# 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:** 6
**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, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-wrecks-planet-yeah-right/183172/101 "2003-06-27T01:41:30Z")
So your claiming that if claimed in his book that his dog has five legs (without adding the minor point about his opinion on tails) it wouldn’t be factual error ? ---
**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 27, 2003, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-wrecks-planet-yeah-right/183172/102 "2003-06-27T15:45:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by griffin77 \* > \*\*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 would disagree strongly. Coal plants do remove a large portion of those pollutants. Its not to say that there isn’t some left, but the quote does not deserve teh attack you made upon it. > [@](#): > > 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. \*\* I’ve been a skeptic for quite some time, and what I have noticed is that the claim of “this is the tactic that creationists use” is often used by the pseudointellectual woowoo community rather than scientific community. It is a hand waving distraction attempt to cover a serious shortcoming in able criticisms. So instead what is done is that the comparison is made between skeptics and creationists, as if to claim that the evidence level for whatever bit of woowoo-ism (psi-powers, ghosts, whatevah) is equal to the level of evolutionary study. It is a sign of intellectual laziness and an insult to boot. Spare me. You claim that Lomborg is "cherry-picking’ the data, but that accusation often runs both ways and Lomborg is a lot more restrained, his data is often from more reliable sources as well. I know there’s mistakes in Lomborg’s work (no book is perfect) but the attempts to smear him, as you have tried above, are weak and desperate. ---
**Author:** ![Charlee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4af34b/32.png) [@Charlee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Charlee)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2003, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-wrecks-planet-yeah-right/183172/103 "2003-06-27T21:37:46Z")
World electricity production in 1980 was 8,282,174 gigawatt hours, in 1999 it was 14,815,102, more than a 78% increase. If nothing had been done to reduce emissions, I’ll assume they would have gone up 78% to 28.6 million tons of SO2. Since the emissions were at 12.4 million tons, a 56% decrease, I think that this qualifies for the term “vast”. My main point is that where there were errors, such as 20% should have been 10% for nuclear power, I don’t think they affected the conclusions that he presents. I don’t see anyone successfully discrediting his conclusions. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2003, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-wrecks-planet-yeah-right/183172/104 "2003-06-28T00:06:11Z")
Lomborg: > [@](#): > > 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 \*\* griffin77\*\* tried to imply that Lomborg stated that the vast part of annual SO2 emissions have been removed. Either \*\* griffin77\*\* is incapable of understanding what is plainly written, or else he is trying to construct a strawman. Lomborg clearly states that he is referring to emissions today using ‘low-sulfur coal, scrubbers and other air-pollution control devices’ compared to emissions in developing countries or in the past _not_ using low-sulfur coal, scrubbers and other air-pollution control devices When I pointed this out **griffin77** changed his position. No longer was he interested in “the reduction” in “million tons of SO2 annually”. Now he started claiming > [@](#): > > I read this as meaning the “vast part” of the emissions full stop. It does mean the ‘vast part’ of emissions full stop. [http://www.epa.gov/oar/emtrnd94/poll\_sox.html](http://www.epa.gov/oar/emtrnd94/poll_sox.html) By 1994, the electric utility companies had installed emission controls and/or switched to low sulfur fuels, reducing their emissions to under 15 million short tons 1970 coal use 320 Emissions 15.8 = 1 short ton emission/ 20 tonne coal. 2000 coal use 982 Emissions 10.7 = 1 short ton emmision/ 91 ton coal. That means that 78% of the SO2 emmissions of 1970 produced by burning high-sulfur coal, without scrubbers and other air-pollution control devices has been removed. That is the vast part. No disputing that fact. This is precisely what Lomborg claims, and it perfectly accurate. \*\* griffin77\*\* of course has done what all of Lomborg’s critics have done and tried to pick fault with what he wanted Lomborg to say rather than what he qiute clearly did say. A classic strawman and oh so typical. ---
**Author:** ![griffin77](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/3d9bf3/32.png) [@griffin77](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin77)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2003, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-wrecks-planet-yeah-right/183172/105 "2003-06-28T03:46:27Z")
\ [http://www.epa.gov/oar/emtrnd94/poll\_sox.html](http://www.epa.gov/oar/emtrnd94/poll_sox.html) By 1994, the electric utility companies had installed emission controls and/or switched to low sulfur fuels, reducing their emissions to under 15 million short tons \ What this this report actually says is: \ by the 1970s, SO2 emissions from electric utilities had increased sevenfold and dominated the national total at 56 percent (17 million short tons). By 1994, the electric utility companies had installed emission controls and/or switched to low sulfur fuels, reducing their emissions to under 15 million short tons \ So the “vast part” of sulfur dioxide emissions that have been removed by low-sulfur coal, scrubbers and other air-pollution control devices is about %20 (the actual 1994 figure is 13.5 million short tons), again not what I’d call really a “vast amount”… ---
**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 28, 2003, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-wrecks-planet-yeah-right/183172/106 "2003-06-28T04:09:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by griffin77 \* > \*\*\ > [http://www.epa.gov/oar/emtrnd94/poll\_sox.html](http://www.epa.gov/oar/emtrnd94/poll_sox.html) > By 1994, the electric utility companies had installed emission controls and/or switched to low sulfur fuels, reducing their emissions to under 15 million short tons > \ > > What this this report actually says is: > > \ > by the 1970s, SO2 emissions from electric utilities had increased sevenfold and dominated the national total at 56 percent (17 million short tons). By 1994, the electric utility companies had installed emission controls and/or switched to low sulfur fuels, reducing their emissions to under 15 million short tons > \ > > So the “vast part” of sulfur dioxide emissions that have been removed by low-sulfur coal, scrubbers and other air-pollution control devices is about %20 (the actual 1994 figure is 13.5 million short tons), again not what I’d call really a “vast amount”… \*\* Accounting for the increase in Electrical usage, it certainly is. You seem to be dancing around this detail. Look at Charlee’s post. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2003, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-wrecks-planet-yeah-right/183172/107 "2003-06-28T04:15:01Z")
**griffin77** you still don’t understand that fairly simple passge do you? Read it again. > [@](#): > > 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 Lomborg states quite clearly that there are two scenrios he is comparing: present day developed economies which have switched to low-sulfur coal, scrubbers and other air-pollution control devices, and past or developing ecomomies which have not switched to low-sulfur coal, scrubbers and other air-pollution control devices. In past or developing ecomomies which have not switched to low-sulfur coal, scrubbers and other air-pollution control devices coal burning produced 1 short ton emission/ 20 ton coal. In present day developed economies which have switched to low-sulfur coal, scrubbers and other air-pollution control devices coal burning produced 1 short ton emission/ 91 ton coal. Some direct questions **griffin77** : What would be the total emmisions full stop for 2000 coal use if emmision production levels were at the 1970 pre-low-sulfur coal, pre-scrubbers and pre-other air-pollution control level? What is the actual total emmisions full stop for 2000 coal use now that we have have switched to low-sulfur coal, scrubbers and other air-pollution control devices? What percentage of the 1970-level 2000 emmisons total is the the actual 2000 emmisions total? What amount of SO2/ton have have present day developed economies which have switched to low-sulfur coal, scrubbers and other air-pollution control devices coal removed? What percentage is this? You have told us that the net emmisions reduction is 20%. Was Lomborg talking about net emmisions reductions in that paragraph? If he wasn’t then doesn’t that make this a blatant strawman? Was he talking about the fraction of emmisions reduced from coal burning stations in developed economies that have switched to low-sulfur coal, scrubbers and other air-pollution control devices? You have proven our point very clearly. this type of blatant and provable strawman criticim is all that the criticsms of omborg amount to. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2003, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-wrecks-planet-yeah-right/183172/108 "2003-06-28T04:21:26Z")
> [@](#): > > You seem to be dancing around this detail. He isn’t dancing around the detail, he is ignoring what Lomborg siad and trying to attack what he wants him to say. Classic strawman. Lomborg clearly talked about total emmision removal full stop from burning a given quantity of coal. Not net emmission. No mention of net emmisons is made. Lomborg only talks about modern develped economies’ techniques using low-sulfur coal, scrubbers and other air-pollution control devices. The only possible alternative is of course past or developing ecomomies which have not switched to low-sulfur coal, scrubbers and other air-pollution control devices. There is no room here for discussing net emmisions. We can only compare emmisions ton for ton, unit production for unit production or plant/plant. So come on **griffin77** and tell us, ton for ton, unit production for unit production or or plant/plant what percentage reduction has been acheived? ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-wrecks-planet-yeah-right/183172/109 "2003-07-02T06:31:36Z")
**jshore** said: > [@](#): > > **Irishman** , I know my posts have taken up a lot of space in this thread due to this multiple posting problem when the boards get slow but you attributed a quote to me here that was actually made by another poster. Oops, so I did. I think I was confused by **Blake** ’s quoting without attributions, but I should have checked the original. I’m sorry. I agree with **Mr. Miskatonic** over the comparisons to creationists. Whether or not creationists use the tactics does not bear on the acceptability of the tactic. If the method is bad, it is bad no matter who uses it, and mentioning creationists is only an attempt to color the current target with the same brush. Identify the bad method, describe why and how it is bad. There’s no need to bring creationists into the discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Charlee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4af34b/32.png) [@Charlee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Charlee)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-wrecks-planet-yeah-right/183172/110 "2003-07-02T18:13:53Z")
Have I hit another dead-end? Doesn’t anyone else find it curious that high concentrations of ozone only appear around the Antarctic region when the “ozone hole” occurs? Doesn’t this suggest that there just may be another as yet unknown explanation why lower levels of ozone occur over Antarctica? I have no vested interest or agenda in questioning the current theories. I just want to know the truth. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2003, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-wrecks-planet-yeah-right/183172/111 "2003-07-08T23:47:55Z")
The following is from the web page of James Howard Kunstler. You can link to it at [http://www.kunstler.com/mags\_diary7.html](http://www.kunstler.com/mags_diary7.html). > [@](#): > > June 3, 2003 > The Association for the Study of Peak Oil threw a major conference last week in Paris. The org is lead by Colin Campbell, retired chief geologist for Shell Oil, and the board members include an impressive roster of geologists who have worked both for Big Oil and acadamia, for instance, Kenneth Deffeyes of Princeton, retired exploration manager of France’s giant Total company Jean Laherrere, Pierre-Rene Bauquis, VP of the French Energy Institute (IFP), and others like Matthew Simmons, the Houston-based investment banker specializing in energy companies. > The message emerging from the meeting is that the world may have already entered the unchartered territory of global oil depletion – that is, the downside of “Hubbert’s Curve,” the bell graph first used by Shell Oil geologist M. King Hubbert in 1956 to describe the destiny of the world’s oil supplies. Here are some of the salient points presented (thanks to Michael C. Ruppert reporting for the [Fromthewilderness.com](http://Fromthewilderness.com)). > > – Deffeyes repeated a claim he made in April that, based on production figures for the past three years, the world seems to have passed peak oil production in 2000. > > – The once-hoped-for Caspian Sea bonanza has proved to be a major bust. British Petroleum and Exxon/Mobil have already pulled out. > > – Reserve figures have been uniformly overstated for decades by both major oil companies and national governments – for tax advantages in the case of US companies and to evade export quota regulations in the case of OPEC members. Saudi Arabia’s reserves may be substantially lower than the 250 billion barrels claimed, and in fact Saudi Arabia may be producing now at 100 percent capacity, meaning they may now be passing peak. > > – Oliver Appert, Chairman of the IFP, declared there are no more major significant reserves to be discovered and that the world oil depletion rate is between five and ten per cent per year, requiring 60 million barrels a day in new production to meet demand. > > – Auto sales in China jumped 50 percent in 2002 alone. > > – Matthew Simmons told the group that the US natural gas supply is near a crisis point. By 2001, with record drilling, there was no increase in supply, and by 2003 production was in serious decline. New Texas gas wells, he said, are in decline an average of 83 percent one year after drilling. “The world has no Plan B,” he said. > > –Dutch economist Maarten Van Mourik told the group that deep water drilling would not add significantly to the world’s oil reserve, that it did not make sense economically, and ultimately could only produce five billion barrels – equal to a 60-day world demand at current levels. Van Mourik also made the interesting observation that, “it may not be profitable to slow decline.” > > – All speakers addressing the issue stated that no combination of alternative energy sources can replace hydrocarbons, and none even dreamed of will be implemented in time to avert major disruptions in industrial civilization. > > – Dr. Jorg Wind, representing auto giant Daimler / Chrysler told the conference that his company did not view hydrogen as a viable alternative to petroleum-based engines. He stated that fuel cell vehicles would never amount to significant market share. Hydrogen was ruled out as a solution because of intensive costs of production, inherent energy inefficiencies, lack of infrastructure, and practical difficulties such as the extreme cost and difficulty of storage. The Daimler / Chrysler representative dismissed ethanol out of hand as “not energy efficient.” > > – Pierre-Rene Bauquis remarked that commercial production of hydrogen is two to five times the cost of fossil fuels used to produce it. > > – Other French presenters stated that ethanol used in France enjoyed a 300 percent government subsidy. > > – Physics Professor Kjell Aleklett told the conference that exploiting the Canadian Tar Sands would be a financial and economic disaster, insofar as the amount of natural gas needed to create steam to process the mined sands, as well as the massive amounts of water used and polluted in the process. > > – Chris Skrebowski of the UK’s Institute of Petroleum noted that by 2007 Britain will be in its second year of natural gas imports and its first year of oil imports, having severely depleted its North Sea reserves by that time. > > Go ahead and draw some conclusions. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2003, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-wrecks-planet-yeah-right/183172/112 "2003-07-16T08:18:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by squidboy \* > \*\*As a student of overpopulation, a supporter of ZPG, and someone who never intends to breed, let me say this. > > “Overpopulation is the root of every problem that exists in our world today.” > > Anything and everything that people consider difficult about their lives can be traced back to this phenomenon. Why does it take two people’s incomes to do what one person’s income would do in the 1950s? \*\* I think one person’s income would do fine to support one 1500 Sqft house with no air conditioning, one bathroom, small fridge you manually defrost, and single pane windows. One long distance telephone call a month with your mother standing there with a timer in her hand. Vacation is a drive to your Uncle’s where you share a bed with your cousin who farts. One small black and white TV that you have to get up to change. Eating out once or twice a year for “special occasions”. ---
**Author:** ![hyjyljyj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/0ea827/32.png) [@hyjyljyj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hyjyljyj)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2003, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-wrecks-planet-yeah-right/183172/113 "2003-07-16T14:03:56Z")
Ow! My head!—Damn sky… ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2003, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-wrecks-planet-yeah-right/183172/114 "2003-07-23T17:08:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Irishman \* > I agree with **Mr. Miskatonic** over the comparisons to creationists. Whether or not creationists use the tactics does not bear on the acceptability of the tactic. If the method is bad, it is bad no matter who uses it, and mentioning creationists is only an attempt to color the current target with the same brush. Identify the bad method, describe why and how it is bad. There’s no need to bring creationists into the discussion. Well, I think it is pretty clear that very selective use of evidence and arguments to support your thesis is bad, especially when you are purporting to present a balanced scientific view. The point of making the analogy to creationists is that analogies are often useful in helping people to understand things. Admittedly, each person has to decide for themselves how good the analogy seems to be. My own personal opinion is that the analogy between Lomberg and creationists is about as good as any analogy can be. Making this analogy helps people to understand such phenomena as: (1) How an argument can persist so long in the general public when it is already basically settled in the peer-reviewed scientific community. (2) How arguments that are scientifically unsound can seem compelling when presented by someone who very selectively uses scientific data or evidence to support their case. And so on. As for “the sky is falling” statement by the last poster. — Actually, that cuts both ways. Usually, those arguing against environmental regulation also use “sky is falling” arguments, but in this case involving the economic costs. These arguments have traditionally turned out to be way-exagerated. In fact, this article suggests that when, say, industry is arguing it will cost X and the EPA is arguing it will only cost Y, the true answer is not somewhere in the middle but is in fact that both are overestimating the regulatory costs. Already, the experience of companies such as BP, which has met a slightly-stronger than Kyoto target for the company 8 years early and at a claimed **net savings** (on the order of a few hundred million dollars as I recall), seem to imply that the same thing is happening on the global warming issue. ---
**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:** [July 23, 2003, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-wrecks-planet-yeah-right/183172/115 "2003-07-23T20:51:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jshore \* > \*\*Well, I think it is pretty clear that very selective use of evidence and arguments to support your thesis is bad, especially when you are purporting to present a balanced scientific view. I have yet to see adequete proof that this has been established. The one sample we’ve seen given as “proof” (i.e. electrical consupmtion and emmission) was shown to be sadly wanting. > [@](#): > > The point of making the analogy to creationists is that analogies are often useful in helping people to understand things. Admittedly, each person has to decide for themselves how good the analogy seems to be. My own personal opinion is that the analogy between Lomberg and creationists is about as good as any analogy can be. AS you say it is your opinion. It is in my opinion a very poorly conceived cheap shot, and not an opinion based in reality whatsoever. [ ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2003, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-wrecks-planet-yeah-right/183172/116 "2003-07-23T22:34:27Z")
So **Jshore** you still can’t provide any evidence of factual errors despite claimng repeatedly that you know they exist. Instead we 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:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-wrecks-planet-yeah-right/183172/117 "2003-07-24T18:14:21Z")
Well, **Blake** , you may set the bar so low that if Lomberg doesn’t claim that 1+1 = 3 then he is engaging in good science. However, others of us think that the things that I have mentioned (and given cites for further explanations of) such as the selective use of evidence from the scientific literature (and often not what is considered the current best evidence) to support his thesis are examples of poor science and poor scholarship (although they may be just fine as rhetorical debating techniques, which is what you seem focussed on). What Lomberg has produced is simply a polemic, not a scientific work, and this is why he was chastised by that Danish scientific council. ---
**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:** [July 24, 2003, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-wrecks-planet-yeah-right/183172/118 "2003-07-24T20:32:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jshore \* > \*\*Well, **Blake** , you may set the bar so low that if Lomberg doesn’t claim that 1+1 = 3 then he is engaging in good science. However, others of us think that the things that I have mentioned (and given cites for further explanations of) such as the selective use of evidence from the scientific literature (and often not what is considered the current best evidence) to support his thesis are examples of poor science and poor scholarship (although they may be just fine as rhetorical debating techniques, which is what you seem focussed on). ACtually, no. You gave quotes from sources that strongly disagree with Lomberg, but do not point out any factual errors. The fact these people who strongly disagree with Lomberg have some vested insterest in argueing his work doesn’t help your case any. [QUOTE} What Lomberg has produced is simply a polemic, not a scientific work, and this is why he was chastised by that Danish scientific council. \*\*[/QUOTE] That was basicly a witchhunt. They couldn’t even say for what he was being chastised. They made a mockery of themselves over this issue. I’ll say it again, there’s plenty to argue against in Lomberg’s book, but the hysterical reactionary arguements have fallen waaaay short. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-wrecks-planet-yeah-right/183172/119 "2003-07-24T22:51:59Z")
So \*\*Jshore[b/] you still can’t provide any evidence of factual errors despite claimng repeatedly that you know they exist. You didn’t claim that he used selective evidence. You loudly and repeatedly made the ignorant claim of factual errors. Now you can’t support thsoe assertions. Instead we 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. Either cite or get off the pot **jshore**. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-wrecks-planet-yeah-right/183172/120 "2003-07-25T21:23:41Z")
**Blake** : Since learning that your definition of “factual errors” seems to correspond to something along the lines of “2+2=5” and knowing that proving such factual errors tends to be rather difficult outside of mathematics (becoming more and more difficult as one moves away from the hardest sciences like physics toward the others), I have been content to point out that the Lomborg book is poor science and scholarship…misrepresenting the state of the science…whether or not there are instances that rise to the height of what you consider to be a “factual error”. I have given you several cites that note cases where the science is represented poorly. You can continue to cling to your “no factual errors” canard if you so desire. Fine, by your definition, we have not found any factual errors in Lomborg’s work. I am sure we can also fail to find any in a lot of other shining examples of poor science. Your definition is of little utility in distinguishing good and bad science. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-wrecks-planet-yeah-right/183172.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-wrecks-planet-yeah-right/183172.md?page=7)