# Man wrecks planet...yeah right. **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [June 20, 2003, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-wrecks-planet-yeah-right/183172 "2003-06-20T15:00:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Charlee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4af34b/32.png) [@Charlee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Charlee)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-wrecks-planet-yeah-right/183172/81 "2003-06-26T00:47:37Z")
If you read Lomborg’s point by point rebuttal to Scientific American’s eleven page witch burning, it is clear that the goal was to kill the messenger. Only one minor fact was legitimately disputed. Facts are facts, and that is what Lomborg presented. He put 2 and 2 together and got 4, while others get 22. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-wrecks-planet-yeah-right/183172/82 "2003-06-26T01:05:10Z")
I agree entirely Charlee. One need only read **jshore** ’s criticisms in this threda to see more of the same. Vague, unsubstantiated allegations of some sort of sloppiness in the work or criticism of what he should have morally done in response to use of his data. Not even a hint of what actual facts that are wrong, despite persistent assertions that such exist. The degree of ignorance of environmental issues presented in this thread and others in this forum and over in GD in the last two weeks has itself convinced me that we need more works like Lomborgs. The ignorant and outright erroneous presentations from **squidboy** in this thread read almost like a parody of the litaany produced by Lomborg. The sad part is that it isn’t a parody. **Squidboy** believs what he says and posts the same as facts. I have had several people repeat the ‘lungs of the Earth’ myth, and I have seen it repeated on a Geenpeace website. Several suggest that US oil resources are not sufficient to sustain the nation in the short term despite all the evidence against this. Several make claims of out of control population growth with no end in sight. One made claims about the effect of topsol loss that was contradictedby all the scientific data presented. All of them either staing they got their info from environmentalists, or else linking to such websites. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-wrecks-planet-yeah-right/183172/83 "2003-06-26T01:31:11Z")
Oh, for heaven’s sake **Charlee** and **Blake** , what are you doing here? You are attacking tons of science published in peer-reviewed journals by many authors on the basis of one person who has never published in peer-reviewed journals in any of the fields he wrote about. And now **Charlee** expects us to believe he understands the ozone depletion issue better than the peer-reviewed scientific community. The reason I resist debating on the facts is that I don’t think this is the proper forum to arrive at conclusions on science. I have a PhD in physics but I am not arrogant enough to believe that I can go off and critique the work in other hard-science fields; instead, when I go into other fields, I try to learn and understand what is known in the peer-reviewed literature but always with the idea in mind that they know a lot more than I do. Science, unlike the political realm of values and competing interests, is not a democracy where everyone has an equally valid opinion. And, it does not lend itself to debate on a message board (or in public…which is one of the reasons why creationists have flourished so well). > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blake \* > So **jshore** it appears that you have repeatedly attacked Lomborg on the basis of nothing at all. Every time you are asked what you mean you post somehting slightly more specific, but still fail to provide any evidence, simply saying that it’s out there somewhere. For Christ’s sake, if you refuse to go and read perfectly available links, here are a few quotes from them. From Harvard biologist [E.O Wilson](http://www.gristmagazine.com/books/wilson121201.asp): > [@](#): > > Lomborg’s estimate of extinction rates is at odds with the vast majority of respected scholarship on extinction. His estimate, “0.7 percent over the next 50 years” – or 0.014 percent per year – is an order of magnitude smaller than the most conservative species extinction rates by authorities in the field. From [Norman Myers](http://www.gristmagazine.com/books/myers121201.asp): > [@](#): > > Bjorn Lomborg opens his chapter on biodiversity by citing my 1979 estimate of 40,000 species lost per year. He gets a lot of mileage out of that estimate throughout the chapter, although he does not cite any of my subsequent writings except for a single mention of a 1983 paper and a 1999 paper, neither of which deals much with extinction rates. Why doesn’t he refer to the 80-plus papers I have published on biodiversity and mass extinction during the 20-year interim? > > In this respect as well as others, Lomborg seems to be exceptionally selective. As my 1979 book emphasizes, the estimate of 40,000 extinctions per year was strictly a first-cut assessment, preliminary and exploratory, and advanced primarily to get the issue of extinction onto scientific and political agendas. If Lomborg had checked my many subsequent analyses (totaling one quarter of a million words) in the professional literature instead of taking me to task for providing “no other references or argumentation,” he would have found more documented, modified, refined, and generally substantiated estimates. > > … > > In summary, Lomborg adopts an exceptionally cavalier approach to mass extinction, utterly failing to acknowledge it as a phenomenon that will impoverish the planet for millions of years to come. Extinction ranks as the environmental problem that will exert far and away the most enduring impact on future generations. As such, surely it warrants a more informed, considered, and generally professional response than the one offered by Lomborg – a man who demonstrates repeatedly that he is not acquainted with the basics of the issue. I presented a detailed critique of the naysayers’ viewpoint in my 1994 debate book with Julian Simon. While Lomborg cites certain other writings of Simon, he seems indifferent to this one, and to my detailed rebuttals. From [Emily Matthews](http://www.gristmagazine.com/books/matthews121201.asp): > [@](#): > > In The Skeptical Environmentalist, Bjorn Lomborg writes that “basically, the world’s forests are not under threat.” A charitable reader could attribute this flawed conclusion to errors of omission and ignorance; perhaps the author simply doesn’t know the sources well enough to interpret them properly. Less charitably, one might reasonably conclude that Lomborg intentionally selects his data and citations to distort or even reverse the truth. His interpretations of data on global forest cover and Indonesian forest fires aptly illustrate both failings. > > … > Lomborg’s interpretation of global forest cover and Indonesian forest fires are just two examples of the incomplete and superficial analyses that underpin too much of this book. In his introduction, the statistician tells us that his skills lie in “knowing how to handle international statistics.” A few paragraphs later, he confesses that, “I am not myself an expert as regards environmental problems.” Unfortunately, statistical prowess by itself does not guarantee accuracy, insight, or understanding. A little more expert knowledge would have significantly diluted this book’s glib optimism. Indeed, the book would probably never have been written. (Others can see link for the details of this critique; **Blake** can refuse to click on the link and then claim the quote here does not mention any specific details.) From [Prof. Stephen Schneider](http://www.gristmagazine.com/books/schneider121201.asp): > [@](#): > > Bjorn Lomborg’s chapter on global climate change is a clever polemic; it seems like a sober and well-researched presentation of balanced information, whereas in fact it makes use of selective inattention to inconvenient literature and overemphasis of work that supports his lopsided views. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports and other honest assessments don’t have the luxury of using such tactics, given the hundreds of external reviewers and dozens of review editors. > > It would take several pages to document how Lomborg lines up his citations to diminish the seriousness of climate effects while ignoring most literature that would stress the seriousness. (For that kind of documentation, see a review by my colleagues and me in the forthcoming January 2002 issue of Scientific American or Stuart Pimm and Jeff Harvey’s review in the Nov. 8, 2001 issue of Nature.) > > … > > It is incumbent upon those of us who remain committed to sound science and good policy to point out the large amount of disinformation in Lomborg’s pretentious claim to be “measuring the Real State of the World.” Those of us who have spent decades grappling with the numbing uncertainties involved in environmental protection would never claim to know the real state of the world, let alone pretend that selective citation to fuzzy historical data would tell us. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-wrecks-planet-yeah-right/183172/84 "2003-06-26T02:23:02Z")
Sorry **jshore** , I will have to repeat my earlier comments. One need only read **jshore** ’s criticisms in this thread to see more of the same. Vague, unsubstantiated allegations of some sort of sloppiness in the work or criticism of what he should have morally done in response to use of his data. Not even a hint of what actual facts that are wrong, despite persistent assertions that such exist. > [@](#): > > at odds with the… majority of respected scholarship So it’s not a factual error. It is merely pointing out that his figure agrees with some respected scholars. > [@](#): > > Why doesn’t he refer to the 80-plus papers I have published on biodiversity and mass extinction during the 20-year interim So it isn’t a factual error. It is merely pointing out that Lomborg has not covered literature which doesn’t fit into the litany. > [@](#): > > Lomborg adopts an exceptionally cavalier approach to mass extinction So it’s not a factual error. It is merely taking exception to Lomborg’s attitude. A blatant ad hominem. > [@](#): > > charitable reader could attribute this flawed conclusion… So it’s not a factual error. It is simply an assertion that the conclusion is flawed with no evidence for same. > [@](#): > > incomplete and superficial analyses… So it’s not a factual error. It’s just an assertion that even more data should have mined. > [@](#): > > it makes use of selective inattention to inconvenient literature and overemphasis of work that supports his lopsided views So it’s not a factual error. It’s an assertion that even data outside the litany should have been incorporated. And still no evidence of facts being wrong. Just Vague, unsubstantiated allegations of some sort of sloppiness in the work or criticism of what he should have morally done in response to use of his data. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-wrecks-planet-yeah-right/183172/85 "2003-06-26T02:47:54Z")
**Blake** : What is your definition of a “factual error”? Applying your standards, I doubt you would find any “factual errors” in any work by the intelligent design proponents and at least the more intelligent of the other “creation scientists”. Apparently, disagreeing with almost all the scholarship in a field isn’t a factual error if you can conceivably find anyone who agrees with you…which, with publication rates in science basically means that anything goes. Whatever! There is clearly no convincing you. You will believe what you want to believe (and then you will make fun of those who do the same in the opposite direction…like on runaway human population growth). Hey, one can only fight ignorance when the person wants to have his/her ignorance dispelled. This has become a waste of time. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-wrecks-planet-yeah-right/183172/86 "2003-06-26T03:34:20Z")
My definition of factual error is pretty basic: an error resulting in a fact that can be objectively defined as being untrue. Not the under-utilisation of facts, since this is always the case, even in post-grad theses where there are extensive literature reviews. Not ‘acting in a cavalier fashion’ since one can act in a cavalier fashion and still produce impeccable results. > [@](#): > > Applying your standards, I doubt you would find any “factual errors” in any work by the intelligent design proponents Well that’s just not true by any stretch. When ID proponents like Behe claim there are no intermediate species, we can point out that there are. We can objectively measure same. When an ID proponent like Hovind says that the Congo is one giant swamp we can point out that it isn’t and objectively measure soil moisture. > [@](#): > > and at least the more intelligent of the other "creation scientists I really couldn’t say since I don’t know who you are speaking of. Give me a link to a webpage of such a person and I will tell you if there are any factual errors I see. > [@](#): > > Apparently, disagreeing with almost all the scholarship in a field isn’t a factual error if you can conceivably find anyone who agrees with you… Yes that’s right. If we accept what you seem to be proposing, that disagreeing with almost all the scholarship in a field is a factual error, then Wegener, Galileo and Darwin were all factually in error and yet perfectly correct simultaneously. To make it even more unworkable, your position requires that something be factually erroneous today, and yet in 20 years time when opinion of the majority changes the exact same proposition may be factually correct. Bizarre. > [@](#): > > There is clearly no convincing you. Not without facts there isn’t. Your repeated assertion of factual errors in Lomborg’s work doesn’t convince me. Nor does your posting that he is ‘cavalier’ convince me of the existence of factual error. I’m funny like that. I can only assume that someone calling him cavalier has convinced you that there are factual errors in his work. If that is the case then I can only conclude that you didn’t take much convincing. > [@](#): > > Hey, one can only fight ignorance when the person wants to have his/her ignorance dispelled. This has become a waste of time. The great refuge of those who have espoused an erroneous position and are unable to support it: you just don’t want to see the truth. How clichéd. Trust me, if I am wrong on this I want to know it. But no one besides you would consider calling someone cavalier to be evidence that that person has made a factual error. It is not a compelling argument and I am not convinced by it, though you apparently are. Since you have been unable to produce any evidence to support your repeated claims of factual errors I think we can judge the veracity of said claims. ---
**Author:** ![MrBoy1967](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@MrBoy1967](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrBoy1967)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-wrecks-planet-yeah-right/183172/87 "2003-06-26T06:14:41Z")
It seems to me that the first two things you dismissed (majority of scholarly research; 80+ papers) were, at the very least, pointers towards data that indicates Lomborg made factual errors, and a one line dismissal is flip at best. Perhaps the writer should have posted one of those papers, or mentioned some of the texts supporting the claim, but this isn’t a class-who would read it if posted? Furthermore, as I pointed out myself earlier in this string, there is at least one article in Skeptic in the past year that debunks Lomborg in just the fashion you wish- point-by-point with sources. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-wrecks-planet-yeah-right/183172/88 "2003-06-26T07:05:22Z")
And now we have someone else claiming these points exist, and yet we can’t seem to see any of these points here. The trouble is I have read these ‘point by point’ debunkings. I have also read Lomborg’s responses to them. They are all are just like **Jshore** ’s point by point ‘debunkings’. Much promisng of factual errors, and they all turn out to be 'He shold have used more sources outside of the specific area he was investigating" and “He disagrees with some of the experts” and "He is cavalier/right wing/irresponsible and a host of other ad hominem. > [@](#): > > the first two things you dismissed … were, at the very least, pointers towards data that indicates Lomborg made factual errors So they are _pointers_ towards an _indication_ of an a error. Yeah, I can’t understand why I didn’t admit they were errors. Maybe I should also endorse pointers towards an indication of a potential for an implication of a suggestion of an error. Gilbert and Sullivan could have produced a number out of this stuff. ---
**Author:** ![griffin77](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/3d9bf3/32.png) [@griffin77](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin77)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-wrecks-planet-yeah-right/183172/89 "2003-06-26T20:25:09Z")
There is an extensive coverage of this argument, including a rebuttal of Lomborg’s arguments (and his reply to the original article, and subsuqent rebuttal to that, etc.), in that well known liberal new-age pseudo-science journal Scientific American… Here… > **[Misleading Math about the Earth](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/misleading-math-about-the/)** > > Science defends itself against The Skeptical Environmentalist and here… > **[Skepticism toward The Skeptical Environmentalist](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/skepticism-toward-the-ske/)** Obiously nothing is going to conclusively win this argument one way or the other, but I personally argee with the general conclusion about Lomborg’s work that: “What is right in this document is not new, and what is new is not right.” ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-wrecks-planet-yeah-right/183172/90 "2003-06-26T21:46:10Z")
**Blake** , I think you want a factual error of the type “2+2=5”. But, science is inductive, not deductive like math, and thus one can rarely prove things definitively erroneous. Gravity could stop working tomorrow for all we know. My guess is that if Behe were presented with the evidence for intermediate species, he would argue much like Lomborg (or you) have…Either he would say, well, there are still big missing links or he would question the validity of the interpretation of the fossils or whatever. Your comparison to Galileo and Darwin notwithstanding, for every one of them, there are probably 1000 who fight against the prevailing scientific wisdom and are wrong. Our goal is to separate out the very occasional cases of being right from the huge amount of chaffe. I don’t think the evidence is very compelling that Lomborg is a Darwin or a Galileo rather than chaffe. In my personal experience, if you make a compelling enough case against conventional wisdom, your work will be accepted but you do have to make a very compelling case. That seems far from true here. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-wrecks-planet-yeah-right/183172/91 "2003-06-26T22:16:16Z")
Sorry **jshore** , I will have to repeat my earlier comments. One need only read **jshore** ’s criticisms in this thread to see more of the same. Vague, unsubstantiated allegations of some sort of sloppiness in the work or criticism of what he should have morally done in response to use of his data. Not even a hint of what actual facts that are wrong, despite persistent assertions that such exist. Your repeated assertion of factual errors in Lomborg’s work doesn’t convince me. Nor does your posting that he is ‘cavalier’ convince me of the existence of factual error. I’m funny like that. I can only assume that someone calling him cavalier has convinced you that there are factual errors in his work. If that is the case then I can only conclude that you didn’t take much convincing. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-wrecks-planet-yeah-right/183172/92 "2003-06-26T22:18:02Z")
Sorry **jshore** , I will have to repeat my earlier comments. One need only read **jshore** ’s criticisms in this thread to see more of the same. Vague, unsubstantiated allegations of some sort of sloppiness in the work or criticism of what he should have morally done in response to use of his data. Not even a hint of what actual facts that are wrong, despite persistent assertions that such exist. Your repeated assertion of factual errors in Lomborg’s work doesn’t convince me. Nor does your posting that he is ‘cavalier’ convince me of the existence of factual error. I’m funny like that. I can only assume that someone calling him cavalier has convinced you that there are factual errors in his work. If that is the case then I can only conclude that you didn’t take much convincing. ---
**Author:** ![Charlee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4af34b/32.png) [@Charlee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Charlee)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-wrecks-planet-yeah-right/183172/93 "2003-06-26T22:57:48Z")
Jshore, I’ll admit it, I am not an environmental scientist. We engineers just don’t seem to get much respect in some quarters. But I have asked through many media outlets and forums for the past three years for someone to explain the high concentrations of ozone. The best I can get (besides your response) is “I’ll get back to you about that” and then nothing. Nothing, even your reference, does not address it. It’s very possible there is something I’m not seeing, but why doesn’t someone step up and say so. You mention a 5-10% reduction in ozone over the U.S. I don’t see that in any of the ozone maps of the last few years compared to older data. Current regulations are not supposed to result in any measurable effect for about ten years, so they can’t be credited for the current good ozone data. I think Blake will agree with me that Norman Myers’ response to Lomborg is typical of what we find objectionable in some radical enviornmentalist. His statement that “the estimate of 40,000 extinctions per year was strictly a first-cut assessment, preliminary and exploratory, and advanced primarily to get the isuue of extinction onto scientific and political agendas” says it all. He knew his figure was probably not correct but he also knew the media eats up such outrageous statistics and that he would get quoted over and over again. The majority of people on this planet never hear what the true, corrected figures are and there you have “world opinion” based on false facts. A good example of this was at the meeting last year in India where the Greenpeace representative used some figures that were off by a factor of ten concerning rising sea levels and the drowning of Manhattan. One week later on the closing day of the conference they issued corrected numbers but by then it was too late. Their original statement had spread throughout the world media. When I did an internet search a month later on what was said at the conference, only the original statement could be found. Regulations work. They are the primary reason we have a better environnment in the U.S. and safer cars. But I feel that making a demon out of carbon dioxide is way out of line. The current direction that the Bush administration is taking for reducing emissions and developing geologic carbon sequestration are on the right tract. Radical changes do not need to be made. Jshore, we need you to keep expressing your opinion so that as technologies are developed they will remain focused on maintaining our environment and not let us slip back into the attitude that existed midway in the 20th century. The misuse of statistics has always fascinated me. My favorite is “most accidents happen with 20 miles of your home”. (My redneck cousin heard this and immediately moved 40 miles away from his house.) My father would always use this at the end of a long vacation to imply that we had to be more carefull the closer we got to home. It wasn’t until I grew up that I realized you’re within 20 miles of your home more than 90% of the time, so of course you’ll have more accidents in that area. I also hate graphs that don’t start at zero. Most that don’t give a completely distorted picture of the severity and relativity of change. I see cases like these a lot in environmental literature. Just because in your heart you’re looking out for the good of mankind doesn’t mean you’re guaranteed to, or need to, be right. ---
**Author:** ![griffin77](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/3d9bf3/32.png) [@griffin77](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin77)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-wrecks-planet-yeah-right/183172/94 "2003-06-26T22:59:23Z")
Or two of the FACTUAL errors from the The Scientific American articles on Lomborg linked above. (Which do not claim to cover the multitude of general and specific errors made in the text): He claims changes power planet technology have removed “vast part” of NO2 and SO2 emissions. Whereas the reduction is only from 16.1 million to 12.4 million tons of SO2 anually and 1980 to 1998. And 6.1 million tons to 5.4 million tons of NO2, in the same time scale. Lomborg says: “A political decision stopped IPCC from looking at the total cost-benefit of global warming.” Where as in fact “The government representatives downgraded aggregate cost-benefit studies for a reason: these studies fail to consider so many categories of damages held to be important by political leaders as to render them just a guideline on market-sector transactions, not the ‘total cost-benefit’ analysis Lomborg wants.” He fails to make the distinction between “proved reserves” (referring to material that has already been found and is exploitable at a profit at today’s prices, using today’s technologies) and “remaining ultimately recoverable resources” (which incorporate estimates of additional material exploitable with today’s technology at today’s prices but still to be found, as well as material both already found and still to be found that will be exploitable with future technologies at potentially higher future prices) Lomborg tells us that it “constitutes 6 percent of global energy production and 20 percent in the countries that have nuclear power.” The first figure is right, the second seriously wrong. Nuclear energy provides a bit less than 10 percent of the primary energy supply in the countries that use this energy source. His selective use of statistics gives the reader the impression that the population problem is largely behind us. The global population growth rate has indeed declined slowly, but absolute growth remains close to the very high levels observed in recent decades, because the population base keeps expanding. World population today stands at six billion, three billion more than in 1960. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-wrecks-planet-yeah-right/183172/95 "2003-06-26T23:37:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by griffin77 \* > \*\*Or two of the FACTUAL errors from the The Scientific American articles on Lomborg linked above. (Which do not claim to cover the multitude of general and specific errors made in the text): > > He claims changes power planet technology have removed “vast part” of NO2 and SO2 emissions. Whereas the reduction is only from 16.1 million to 12.4 million tons of SO2 anually and 1980 to 1998. And 6.1 million tons to 5.4 million tons of NO2, in the same time scale. \*\* Question: How much did our power demands increase from 1980 to 1998? No, honestly, I don’t know the answer, but I can be certain it has risen quite a bit. That’s going to skew the total pollution output no matter how clean it has gotten. > [@](#): > > His selective use of statistics gives the reader the impression that the population problem is largely behind us. The global population growth rate has indeed declined slowly, but absolute growth remains close to the very high levels observed in recent decades, because the population base keeps expanding. World population today stands at six billion, three billion more than in 1960. That’s certainly not the impression _I_ got from Lomborg. He was more pointing out that the exponential growth of population predicted by some is not likely to happen, gives good reasons why, and points to long standing studies that show where the population growth will likely top out. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2003, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-wrecks-planet-yeah-right/183172/96 "2003-06-27T00:08:21Z")
> [@](#): > > He claims changes power planet technology have removed “vast part” of NO2 and SO2 emissions. Whereas the reduction is only from 16.1 million to 12.4 million tons of SO2 anually and 1980 to 1998. This a blatant strawman. He never claimed vast reduction. He claimed that the vast majority of S02 emmisions potentially produced by coal are removed by power plant technology. I quote “Typically, coal pollutes quite a lot, but in developed economies switches to low-sulfur coal, scrubbers and other air-pollution control devices have today removed the vast part of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide emissions” He never claimed vast reduction annual emissions, although you are trying to claim that he did. Very poor show but unfortunately typical of the criticisms of Lomborg. Lomborg says : “A political decision stopped IPCC from looking at the total cost-benefit of global warming." And the truth is that political appointees downgraded aggregate cost-benefit studies and as a result the PCC never looked at the total cost-benefit of global warming. And the contradiction would be? > [@](#): > > He fails to make the distinction between “proved reserves” (referring to material that has already been found and is exploitable at a profit at today’s prices, using today’s technologies) and “remaining ultimately recoverable resources” Does he really? Where does he fail to make this distinction? > [@](#): > > Lomborg tells us that it “constitutes 6 percent of global energy production and 20 percent in the countries that have nuclear power.” The first figure is right, the second seriously wrong. Nuclear energy provides a bit less than 10 percent of the primary energy supply in the countries that use this energy source. That is interesting because Lomborg is quoting the DOE World Energy Outlook 1997. It is available here: ([http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/plugs/plieo97.html](http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/plugs/plieo97.html)). I will quote it for you: “In recent years countries with nuclear power programs have derived an average of more than 20% of their total electricity generation from nuclear fuels” So how exactly is it a factual error to reference a government agency technical report, and where does your 10% figure come from? > [@](#): > > absolute growth remains close to the very high levels observed in recent decades, because the population base keeps expanding The UN population organisation disagrees with you. They say exactly the opposite: The world population is current growing at a rate of 77 million people/year. They also say the peak growth rate was in 190 with a growth of 87 million people. Maybe you believe an 11% discrepancy is close. I doubt many other people would. Maybe you could try it on your boss and the IRS and see if they think it’s close. Either way Lomborg is quite right in pointing out that a decline in real growth and percentage growth has occurred and that population growth as peaked and will start falling within the next century. No errors here. Basically this s just more of the same stuff. ---
**Author:** ![griffin77](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/3d9bf3/32.png) [@griffin77](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin77)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2003, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-wrecks-planet-yeah-right/183172/97 "2003-06-27T00:48:42Z")
Question: How much did our power demands increase from 1980 to 1998? This is does not make the original statement correct. As John Holdren pointed out in the article, the claim made in the book was was not removal of the “vast part” of emission per ton of coal, but a “vast part” of the emissions full stop, this IS is a factual error. The generally complaint from all the writers (who I believe are all leading scientists in their respective fields, unlike Lomborg, who is a statistican, and judging by the comments made of the standards of the statistics in his book, not a very good one), was this: He consitently makes a point of “cherry picking” references that suit his hypothsis (that is on the few occasions when he does reference “first-party” peer-reviewed research articles, rather than secondary literature and media articles), and ignoring those that don’t (or even selectively ingnoring the parts that don’t, for example: mentioning that ajustments to a particular climate model would reduce the predicted increase in global temperatues, but missing out a caveat that pointed out the adjusted figures were no more accurate than the original ones. ) He is happy to point out uncertainties in statistics that don’t support his arguments, yet quotes those that do as exact figures without any kind of qualification. For example the figure “43 percent of American energy use is wasted”, is quoted as gospel truth without any qualification or explanation of how it was reached or even what it means, in the college text book from which this figure is taken several pages used to qualifiy this figure, and explain it how it was produced. These are exactly the techniques used by creationists and other pseudo-scientists to justify their thories… ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2003, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-wrecks-planet-yeah-right/183172/98 "2003-06-27T01:04:53Z")
> [@](#): > > These are exactly the techniques used by creationists and other pseudo-scientists to justify their thories… Logic & Fallacies Argumentum ad hominem Argumentum ad hominem literally means “argument directed at the man”; A less blatant argumentum ad hominem is to reject a proposition based on the fact that it was also asserted by some other easily criticized person. For example: “Therefore we should close down the church? Hitler and Stalin would have agreed with you.” Therefore we should close down the church? Creationists and other pseudo-scientistswould have agreed with you. ---
**Author:** ![griffin77](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/3d9bf3/32.png) [@griffin77](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin77)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2003, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-wrecks-planet-yeah-right/183172/99 "2003-06-27T01:27:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blake \* > I quote “Typically, coal pollutes quite a lot, but in developed economies switches to low-sulfur coal, scrubbers and other air-pollution control devices have today removed the vast part of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide emissions” > \*\* I read this as meaning the “vast part” of the emissions full stop. I’m sure if a power company made a claim like this without adding a suitable caveate they they would leave themselves open for legal action. I call the absence of any caveate a factual error… > [@](#): > > I will quote it for you: > > “In recent years countries with nuclear power programs have derived an average of more than 20% of their total electricity generation from nuclear fuels” > > So how exactly is it a factual error to reference a government agency technical report, and where does your 10% figure come from? The key point is “total electricity generation” rather than “total energy production”. This IS a factual error (Lomborg admits so himself on his web-site). A minor point but that fact he does not know the difference clearly shows he does not understand subjects he suposedley knows more about that the combined scientific establishment. > [@](#): > > “Therefore we should close down the church? Hitler and Stalin > would have agreed with you.” It is a bit a out of order to compare someone to Hilter/Stalin, beacause their a bit too right/left wing, have a moustache, are vegitarian, etc. However when they start invading poland, sending their enemies to Gulags, etc. the comparison is justified. The lack of scientific rigour shown in The Sceptical Environmentalist, is quite comparable to that in some creationist literature I’ve read. That was what I was comparing, not the argument itself. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2003, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-wrecks-planet-yeah-right/183172/100 "2003-06-27T01:32:12Z")
> [@](#): > > I call the absence of any caveate a factual error… And I call a a tail a leg, and so a dog has five legs. And so it goes on and on. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-wrecks-planet-yeah-right/183172.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-wrecks-planet-yeah-right/183172.md?page=6)