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.