PDA

View Full Version : Even more infidels exposed!



LWW
01-03-2011, 11:16 AM
A bit long, but a good read.

Goremons ... be prepared to gouge your own eyes out if you read any further.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The sky is not falling, the earth is improving, and we are not all going to die as a result of any environmental disaster, according to scholars who set out to prove exactly the opposite.

"In 1997, a young Danish statistician named Bjorn Lomborg read an interview with Julian Simon, an American economist who argued that much of our knowledge about the environment was based on preconceptions and poor statistics," wrote sociologist the Rev. Andrew Greeley in the Chicago Sun-Times. "According to Simon the doomsday conventional wisdom about the environment was wrong."

Simon's claims stuck Lomberg as wrongheaded and false.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>A leftist, vegetarian environmentalist and a onetime Greenpeace member, Lomberg was determined to prove that Simon was dead wrong. Putting together a team of the best statistical students at his university, he launched a massive study designed to disprove Simon's claims and was amazed after intensive research to discover that he was, for the most part, right on.</span>

In a new 500-page book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist," boasting 70 pages of bibliography and nearly 3,000 notes, Lomberg and his team "trashes the conventional wisdom," Greeley wrote.

The author attacks what he calls the "Litany" - the bible of the environmentalists, which counts off their worries, none of which he declares are true:

The world is running out of resources.

Air and water are getting dirtier and dirtier.

The population of the world is ballooning out of control, and we will eventually run out of food as a result.

Forty thousand species are following the dinosaurs into extinction every year.

Pesticide use has set off an epidemic of cancer.

Forests and arable land are vanishing. Topsoil is eroding.

The world is quickly running out of water.

The supply of fish is vastly diminishing.

Acid rain is ravaging the world's forests.

The world's ecosystem is collapsing.

Earth is approaching the limits of viability, and "global warming" is an enormous threat unless we radically alter our way of life.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>In his meticulously researched study, Lomberg demolishes each of these fables that constitute the environmentalist's articles of faith, showing that every one of these claims is refuted by the evidence.</span>

"Global warming," Lomberg insists, is anything but a serious problem but one, if it exists, that is entirely manageable. He explains that the Kyoto Protocol so cherished by the environmentalists would at best delay any alleged warming by at the most six years.

Mankind, he adds, faces far more serious problems and the $150 billion-a-year cost of implementing Kyoto could be better spent addressing them. Just half of that amount a year, for example, would give the peoples of the Third World access to the basics of living - education, health, clean water and sanitation.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>"The Kyoto agreement," Greeley wrote, "is, in fact, a sop to the environmentalist movement that will lessen the sense of doom of environmentalists (like Al Gore), but it will not prevent a single death in Africa that could be prevented by pure water and improved sanitation."</span>

In concluding his book, Lomborg cites Simon's quotes approvingly: <span style='font-size: 11pt'>"The material conditions of life will continue to get better for most people, in most countries, most of the time, indefinitely. Within a century or two, all nations and most humanity will be at or above today's Western living standards. ... </span><span style='font-size: 14pt'>However, many people will continue to think and to say that the conditions of life are getting worse."</span>

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>"Simon was the hero of the environmental controversy, while false prophets such as Paul Erlich and Lester Brown have sold the media and the public on predictions about the decline of the health of the world that time and time again have proved false,"</span> Greeley charged. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>"They have helped create a new religion whose devotees are compelled to accept false prophecy as unquestionable truth."</span> </div></div>


<span style='font-size: 17pt'>THEY (http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/10/150657.shtml) HAVE OFFENDED GAIA'S ONE TRUE PROPHET, SAINT ALBERT OF GREEN ACRES ... PEACE PRIZE BE UPON HIM ... AND MUST BE DESTROYED!!!!</span>

LWW

pooltchr
01-03-2011, 05:44 PM
But if there really isn't a global warming problem, then we wouldn't need crap and trade!

If, as the left loves to say, Bush lied us into war, I think they should also be ready to admit that Obama is lying us into bankruptcy!

Steve

cushioncrawler
01-03-2011, 09:17 PM
Wiki
.......Accusations of scientific dishonestyAfter the publication of The Skeptical Environmentalist, Lomborg was accused of scientific dishonesty. Several environmental scientists brought a total of three complaints against Lomborg to the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD), a body under Denmark's Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. The charges claimed that The Skeptical Environmentalist contained deliberately misleading data and flawed conclusions. Due to the similarity of the complaints, the DCSD decided to proceed on the three cases under one investigation.

[edit] DCSD investigationOn January 6, 2003, the DCSD reached a decision on the complaints. The ruling was a mixed message, deciding the book to be scientifically dishonest, but Lomborg himself not guilty because of lack of expertise in the fields in question:[20]

"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, 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."
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......

cushioncrawler
01-03-2011, 09:22 PM
He dont know anything about prosperity.
He knows little about cost -- and allmost zero about benefit.
And he knows little about humans.
And humans iz the problem.
mac.

..................The Litany and Lomborg's findings"The Litany" comprises very diverse areas where, Lomborg claims, overly pessimistic claims are made and as a result bad policies are implemented. He cites accepted mainstream sources, like the U.S. government, UN agencies and the like. His preference is for global long-term data, as opposed to regional and short-term.

The book is arranged around four major themes:

Human prosperity from an economic and demographic point of view
Human prosperity from an ecological point of view
Pollution as a threat to human prosperity
Future threats to human prosperity

Qtec
01-04-2011, 01:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">but Lomborg himself not guilty because of <span style='font-size: 20pt'>lack of expertise in the fields in question:</span> </div></div>

Ha ha ha .....Love it. LMFAO.

He was not guilty because he hasn't a clue what he is talking about.

Anothet great source from LWW.

Q....LOL

Q

LWW
01-04-2011, 03:28 AM
It never ceases to amaze me how gullible you are.

Why don't you ask why the link posted was cut short.

If it hadn't been ... you would have read this, and probably gouged your eyes out:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The original DCSD decision about Lomborg provoked a petition[10] among Danish academics. 308 scientists, many of them from the social sciences, criticised the DCSD's methods in the case and called for the DCSD to be disbanded.[11] The Danish Minister of Science, Technology, and Innovation then asked the Danish Research Agency to form an independent working group to review DCSD practices. </div></div>

and this:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">On February 13, 2003, Lomborg filed a complaint against the DCSD's decision, with the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MSTI), which has oversight over the DCSD. On December 17, 2003, the Ministry annulled the decision made by DCSD. In doing so, MSTI cited several procedural errors, including:

The DCSD did not provide specific statements on actual errors. On this point the MSTI stated "the DCSD has not documented where [Dr. Lomborg] has allegedly been biased in his choice of data and in his argumentation, and ... the ruling is completely void of argumentation for why the DCSD find that the complainants are right in their criticisms of [his] working methods. It is not sufficient that the criticisms of a researcher's working methods exist; the DCSD must consider the criticisms and take a position on whether or not the criticisms are justified, and why."[7]

The DCSD did not use a precise standard for deciding "good scientific practice" in the social sciences;[citation needed]

The DCSD's definition of "objective scientific dishonesty" was not clear about whether "distortion of statistical data" had to be deliberate or not;[citation needed]

The DCSD had not properly documented that The Skeptical Environmentalist was a scientific publication on which they had the right to intervene in the first place;

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>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.</span>[8][9] The Ministry also instructed the DCSD to decide whether to reinvestigate.</div></div>


Proceed.

LWW

Soflasnapper
01-04-2011, 09:09 AM
Famously, there are lies, damned lies, and then statistics. Lomborg hit the trifecta.

He's changed his mind on AGW, by the way. Somewhat famously, a year or two back, Lomborg announced that he now believes there is global warming, that it is anthropogenic, and it should be addressed with a full court press on research into the hundreds of billions of dollars. That's what he said at the time of his famous conversion, and I saw him repeat a few days back on Parker Spitzer.

Still hates the Kyoto Treaty and thinks it's worthless, in the interest of fuller disclosure.

BTW, LWW, there was STILL MORE back at Lomborg in that article after the after you cited.

But basically, right there, in what you cited, is one key. He shouldn't have been held to a scientific publication's standards (his failure to do so was the reason for his censure) because what he wrote wasn't scientific. Statistics, doncha know?

Chopstick
01-04-2011, 09:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
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......
</div></div>

<span style="color: #000099">Hmm. Where have I heard this before? Sounds awful familiar. It's getting to be like a broken record on both sides.</span>

LWW
01-04-2011, 01:46 PM
Not quite:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lomborg denies he has performed a volte face, pointing out that even in his first book he accepted the existence of man-made global warming. "The point I've always been making is it's not the end of the world," he told the Guardian. </div></div>

He has never been a deier that GW exists ... and neither am I.

He has been, as I am, a believer that evil political forces are using scare tactics to gain wealth and power.

OH DEAR! (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/30/bjorn-lomborg-climate-change-u-turn)

LWW

Qtec
01-05-2011, 01:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not quite:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lomborg denies he has performed a volte face, pointing out that even in his first book he accepted the existence of man-made global warming. "The point I've always been making is it's not the end of the world," he told the Guardian. </div></div>

He has never been a deier that GW exists ... and neither am I.

He has been, as I am, a believer that evil political forces are using scare tactics to gain wealth and power.

OH DEAR! (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/30/bjorn-lomborg-climate-change-u-turn)

LWW

</div></div>

Oh really!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In a Guardian interview, he said<span style='font-size: 26pt'> he would finance investment through a tax on carbon emissions </span> </div></div>

At least he got one thing right.

Q.........LOL

Gayle in MD
01-05-2011, 09:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">but Lomborg himself not guilty because of <span style='font-size: 20pt'>lack of expertise in the fields in question:</span> </div></div>

Ha ha ha .....Love it. LMFAO.

He was not guilty because he hasn't a clue what he is talking about.

Anothet great source from LWW.

Q....LOL

Q </div></div>


/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif