Hello IanC

Your emotive response to my previous post is noted, though the response is on the wrong thread.

I have researched a little more on Bjorn Lomborg and I have found nothing to alter my opinion.

In fact I've now concluded that many of his environmental claims are a massive load of codswallop.

As a result, I'm sure we can agree to disagree.

1. http://www.grist.org/advice/books/2001/12/12/specious/

2. "[Lomborg] has needlessly muddled public understanding
and wasted immense amounts of the time of capable people
who have had to take on the task of rebutting him.

"And he has done so at the particular intersection of science
with public policy – environment and the human condition
– where public and policy-maker confusion about
the realities is more dangerous for the future of society
than on any other science-and-policy question excepting,
possibly, the dangers from weapons of mass destruction."

(John P. Holdren is Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy and Director of the Program on Science, Technology, and Public Policy at the Kennedy School, as well as Professor of Environmental Science and Public Policy in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University. He is also the Director of the Woods Hole Research Center and from 2005 to 2008 served as President-Elect, President, and Chair of the Board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.)

3. "Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty.

"In view of the subjective requirements made in terms of intent or gross negligence, however, Bjørn Lomborg’s publication cannot fall within the bounds of this characterization.

"Conversely, the publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice."

(Danish Research Agency
The Danish Committees on
Scientific Dishonesty
For and on behalf of the Committees
Hans Henrik Brydensholt)

4. http://legalminds.lp.findlaw.com/list/ecol-econ/msg03559.html

Cheerio

Q&A,
I do not consider you the facilitator of this discussion.
I do not think that you, especially as an anonymous poster, have special entitlement to a response from anybody, let alone someone with IanC's reputation.
I am troubled by your fluctuation between insulting condescension and fawning flattery.

Hilarious to read dickie comment on the emotiveness of a response (not apparent to me), as I consider mindless emotive rants his trademark.

Sorry IanC,

"... that dissenting from ANY aspect of the wide-ranging orthodoxy can result in the ‘culprit’ being branded ‘a dangerous sceptic.’"

... was you paraphrasing the authors' point and wasn't necessarily agreement with the use of such opinion loaded terminology. Apologies.

Still, I don't have any problem branding the authors dangerous "denialists" for an article that suggests strong criticism of denialist policies of inaction and of delaying and opposing action on climate change is irrational.

Dickie,

You conclude from your research that many of Lomborg’s claims are ‘a massive load of codswallop.’ But did he make them? For example, where did Lomborg say that ‘the Amazon forest still retains more than 80% of its cover in 1978’. On the strength of your claim that he’d said this, you sarcastically remarked ‘1978? Who could trust this man with the task of forward planning?’ A page reference please, or a withdrawal.

You quote from the findings of the Danish Inquisition (masquerading as a Committee on Scientific Dishonesty). Did your source disclose that 286 Danish research scientists wrote a letter of protest about that shameful investigation (Politiken, 18 January 2003)? Or that the subsequent review by the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation found that the judgment against Lomborg was ‘completely void of argumentation’ for the claims of dishonesty and lack of good scientific practice? And characterised the Committee’s treatment of the case as ‘unsatisfactory’, ‘deserving criticism’ and ‘emotional’?

John Holdren’s stuff seems third-rate to me – his only talent is in kicking heads. He was one of the ‘hit men’ that Scientific American enlisted for its notorious ‘Science hits back’ collection, when they smeared Lomborg in their columns, denied him the right of reply and then forced Lomborg to withdraw the reply that he’d published on his own website by threatening legal action for breach of their copyright.

Holdren forecast in 1969 (in co-authorship with Paul Ehrlich) that United States life expectancy would drop to 42 by 1980 because of pesticides, and that by 1999 the US population would be 22.6 million (it turned out to be 272 million: who’d entrust this man with the task of forward planning?). For further examples of Holdren’s forecasting track record, see my posts #89 and #105 at http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3434 .

Holdren was probably one of the 12 tenured professors who falsely claimed that Lomborg’s book had not been peer-reviewed, tried to force Cambridge University Press to withdraw it, and persisted with their charge even when it was denied by the chief executive of CUP. Do you defend these actions?

fungochumley

If my comments seem provocative to you (or IanC), so be it.

A guiding strength of OLO is in its upholding the principles and guiding tenets of free speech. Whether a contributor’s “name/tag” is ‘Joe the Plumber’ or ‘Mr President’ should not matter – what is said is what matters. Ergo, playing the ball and not the man.

You seem intent on the latter – in this thread and others that you have posted to.

Of course, ‘freedom of speech’ does not mean the right to say anything that incites violence (although you show clear tendencies to want to grasp my jugular and squeeze – very hard) but I am sure Ian can well look after himself.

If you (or Ian) do not want to engage in meaningful discussion, well – that is your (and his) prerogative. If that is the tact you are taking, then I see it as typical obfuscation – a strategy well played by the ‘deny-n-delay’ crowd - of which I think IanC is a very good ambassador.

I also believe that the right to free speech does not confer the right to defame, slander or libel any contributor to an online forum like OLO. I don’t think I have done this (although you may think otherwise) and if I have – then please, bring it to Graham Young’s attention.

Now, it’s patently evident that you don’t like what I say. However, I have a right to say what I think and a right to challenge the comments of anyone else that contributes to the discourse – you included.

Your comments on this thread (and others) don’t contribute in any meaningful way, so ... what exactly is your point (if any)?

Ken Fabos,

Thank you. My objection to ‘denialist’ arises in part from the connotations that it evokes, but in greater measure because it begs the whole question of what is being denied. In his written submission to the HoL Committee, Richard Lindzen said that there had probably been about 0.6 degrees C global mean warming over the past century, that CO2 was a greenhouse gas and should contribute to warming, that CO2 was increasing and that there is good evidence that man has been responsible for its recent increase. If Lindzen is labelled a denialist, as he often has been, what are those who deny one or more of these propositions to be called?

In ‘Death rattles of the climate change skeptics’, Clive Hamilton said that I was ‘associated with’ the denialists of the Lavoisier Group and that I was one of Australia’s leading climate change sceptics. He’s also said, before severing relations with OLO, that those who called themselves sceptics were actually denialists.

During the past seven years I’ve made presentations or been a panelist at workshops, expert meetings, conferences, soirees or seminars convened by the Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, the IPCC, the IPA, the Australian Academy of Science and the Garnaut Climate Change Review (No, not at the Lavoisier Group, as it happens). I’ve had co-authored articles published in World Economics (3) and Energy & Environment (2), four sole-authored articles published in OLO and a publicly-available submission to the House of Lords Inquiry. And I’ve made countless postings to blogs in Australia, the US and Canada.

All of this material is readily available for Clive Hamilton’s expert scrutiny and criticism, yet Clive chooses not to engage with me and to criticise Don Aitkin for having done so. And Q&A says he/she has ‘issues’ when he/she reads Clive’s piece: I gather these are issues about me, not about Clive. He/she now accuses me of ‘typical obfuscation’ and being of the ‘deny-n-delay’ crowd. How about you telling me where I’m wrong, Q&A, instead of firing off questions and criticising my replies?