3 ms·

>It's an...opinion piece by a global climate change denier. Where by "denier" you presumably mean "person who thinks there might exist other important issues o

by glenra 14y ago

>It's an...opinion piece by a global climate change denier. Where by "denier" you presumably mean "person who thinks there might exist other important issues of concern in the world besides CO2 levels". Or perhaps you mean "person who believes public policy proposals ought to be able to pass a cost-benefit analysis"? Or do you mean, the sort of person who says stuff like: "Global warming is real and man-made, and it needs an effective response." ( Source: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/28/not_so_hot http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/28/not_so_hot )

dangrossman 14y ago
No, I mean the dictionary definition of the word. He called the greenhouse effect a "myth", and has been thoroughly discredited by the scientific community and respectable publications.
- glenra 14y ago
  > [Lomborgh] called the greenhouse effect a "myth" That claim appears to itself be a "myth" promulgated by people who don't like the guy's political conclusions. The wikipedia page that made this inflammatory claim gave as its only reference a print-only newspaper article, from 1998, in Norwegian. (the ref was: Bjørn Lomborg, 'Det går bedre', newspaper article, Weekendavisen 13 March 1998) So IF that article actually exists AND the claims made about it were valid, the best you'd be able to say is presumably that he said something once, 15 years ago, which when translated to English was taken to mean he suggested the "greenhouse effect" was a "myth". But given how much he's written on the subject in English in articles and reference sources that can actually be checked, the more likely assumption is that there was some amount of exaggeration/mistranslation going on. For instance, he might have been arguing that some claim about the greenhouse effect was "a myth", if that word was even used. Near as I can tell, all the google-able articles point back to that wikipedia page as a source, which - since it's been marked "citation needed" for more than 6 months - I've just fixed.

by glenra 14y ago

dangrossman 14y ago

No, I mean the dictionary definition of the word. He called the greenhouse effect a "myth", and has been thoroughly discredited by the scientific community and respectable publications.

glenra 14y ago
> [Lomborgh] called the greenhouse effect a "myth" That claim appears to itself be a "myth" promulgated by people who don't like the guy's political conclusions. The wikipedia page that made this inflammatory claim gave as its only reference a print-only newspaper article, from 1998, in Norwegian. (the ref was: Bjørn Lomborg, 'Det går bedre', newspaper article, Weekendavisen 13 March 1998) So IF that article actually exists AND the claims made about it were valid, the best you'd be able to say is presumably that he said something once, 15 years ago, which when translated to English was taken to mean he suggested the "greenhouse effect" was a "myth". But given how much he's written on the subject in English in articles and reference sources that can actually be checked, the more likely assumption is that there was some amount of exaggeration/mistranslation going on. For instance, he might have been arguing that some claim about the greenhouse effect was "a myth", if that word was even used. Near as I can tell, all the google-able articles point back to that wikipedia page as a source, which - since it's been marked "citation needed" for more than 6 months - I've just fixed.