As usual, Bjorn Lomborg has entered another debate in order to bring some facts and sanity to the issue.

This time its the plastic scare... http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-sorry-banning-plastic-bags-wont-save-our-planet/

Some pertinent facts:

* 70% of the plastic in the oceans comes from waste and debris from the fishing industry. (I've seen others say this number is around 50%, showing how nebulous much of this data is). Taking the 70% figure, that means that only 30% of the plastic comes from land activity.

* 5% of that 30% comes from OECD countries ie around 1.5% of the total.

* from that its clear that about 0.1% of the total comes from Australia.

* half of all land-based plastic waste comes from just 4 countries with China contributing 27% of the total.

* Plastic bags make up less that 1% of the total.

* banning plastic shopping bags results in increases in the usage of other bag types which also have environmental impacts.

Still the west acts as though its banning of single use plastic bags and plastic straws will have a material effect on oceanic eco-systems. It won't. Its mere virtue signalling and/or opportunities for our political masters to pretend to be doing something of value.

Want to 'save' the oceans. Go talk to China, Indonesia, Philippines and Vietnam.

But that's too hard. Much easier to do useless things that the uninformed think are virtuous.

to many people make to much out of lies. That is why when men like Bjorn Lomborg come out with facts they are demonised. Look at Peter Ridley pointing out truths about the Great Barrier Reef. Every rent seeker jumped on him. The last couple of generations are among the most immoral ever on this planet hence the need for virtue signalling such as banning straws, plastic bags, banning coal, renewable energy etc etc.

There is a lot of guff about how much plastic "we" throw around, but the truth is that most of the plastic polluting oceans and rivers comes from the African and Asian continents.

mhaze,

What an interesting topic.

I am impressed with Bjorn Lomborg.
He's got a reputation as a "global
warming skeptic." His issue however
is not with the reality of climate change
but rather with the economic and political
approaches being taken (or not taken) to
meet the challenges of that climate change.

I've seen him speak on various TV programs
and he made a lot of sense.

I like his balanced views. He presents both
sides of the argument to any issue but also
looks for solutions. As he points out - yes
plastics do clog drains and cause floods,
litter nature and kill animals and birds. But,
they also make our lives better in a myriad of
ways. As he tells us, plastic packaging has
become useful because it does keep
everything fresher.

He also stresses the importance it plays in
the medical sector which has made syringes, pill
bottles and diagnostic equipment safer.
And that going without disposable plastic entirely
would leave us worse off.

How to tackle the problems we have with plastic
without losing all of its benefits is key.

Here's a few links that may be useful:

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/06/plastic-planet-waste-pollution-trash-crisis/

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/13/the-plastic-backlash-whats-behind-our-sudden-rage-and-will-it-make-a-difference

Dear mhaze,

Up to your usual tricks of completely misrepresenting your own links I see.

Lomborg says quite clearly that we should; "think about actions we can take as consumers in rich countries to reduce our use of unnecessary plastic bags".

Why?

Because; "plastics clog drains and cause floods, litter nature and kill animals and birds."

But he rightly points out we need to think about the other sources of plastics impacting on our oceans.

Single use plastic shopping bags are among the most mobile of our waste products and therefore are particularly important to control.

I know your ideology doesn't permit you to appreciate some of the simple facts Lomborg and others point out but do try a little more.

Such themes, tell us not to take care of the environment are hardly worth the effort
A day will come, be sure of it,when we will not longer be able to destroy waterways and such with plastic
Science, not its opponent, the self interest of owners of pollutants, will win in the end

SR, Foxy,

You surprise me. I thought that you would prefer to burst into flames rather than give Bjorn Lomborg any credit.

What I believe the point that the original somewhat disjointed post was trying to make is that 90% of plastic entering the ocean is from developing countries whose waste collection systems are scanty to non existent.

As an engineer I am a firm advocate of the 80/20 rule and see little point in the vast effort and inconvenience to ban plastic straws in the OECD of which 99.9% would have gone to landfill, when countries such as Indonesia simply dump their plastic waste into the oceans.

Shadow Minister I too was confronted by Foxy's support for that man but it is her right
We need to hear both sides
Sold as a new invention in this weeks press was the idea of a huge net like thing tied over storm water drains
A bloke not far from here would love to see them installed here
My village has become the stop for a feed place, 4 nearly 5 fast food places in 5 years have woken the place up
And our average car driver dumps the packages out within meters of buying the food
That bloke has plastic spread over hundreds of meters of his paddock
My yard has to be leaned weekly, even with fencing
That net idea has been used here and in other countries and one day will be law as more and more contemplate sueing roads authorities

whats the latest decapitive figure for birds by wind farms?

SM,

My views are not set in concrete contrary to
what some would think. I was inclined towards
Bjorn Lomborg sometime ago - especially when
his stance changed with more emphasis on
looking at the bigger picture and into
more than just one solution. Also he's very
much into research and development which I
think is good.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Bjorn Lomborg is self serving, making quite good money from his contrary views, but not incapable of putting together a coherent argument. He has been caught out too many times to ever strictly take him on face value but that doesn't mean I never read his stuff.

However on this occasion his article was misrepresented by mhaze and I sought to call it out.

Only ideologues completely disavow every utterance from an individual

Runners post is a thing worth looking at and thinking about
Because it represents the very many who look at any problem in the environment, as a bit of a joke and fraudulent
Others, unprepared to ignore our filthy habits, know we have many problems
And a world take over by the UN using such as climate change as a reason is not one of them
Until we take concerns like this out of the political weapon toolbag, we are doomed to continue to fail future generations
My neighbors paddock, looking like snow from a distance, is a flea on a very dirty dogs back
And we must address the very real problem

"I am impressed with Bjorn Lomborg."

He's an impressive character. Someone who is able to approach a problem without preconceived notions, gather the facts and reach a reasoned solution or understanding.

He rose to fame with the release of his book "Skeptical Environmentalist". It remains one of my favourites and is the go-to reference for many of the statistics I use. Even if its data is out of date, the footnotes show where he got his original data and therefore where to go to get more up-to-date data.
The book started out as a research efforts to prove conservatives wrong. In particular he wanted to show that Julian Simon, who was saying things like the environment was improving and resources weren't running out, was wrong. Instead he found that, in the main, Simon was right. So he published. But publishing the unwanted truth is never a good idea in leftist circles. Lomborg has been attacked ever since.

Foxy is right that Lomborg isn't a climate sceptic - at least not in the way its meant these days. One quote..."Global warming is real – it is man-made and it is an important problem. But it is not the end of the world."

Generally I've found that when he make a statistical claim you can take it to the bank, although, being human, I'm sure he's made some errors. I've just not seen them.

But it seems Lomborg is "self serving" for some unexplained reasons. That just sounds like something you'd claim when you don't want the offered facts to be true but can't work out how to refute them.

Then again, this assertion came from SR, so its probably prudent to ignore it. After all this is the bozo who thought that an article headed "Sorry, banning plastic bags won’t save our planet" was about getting plastic bags out of local drains....SR being SR.

Dear mhaze,

Lol.

Can't help yourself can you. Okay here we go.

You wrote;

“Generally I've found that when he make a statistical claim you can take it to the bank, although, being human, I'm sure he's made some errors. I've just not seen them.”

Lomborg was asked if he wanted his book reviewed by a body under Denmark's Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MSTI) as an opinion piece or as scientific literature. He chose the later.

They found “the book to be scientifically dishonest through misrepresentation of scientific facts, but Lomborg himself not guilty due to his lack of expertise in the fields in question.”

That is one of the reasons why I don't take him completely on face value. Do you have contrary evidence to show that I should?

You write;

“After all this is the bozo who thought that an article headed "Sorry, banning plastic bags won’t save our planet" was about getting plastic bags out of local drains....SR being SR.”

Bjorn Lomborg writes;”plastics clog drains and cause floods, litter nature and kill animals and birds." BL being BL? Is he another bozo or are you going to keep being hypocritical.

runner,

You will be interested to know that birds have started a fire in a solar plant in California, reducing the output from 250MW to 40MW. Not hideous windmills, but some revenge for their bird brethren taken out by unreliables. The reporter wonders what would happen it birds had been able to knock out coal-powered plants in the past, before the unreliables mania. It's going to cost $8 million to repair the damage. The extra risk that comes from extra complexity and unnecessary interference with reliable power production was noted. Taxpayers had $1.6 billion ripped off them to enable this unreliable monstrosity

No matter how many dollars the anti climate change/environmental concerns are wrong lobby, throw at it, the world is well on the way to changes
Renewable energy is uninterested in its opponents and is [purely based on the economics] on the way to supplying all the power we need
And too most of us want to clean up the planet we are destroying

"They found “the book to be scientifically dishonest through misrepresentation of scientific facts..."

Well in fact 'they' didn't. It wasn't MSTI but DCSD( Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty) who made that finding.

Thereafter MSTI looked into the DCSD's findings and found that they were highly suspect to the point that they regarded DCSD's findings as invalid. Basically they found that the DCSD had skewed the terms of its investigation so as to achieve a preconceived result. (I know someone else who does that!!).

MSTI encouraged DCSD to redo their investigation using better methodology. DCSD didn't do that because such an investigation would show their prejudice.

I agree that many people dislike Lomborg's finding because they challenged many careers and funding sources. So they tried to shout him down. They even tried to pressure the publisher into not publishing because book burning is so 20th century.

What they didn't do was find any errors in his data. Does that sound like anyone else we know?

I'd be fascinated to know if you found out that that the original finding against Lomborg was overturned. Did you know and decide to just hide that fact? Or did you not know because you didn't look any further after you found something (anything)that supported your moronic original claims? Either way, it tells us all we need to know about SR.

"”plastics clog drains..."

Yes Lomborg looks at the issue from all sides as is his wont. Its why he is so valuable to read. But if you think the article was primarily about drains then you have utterly misunderstood it. Perhaps that explains how you misunderstand so much.

SR,

Much of Bjorn's work has been involved with setting up committees to review these issues and prioritize them. That these committees have involved several Nobel prize winning economists. The ruling you mentioned was brought about by environmental activists and was overturned on appeal due to the inability of the society to actually point out these misrepresentations.

"In 2011, and 2012, Lomborg was named a Top 100 Global Thinker by Foreign Policy "for looking more right than ever on the politics of climate change".

The politics of climate change
Are we to believe those naming this man are not biased too
Is Anyone with any view not biased
Politics should have no role in the debate , but sadly it drives the debate, well aware of those who think it is a fraud
But just as aware time indeed marches on and in time it will be impossible to deny man made climate change is real

Belly,

If you read any of Bjorn Lomborg's work, you will find that Bjorn clearly supports the premise that the climate is changing due to CO2 emissions. The heresy (according to the greens and climate activists) is that he does not rate it as the single most important issue in the world today.

Dear mhaze,

What a dishonest response.

I clearly stated the review was conducted by “a body under Denmark's Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MSTI)”.

You wrote;

“Thereafter MSTI looked into the DCSD's findings and found that they were highly suspect to the point that they regarded DCSD's findings as invalid. Basically they found that the DCSD had skewed the terms of its investigation so as to achieve a preconceived result. (I know someone else who does that!!).”

No they did not. They found there were procedural errors.

Quote from Wikipedia;

On December 17, 2003, the Ministry found that the DCSD had made a number of procedural errors, including:
Not using a precise standard for deciding "good scientific practice" in the social sciences;
Defining "objective scientific dishonesty" in a way unclear in determining whether "distortion of statistical data" had to be deliberate or not;
Not properly documenting that The Skeptical Environmentalist was a scientific publication on which they had the right to intervene in the first place;
Not providing specific statements on actual errors.

End quote.

The results of the original investigation was as follows;

The DCSD cited The Skeptical Environmentalist for:
Fabrication of data;
Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation);
Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods;
Distorted interpretation of conclusions;
Plagiarism;
Deliberate misinterpretation of others' results.

Some of these were challenged on procedural grounds but none were found to have been in substantive error. As a result the DCSD said even if the procedural matters were cleared up their determination would still stand so declined to redo the investigation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skeptical_Environmentalist#DCSD_investigation

So not one of the charges against Lomborg has been shown to be demonstrably incorrect and it is perfectly reasonable for someone such as myself to take Lomborg with a grain of salt which is what I indicated. I'm sure you think the sun shines out of this bloke's backside but not all of us are so blinded by the light as you are.

To be so utterly uncritical really is moronic don't you think.

Don't you get giddy SR with all that spin?

Do your sheets ended up tied in knots?

Question how many of us think the tobacco industry did not engage in a very dirty very untrue debate to protect tobacco?
Then how many can not see a chance exists the far more wealthy, with more to protect, fossil fuel industry may be running such a campaign
Sadly many here tell us believers are being conned
In truth it may well be them who are in the service of big money big power and bigger lies

Dear Hasbeen,

Spin? Nah old cock just facts. However I know how foreign they would be to a ON supporter and a climate denier so I understand why you would have trouble recognising them.

SR,

There have been plenty of climate change activists doctoring research to get pre determined results, just look at JCU.

SR quotes extensively from Wikipedia to try to bolster his preconceived bias against Lomborg. He ends one such quote as follows...

"....Not providing specific statements on actual errors.

End quote."

The very next sentence (THE VERY NET SENTENCE) in that Wikipedia article goes on....

"The Ministry remitted the case to the DCSD. In doing so the Ministry indicated that it regarded the DCSD's previous findings of scientific dishonesty in regard to the book as invalid. "

INVALID.

Did SR stop reading the Wikipedia article when he got to the parts he liked or did he read and then try to hide the parts that disproved his contentions and caused his entire argument to collapse? A knave or a fool? Not a palatable choice for poor old SR.

Anyway, the findings by the DCSD against Lomborg weren't retested and therefore the decision that they are invalid remains in place.

Still I've wasted enough time on SR, a dill for the ages.

Here's an interesting take..."The Treasury has been warned that plastic bag bans are contributing to a weaker economy, reportedly prompting shoppers to consume less and delay purchases because they're unable to carry groceries." (http://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6051364599001)

Politicians always fail to remember the law of unintended consequences. They posture about saving the planet with bag bans, straw bans, CO2 taxes etc thinking this posturing is consequence-free. But it always has real world effects and generally adverse effects. Then the pollies are nowhere to be found.

Dear mhaze,

Here I was thinking you were deliberately obfuscating but it turns our you might just be thick.

The word they used was invalid not “INCORRECT” nor “IN ERROR”.

They considered it invalid because of procedural matters not because of error of fact.

Look, it is like when you get booked for speeding but the policeman forgets to put the date on the ticket.

There is no doubt that you were speeding, no doubt the radar was functioning as it should have, but because the proper procedures were not fully carried out to the letter of the law the ticket is ruled by the court to be INVALID.

It would help enormously if you would engage your brain on occasions rather than walk lockstep with your ideology.

SR,

You are crashing and burning on this one. The DCSD got caught doing pretty much what BL had done, and instead of revising their report chose to sulk. If there were just procedural errors it would have been easy to fix.

"You are crashing and burning on this one. "

We all know that...I think he does too. But we are now at the point where SR is making stuff up or twisting facts beyond breaking point in order to salvage what he considers some self-respect.

We always end up here as regards SR. My recent favourite was when he completely mixed up Tim and Peter Costello and then tried to blame someone else for his error.

Just for the sake of it I should point out that the DDCD report was found to be invalid BECAUSE it was incorrect and in error. For example DDCD was castigated for claiming Lomborg made errors and then failing to specify those supposed errors.

The whole point of the DDCD and similar reports was not to prove Lomborg in error but to give some semblance of cover for dills like SR to declare him wrong, not because he is wrong but they just can't bring themselves to accept that he's right.

That's how the whole AGW scare maintains itself.

SR you must be amused by the claims of the science deniers that you have got it wrong
Tomorrow our time 47 degrees in our money is forecast for parts of Europe that just do not see such temperatures

Dear Shadow Minister,

Oh come on mate, name one error of fact made by DSDC.

Compare this to Lomborg who tripped himself up many times. Look he is the one who insisted his book be judged as a scientific work and it fell way short. If he had left it at commentary we would not be having this discussion.

Scientific American is a serious magazine on scientific matters. It did a piece called “Misleading Math about the Earth” in which four scientists critiqued each part of Lomborg's book which dealt with their area. It can be found here;

https://web.ma.utexas.edu/users/davis/375/reading/sciam.pdf

Pretty damning. There are plenty of others.

Lomborg didn't have the confidence to do the reply himself posting: “Naturally, I plan to write a rebuttal to be put on my web-site. However, I would also love your input to the issues — maybe you can contest some of the arguments in the Scientific American, alone or together with other academics. Perhaps you have good ideas to counter a specific argument. Perhaps you know of someone else that might be ideal to talk to or get to write a counter-piece.”

Yup, didn't have the expertise to do a proper rebuttal himself, no wonder he got his pants pulled down.

Dear mhaze,

And here I was think you had committed not to darken the door of this thread again yet here you are. It must be my winning personality.

Now let's see what your whinge is this time.

“Just for the sake of it I should point out that the DDCD report was found to be invalid BECAUSE it was incorrect and in error. For example DDCD was castigated for claiming Lomborg made errors and then failing to specify those supposed errors.”

Wrong. It was found that they did not directly respond to each of the complainant's points, or rather they got pinged for going outside those points in their assessment of the book.

The howls of protest from the right wingers got the teeth pulled on the committee permanently.

“According to the new rules, UVVU can deal only with research carried out by publicly employed scientists - research done e.g. by scientists employed in the pharmaceutical industry is not encompassed. The scientists must have an academic degree. And the number of persons who have the right to complain has become severely restricted; only those whose personal interests are affected may lodge a complaint. In addition the rules have been specified with a statement that the committees cannot decide on what is scientific truth. Most of these changes in the rules are clearly made in order to make a new Lomborg case impossible.”

That will satisfy you, ideology over scientific truth. God this world is going to pot. Just like Trump shutting down climate research and burying reports. You lot don't want scientific fact to get in the way of your ideology do you.

Shame.

sigh,

More utter rubbish from SR. Again he finds something that he thinks helps his cause and again fails to fully understand it. Just blurt it out and hope it stands. He never seems to get around to explaining all his previous errors but just moves onto the next piece of moronosity.

Now, by believing something made up by one of those people who'd been made to look a fool by Lomborg, SR thinks Lomborg was unable to answer the criticisms in Scientific America. That's sort of true.

Scientific America gave massive space for Lomborg's opponents to make their case and then denied him a right of reply fearing that he might tell their readers things they didn't won't them to know. So yes, he was incapable of responding in SA.

So he posted his 32 page response on his own website. Finally SA, under severe criticism for their utterly unconscionable actions, gave him space for a one page rebuttal and then sought to have his fuller website response closed down. Because the best way to achieve a scientific understanding is to utterly censor all alternate views, at least according to the fascists of the left.

Poor poor SR, I now understand that he's incapable of understanding any of this.

Lol.

Dear mhaze,

You are one hell of a deluded fool if you think that what Lomborg put in his book carried greater weight than each of the author's areas of expertise.

They showed the book for what it was, mostly a slanted, light weight tome which Lomborg had no right to pass off as scientific literature. He tried and got found out. Pretty simple.

As to silencing debate Lomborg's team not only argued that an English version of the judgement shouldn't have been produced but insisted it should have remained private for God's sake. That's their version of openness and transparency for you.

Neither you nor SM have illustrated a single error of fact by the committee.

There were three reasons that were cited by Danish Ministry of Research in directing it return to the DCSD.

1. While they were allowed to cite a violition of “good scientific practice” as a premise they were not supposed to cite it in their decision. There was also suppose to be allowance given for the rigour with which 'good scienctific practice' was applied to the 'social sciences' of which Lomborg's book was apparently classed.

2. They were pinged for not properly detailing why they were critical of Lomborg's 'working methods'.

3. Even though Lomborg insisted his book be judged as a scientific work incredibly the committee was told they failed in providing adequate reasoning as to why that was allowed to go ahead.

the more i read of this the more i realise what a tosser lomborg really is.

Which one of the above are an error of fact? How about a proper researched answer since up till now all you have done is spout unsubstantiated rubbish while I seem to do all the heavy lifting.

Whatcha got?

SR,

As you haven't given an example of Lomborg's errors you can hardly ask us to do the same.

The DCSD was pinged for:

1. While they were allowed to cite a violition of “good scientific practice” as a premise they were not supposed to cite it in their decision. There was also suppose to be allowance given for the rigour with which 'good scienctific practice' was applied to the 'social sciences' of which Lomborg's book was apparently classed.

2. They were pinged for not properly detailing why they were critical of Lomborg's 'working methods'.

Translated:

1 - They failed to provide justification of their criticisms which they were obliged to do.

2 - They made no allowances for the format of the book and the language they used in the decision went beyond what was acceptable.

3 - When asked correct their errors they refused probably because they were unable.

All in all, this has all the signs of a politically motivated beat up.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Well it is pretty clear you have neither read the judgement nor the response. Did you at least read the Scientific American piece I posted? http://web.ma.utexas.edu/users/davis/375/reading/sciam.pdf

This was heavily quoted in the DCSD's judgement. In it you will find some of the many errors Lomborg's book contained.

I thought this was telling as well.

“Before providing specifics of why I believe each of these assertions is fatally flawed, I should say something about Lomborg's methods. First, most of his nearly 3,000 citations are to secondary literature and media articles. Moreover, even when cited, the peer-reviewed articles come elliptically from those studies that support his rosy view that only the low end of the uncertainty ranges will be plausible. IPCC authors, in contrast, were subjected to three rounds of review by hundreds of outside experts. They didn't have the luxury of reporting primarily from the part of the community that agrees with their individual views. Second, it is ironic that in a popular book by a statistician one can't find a clear discussion of the distinction among different types of probabilities, such as frequentist and Bayesian (that is, "objective'' and "subjective"). He uses the word "plausible" often, but, curiously for a statistician, he never attaches any probability to what is "plausible." “

Cont..

Cont..

So we get to the procedural error of judging the book as a piece of scientific literature (as Lomborg requested) or whether it should have been acknowledged for what it was, a product of the 'soft sciences' not the 'hard'.

The working group could not return a consensus option on this.

Quote;

6. The Working Party's recommendation to DCSD

Against the backdrop of their review of the material, the Working Party has discussed the question on which DCSD had directed it to take up a position:

“Can a book of this nature warrant an evaluation of scientific dishonesty on the basis of the standards otherwise applied to scientific works?”

No consensus on the Working Party was forthcoming in its reply to this question, as some members of the Working Party argued that the book is not science/research but in its manifest onesidedness gives the appearance of a topical debate-generating book, while other members of the Working Party argued that the book has been presented and, in wide circles including the scientific community, perceived as research/science and must therefore be assessed in accordance with scientific standards, i.e. be examined on its individual merits in accordance with the Executive Order on the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty.

End quote.

In reality you seem to be supportive of the members who “argued that the book is not science/research but in its manifest onesidedness gives the appearance of a topical debate-generating book” since you wanted it to be judged with far less rigour.

You are right.

And still not a single error found in either the original post or any thing else from Lomborg. Much like all the other criticisms of him like DDCD and Scientific America. Just complaints that he's using data that others would prefer to keep hidden because it refutes the narrative.

So SR is in good company

more on the same theme....

http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20180626000809&utm_source=CapX+briefing&utm_campaign=79ae58d44d-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_07_17_COPY_02&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b5017135a0-79ae58d44d-241797377&fbclid=IwAR23TcSwrAUYaHA_zmGHvBmhsJ3bbsBEpNpnjhNqVqIyDGvBDX5VbAeXzOo

Dear SM and mhaze,

We might as well start listing Lomborg's errors. How about some examples from the first few chapters courtesy of Kare Fog.

Preface "I´m an old left-wing Greenpeace member". Error: Lomborg has - allegedly - paid contributions to Greenpeace, but he has never been a member of Greenpeace, and he has never worked actively in the organization. It is correct, however, that before 1997 he had been concerned about environmental questions. 

Chapter 1
"In all, Indonesia`s forest fires affected approximately 1 percent of the nation´s forests." Error: According to an authoritative report by Goldammer & Hoffmann (see comments to chapter 10, p. 116), the affected forest area made out 4-5 % of the nation´s forests. In the region that was hardest hit, 25 % of the forest area burned.

Chapter 2
"Ten years later all fears had evaporated - acid rain only damages trees under very rare conditions." Error: This is simply wrong, as explained in the comments to chapter 16. The theories on forest death that originated in the early 1980s have by and large been substantiated, and the negative trend for the condition of the forests has continued, especially in Germany. So, this is an example that things actually continue in a negative direction, but we do not hear about it, because it is no news anymore. Lomborg thinks that this example supports his point, but actually, it shows just the opposite.

Chapter 3
"In more densely populated areas, the most serious infectious diseases . . become less of a problem the closer the buildings are together." Error: This is completely contrary to Wright (1997), which Lomborg has read, in which it is stated that: " . . the urban poor are especially vulnerable to epidemics of water-related and vector-borne diseases." Thus, Lomborg makes a statement to which he has no reference, and at the same time he omits a reference, which he has read, to the opposite statement. This is a case of either gross negligence or deliberate misleading.

Plenty more to list but it's a start.

SR,

In the link to the Scientific American article that rubbished BL's work, a couple of things stand out:

1- The accusations point to BL's "inaccuracies" but with very little detail or any evidence trail.

2- The complainants were both deeply invested in the climate change which irrespective of their accreditation makes them far from unbiased.

If this article was the foundation of the negative finding, then the finding was deeply flawed.

I don't intend to follow SR down all the rabbit holes re Lomborg.

But SR's penchant for running to Google asking it to help him find a way to get out of the hole he's dug for himself isn't really a search of the truth, n'est pas?

The problem is that these opponents of Lomborg that SR keeps relying on don't find errors, they find scientific disagreement. If someone looked out of their window last week they could have easily claimed that the sky is grey. Looking today someone else could say its blue. But to then say the first is in error is basically what SR and his links do.

Two examples....
1. Greenpeace. In days of yore, Greenpeace used to assert that all who worked for or donated to it were members. Thus they could claim to have millions of 'members' one of whom was Lomborg. But in fact Greenpeace was/is a highly autocratic group with one a dozen or so members millions of minions. After some court cases, Greenpeace was required to come clean.

When Lomborg said he was a member, that is indeed what Greenpeace was telling all its financial supporters. So no error.

2. Acid rain. Many continue to claim that acid rain is real. Again careers and money are involved. But...."The 1990 NAPAP (The National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program) report, titled “Acidic Deposition: State of Science and Technology,” concluded that acidic deposition has not been shown to be a significant factor contributing to current forest health problems in North America, with the possible exception of the high-elevation red spruce in the northern Appalachian Mountains. Another study found that damage to Appalachian red spruce forests was caused by the conifer swift moth, not acid rain.

To be sure, other data says other things. But what these critics of Lomborg do is assert that he should only use the data they like and therefore he's wrong. Its the opposite of science just as what SR does is the opposite of research.

Okay you two, I furnished some examples of rrors in Lomborg's book which you had been calling for. You are obviously entitled to make of them what you will but I think it is time for something in return.

I will remind you of the working party's deliberations about whether the book should be judged, as requested by Lomborg, as a scientific work or rather as a debate-generating book without the rigour required of a scientific work.

“No consensus on the Working Party was forthcoming in its reply to this question, as some members of the Working Party argued that the book is not science/research but in its manifest onesidedness gives the appearance of a topical debate-generating book, while other members of the Working Party argued that the book has been presented and, in wide circles including the scientific community, perceived as research/science and must therefore be assessed in accordance with scientific standards, i.e. be examined on its individual merits in accordance with the Executive Order on the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty."

By acceding to Lomborg's request the committee came afoul of the reviewing panel because they didn't fully articulate whether this was appropriate and was one of the three procedural reasons for their assessment being judged invalid.

Do you two think it was appropriate for the committee to review the book as a scientific work or not?

yes

SR,

Actually, you have provided examples of accusations against BL not actual examples of errors.

Given that BL's work was controversial I'm sure that there are many accusations. The DCSD failed to substantiate their judgement and got justifiably canned, and then was unable to redo their report with the actual justifications.

Dear mhaze,

The “members of the Working Party argued that the book has been presented and, in wide circles including the scientific community, perceived as research/science and must therefore be assessed in accordance with scientific standards.” and you appear to agree with them.

But the review committee said this was an inadequate reason for permitting the book to be judged in this way thus found the DSCD's findings to be invalid. What who you have put forward to strengthen their case?

Dear Shadow Minister,

“In all, Indonesia`s forest fires affected approximately 1 percent of the nation´s forests." Error: According to an authoritative report by Goldammer & Hoffmann (see comments to chapter 10, p. 116), the affected forest area made out 4-5 % of the nation´s forests. In the region that was hardest hit, 25 % of the forest area burned.”

Why isn't this an error? Or do you class it as a permitted embellishment?

SR,

With all due respect, any book published for public consumption is not formatted in the same way as a scientific research paper, and the working committee while openly acknowledging this criticises the book for citing non scientific works and media etc.

Similarly comparing claims in the book against other studies is largely puerile unless one digs further into the detail. Your quote with regards the fires in Indonesia is a prime example. BL claims that the fire affected 1% of the forest in the country, a research paper claimed it was 4-5%.

Before claiming BL was dishonest one needs to consider:
- Was the report quoted the only report on the subject?
- Was the definition of "affected" the same for each as this could range from completed destruction to being part of an area that was partially burnt.

Given that the working party's entire report was thrown out due to the committee breaking its own rules, the entire exercise stinks of a nit-picking witch hunt rather than any attempt at a reasonable assessment.

Shadow Minister,

The fires occurred in 1997. The book was published in 1998. The initial reports on the fire were that it wasn't especially big. Lomborg was writing from those initial reports. Later reports said the fires were bigger than originally estimated. (Remember that several parties, including the Indonesian government, were anxious to make the fires seem as bad as possible for economic and political reasons).

Had Lomborg been writing a year or two later he might have reached different conclusions. But his views were based on the then available data. But some were anxious to find error, real or fabricated. And desperate men take desperate measures.

Oh, and can I mention that no one has found errors with the data on plastics which was the purpose of this thread. SR, unable to research for himself, will just have to wait for some other activist to tell him what to think.