----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Crystall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 7:48 AM Subject: Re: [Listref] Environment
> On 25 Jan 2003 at 6:56, Erik Reuter wrote: > > > _Skeptical Environmentalist_ by Bjoern Lomborg presents an > > interesting viewpoint about environmentalist claims, makes some > > apparently reasonable counter claims and gives references to relevant > > studies. Lomborg has been unfairly attacked by a number of people for, > > as far as I can tell, daring to give the environmental literature a > > critical reading and offering an alternative viewpoint. It seems to me > > that there could be two reasonable responses by Lomborg's critics: (1) > > write detailed critiques of Lomborg's points with references to > > scientific literature, possibly in book form, or (2) for a scientist, > > pick one or more of Lomborg's points, perform the necessary > > experiments and modeling to prove the point wrong, and publish the > > study in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. But I am not aware of any > > of the critics employing either of these approaches. > > Oh I don't know...maybe the article which spared this all off? You mean the Scientific American article. Well, in the one area that I have expertise in, I'd give better marks to Lomborg than his critics. If one looks at how energy is an ever decreasing part of the economy, and if one has _any_ familiarity with the process of exploring for and producing oil, Lomborg's argument makes more sense. The worst he could be is wrong. To call that an attack on science is simply a polemic. The title of the article is very suspect. Reading the criticism and Lomborg's response, I get the feel that Lomborg's point of view seems more professional than his critics. As a professor said in a related field "technique is usually a good guide." The technique in the SA article was very suspect. Lomborg's technique seems reasonable. That said, he may very well be wrong on a number of points. But, that is not the issue. Wrong conclusions from data needs to be countered by detailed analysis, not ad honimen attacks. Finally, let us contrast this with the response of the physics community to cold fusion. Immediately, there were a number of attempts to recreate the experiment. Papers were given showing the negative results. I read many careful measured responses to what was an obvious hoax. That is how good science works. The present response gives the impression that environmental science is closer to political science than real science. Which is too bad, because very good science is done in that field. If I were working in that field, and differed with Lomborg's position, I'd be more worried about the damage done to the field by the attacks than by Lomborg's work. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
