[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I am not sure myself what exactly Lomborg actually wants done He wants everyone to be healthy, well fed and well educated when they die from a lack of biodiversity and drinking water.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > An awful lot of what Lomborg says seems to have less to do with solutions > and more with a frontal attack on environmental activists. An interesting collection of criticisms of the man can be found here. http://www.mylinkspage.com/lomborg.html "Lomborg goes on to calculate, using this flawed model, that the cost of stabilising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is twice the cost of adapting to global warming. This is clearly absurd, because it assumes that the current state of scientific knowledge provides a certain enough base on which to judge these kinds of decisions. Yet the IPCC makes no such claims, pointing out over and over again the uncertainties. It also ignores the costs which can't be dollarized - such as effects on other ecosystems. So while it might be a 'benefit' if you can grow maize in interior Alaska, what is the 'cost' of polar bears becoming extinct because sea ice no longer exists in the summer? " and "Lomborg specialises in presenting the reader with false choices - such as the assertion that money not spent on preventing climate change could be spent on bringing clean water to the developing world, thereby saving more lives per dollar of expenditure. Of course, in the real world, these are not the kind of choices we are faced with. Why not take the $60 billion from George Bush's stupid Son of Star Wars program and use that cash to save lives in Ethiopia? Because in a world where political choices are not made democratically at a global level, but by a small number of rich countries and corporations, the poor and the environment are never going to be a priority." The generally reliable and balanced UCS has this page: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/ucs-examines-the-skeptical-environmentalist.html http://tinyurl.com/q4pfj "These separately written expert reviews unequivocally demonstrate that on closer inspection, Lomborg's book is seriously flawed and fails to meet basic standards of credible scientific analysis. The authors note how Lomborg consistently misuses, misrepresents or misinterprets data to greatly underestimate rates of species extinction, ignore evidence that billions of people lack access to clean water and sanitation, and minimize the extent and impacts of global warming due to the burning of fossil fuels and other human-caused emissions of heat-trapping gases. Time and again, these experts find that Lomborg's assertions and analyses are marred by flawed logic, inappropriate use of statistics and hidden value judgments. He uncritically and selectively cites literature -- often not peer-reviewed -- that supports his assertions, while ignoring or misinterpreting scientific evidence that does not. His consistently flawed use of scientific data is, in Peter Gleick's words "unexpected and disturbing in a statistician"." --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change. Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
