Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::: I don't need to buy and read his book to be familiar with his arguments. I've read his output, watched him in debate and seen the science-based response. He denies scientific reality (while saying he accepts it) and proposes inaction that will very likely cause mass species extinction and global chaos for humanity. "Lomborg tends to choose one scenario and discuss it, while ignoring other possible scenarios. This works fine if one wants to make a political point, but it is not good science." - http://www.fredbortz.com/review/CoolIt.htm t ] (]) 18:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
::: I don't need to buy and read his book to be familiar with his arguments. I've read his output, watched him in debate and seen the science-based response. He denies scientific reality (while saying he accepts it) and proposes inaction that will very likely cause mass species extinction and global chaos for humanity. "Lomborg tends to choose one scenario and discuss it, while ignoring other possible scenarios. This works fine if one wants to make a political point, but it is not good science." - http://www.fredbortz.com/review/CoolIt.htm t ] (]) 18:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
:::: I readily grant you that it is quite possible for one to gain a grasp of the essentials of an argument, a novel, or most any substantive piece of writing by absorbing synopses provided by intermediaries. Without such dispersal of information, we would be at a loss to grasp much of anything in this increasingly complex world, if for no other reason than available time. Despite this, I have little confidence that most of Lomborg's detractors have a good grasp of his work. I read The Skeptical Environmentalist from cover to cover over the period of several months. I have yet to see any significant discussion of Lomborg which even conveys the essence, let alone the details, of his arguments. And the failures come from both sides of the debate. His arguments are '''distorted''' by those on one side completely deny AGW and '''ignored''' by those who at the other extreme believe ''all'' global warming is exclusively the fault of man. Lomborg does not deny AGW, he explicitly expresses belief in it. His argument is not about the science, it is about ''policy''. And yes, he may very well be supporting policies that history might judge as being the "wrong" policies. But what is "wrong"? Hypothetically speaking, if Policy A will save thousands of species but increase human poverty and disease, and Policy B will improve human living conditions but result in mass extinctions, which is "better"? Believe it or not, this is not a cut-and-dried issue to everybody. Some people will take the mass extinctions, others will take the increased human suffering. But regardless of what you or I favor (and, as for me, I'm not sure where I would stand on such choices, this is not exactly a pleasant topic to consider), we don't have to worry about it here, because Misplaced Pages has an NPOV policy. NPOV allows us, where relevant and appropriate, to indicate that the scientific consensus is solidly supportive that global warming is real and anthropogenic in origin. But ] does not allow us to deride someone for favoring one policy over another, ] does not allow us to include in articles projections that one policy is going to cause global chaos <sup>(not that you said that in the article; I'm just using your talk page comment as an example of something that would be inappropriate to assert in an article),</sup> and ] informs us that the ''way'' in which we present information is sometimes as important as what the information is itself.
:::: MonoApe, your edits have been, for the most part, quite good, a step above most editors I see with your small number of edits. You wield a scalpel skillfully, and for the most part, you have not only kept your POV out of your editing, you have successfully trimmed POV where it already existed. I guess I'm only writing this because I can't help but worry that when one feels as passionately about a subject as you appear to feel about this one, that sometimes the POV creeps into the writing. Just suggesting caution. ]]] 09:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark
This article was reviewed by Nature on December 14, 2005. Comments: It was found to have 1 error. For more information about external reviews of Misplaced Pages articles and about this review in particular, see this page.
Danish and English Misplaced Pages contradicts each other
Danish and English Misplaced Pages completely different explanaitions of the UVVU judgement of scientific dishonesty. The Danish Misplaced Pages has a completely different explanation about the whole business. Both these explanaitons can not be true at the same time. Maybe some political activists here on en.wikipedia.org needs to clean up their act?
Please Consider
I have removed the Trivia section from this article, per the guideline and manual of style at WP:TRIVIA. Please do not reinstate the trivia section unless you can make a compelling argument that is is necessary for this article and adds to its encyclopedic quality. Eusebeus11:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
"Cool It"
Consider this sentence: "The book demonstrates that the problem needs to be dealt with in a responsible way." The statement in the predicate is a truism that does not need demonstration, and so the whole assertion is either vacuous or a puff, which would be a pro-Lomborg POV. Use "underlines" instead, continuing with some explanation of what Lomborg understands as "responsible" (i.e. minimal).
I still think this paragraph distorts his position in relation to most global climate change scientists and activists. It reads: "Lomborg argues that there can be no ten-year quick-fix solution." In this case, he is in agreement, not argument: as I understand, the usual case is that climate change will take a long time to deal with (even setting aside the 'given' that actions taken on it will need to be kept up for a century, not just ten years). —Preceding unsigned comment added by G34j (talk • contribs) 13:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Not a Trained Scientist?
Does Lomborg himself say he's not a trained scientist? A PhD in Political Science would technically qualify someone as a trained scientist. Any field that uses the scientific method and empirical data would qualify, actually. I've modified that section of the article in light of this. SkipSmith07:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know, political scientists are only broadly classified as "scientists" (in the-search-for-knowledge meaning of the term): since political science is technically a social science, and he's writing about natural science, I think that that this revert is justified because it emphasizes that he's not writing in his area of expertise. Furthermore, since he openly admits to not being a trained scientist, then he probably really isn't a trained scientist in *some* meaning of the term. Mitsein (talk) 06:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Any field that uses the scientific method is a science, and that would make Lomborg a scientist. It doesn't matter if the data and hypotheses relate to plate tectonics or voter turnout. I suspect his claim of not being trained in the sciences was a reference to climate or natural science, and not meant as a broad claim (the provided link provides no information on this point). I'm going to try a compromise edit, and change the article to "not trained in the natural sciences". SkipSmith (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Political scientists are not scientists. They have essentially no training in scientific methods, and rarely attempt to apply such methods to their work. Social scientists are arguably scientists, but many physical scientists (including myself) view social science with disdain. Lomborg does not appear to be a scientist to me. Certainly he is not working in an area of demonstrated expertise. To the contrary, he appears to be way over his head much of the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.220.1.149 (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
His caption listed him as an environmentalist author. Just because he asserts that he's an environmentalist (The Skeptical Environmentalist) doesn't make it true. Since the rest of the article doesn't refer to him as an environmentalist, I think it's fair to remove this. Note that his views don't fit in with traditional environmentalism. I see his self-classification as an environmentalism more as political framing, subterfuge, or "green washing." Mitsein (talk) 06:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
He writes on environmental issues, and aims to improve the environment. Surely this is sufficient for him to be an environmentalist author. And just because he is not a traditional environmentalist doesn't mean he's not an environmentalist. Ben Finn (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
He aims to improve the environment by doing nothing to cut GHG emissions. He's an environmentalist in the same way Bush was an advocate for science. MonoApe (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
MonoApe, your statement makes clear that you have not read his book. Lomborg's concern for the environment is immense. He merely recognizes that we have limited resources with which to make improvements, and he believes that the monies that some propose spending on massively reducing GHG emissions could have a far greater and far more positive effect if spent on other concerns. Unschool06:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't need to buy and read his book to be familiar with his arguments. I've read his output, watched him in debate and seen the science-based response. He denies scientific reality (while saying he accepts it) and proposes inaction that will very likely cause mass species extinction and global chaos for humanity. "Lomborg tends to choose one scenario and discuss it, while ignoring other possible scenarios. This works fine if one wants to make a political point, but it is not good science." - http://www.fredbortz.com/review/CoolIt.htm t MonoApe (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I readily grant you that it is quite possible for one to gain a grasp of the essentials of an argument, a novel, or most any substantive piece of writing by absorbing synopses provided by intermediaries. Without such dispersal of information, we would be at a loss to grasp much of anything in this increasingly complex world, if for no other reason than available time. Despite this, I have little confidence that most of Lomborg's detractors have a good grasp of his work. I read The Skeptical Environmentalist from cover to cover over the period of several months. I have yet to see any significant discussion of Lomborg which even conveys the essence, let alone the details, of his arguments. And the failures come from both sides of the debate. His arguments are distorted by those on one side completely deny AGW and ignored by those who at the other extreme believe all global warming is exclusively the fault of man. Lomborg does not deny AGW, he explicitly expresses belief in it. His argument is not about the science, it is about policy. And yes, he may very well be supporting policies that history might judge as being the "wrong" policies. But what is "wrong"? Hypothetically speaking, if Policy A will save thousands of species but increase human poverty and disease, and Policy B will improve human living conditions but result in mass extinctions, which is "better"? Believe it or not, this is not a cut-and-dried issue to everybody. Some people will take the mass extinctions, others will take the increased human suffering. But regardless of what you or I favor (and, as for me, I'm not sure where I would stand on such choices, this is not exactly a pleasant topic to consider), we don't have to worry about it here, because Misplaced Pages has an NPOV policy. NPOV allows us, where relevant and appropriate, to indicate that the scientific consensus is solidly supportive that global warming is real and anthropogenic in origin. But WP:NPOV does not allow us to deride someone for favoring one policy over another, WP:CRYSTAL does not allow us to include in articles projections that one policy is going to cause global chaos and WP:WEIGHT informs us that the way in which we present information is sometimes as important as what the information is itself.
MonoApe, your edits have been, for the most part, quite good, a step above most editors I see with your small number of edits. You wield a scalpel skillfully, and for the most part, you have not only kept your POV out of your editing, you have successfully trimmed POV where it already existed. I guess I'm only writing this because I can't help but worry that when one feels as passionately about a subject as you appear to feel about this one, that sometimes the POV creeps into the writing. Just suggesting caution. Unschool09:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Biased profile
This is one of the most biased, incomplete and misleading profiles I have ever read. It was clearly written by someone who has an uncritical acceptance of the man-made global warming hypothesis. Articles like this help give Misplaced Pages a bad name.
Bob Dow (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It was clearly written by someone who has an uncritical acceptance of the man-made global warming hypothesis. Like Lomberg himself, and almost everyone in the scientific community? Are you a self-parodist or something? Richard001 (talk) 03:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Three of the four orginal articles
Three of the four articles published in politiken in 1998 was reprinted in an issue the right winged journal Libertas (Libertas.dk) and these have now become available for free:
http://www.libertas.dk/indhold/pdf/libertas27_28.pdf
Here are some quotes I found interesting:
"Vi løber aldrig tør for olie eller ressourcer."
(eng: We will never run out of oil or resources)
"Drivhuseffekten er yderst tvivlsom" (eng: The greenhouse effect is extremely doubtful)
"... siges det, at vi kan forvente “knaphed og kraftige prisstigninger” på olie og gas et stykke ind i det næste årtusind (p4).
Vi har hørt historien før. Og der er stadig ikke belæg for den."
(eng: ... it is said, that we can expect “sparseness and large increases in prices”) on oil sometime in the next century (p4).
We have heard the story before. And there is still no justification for it)
"Vi løber aldrig tør for olie eller ressourcer." (eng: We will never run out of oil or resources)
This sounds crazy, if you don't understand the context. Look, have we run out of whale oil? Sure, it has become very scarce, but when it became scarce we turned to something else to light our homes, and today there is still whale oil out there—we didn't run out, because we never got far enough to run out. Lomborg does not question the finite amount of petroleum, he merely states that as it becomes increasingly scarce, we will turn elsewhere for our energy and eventually, we will quit using oil. Not because we've run out of it, but because scarce supply will make us turn to other sources before we run out. Unschool (talk) 02:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually in that particular article, Lomborg is arguing that we wont run dry. He reasons that we will always find more resources, and the we will get more efficient at using it, so that price will never rise. (kinda ironic in the current environment, but short timespan should never be used this way). He uses the example, that oil prices haven't risen during any other oil-crisis, despite claims of us running out. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
One should take into account that this refers to Julian Lincoln Simon, which was, according Lomborg - instrumental in giving Lomborg the idea for the sceptical environmentalist. Lincoln, based on studies of historical metal prizes was going so far to state that prize curves for natural resources tend to decrease long term. Btw. he way he was right, with the interesting exception of Oil: Prices only recently - and for a short time - have been higher than in the early past of the modern oil production. Long-term oil prices, 1861-2007 (top line adjusted for inflation). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polentario (talk • contribs) 18:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
