Slashdot Mirror
Debunking a Climate-Change Skeptic
DJRumpy writes "The Danish political scientist Bjørn Lomborg won fame and fans by arguing that many of the alarms sounded by environmental activists and scientists — that species are going extinct at a dangerous rate, that forests are disappearing, that climate change could be catastrophic — are bogus. A big reason Lomborg was taken seriously is that both of his books, The Skeptical Environmentalist (in 2001) and Cool It (in 2007), have extensive references, giving a seemingly authoritative source for every one of his controversial assertions. So in a display of altruistic masochism that we should all be grateful for (just as we're grateful that some people are willing to be dairy farmers), author Howard Friel has checked every single citation in Cool It. The result is The Lomborg Deception, which is being published by Yale University Press next month. It reveals that Lomborg's work is 'a mirage,' writes biologist Thomas Lovejoy in the foreword. '[I]t is a house of cards. Friel has used real scholarship to reveal the flimsy nature' of Lomborg's work."
This is reason enough to believe that "climate change" is bullshit. Just like "saving the gay whales" was the issue du jour of the nineties.
I would like to tell you how I like to wipe my ass, but the method is Classified National Security Information. Now hand over your civil liberties, it's snowing again.
"Debunking a Climate-Change Skeptic" eh.
"Debunking" = "causing to adhere to orthodoxy". Otherwise this would be "Challenging a Climate-Change Skeptic" or "Debating a Climate-Change Skeptic".
Dune coons.
From your own link:
The current analysis uses surface air temperatures measurements from the following data sets: the unadjusted data of the Global Historical Climatology Network (Peterson and Vose, 1997 and 1998), United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) data, and SCAR (Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research) data from Antarctic stations. The basic analysis method is described by Hansen et al. (1999), with several modifications described by Hansen et al. (2001) also included.
Do you know why Alice in Wonderland is so oft cited as a reference? It's because it's so oft applicable.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Perhaps it were better if rather than trying to persuade the unconvinced to our way of thinking, we rounded them all up and killed them, or conscripted them into forced labor. That would solve that problem, wouldn't it? Would that make you happy?
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Jump of a cliff. No really.
If you hit the floor real hard you die. That much is true. If you are near heavy objects, it pulls you to it. This is also true. However we have no clue whatsoever what is causing this "pull".
So we should study ways to mitigate the impact of "Jumping of a cliff", not try to find ways to reverse the "pull".
Idiot. Science is NOT about "proof" or "show humans are the cause".
Its simply a matter of theories, and the best one sticks. Now if you try to counter with: "it could be vulcanos/solarflares/natural cycle". Then yes. it could.
Theoratically. In theory you can also jump of that cliff, and land intact.
You can't prove god didn't do it so why don't we throw his hat into the ring of "possible causes for global warming."
You'd have done much better to link to Lomborg's response, than going off on your speculative aura.
I didn't speculate. Perhaps you don't know what "speculate" means?