This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MonoApe (talk | contribs) at 18:45, 24 January 2009 (→Environmentalist Author?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:45, 24 January 2009 by MonoApe (talk | contribs) (→Environmentalist Author?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Biography B‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
 | LGBTQ+ studies B‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
 | Denmark B‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | 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. |
 Archives |
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. Eusebeus 11:00, 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).
Link to some of the hostile reviews of the book, which cite for example Lomborg's disregard for low catastrophic risks - a cavalier mistake in cost-benefit analysis. Example: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/09/if-the-uncertai.html#more.
--JamesWim 14:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Feel free to be bold and edit it. I haven't read the book yet. But i suspect from readings of the SE that the above is correct. Keep it neutral and with adequate sourcing. (the above link cannot be used since its a self-published source, but i'm sure that you can find other sources). --Kim D. Petersen 16:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
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. SkipSmith 07:59, 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)
But he has been a statistics lecturer - statistics is surely a science? (Applied maths anyway.) Ben Finn (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Environmentalist Author?
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. Unschool 06:47, 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)
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)
- Then fix it. Unschool (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Better yet, let it stand. Misplaced Pages deserves a bad name Nicmart (talk) 03:05, 11 May 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)
- Better yet, let it stand. Misplaced Pages deserves a bad name Nicmart (talk) 03:05, 11 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)
anders (talk) 07:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- "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)