Posted on 01/12/2002 7:18:26 PM PST by jojo123
| THE scientist who dared to challenge the establishment view on climate change has been subjected to a campaign of personal abuse, professional vilification and threats to his safety. Last year Bjorn Lomborg claimed in his book The Skeptical Environmentalist that many of mankind’s worst fears — such as mass extinction of species, climate change and population growth — were largely unfounded. The book has provoked scientists and environmental groups into producing articles, websites and pamphlets rubbishing its author and his work. One of the most hostile, in Nature magazine, likens him to apologists for the Nazis. He has been physically attacked and has had to employ bodyguards. This weekend Lomborg repeated his claims. “My book seems to have hit a raw nerve. For years we have been hearing how the world is deteriorating. I thought that too and then I looked for the evidence and it just isn’t there. In fact, the history of the world is that things are getting better,” he said. Lomborg, a Danish statistician and former Greenpeace member, thought the book was a controversial but academic work that might do well to sell a few thousand copies. Instead it has become a bestseller on both sides of the Atlantic. His arguments range across almost every area of environmental concern. They include claims that there is no evidence for the wholesale loss of species and that the world’s forest cover is increasing. His arguments on climate change, however, have sparked the greatest reaction. Lomborg, a professor at Aarhus University, accepts that the world is getting warmer but says it would cost so much to stop that it is simply not worthwhile. “It would cost the world trillions of dollars a year, money which could be spent on helping the developing world to improve education and hospitals,” he said. The book was published by Cambridge University Press. Last autumn it sent Lomborg on a promotional tour of Britain and America, little realising the reaction that was building up. It began when Lomborg was heckled and booed at a book-signing at Borders bookshop in Oxford. As he was speaking, one of the crowd rushed forward and pushed a cream-laden baked Alaska pie into his face. Last week the protester, Mark Lynas, an environmentalist campaigning to save the Arctic from the effects of climate change, admitted the attack and said: “Hitting him with a baked Alaska seemed appropriate. Global warming is destroying one of the Earth’s last wildernesses and Lomborg is trying to pretend it doesn’t matter.” Even respectable scientific venues are not safe for Lomborg. When he recently gave a lecture at London’s Royal Institution he was protected by four bodyguards, and threats were made against him when he addressed the London School of Economics. The biggest shock came when Nature, the usually restrained scientific journal, printed a review comparing Lomborg to maverick academics who deny the Holocaust. The reviewers said Lomborg’s text “employs the strategy of those who argue that gay men are not dying of Aids, that Jews weren’t singled out by the Nazis and so on”. Last week Scientific American, a respected popular science journal, devoted 11 pages to an attack in which Lomborg is accused of “egregious distortions” and of being “ignorant” and “muddled”. Lester Brown, founder of the Worldwatch Institute and the Earth Policy Institute, said: “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.” Some of the most powerful vitriol is on websites. On www.anti-Lomborg.com there is a picture of Lomborg that was taken as he was hit with a pie. Lomborg has also clashed with Tom Burke, the former aide to John Gummer when he was environment secretary, at a presentation in Paris to finance ministers at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Burke, who spoke against him and is the author of a pamphlet attacking his work, said: “He is a cunning manipulator and a good communicator. He has a weak case but presents it so well that everyone switches off their crap detectors.” |
Environmentalism's John Lott?
Those types sought to be elevated to politically-correct-authority status as a short cut "fame". Objective scientists stand behind their work and only consider challenges to their work from other objective scientists. They have limited time and will not waste it responding to politically correct "scientists". They do welcome accredited, objective scientists that identify possible errors.
The universities perpetuate whatever the current mythology is, and they use hate and venom to maintain the status quo. Science does not breed free thinkers. They preach it but they don't practice it.
I know what you mean. I will add that objective science does motivate free thinking.
The tide has turned and objective science is swiftly becoming a prerequisite for business to succeed long term. It's odd that so many businesses accepted politically-correct "science" the previous four decades. Almost as if to think that universities and government were more worthy than business at producing market values.
Rising to external authority status by subverting the hard work and critical thinking necessary to be a valid authority. Each individual is the highest authority. That has been subverted/replaced with external authorities. The problem is exposed quite well elsewhere. The solution involves a thinking paradigm shift that realigns the individual with his or her true nature as the highest authority.
What do you think astronomers do all night, look at Penthouse and wank themselves?
The determination of the orbital period of Earth is measured by looking to see how long it takes for the same distant stars to return to the same position in our sky. How else could we possibly determine it? One HAS to have an external fixed point of reference; the stars are all we have.
Plummz is exactly right. There is no evidence what so ever for the orbital period of the earth being anything other than 365.25 days (and change).... EVERY year.
Furthermore, your contention that moving the seasons around by an incorrect calender would cause us to erroneously conclude that a global warmimg trend was occuring makes no sense: global warming refers to ANNUAL average global temperatures. It makes no difference whether we think it's Spring or Fall when we take the measurements, as long as we average a consecutive year's worth of observations.
Or something like that.... I think it's the same impulse that causes teen-agers to all dye their hair bright green to be different, then persecute the only kid in class whose hair isn't dyed bright green. He's the truly "different" one but groupthink is terrified of real differences. When you really think about humanity, everything is all about being popular. To be popular -- in business, politics, social situation, etc. -- you go along with the fad or "conventional wisdom" of the moment and take immense pleasure in hating and shunning anyone who has the audacity to be different. Marching to a different drummer carries with it innate perils.
I like "American Scientist" and "Physics Today".
The planetary orbital periods (including our own) have been calculated quite well. If they were not, we would never have been able to get spacecraft to the other planets.
Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown
I'll have to see if I can get a hold of those here (UK).
If you use a fixed point of reference, now, these are your words, how is it that you can call a star, or even our sun a stationary point, when in fact everything moves in the universe? Sure you can take into account mathematically where things should be, but are those calculations always accurate?
No, they are NOT always accurate. I can point to NASA and their lack of knowledge on how to convert metric to english and the whole Martian Lander debacle. The funny thing about moving the seasons, is that the seasons would fall in such a way as to appear support Global Warming. There is no such thing as Un-natural global warming. It happens because weather is cyclical, and anyone, especially meteorologists, and historians can tell you.
I saw a great special on PBS the other night where they were talking about ancient civilizations, and how they had their temples lined up with the stars. It was interesting because the Mayan calendar is only 365 days, and yet it was good even today. Now, call me crazy but if their calendar was accurate to our time, then could they have forseen that 365.25 orbit around the sun? Maybe, but unlikely. Their calendar predicted the seasons and even eclipses. Now, that is particularly interesting since we're talking about Fixed Point stellar cartography right? If you look at where you live and see what's going on, and look at the history of where you live, and what kind of weather you had over let's say the previous 100 years, you'll see that weather is ever changing, and cyclical. You might even see that it would appear that there might be something to my argument.
If look at the Mayan calendar, which is still good today for predicting seasons, weather, and eclipses, it's based on a 365 day year. Now, who am I to argue with people who seem to think they know it all. I can tell you, that it seems that our seasons are getting here later, and staying around longer. All you have to do is look at the farmer's almanacs from 150 years ago. Weather is cyclical, and there is nothing constant in the universe to reference. Sure you can calculate all you want, but you know, there are going to be times when you're wrong. Everyone makes mistakes.
Long out of print.
You are the sole owner of that property.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.