dire as most of the green movement keeps saying.

Nor is that all he shows. The book exposes?through hundreds of detailed, meticulously footnoted examples?a pattern of exaggeration and statistical manipulation, used by green groups to advance their pet causes, and obligingly echoed through the media. Bizarrely, one of Dr Lomborg's critics in Scientific American criticises as an affectation the book's insistence on documenting every statistic and every quotation with a reference to a published source. But the complaint is not so bizarre when one works through the references, because they so frequently expose careless reporting and environmentalists' abuse of scientific research.

The replies to Dr Lomborg in Scientific American and elsewhere score remarkably few points of substance*. His large factual claims about the current state of the world do not appear to be under challenge?which is unsurprising since they draw on official data. What is under challenge, chiefly, is his outrageous presumption in starting a much-needed debate.

Some argue that scientists who favour stronger policies to improve the environment must use the same tactics as any other political lobby?from steel companies fighting for tariffs on imports to farmers demanding more subsidies. The aim, after all, is to win public favour and government support. Whether such a view is consistent with the obligation science owes to the truth is debatable, at best. If scientists want their views to be accorded the respect due to science, then they must speak as scientists, not as lobbyists.

Dr Lomborg's work has its flaws. He has made some errors in his statistical analysis, as he acknowledges on his website. And there are broader issues, especially to do with the aggregation of data and the handling of uncertainty, where his book is open to challenge. For instance, his approach of examining data at a global level, while statistically sound, tends to mask local environmental trends. Global marine productivity has indeed risen, as he says?but this disguises collapses in particular species in particular places. Dr Lomborg argues that such losses, seen in a long-term perspective, do not matter much. Many would disagree, not least the fishermen in the areas affected.

Allen Hammond of the World Resources Institute (WRI) makes a related point. He accepts Dr Lomborg's optimistic assessment of the environment, but says it holds only for the developed world. The aggregate figures offered in the book mask worsening pollution in the mega-cities of the poor world. Dr Lomborg agrees that there are local and regional environmental pressures, and that these matter a lot, but it is fair to point out that the book has little to say about them, except to argue that rising incomes will help.

The book gives little credit to environmental policy as a cause of environmental improvement. That is a defensible position, in fact, but the book does not trouble to make the case. And another important question is somewhat skated over: the possibility that some environmental processes involve irreversible ?triggers?, which, once pulled, lead to sudden and disastrous deterioration. Climate scientists believe, and Dr Lomborg does not deny, that too much warming could lead to irreversible bad outcomes such as the collapse of the mid-Atlantic ?conveyor belt? (an ocean current that warms Europe). The science here is thin: nobody knows what level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would trigger such a calamity. But the risk argues for caution.

Dr Lomborg's assessment of the science in this area leads him to venture that warming is more likely to be at the low end of the range expected by leading experts than at the high end. He argues that the most-cited climate models misjudge factors such as the effects of clouds, aerosols and the solar cycle. That is plausible, and there is science to support it, but the conclusion is far from certain. Again, it is reasonable to argue that such uncertainty makes it better to err on the side of caution.

Sensible people will disagree about the course that policy should take. Dr Lomborg?a courteous fellow?seems willing to talk calmly to his opponents. For the most part, while claiming in some cases to be men of science, his opponents do not return the compliment.

Homo ecologicus
Despite its limitations, ?The Skeptical Environmentalist? delivers a salutary warning to conventional thinking. Dr Lomborg reminds militant greens, and the media that hang on their every exaggerated word about environmental calamity, that environmental policy should be judged against the same criteria as other kinds of policy. Is there a problem? How bad is it? What will it cost to fix? Is that the best way to spend those resources?

This is exactly what Tom Burke, a leading British environmentalist, denied in a debate he had with Dr Lomborg in Prospect, a British magazine. ?What I find most egregious [in] your climate-change argument, however, is the proposition that the world faces a choice between spending money on mitigating climate change, and providing access to clean drinking water and sanitation in the developing world. We must and can do both. Such artificial choices may be possible in an academic ivory tower where ideas can be arranged to suit the prejudices of the occupant, but they are not available in the real world and it is dishonest to suggest that they are.?

On the contrary, Mr Burke. Only in an ivory tower could choices such as these be called ?artificial?. Democratic politics is about nothing but choices of that sort. Green politics needs to learn that resources are not unlimited.






link
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
link

Defending science

The fury inspired by a new book is extraordinary, and raises some questions


BJORN LOMBORG, a Danish statistician, no doubt hoped to spark controversy with his book, ?The Skeptical Environmentalist??an attack on ?the litany?, as he calls it, of bogus doom and gloom about the state of the planet. He has not been ignored, which is probably an author's worst fate, but he may be wishing he had been. The response to the book in many quarters has been apoplectic. Mr Lomborg is being called a liar, a fraud and worse. People are refusing to share a platform with him. He turns up in Oxford to talk about his book, and the author (it is claimed) of a forthcoming study on climate change throws a pie in his face.

The Economist is not a neutral in all this. Before Mr Lomborg published ?The Skeptical Environmentalist?, we ran a signed essay by him which gave a summary. Later we reviewed his book in glowing terms. What has inspired the subsequent fury? Mr Lomborg argues that the environment is not in nearly such bad shape as green activists and their dupes in the media would have the public believe; that technology is improving lives across most of the planet; that western civilisation is environmentally sustainable; and that the Kyoto agreement on carbon emissions is bad policy as it stands.

How dare he say that?

Mr Lomborg defends these positions on the basis of official data and published science. Environmentalists typically use the same sources, but, as Mr Lomborg lays bare, are much less scrupulous about setting short runs of data in their long-term context, for instance, or about quoting ranges of data, where that is appropriate, rather than whatever extreme of any given range best suits their case. Mr Lomborg diligently piles on the footnotes (2,930 of them) so there is no dispute about where his numbers have come from. His claims, of course, could still be true or false. They are largely true, in our opinion. But what is strangest in all this fuss is the idea that simply by making them he has put himself far beyond the pale of respectable discourse, as so many of his critics appear to believe.

Mr Lomborg, it is important to note, does not say that all is well with the world. And The Economist for that matter does not say that Mr Lomborg is right about every issue he addresses. Environmental policy involves uncertainty, as Mr Lomborg emphasises; now and then this raises doubts that deserve more attention than he gives them (see article). We do believe, however, that he is right on his main points, that his critique of much green activism and its reporting in the media is just, and, above all, that where there is room for disagreement, Mr Lomborg invites and facilitates discussion, rather than seeking to silence it. The same cannot be said for many of his critics.

The January issue of Scientific American devoted many pages to a series of articles trashing ?The Skeptical Environmentalist?. The authors, all supporters of the green movement, were strong on contempt and sneering, but weak on substance. The arresting thing about Scientific American's coverage, however, was not this barrage of ineffective rejoinders but the editor's notion of what was going on: ?Science defends itself against the Skeptical Environmentalist,? he announced.

That is amazing. Mr Lomborg's targets are green scare-mongers and their credulous servants in the media. He uses the findings of scientists to press his case. How can using science to criticise the Kyoto agreement, to show that the world's forests are not disappearing, to demonstrate that the planet's supplies of energy and food will suffice indefinitely, and the rest, constitute an attack on science? If that is so, the scholars whose work supports those positions are presumably attacking science too, and had better stand in line for a pie in the face.

More is at stake here than a row about a book or the judgment of a magazine editor. Many of Mr Lomborg's critics are respected scientists. Some seem to think that Mr Lomborg's lack of training in their fields disqualifies him from debating environmental policy. E.O. Wilson, one of the world's most distinguished scientists, and a dedicated green, deplores ?the Lomborg scam? because of ?the extraordinary amount of scientific talent that has to be expended to combat [him] in the media...[Mr Lomborg and his kind] are the parasite load on scholars who earn success through the slow process of peer review and approval.? That would be wrong even if all scientists shared Mr Wilson's fear that the world will become a ?hellish place to exist?, which they do not. Environmental policy involves politics and economics, compromises and trade-offs, a division of burdens geographically and over time. It could not be left to scientists, even if they agreed on the science. We parasites would even then be right to insist on having our say.

Leeches of the world, unite

Mr Wilson's insufferable arrogance is bad enough, but there's worse. The fuss over Mr Lomborg highlights an attitude among some media-conscious scientists that militates not just against good policy but against the truth. Stephen Schneider, one of Scientific American's anti-Lomborgians, spoke we suspect not just for himself when he told Discover in 1989: ?[We] are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place...To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have...Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.? In other words, save science for other scientists, in peer-reviewed journals and other sanctified places. In public, strike a balance between telling the truth and telling necessary lies.

Science needs no defending from Mr Lomborg. It may very well need defending from champions like Mr Schneider.
 

LocutusX

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,061
0
0
I don't want to get into an argument about a book I'll never read, but here's a rebuttal from a less partisan source:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A24584-2003Jan7&notFound=true

Snippets:

...Danish author Bjorn Lomborg yesterday was denounced by a panel of his country's top scientists for engaging in "scientific dishonesty."

... Corporate-sponsored groups and libertarian Washington think tanks praised and promoted the book during Lomborg's visit to the United States.

...A Washington Post book reviewer concluded that the book was "a magnificent achievement."

...Eleven distinguished scientists, including Thomas Eisner of Cornell University and Edward O. Wilson of Harvard, said in a letter to the publisher in July that "we rarely see this type of careless and manipulative scholarship in the undergraduates we teach."

What do I gleam from that? Well, WashPost is sort of admitting that they may have made a mistake praising the book before. Also, we see that Cornell and Harvard, neither of which are known for being "leftist" are out in force against this guy as well.

---

Thomas Eisner is Schurman Professor of Chemical Ecology at Cornell University. A founder of the scientific discipline of chemical ecology, he is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and recipient of the National Medal of Science.

---

...Edward O. Wilson is used to stirring up controversy. A world-famous biologist and Pulitzer Prize-winning author, named by Time magazine as one of America's 25 most influential people of the 20th century...

---

Neither of these guys sound like members of Greenpeace.
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
1
76
All Dari has to validate this crap is opinion pieces from the Economist? LOL!
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Originally posted by: LocutusX
I don't want to get into an argument about a book I'll never read, but here's a rebuttal from a less partisan source:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A24584-2003Jan7¬Found=true

Snippets:

...Danish author Bjorn Lomborg yesterday was denounced by a panel of his country's top scientists for engaging in "scientific dishonesty."

... Corporate-sponsored groups and libertarian Washington think tanks praised and promoted the book during Lomborg's visit to the United States.

...A Washington Post book reviewer concluded that the book was "a magnificent achievement."

...Eleven distinguished scientists, including Thomas Eisner of Cornell University and Edward O. Wilson of Harvard, said in a letter to the publisher in July that "we rarely see this type of careless and manipulative scholarship in the undergraduates we teach."

What do I gleam from that? Well, WashPost is sort of admitting that they may have made a mistake praising the book before. Also, we see that Cornell and Harvard, neither of which are known for being "leftist" are out in force against this guy as well.

---

Thomas Eisner is Schurman Professor of Chemical Ecology at Cornell University. A founder of the scientific discipline of chemical ecology, he is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and recipient of the National Medal of Science.

---

...Edward O. Wilson is used to stirring up controversy. A world-famous biologist and Pulitzer Prize-winning author, named by Time magazine as one of America's 25 most influential people of the 20th century...

---

Neither of these guys sound like members of Greenpeace.

Mr Wilson's insufferable arrogance is bad enough, but there's worse. The fuss over Mr Lomborg highlights an attitude among some media-conscious scientists that militates not just against good policy but against the truth. Stephen Schneider, one of Scientific American's anti-Lomborgians, spoke we suspect not just for himself when he told Discover in 1989: ?[We] are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place...To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have...Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.? In other words, save science for other scientists, in peer-reviewed journals and other sanctified places. In public, strike a balance between telling the truth and telling necessary lies.

and how about Mr. Schneider from Scientific American?

 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
1
76
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: LocutusX
I don't want to get into an argument about a book I'll never read, but here's a rebuttal from a less partisan source:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A24584-2003Jan7¬Found=true

Snippets:

...Danish author Bjorn Lomborg yesterday was denounced by a panel of his country's top scientists for engaging in "scientific dishonesty."

... Corporate-sponsored groups and libertarian Washington think tanks praised and promoted the book during Lomborg's visit to the United States.

...A Washington Post book reviewer concluded that the book was "a magnificent achievement."

...Eleven distinguished scientists, including Thomas Eisner of Cornell University and Edward O. Wilson of Harvard, said in a letter to the publisher in July that "we rarely see this type of careless and manipulative scholarship in the undergraduates we teach."

What do I gleam from that? Well, WashPost is sort of admitting that they may have made a mistake praising the book before. Also, we see that Cornell and Harvard, neither of which are known for being "leftist" are out in force against this guy as well.

---

Thomas Eisner is Schurman Professor of Chemical Ecology at Cornell University. A founder of the scientific discipline of chemical ecology, he is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and recipient of the National Medal of Science.

---

...Edward O. Wilson is used to stirring up controversy. A world-famous biologist and Pulitzer Prize-winning author, named by Time magazine as one of America's 25 most influential people of the 20th century...

---

Neither of these guys sound like members of Greenpeace.

Mr Wilson's insufferable arrogance is bad enough, but there's worse. The fuss over Mr Lomborg highlights an attitude among some media-conscious scientists that militates not just against good policy but against the truth. Stephen Schneider, one of Scientific American's anti-Lomborgians, spoke we suspect not just for himself when he told Discover in 1989: ?[We] are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place...To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have...Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.? In other words, save science for other scientists, in peer-reviewed journals and other sanctified places. In public, strike a balance between telling the truth and telling necessary lies.

and how about Mr. Schneider from Scientific American?

How about a misquote?

How about all the other scientists?
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: LocutusX
I don't want to get into an argument about a book I'll never read, but here's a rebuttal from a less partisan source:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A24584-2003Jan7¬Found=true

Snippets:

...Danish author Bjorn Lomborg yesterday was denounced by a panel of his country's top scientists for engaging in "scientific dishonesty."

... Corporate-sponsored groups and libertarian Washington think tanks praised and promoted the book during Lomborg's visit to the United States.

...A Washington Post book reviewer concluded that the book was "a magnificent achievement."

...Eleven distinguished scientists, including Thomas Eisner of Cornell University and Edward O. Wilson of Harvard, said in a letter to the publisher in July that "we rarely see this type of careless and manipulative scholarship in the undergraduates we teach."

What do I gleam from that? Well, WashPost is sort of admitting that they may have made a mistake praising the book before. Also, we see that Cornell and Harvard, neither of which are known for being "leftist" are out in force against this guy as well.

---

Thomas Eisner is Schurman Professor of Chemical Ecology at Cornell University. A founder of the scientific discipline of chemical ecology, he is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and recipient of the National Medal of Science.

---

...Edward O. Wilson is used to stirring up controversy. A world-famous biologist and Pulitzer Prize-winning author, named by Time magazine as one of America's 25 most influential people of the 20th century...

---

Neither of these guys sound like members of Greenpeace.

Mr Wilson's insufferable arrogance is bad enough, but there's worse. The fuss over Mr Lomborg highlights an attitude among some media-conscious scientists that militates not just against good policy but against the truth. Stephen Schneider, one of Scientific American's anti-Lomborgians, spoke we suspect not just for himself when he told Discover in 1989: ?[We] are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place...To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have...Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.? In other words, save science for other scientists, in peer-reviewed journals and other sanctified places. In public, strike a balance between telling the truth and telling necessary lies.

and how about Mr. Schneider from Scientific American?

How about a misquote?

How about all the other scientists?


so now he's changing his story? How unscientific of him.

As for the others, one at a time, please. All those that debunked this great book have an agenda that is not unlike Mr. Schneider's.
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
1
76
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: LocutusX
I don't want to get into an argument about a book I'll never read, but here's a rebuttal from a less partisan source:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A24584-2003Jan7¬Found=true

Snippets:

...Danish author Bjorn Lomborg yesterday was denounced by a panel of his country's top scientists for engaging in "scientific dishonesty."

... Corporate-sponsored groups and libertarian Washington think tanks praised and promoted the book during Lomborg's visit to the United States.

...A Washington Post book reviewer concluded that the book was "a magnificent achievement."

...Eleven distinguished scientists, including Thomas Eisner of Cornell University and Edward O. Wilson of Harvard, said in a letter to the publisher in July that "we rarely see this type of careless and manipulative scholarship in the undergraduates we teach."

What do I gleam from that? Well, WashPost is sort of admitting that they may have made a mistake praising the book before. Also, we see that Cornell and Harvard, neither of which are known for being "leftist" are out in force against this guy as well.

---

Thomas Eisner is Schurman Professor of Chemical Ecology at Cornell University. A founder of the scientific discipline of chemical ecology, he is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and recipient of the National Medal of Science.

---

...Edward O. Wilson is used to stirring up controversy. A world-famous biologist and Pulitzer Prize-winning author, named by Time magazine as one of America's 25 most influential people of the 20th century...

---

Neither of these guys sound like members of Greenpeace.

Mr Wilson's insufferable arrogance is bad enough, but there's worse. The fuss over Mr Lomborg highlights an attitude among some media-conscious scientists that militates not just against good policy but against the truth. Stephen Schneider, one of Scientific American's anti-Lomborgians, spoke we suspect not just for himself when he told Discover in 1989: ?[We] are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place...To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have...Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.? In other words, save science for other scientists, in peer-reviewed journals and other sanctified places. In public, strike a balance between telling the truth and telling necessary lies.

and how about Mr. Schneider from Scientific American?

How about a misquote?

How about all the other scientists?


so now he's changing his story? How unscientific of him.

As for the others, one at a time, please. All those that debunked this great book have an agenda that is not unlike Mr. Schneider's.

He didn't change his story, others changed it for him. All those that debunked this pile of crap don't have blinders on and get information from sources other than the Economist.

 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: LocutusX
I don't want to get into an argument about a book I'll never read, but here's a rebuttal from a less partisan source:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A24584-2003Jan7¬Found=true

Snippets:

...Danish author Bjorn Lomborg yesterday was denounced by a panel of his country's top scientists for engaging in "scientific dishonesty."

... Corporate-sponsored groups and libertarian Washington think tanks praised and promoted the book during Lomborg's visit to the United States.

...A Washington Post book reviewer concluded that the book was "a magnificent achievement."

...Eleven distinguished scientists, including Thomas Eisner of Cornell University and Edward O. Wilson of Harvard, said in a letter to the publisher in July that "we rarely see this type of careless and manipulative scholarship in the undergraduates we teach."

What do I gleam from that? Well, WashPost is sort of admitting that they may have made a mistake praising the book before. Also, we see that Cornell and Harvard, neither of which are known for being "leftist" are out in force against this guy as well.

---

Thomas Eisner is Schurman Professor of Chemical Ecology at Cornell University. A founder of the scientific discipline of chemical ecology, he is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and recipient of the National Medal of Science.

---

...Edward O. Wilson is used to stirring up controversy. A world-famous biologist and Pulitzer Prize-winning author, named by Time magazine as one of America's 25 most influential people of the 20th century...

---

Neither of these guys sound like members of Greenpeace.

Mr Wilson's insufferable arrogance is bad enough, but there's worse. The fuss over Mr Lomborg highlights an attitude among some media-conscious scientists that militates not just against good policy but against the truth. Stephen Schneider, one of Scientific American's anti-Lomborgians, spoke we suspect not just for himself when he told Discover in 1989: ?[We] are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place...To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have...Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.? In other words, save science for other scientists, in peer-reviewed journals and other sanctified places. In public, strike a balance between telling the truth and telling necessary lies.

and how about Mr. Schneider from Scientific American?

How about a misquote?

How about all the other scientists?


so now he's changing his story? How unscientific of him.

As for the others, one at a time, please. All those that debunked this great book have an agenda that is not unlike Mr. Schneider's.

He didn't change his story, others changed it for him. All those that debunked this pile of crap don't have blinders on and get information from sources other than the Economist.

no one changed anything. The man said what he said. Now he's backtracking because his modus operandi has been exposed. He's a fool to say the least. I, for one, support what Lomborg and the Economist are saying. It makes a lot of sense. Damn the tree huggers and damn those that cry wolf. If anyone needs to be more informed about the environment, I would recommend this book.
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
1
76
Originally posted by: LocutusX

What do I gleam from that? Well, WashPost is sort of admitting that they may have made a mistake praising the book before. Also, we see that Cornell and Harvard, neither of which are known for being "leftist" are out in force against this guy as well.


Well put.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
The Economist much like the WSJ is an excellent source of information . . . in every section except the OpEd. As the name implies, you get opinion and editorial NOT an unbiased assessment of available information.
 

Lucky

Lifer
Nov 26, 2000
13,126
1
0
Originally posted by: busmaster11
This thread's going to die because conservatives are avoiding it like the plague. There's actual cited scientific evidence here.

this is done by every president, i expect it, and don't particularly hold any one party more accountable than the other on this matter. its politics.
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
1
76
Originally posted by: Dari


no one changed anything. The man said what he said. Now he's backtracking because his modus operandi has been exposed. He's a fool to say the least. I, for one, support what Lomborg and the Economist are saying. It makes a lot of sense. Damn the tree huggers and damn those that cry wolf. If anyone needs to be more informed about the environment, I would recommend this book.

Why would you be so anxious to believe this crap when it's been debunked by a wide range of sources? Has anyone from the scientific community actually verified his claims? There certainly are many debunking it.

 

LocutusX

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,061
0
0
That's precisely my point. All I can find is evidence of the scientific community taking a stand against his work; with all those supporting it being capitalists, economists and others with no scientific training. While Dari may be right about the scientists all being in collusion with Greenpeace (!), then it is equally probable that The Economist and other pro-capitalism sites are only supporting Lomborg's work because it helps them advance their position which is not to say that they are all enviro-polluting slugs, merely that they can feel "less concerned" about the state of the environment.

The only claim that Dari seems to be making in supporting Lomborg, in fact, is an ad hominem attack against the scientists that have spoken out against Lomborg.

On the other hand, the snippets of criticism that those scientists have delivered are largely criticizing Lomborg's execution, presentation of facts, research methods, methodology, and so forth - in the sense that they distort the facts, paint an invalid picture, etc.

 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,085
5,618
126
Science is completely concerned(true science) with Method. If the Method is flawed, so is everything else.

Economists are concerned with Money. If the bottom line doesn't compute, something is flawed.

If you want Investment Advice, consult an Economist, not a scientist. If you want to know the state of the Environment, consult a scientist, not an economist. That said, both the fields of Economists and Scientists have specialized segments which perform their tasks in a concentrated manner. Thus, an Economist who specializes in International trade issues, makes a lousy Stock Analyst(unless he/she has some insider info), a Stock Analyst makes a lousy International Trade advisor. A scientist researching the Cure for Cancer, makes a lousy Environment advisor, and scientists concerned with Environmental issues would likely never cure Cancer.

If one is confused by who should be trusted concerning this issue, perhaps that is due to them not wanting to know the Truth, prefering to let their pre-conceived notions dictate their actions?
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Originally posted by: LocutusX
That's precisely my point. All I can find is evidence of the scientific community taking a stand against his work; with all those supporting it being capitalists, economists and others with no scientific training. While Dari may be right about the scientists all being in collusion with Greenpeace (!), then it is equally probable that The Economist and other pro-capitalism sites are only supporting Lomborg's work because it helps them advance their position which is not to say that they are all enviro-polluting slugs, merely that they can feel "less concerned" about the state of the environment.

The only claim that Dari seems to be making in supporting Lomborg, in fact, is an ad hominem attack against the scientists that have spoken out against Lomborg.

On the other hand, the snippets of criticism that those scientists have delivered are largely criticizing Lomborg's execution, presentation of facts, research methods, methodology, and so forth - in the sense that they distort the facts, paint an invalid picture, etc.

as the economist's articles clearly point out, the critics of Lomborg's great piece have an agenda. I'm merely exposing it. The facts still stand as to the health of the environment. People may criticize his presentation of facts, but the facts are still there. If they can't argue the facts, then they need to STFU.
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
1
76
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: LocutusX
That's precisely my point. All I can find is evidence of the scientific community taking a stand against his work; with all those supporting it being capitalists, economists and others with no scientific training. While Dari may be right about the scientists all being in collusion with Greenpeace (!), then it is equally probable that The Economist and other pro-capitalism sites are only supporting Lomborg's work because it helps them advance their position which is not to say that they are all enviro-polluting slugs, merely that they can feel "less concerned" about the state of the environment.

The only claim that Dari seems to be making in supporting Lomborg, in fact, is an ad hominem attack against the scientists that have spoken out against Lomborg.

On the other hand, the snippets of criticism that those scientists have delivered are largely criticizing Lomborg's execution, presentation of facts, research methods, methodology, and so forth - in the sense that they distort the facts, paint an invalid picture, etc.

as the economist's articles clearly point out, the critics of Lomborg's great piece have an agenda. I'm merely exposing it. The facts still stand as to the health of the environment. People may criticize his presentation of facts, but the facts are still there. If they can't argue the facts, then they need to STFU.

They do argue the "facts" quite well. Does anyone from the scientific community actually validate any of his crap? No? Oh yeah, every scientist has an evil agenda.....riiiiight.

 

Insane3D

Elite Member
May 24, 2000
19,446
0
0
This thread reminds me of that saying...

Never argue with an idiot...they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

;)
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Insane3D
This thread reminds me of that saying...

Never argue with an idiot...they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

;)

Well in that case....

...I agree with you Insane3D ;):D

J/K

CkG
 

Insane3D

Elite Member
May 24, 2000
19,446
0
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Insane3D
This thread reminds me of that saying...

Never argue with an idiot...they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

;)

Well in that case....

...I agree with you Insane3D ;):D

J/K

CkG

Doh! :p:D

We should really let this thread get back on a serious note though...we don't want to upset etech with our OT nef style posts.. ;)
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
None of this should surprise anyone considering the administration plays fast and loose with the facts. Along these same lines, there's another interesting article that reveals the Bushies massaging data to show how well their faith-based programs are "succeeding."

Slate.com - Faith-Based Fudging

How a Bush-promoted Christian prison program fakes success by massaging data.
By Mark A.R. Kleiman
Posted Tuesday, August 5, 2003, at 9:35 AM PT

The White House, the Wall Street Journal, and Christian conservatives have been crowing since June over news that President George W. Bush's favorite faith-based initiative is a smashing success.

When he was governor of Texas, Bush invited Charles Colson's Prison Fellowship to start InnerChange Freedom Initiative, a Bible-centered prison-within-a-prison where inmates undergo vigorous evangelizing, prayer sessions, and intensive counseling*. Now comes a study from the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Research on Religion and Urban Civil Society reporting that InnerChange graduates have been rearrested and reimprisoned at dramatically lower rates than a matched control group.

...

But when you look carefully at the Penn study, it's clear that the program didn't work. The InnerChange participants did somewhat worse than the controls: They were slightly more likely to be rearrested and noticeably more likely (24 percent versus 20 percent) to be reimprisoned. If faith is, as Paul told the Hebrews, the evidence of things not seen, then InnerChange is an opportunity to cultivate faith; we certainly haven't seen any results.

So, how did the Penn study get perverted into evidence that InnerChange worked? Through one of the oldest tricks in the book, one almost guaranteed to make a success of any program: counting the winners and ignoring the losers. The technical term for this in statistics is "selection bias"; program managers know it as "creaming." Harvard public policy professor Anne Piehl, who reviewed the study before it was published, calls this instance of it "cooking the books."

...
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Yes, but I don't read your posts that are longer than one line, since you still haven't learned how to manage the quote and preview post buttons after 16366 posts.
------------------------------
Actually the reason you don't read my posts longer than a sentence and spin the cause of on me is because I offend your false sense of superiority and make you feel how bad you feel. Your thoughts and ideas are self generated to inflate your sense of self importance and to allie yourself with some higher ism in which you take personal delight and whose glory you hope rubs off on you. I come along, hold up a mirror, you see the gastly truth, get pissed off and try to hurt my feelings by implying you don't read what I say. You figured you were invisible and I couldn't see right into your soul. Hehe, you may be a one eyed Jack dad, but I seen the other side of your face. Don't build your castle on sand if you don't want it to fall down.

And besides, you really hurt my feelings. :D

No, really moonbeam. Your posts are too hard read, so I don't read them. That simple.

Sorry I hurt your feelings. I didn't mean to. You can tell when I mean to, but I'm sure it doesn't.

So simple that you not only read my post but understood it well enough to comment on it too. I figured when your vanity was at stake suddenly your reading comprehension would takea turn for the better. :D Do you ever think about what you say?