At 01:38 PM 8/7/2001 -0700, you wrote:
>So the guy's decided to be a Professional Optimist (tm). well I doubt
>optimists are objectively right more often than pessimists - could be less
>- but they (a) cheer people up (b) are happier for the illusions they
>cherish.
>
>He probably decided he could make more money that way. Professional
>Optimists are in demand especially with corporations and big money
>interests to tell them What they Want to Hear. Which IMO is simply
>prostituting yourself. For sale to the highest bidder! Despicable.
>
>Kristin
>yes, I'm A CYNIC! Sometimes you have to overstate a problem to get
>anybody to do anything about it! Y2K doomsayers did us a favor!
In the article, Lomborg says that he still considers himself to be an
environmentalist, and a leftist. He doesn't blindly accept what
organizations are stating, but takes the time to check for himself. He's
looking for facts, not hyperbole. How does this harm the environmental
movement?
When does 'overstating' a problem become deceit?
john
