I particularly like this statement:
"There remains a need for rigorous scrutiny of Lomborg's methods, given his prominence, his claims to serious analysis, and the polarized debate surrounding his book."
Very true.
1 posted on
01/17/2003 9:27:47 AM PST by
cogitator
To: All
2 posted on
01/17/2003 9:29:28 AM PST by
Support Free Republic
(Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
To: cogitator
It am always suprised at the willingness of
scientists to whore it around politically. I supose it comes
from their years at University.
3 posted on
01/17/2003 9:34:24 AM PST by
Hans
To: cogitator
Lomborg and his detractors are BOTH trying to spin science to favor their argument. The truth is somewhere in between.
To: cogitator
What I would like to see is Paul Ehrlich called out to account for his scientific dishonesty and incompetence instead of getting prestigious awards.
To: cogitator
...the committee's judgement characterizes Lomborg as "objectively dishonest" while at the same time stating that they have no evidence for what most people would call dishonesty: deliberate misrepresentation. If Lomborg is truly "objectively dishonest", there should at least be a few of his misrepresentations to highlight. This is enough to make one wonder about the basic honesty (or political motivation) of the committee.
11 posted on
01/17/2003 5:19:27 PM PST by
Bob
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson