3 ms·
WSJ seems to hide what the background of the text author is. (looking up in Wikipedia): "Lomborg's views and work have attracted scrutiny in the scientific com
by acqq 5y ago
WSJ seems to hide what the background of the text author is. (looking up in Wikipedia):
"Lomborg's views and work have attracted scrutiny in the scientific community;[6][7][8] he was formally accused of scientific misconduct over The Skeptical Environmentalist, and the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty concluded in an evaluation of the book that it misrepresented scientific facts.[9]"
"The Lomborg Deception, a 2010 Yale University Press book by Howard Friel, analyzed the ways in which Lomborg has "selectively used (and sometimes distorted) the available evidence",[7] and alleged that the sources Lomborg provided in the footnotes did not support—and, in some cases directly contradicted, Lomborg's assertions in the text of the book.[51]"
- xqcgrek2 5y agoHide? Your post is nothing but an ad hominem.
- acqq 5y agoIt's not. It shows that, at best, the author has a huge bias. It also shows that he was previously actively malicious, doing something that is considered disgraceful among scientist (misinterpreting the facts to "support" his arguments). Given that knowledge, no editor should print an "opinion" of his without the text of the disclaimer bigger than the opinion itself. Anything else is active misinformation.