[saymaListserv] Re: Updates -- Lomborg's book
jhminshall at mindspring.com
Thu Oct 4 11:14:39 JEST 2001
Hi Janice, Thanks for your response. No, Lomborg is not a scientist
in the sense that you mean. He is a PhD statistician. The
researchers I found in a web search on responses in Europe show that
statisticians and economists who have checked his findings have thus
far found them to be pretty accurate.
There were also reponses from environmentalists and scientists who
have a vested interest in protecting their past pronouncements saying
that Lomborg doesn't understand science. But he does understand the
facts, figures and timelines that they -- the environmentalists and
scientists -- have published for the public and vouched for. Those
facts, figures and timelines are what he challenges.
(Since I wrote the "Updates" message a very good review of Lomborg's
book by Ronald Bailey, Science Correspondent for Reason Magazine,
appeared in The Wall Street Journal, 10-2-01, another "respectable
publication". It is available on the web
(www.reason.com/hod/rb100201.html) or I will send you a copy if you
>I have been hearing about Lomberg from biologists and ecologists
>lately. Lomberg is NOT a scientist, and the scientists say he
>doesn't understand science and what's happening to our environment.
> I would certainly take anything he says with a BIG grain of salt.
> I think that, rather than looking for a not-so-gloomy message about
>the state of the environment, we should face the truth. Otherwise,
>the situation will just get bleaker.
>I think you are mistaken when you say, "So far his work has proven
>to be accurate both in details and in his conclusions." You say
>"economists and other researchers are going over his data," but you
>don't say if the researchers are scientists or economists. I bet
>they are not scientific researchers. Biologists certainly don't
>think he knows what he's talking about.
>The fact that an otherwise respectable publication like The
>Economist would publish Lomberg's article is a testament to its
>willingness to let all sides be heard, no matter how far off track
>the author is. I think this is similar to what would happen if it
>published an article by people from the Flat Earth Society. They
>deserve to be heard but not believed.
>I hate to sound so negative, but I really don't want other people to
>get the impression that Lomberg's ideas about the environment are
>mainstream or accepted by scientists who know the field.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the sayma