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..