I assume good faith on the part of Bjorn Lomborg. I also assume good faith on the part of the parent. I am trying to point out that well informed, well intent

I assume good faith on the part of Bjorn Lomborg. I also assume good faith on the part of the parent. I am trying to point out that well informed, well intentioned people can disagree without being intellectually dishonest. Also Occam's razor really doesn't apply: a) Bjorn Lomborg makes arguments in good faith and the parent is wrong b) Bjorn Lomborg makes arguments in bad faith and the parent is right To my eye, a & b are equivalently parsimonious in their assumptions.