Slashdot Mirror

Moreover, the sources Lomborg cites in the relevant footnote do not support his claim. The first, a 1993 college textbook by Andrew Goudie, indeed gives a figure of 20 percent net loss in forest cover since pre-agricultural times. However, its author provides no reference or authority for this number. The second source, by Michael Williams, is stated in the footnote as giving the (amazingly) low figure of 7.5 percent loss, but a review of the source itself reveals that Lomborg has misread 7.5 million square kilometers as though it were a percentage.

A quick Google search for "Lomborg citations" came up with a piece on Lomborg's clever use of misdirection and this review with citations of critiques. Lomborg's complete failure to acknowledge disasters like the vanishing Aral sea, falling Ogalalla aquifer and other known problems with anything like the seriousness they deserve (how are you going to continue irrigated agriculture in Texas and Oklahoma if the Ogalalla is pumped dry?) proves that his "don't worry, be happy" conclusion is bunk.

Perhaps the most colorful accusation against Lomborg is from that second link:

It is as though he is affected with a form of academic autism; able to do the math better than most mere mortals, but unable to comprehend the connections ordinary people understand as part of daily life.

(Damn, I've been spending a lot of time on Google for this discussion!)

You know the scene: Life seems basically normal until, one day, a mysterious stranger contacts you and tells you your whole existence is a lie. You have two options: red pill or blue pill. Sound familiar? That's right, it's the plot of "The Meatrix" (no, that's not a typo), in which moopheus the cow shows Leo, the pig protagonist (think Keanu Reeves with a curlier tail), that idyllic life on the family farm is a sham. The stark reality involves factory farms, massive pollution, high doses of antibiotics, and a few rebel farm animals in trench coats. Catch the latest short eco-flick by Free Range Graphics, on the Grist Magazine website.

Here's a good example of a recent flash cartoon - wouldn't want to lock myself out of seeing it completely, even if IANAV...

Many experts have debunked Lomborg. His book was well-received by the entrenched corporate-owned media, but a number of rebuttals have been published more recently.

One example can be found at this URL. There are many others.

So, what might cause Asthma (Which may be leveling off as we speak), childhood Diabetes, increased incidence of autoimmune disorders and cancer, and increased incidence of autism?

It isn't vaccines! The science doesn't stand up. If you think it's vaccines, we'll agree to disagree, okay?

I blame the chlorinated carbon molecule.

Organochlorines have been absent from the earth, in any appreciable amounts, since before the appearance of multicelled life. They are immensely stable, but nothing natural creates them - for energetic reasons, they are purely synthetic. They have unique (powerful, TOXIC) chemistry that we can "exploit but never control", in the words of Pandora's Poison author Shalini Ramanathan. This is an excellent book if you're interested in which feature of our 20th century lifestyle is raising disease incidences.

For more of this sort of common sense, see this book [amazon.co.uk] in which the author systematically demolishes most of the non-scientific arguments of the "green" lobby.

If you look at this there's one decent, well written, CONCRETE criticism of his work. Lomborg makes some mistakes in his statistical analysis of deforestation, and the critic points them out fair and square.

Unfortunately, most of the rest of the articles at that site aren't nearly as well written.

The SA rebuttals weren't good. The Grist Magazineones are much more substantial, dealing essentially with the scientific merits of his work.

But, of course, that hasn't stopped radical environmentalists from proposing a ban on "all use of compounds containing chlorine".

Dont confuse the common language, used to make a quick/basic argument, with the knowledge (in whole) of 'radical environmentalists'. Please, spare the propaganda for some other group. Framing advocates first as 'radical environmentalists', then maligning their effort with that kind of condescension is insulting. (at best)

Radical Pollution Apologists can sit and snigger about the environmentalists all they please, but in reality, these people are playing a Grade8 Debate game of insult/shift/confuse (FUD).

Most Radical Environmentalists (like myself) can see through your shit like transparent Al. A rebuttal of ignorance and hyperbole may work well with rednecks and McCarthy-ites
POPs explained

My main problem with this is that there are huge, massive problems with Monsanto - a total disregard for safety testing, obsession with secrecy and a tendency to corrupt governments,

It's irresponsible to make that kind of broad accusation without background. Here's some:

Round up ready corn contaminating other crops.

The 60 minutes story about how they covered up the fact that working with PVC monomer melts people's bones. This isn't the best possible link, unfortunately.

Ooh! Here's a whole page dedicated to how wicked monsanto is. You can learn about how Monsanto tried to cover up that fact that DDT was wiping out all the birds in California (yes, the evil corporation is the classic Silent Spring is none other than Monsanto.) They also made agent Orange, which had health effects that they tried to cover up.

Those really interested in the subject of chlorinated organics should read Pandora's Poison. The up-shot is that they are a technolgy which simply isn't safe, and that we should abandon them entirely, especially chlorine based pesticides. The book is highly informative, and also a good introduction for someone who's background is more in, say, computers.

So, the long and the short of it is that this is nothing new. Monsanto has been doing lots of stuff like ever since its inception.