4 ms·

It's unfortunate that the book this is based on seems to be so... wrong: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/02/21/book-review-the-lomborg-deception.html http://www.ne

by mrkurt 16y ago

It's unfortunate that the book this is based on seems to be so... wrong: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/02/21/book-review-the-lomborg-deception.html http://www.newsweek.com/2010/02/21/book-review-the-lomborg-d...

brc 16y ago
That is a very week premise, which looks disguised as an attempt to sell one book by criticising another. You could equally apply that much scrutiny to any public profile book or movie (anything by Michael Moore, for instance). I'm sure Lomborg's book contains exaggerations and selective presentation of the truth - after all, it's a popular literature, not a scientific work. But the very same standards applied to other 'popular' works of Global Warming media, like 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' and 'An Inconvenient Truth' have also showed up outright lies, fabrications and distortion of the truth. In other words, it's unlikely that anyone can print or make something in this genre without someone else finding all sorts of facts that are wrong. But the whole thing is down to interpretation. Ultimately we should be judging these books and movies for ourselves, and realising that much of the material contains a kernel of truth, probably much embellished for the narrative.
- ugh 16y ago
  That seems like intellectual laziness.
  - anthonyb 16y ago
    Indeed. While it's true that most things will have errors, it depends on what those errors were, why they were made and who's pointing them out. For example, a lot of climate skeptics like to point out that models are wrong. But they tend to be wrong in both directions (eg. http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Arctic_models_obs.gif http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Arctic_models_obs.gif, where the sea ice loss is far more than worst-case prediction)
- jonhendry 16y ago
  "I'm sure Lomborg's book contains exaggerations and selective presentation of the truth - after all, it's a popular literature, not a scientific work." But that's all he publishes. Because he's not a scientist. You might want to ask yourself why he publishes in such low-end venues, rather than in more rigorous ways.
berntb 16y ago
That article referenced Lomborg's website, so I followed the link. First in the FAQ was the answer to the book -- Bjorn Lomborg has written a detailed response debunking Howard Friel’s claims in "The Lomborg Deception.”. http://www.lomborg.com/faq http://www.lomborg.com/faq Friel has also written a couple of books with Richard A. Falk, a 9/11 conspiracy "truther" etc... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Falk#9.2F11_and_the_Bush_administration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Falk#9.2F11_and_the_... (Sorry for coming in so late that everyone stopped following this.)

by mrkurt 16y ago

brc 16y ago

That is a very week premise, which looks disguised as an attempt to sell one book by criticising another. You could equally apply that much scrutiny to any public profile book or movie (anything by Michael Moore, for instance). I'm sure Lomborg's book contains exaggerations and selective presentation of the truth - after all, it's a popular literature, not a scientific work. But the very same standards applied to other 'popular' works of Global Warming media, like 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' and 'An Inconvenient Truth' have also showed up outright lies, fabrications and distortion of the truth. In other words, it's unlikely that anyone can print or make something in this genre without someone else finding all sorts of facts that are wrong. But the whole thing is down to interpretation. Ultimately we should be judging these books and movies for ourselves, and realising that much of the material contains a kernel of truth, probably much embellished for the narrative.

ugh 16y ago
That seems like intellectual laziness.
- anthonyb 16y ago
  Indeed. While it's true that most things will have errors, it depends on what those errors were, why they were made and who's pointing them out. For example, a lot of climate skeptics like to point out that models are wrong. But they tend to be wrong in both directions (eg. http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Arctic_models_obs.gif http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Arctic_models_obs.gif, where the sea ice loss is far more than worst-case prediction)
jonhendry 16y ago
"I'm sure Lomborg's book contains exaggerations and selective presentation of the truth - after all, it's a popular literature, not a scientific work." But that's all he publishes. Because he's not a scientist. You might want to ask yourself why he publishes in such low-end venues, rather than in more rigorous ways.

berntb 16y ago

That article referenced Lomborg's website, so I followed the link. First in the FAQ was the answer to the book -- Bjorn Lomborg has written a detailed response debunking Howard Friel’s claims in "The Lomborg Deception.”. http://www.lomborg.com/faq http://www.lomborg.com/faq Friel has also written a couple of books with Richard A. Falk, a 9/11 conspiracy "truther" etc... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Falk#9.2F11_and_the_Bush_administration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Falk#9.2F11_and_the_... (Sorry for coming in so late that everyone stopped following this.)