3 ms·

"In The Skeptical Environmentalist Bjørn Lomborg challenges widely held beliefs that the global environment is progressively getting worse." Yes, but that refe

by zeteo 16y ago

"In The Skeptical Environmentalist Bjørn Lomborg challenges widely held beliefs that the global environment is progressively getting worse." Yes, but that refers to deforestation, pollution and loss of biodiversity, not global warming. I haven't read the book myself (much less beaten anyone over the head with it), but I trust Wikipedia when it says that "Lomborg 'accepts the reality of man-made global warming' though he refers to a number of uncertainties in the computer simulations of global warming and some aspects of data collection".

anigbrowl 16y ago
Well, see for yourself - you can read most of it at http://books.google.com/books?id=JuLko8USApwC&dq=skeptical+environmentalist&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=1geCTIXLNYmasAOl25n3Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CE8Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=JuLko8USApwC&dq=skeptic... He does indeed open the chapter with the statement you quote and then goes on to spend the next 60 pages disputing the predictability, degree, significance, cost or negative outcomes of climate change. To me that seems like no more than lip service, especially given that he misused a lot of data in making his argument; ad the argument follows a well-worn pattern that sounds very much like every other challenge to the concept. I don't actually have my hair on fire about global warming (ie I think it's a serious problem but one that is solvable with a mix of thrift and technology), and I think the IPCC badly needs to overhaul its process and be more transparent about its methods. However, I feel that a majority of the skeptical arguments are rhetorical rather than substantive, and that no amount of evidence will ever be enough. Strangely, many of the same skeptics who question the predictive power of science in this area and ridiculed believers in climate change as apocalyptic Chicken Littles see no irony in pronouncing the inevitability of economic doom that will result from envirocentric policymaking. Lomborg is exceptional in that he's revised his views as more data has become available, but many have not; if anything, they've become more partisan about it. Those folk seem far more certain of their economic opinions than any climate scientist has ever been about temperatures.

by zeteo 16y ago

anigbrowl 16y ago

Well, see for yourself - you can read most of it at http://books.google.com/books?id=JuLko8USApwC&dq=skeptical+environmentalist&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=1geCTIXLNYmasAOl25n3Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CE8Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=JuLko8USApwC&dq=skeptic... He does indeed open the chapter with the statement you quote and then goes on to spend the next 60 pages disputing the predictability, degree, significance, cost or negative outcomes of climate change. To me that seems like no more than lip service, especially given that he misused a lot of data in making his argument; ad the argument follows a well-worn pattern that sounds very much like every other challenge to the concept. I don't actually have my hair on fire about global warming (ie I think it's a serious problem but one that is solvable with a mix of thrift and technology), and I think the IPCC badly needs to overhaul its process and be more transparent about its methods. However, I feel that a majority of the skeptical arguments are rhetorical rather than substantive, and that no amount of evidence will ever be enough. Strangely, many of the same skeptics who question the predictive power of science in this area and ridiculed believers in climate change as apocalyptic Chicken Littles see no irony in pronouncing the inevitability of economic doom that will result from envirocentric policymaking. Lomborg is exceptional in that he's revised his views as more data has become available, but many have not; if anything, they've become more partisan about it. Those folk seem far more certain of their economic opinions than any climate scientist has ever been about temperatures.