This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MonoApe (talk | contribs) at 16:26, 25 May 2009 (→Separate (I think) issue). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:26, 25 May 2009 by MonoApe (talk | contribs) (→Separate (I think) issue)(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?
- I'm not sure when this comment was posted, as it is unsigned, but there were some significant errors in the description of the scientific dishonesty controversy. I corrected those errors several months ago, and added some citations. SkipSmith (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
- Arrogance plus ignorance is never a pretty combination. Your statement about political scientists and their training in the scientific method is completely false. SkipSmith (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2009 (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)
- 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.Unschool 09:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- 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,
- "His argument is not about the science, it is about policy." No, his policy recommendations are based on his belief of how bad things will get if we do not take drastic measures to curb carbon production. By doing this he is making a scientific statement and it contradicts the vast and overwhelming science that confirms anthropogenic climate change and its effects. Also, it is the biggest lie of the Denial Industry that reducing carbon output will cause human suffering. It won't. It will bring massive benefit for all life - human and non-human - in the form of renewable energy and no more wars over dwindling resources. Yes, I'm passionate about the subject but do my utmost to remain dispassionate when editing articles - and if I fall short, there's no plenty of people to correct me. MonoApe (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Your last twelve words are quite wise; I retract my minor concerns. Now as to your unalloyed claims of a post-carbon paradise, I certainly hope you are correct. My guess is that it will likely be less simple than you envision. Nuclear energy has absolutely no carbon footprint at all, but it comes with an eternal waste problem which no one is willing to step up and take care of. Wind turbines (which are one of my personal favorite alternative sources) are said to chop up birds by the hundreds. And "energy independence" via the American farmer ended up raising food prices and probably caused the starvation of at least a few folks in the poorer countries. None of this is to say that we shouldn't pursue these alternative sources; my point is merely that today's utopian vision always seems to have some unanticipated side effects, and utopia never seems to arrive.
- But of course, we are supposed to be discussing Lomborg on this page, and how he is portrayed in the article. I think you and I and Lomborg all agree that there exists a consensus in the scientific community that global warming is occuring. It is my impression that there also exists a consensus that global warming is anthropogenic in origins (though it this consensus is not quite as large as the first we mentioned). There appears to be a consensus as well that the net effects of AGW will be negative, but this too seems smaller than the consensus before it; some scientists point out that AGW may possibly cause a net increase the amount of available cultivatible (is that a word? Oh well, I know you know what I mean) land and thus may increase the food supply; Lomborg says (and I attribute this to him because he's the only one I've read making this claim) that historically, the number of people killed from cold in the north exceeds by a wide margin the number of people killed worldwide from heat, and thus fewer people may die of temperature extremes (feel free to point out possible logical errors, I see some myself), and there are scientists that say that, while this period of warming is anthropegenic, that the earth naturally cycles in this way anyway, so nothing that we experience isn't rather natural for our planet. My point? There exists huge uncertainties as to what the end result of AGW will be; even the top promoters of AGW speak in terms of a large range of change that may not occur. Now I have no environmental or meterological training, so I just have to read and hope that people in the know really know. My training is historical and economic. And Mono, history tells me that certainties are rarely as certain as they look when you're staring one down. To some, this scenario means that we should prepare for the worst possible outcome. And on the surface, that seems sensible. Who wouldn't prepare for the worst possible outcome? But given an economic perspective—and that is where Lomborg is coming from—it almost never makes sense to prepare for the worst. Why? Because it's just too expensive and almost never, in the end, necessary. I'm going to use an analogy here. Please realize that this is just that, an analogy, and one I'm thinking of as I write right now, so it'll be imperfect. But here goes:
A man buys a house in what he believes is a nice neighborhood. He marries, and begins to raise his family in the house. As his kids are getting old enough to start going to school, the neighborhood starts to have problems. Talking to neighbors, he learns of a home being robbed in the neighborhood almost every other month. He decides he must take action. But what to do? Should he do everything he possibly can to avoid the worst possible scenario? Let's say that he does. Worried not only about robbery but also about their personal safety, he and his wife take the children out of school. The mother quits her job so that she can stay home and teach the kids and protect them. But the man still worries that it won't be enough. What if someone is bold enough to break in during the day. He first buys his wife a handgun, then, realizing that that's not enough power to guarantee safety, he buys her a semi-automatic machine gun, and tells her and the kids to stay indoors at all times. But he's still nervous, especially after hearing that a neighbor only four doors away was robbed by someone who actually broke down their solid oak front door in the middle of the day--the neighborhood's fifth robbery in only eight months. So the man decides to install a solid steel door, and, just to be on the safe side, he replaces all the windows in the house with bullet-proof plexiglas. And he knows that in other cities, some children have been accidentally killed in drive-by shootings that had nothing to do with the family of said children, so he installs quarter inch steel plating on the outside of the entire house.
- Now has this man taken the right course? Some would call him a fool, that would be arrogant, because we cannot know for certain what measures were necessary, because no one, absolutely no one knows for certain exactly what the worst case scenario is going to be, until it happens. He would say that he wanted to have the security of knowing that his family is ready for anything. But would we do that for our own? What is the cost? Is it worth it to have your family locked up in a bomb shelter so that you can say that they're safe? That's not for you and me to say, except for our own families. But it cannot be denied that these decisions are expensive ones. Besides the emotional burden, there's simply the money that was paid out to buy this protection. But this man and his wife have the undeniable right to make the decision to take on these burdens because it's their money.
- But who decides such things when it is for our entire society, indeed, the world? The policy makers, the government leaders, of course. And how much cost should be taken on? If we assume 1°C increase by the end of the 21st century, our preparations will be very different than if we assume a 6.4°C increase (and that is the current range of change projected by the IPCC. Which change do you prepare for? If you assume that it will be the greater change, you could take on expensive adaptations that were in fact unnecessary, at great economic cost. If you prepare for the minimum change, you may invest what you thought was a lot of money, and yet see little or even no benefit. (Now I see that you don't believe that these changes will cost anything. I have never read of anyone in the environmental movement that has denied that there would at least be short-term costs in making the transition away from carbon. It is possible, as sometimes happens with technology, that eventually the changes will pay for themselves. But that is not guaranteed. The only thing that can reasonably be projected—and that is a fairly wild guess, too, since economic models give as wide a range of projections as do climatological ones—are the short term costs, and even the promoters of Kyoto recognize that these costs are real.)
- The point is that Lomborg has chosen to believe in the minimum changes, and has encouraged policy responses along those lines. He may very well be proven in the end to have been wrong, and those who follow his advice would, in such a scenario, pay a heavy price. But those who follow the advice of the worst case 6° to 7° change may also be proven wrong, and may cause terrible and unnecessary hardship on millions of people. I have no idea who is right. I know only that our policy makers need to listen to all responsible voices in the climatological and economic arenas in order to make their decisions. To the extent that anyone in power makes a decision based upon anything else but climate science and economics, they are betraying the public trust. But honest men and women disagree both about the extent of climate change, as well as the costs that will be undertaken in facing AGW. I believe that Lomborg is sincere when he decares himself an environmentalist, he just happens to be on the fringe. But in terms of his economic analysis, he is not on the fringe, but is a significant voice in the discussion. Again, I don't know if he's right or wrong, and I won't vouch for his science or his projections. What I will say is that he is not a monster, and I think it would help bring about action if his opponents would assume just a little good faith on his part, and ask him to come to the table to discuss policy. They can reject his analysis without any criticism from me, as long as they base it upon his actual work, and not engage in ad hominem attacks. It amuses me to see that in casual conversation this highly educated, independent-minded, gay vegetarian is somehow made out to be the personal tool of the political right. That's my 3¢ worth. Unschool 21:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- I am not sure wether an anti malthusian standpoint does decide wether an author is an environmentalist or not. Lomborg tackles e.g. with Paul Ehrlich and others, its more about the role of mankind, not about taking care to preserve certain species and life forms (often in close combination with certain human ways of living).
- Same applies to a - controversial - standpoint about global warming. What has cutting of some percents of carbon emissions to do with preserving the variety of species? Nothing and dont come up with icebears.
- Lomborg has put strong doubts against "common sense" in way how the environment and the relationship man-nature is seen. Its btw. backed by historical evidence - e.g. Joachim Radkaus history of the environment. He surely is an important voice in environmental science. --Polentario (talk) 20:16, 4 February 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)
.
- 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polentario (talk • contribs) 18:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Lomborg's position on global warming
In a moment, I am going to be reverting an editor's revert of my edit, but I can't fit my points into the edit summary, hence this post.
In his book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, Lomborg clearly accepts not only that global warming is happening, but that it is at least partly anthropogenic in nature. Although the topic of global warming is only one section of many in TSE, this point is abundantly clear to those of us who have read the book from cover to cover. Other editors have attested to this before on Misplaced Pages's talk pages. So it appears to me that my fellow editor is simply mistaken when he writes in his edit summary the book clearly argues against the conclusions of climate change science.
Yet Lomborg is not considered a friend of the environmental movement. Why? Because, while he accepts that global warming is happening, he disagrees with the policy prescriptions of the environmentalists. He basically says that the cost of going along with Kyoto and other proposed changes in policy will be greater than simply learning to live with the consequences of global warming. Now I don't know if he's right or wrong about that. The point is, that's his position, period. Unschool 17:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- One additional point. Another reason that the edit I reverted was incorrect, is that it spoke of global warming as the main thesis of the book. In point of fact, global warming is the subject of easily less than a third of the book, perhaps much less (I don't have a copy here with me). Lomborg speaks at great length about many environmental issues in TSE. Unschool 17:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry - but i have read both of his books on this topic, and while Lomborg does consider the IPCC reports "gospel" as to human contributions (TAR WGI and AR4 WGI) - he does significantly differ on the cost/benefits as they are presented in the WGII and WGIII. Added to that is that Lomborg is rather one-sided in picking the "good" scenario's (in the TAR and AR4) and using the figures from those, and at the same time, considers the picking of "bad" or "medium" scenario's exaggerations. So he does say that "many of the most-publicized claims and predictions of global warming are exaggerated".
- Kyoto is a whole other ballgame, where Lomborg is also in contradiction to the opinion expressed by the IPCC (and several other assessments). In simple terms: He is at least as or more optimistic than Nordhaus and Tol, who are amongst the most optimistic of the economic analysts on this subject. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Nb: its btw. correct that its not one of the main thesis' in the book. Its one chapter (or subject) of many. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, two separate issues here.
- Does Lomborg use the most optimistic estimates on warming to create his estimates of costs? Let's say for a moment that this is conceded, so what? They are not estimates that he has created, and they are part of the debate. As long as he's being upfront about it (and he is; he notes clearly that he rejects the most pessimistic scenarios), and he's not denying AGW, what does it matter? Is he a "denier" because he's not within the "mainstream" of climate scientists? That's an awful high level of orthodoxy we're expecting now, isn't it? Calling Limbaugh a denier is appropriate, calling Lomborg one is truly unfair, methinks.
- Okay, two separate issues here.
- Second point (and less debatable, I tend to think), is this: My edit was still more correct, because, as you yourself noted, Kim, the book covers several subjects. So which of these sentences about TSE is more accurate? (I have added bolding, in the hopes of making my point clearer.)
- a controversial book whose main thesis is that many of the most-publicized claims and predictions of global warming are exaggerated.
- a controversial book whose main thesis is that many of the most-publicized claims and predictions of environmentalists are exaggerated.
- Clearly, given the coverage of sanitary systems, particulate pollution in the air, trash disposal, chemicals in the water supply, and other topics (It's been a long time since I read it), the second sentence is a more accurate reflection of the book. Your thoughts? Unschool 21:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- First point: The fact that Lomborg is using the most optimistic scenarios, ignoring the equally likely scenarios, and that makes his analysis scewed. He is in effect betting that the best case scenario will play out, despite the odds. You cannot do an economic analysis on such a basis, it might be the correct analysis - but the likelihood is against it. And it is therefore in contradiction to the scientific analysis.
- Second point: Both are incorrect. In most cases they are not environmentalists - but simply experts that Lomborg disagrees with, no matter whether or not they are representative of the scientific consensus on the subject or not. Case in point: Lomborgs analysis of/opinion on extinctions, is contradicted by (close to) everyone within the biological sciences. Lomborg might (again) be correct - but that is not what we are here to discuss. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- To be more specific: In many cases Lomborg is arguing against the current scientific opinion on specific subjects. So therefore they are both incorrect. I've corrected the sentence to something i think that we can both agree on? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, your current wording is, IMHO, quite accurate. Unschool 00:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- To be more specific: In many cases Lomborg is arguing against the current scientific opinion on specific subjects. So therefore they are both incorrect. I've corrected the sentence to something i think that we can both agree on? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Separate (I think) issue
I'm confused, Kim. Why did you write:
"environmentalists" here is POV (as simple as that)
What do you mean? Why is the term "environmentalists" a POV term? Surely you don't consider it to be pejorative? Unschool 21:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Its POV because it is a labelling based not upon their stand, but simply on whether or not they agree with Lomborg. (see above) Environmentalist is not inherently a pejorative term, but usage in context, can (and here does) make it a POV term. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm still having a bit of a problem getting my head around this one. You don't have to re-explain it just yet; let me come back later after I've rebooted my brain; I'll re-read it and try to understand. Cheers. Unschool 00:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- It was being used here as rhetoric. It framed global warming and its impact on the environment as something that 'environmentalists' were responsible for. Much easier to undermine an argument when you suggest that it's from a bunch of 'wacky enviro freaks' - which is exactly the image plenty of people have of 'environmentalists'. The reality is that Lomborg is denying, distorting and lying about many scientific fields of study - hence the finding of dishonesty / incompetence. MonoApe (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)