waldo Posted February 21, 2014 Report Posted February 21, 2014 Bjørn Lomborg is a good source. no - he's anything but. That censure highlighted the claimed scientific dishonesty put forward in one of his books... there is no shortage of scientific critical review of that book - try a google. The 'over-turn' was bureaucratic and emphasized the procedural handling of the censure... not the actual claimed scientific dishonesty. Within the climate change/global warming discussion arena, he has no credibility... yet he has made a reputation (and living) with nothing more than a political science degree. He has no education in the physical sciences, he has no practical research to show in any related disciplines and he has never published anything related to the actual science. More pointedly, he has done a complete 180 degree shift from his initial denier position to one where he now states he accepts AGW. Of course, he is the classic concern troll, in that his claimed shifted acceptance is one where he also advocates for a "delay, do nothing" approach to deal with climate change. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 21, 2014 Report Posted February 21, 2014 Bjørn Lomborg is a good source. Yes, he was censured by the DCSD but: Yes, I agree...good source. His censure was very helpful in opening up closed processes and obfuscation. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
waldo Posted February 21, 2014 Report Posted February 21, 2014 Yes, I agree...good source. His censure was very helpful in opening up closed processes and obfuscation. you haven't a clue who the guy is, what the issue was about, what went on within the Danish organizations, etc.... but nice of you to follow me over to this thread. Are you looking for some more luvin? Quote
waldo Posted February 21, 2014 Report Posted February 21, 2014 as follows, the full quote to counter yours above. The complete quote, not the one your linked author conveniently tailored; I've bold-highlighted a/the most pertinent part that was purposely left out: In the Philippines, we supported and highlighted the community rejection of golden rice in the Mindanao area. We will continue our campaign to halt release of GE rice to the environment, and to support public resistance to GE foods, by promoting existing, more effective and more sustainable solutions for tackling vitamin A deficiency. nothing within the above (complete) quote is inconsistent with anything previously presented or discussed in this thread. In the Philippines, we supported and highlighted the community rejection of golden rice in the Mindanao area. We will continue our campaign to halt release of GE rice to the environment, and to support public resistance to GE foods, by promoting existing, more effective and more sustainable solutions for tackling vitamin A deficiency. IMO, the bolded text is an admission of guilt by GP. no - you don't get to alter sentence structure by choosing to ignore emphasis... the latter part of the sentence wording, "by promoting existing more effective and more sustainable solutions for tackling vitamin A deficiency", applies equally to both parts of the initial sentence structure (as comma separated). . Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 21, 2014 Report Posted February 21, 2014 Wrong...he is well known in the battle against climate change warmies and alarmists. He doesn't need hockey stick lies. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
waldo Posted February 21, 2014 Report Posted February 21, 2014 Wrong...he is well known in the battle against climate change warmies and alarmists. He doesn't need hockey stick lies. per norm, you don't know what you're talking about. I suggest you actually flush out his real position... cause it doesn't fit your idiotic warmies/alarmists/hockey stick lies comment. A comment you make simply to provoke. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 21, 2014 Report Posted February 21, 2014 His position is well known....warming caused by humans....sure....but no big deal. 'Cause it ain't. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
waldo Posted February 21, 2014 Report Posted February 21, 2014 His position is well known....warming caused by humans....sure....but no big deal. 'Cause it ain't. again, you don't know what you're talking about Quote
carepov Posted February 21, 2014 Author Report Posted February 21, 2014 no - you don't get to alter sentence structure by choosing to ignore emphasis... the latter part of the sentence wording, "by promoting existing more effective and more sustainable solutions for tackling vitamin A deficiency", applies equally to both parts of the initial sentence structure (as comma separated). What could be more effective and more sustainable than people eating the same thing that they currently eat (rice) at no extra cost that includes beta carotene? Greenpeace's position reminds me of some religious organizations that say, "We are against condoms and other birth control. We promote a more effective and sustainable solution to STDs and unwanted pregnancy: abstinence" Quote
carepov Posted February 21, 2014 Author Report Posted February 21, 2014 no - he's anything but. That censure highlighted the claimed scientific dishonesty put forward in one of his books... there is no shortage of scientific critical review of that book - try a google. The 'over-turn' was bureaucratic and emphasized the procedural handling of the censure... not the actual claimed scientific dishonesty. Within the climate change/global warming discussion arena, he has no credibility... yet he has made a reputation (and living) with nothing more than a political science degree. He has no education in the physical sciences, he has no practical research to show in any related disciplines and he has never published anything related to the actual science. More pointedly, he has done a complete 180 degree shift from his initial denier position to one where he now states he accepts AGW. Of course, he is the classic concern troll, in that his claimed shifted acceptance is one where he also advocates for a "delay, do nothing" approach to deal with climate change. IMO, if anything was "bureaucratic" it was the original DCSD finding (which was completely annulled). In any case, I am more interested in discussing actual arguments and supporting data rather than the people making the arguments. Quote
TimG Posted February 21, 2014 Report Posted February 21, 2014 (edited) IMO, if anything was "bureaucratic" it was the original DCSD finding (which was completely annulled). In any case, I am more interested in discussing actual arguments and supporting data rather than the people making the arguments.The appalling treatment Lomborg by the establishment was my first encounter with the mindless fanaticism that drives climate alarmists like waldo. It motivated me to look very carefully at the science underpinning the claims and I discovered how weak the climate alarmist arguement really is. Edited February 21, 2014 by TimG Quote
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.