[VOA]

These personal attacks against Lomborg suggest to me that Lomborg must have struck a nerve somewhere.

When academics fall back on as hominem attacks, they are either out of intellectual
ammo, or vying for the favors of a love object.

In Lomborg's case, it's the former.
Hard for them to sink a tenured professor of statistics who has been a Greenpeace member
and still says that he is an environmentalist and a socialist.

Lomborg's interview on The Dennis Prager Show was really good. Lomborg is a smart
and tough guy.

What I especially liked was his pointing out that as time goes along, the oil companies
discover more and more oil and/or learn how to more efficiently extract and refine petroleum.
I think he said that in the 1920's the world had only 10 years worth of known researves
(at the 1920's consumption rate)...and that this number has continuously increased, such that
despite our prodigious consumption, we have something like 20-30 years of known reserves.

Makes me wonder where all the academics who (in the 1970's) said we'd be out of oil
before 2000.
Yes, I'm sure they are typing out similarly flawed predictions for publication and
hobbling down to the Faculty Club for a cocktail.
Tenured fools can afford to do that.
On our dollars.

If I'd known that the oil would last this long, I would have become a master auto mechanic...
it would certainly be more enjoyable to my present position in academia amongst
the sort of people that think Lomborg is a fraud.

[jigsaw]

grundle, thanks for your very interesting post.

Rush has his interview with Lomborg in the May 2002 Limbaugh Letter.

[Ben Ficklin]

Here is an index of all the articles-rebuttals-cross rebuttals-cross cross rebutals-etc at Scientific American

[mvpel]

I suspect he was substantially influenced by Paul Zane Pilzer's 1990 book, "Unlimited Wealth." It's nice to see that this mindset is gaining intellectual currency.

[The Great Satan]

The bottom line on "environmental science" is you have to look at the track record of the people involved. When I see eco-doomsters prefacing their predictions with a detailed mea culpa and a post mortem analysis on the failed Chicken Little predictions of the fifties, sixties, seventies and eighties, I might grant them some shred of intellectual credibility. But I don't expect that to happen soon, and I'm not going to waste any more time on them in the interim. They are simply not credible.

[Aurelius]

BUMP

[Aurelius]

BUMP

[Southack]

Well said.