Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (40912)	12/14/2001 10:56:40 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 82486

I guess we have to disagree on this one. I'm not sure that it even business as usual spin, let alone something worse. I don't consider it a misrepresentation at all unless it is either a lie (which it is not), or if the data showed the other way is so different as to lead to a totally different conclusion (and I don't think it is). I myself have used % of the US land area covered with forest in a similar argument (which obviously just covered the US) and I wasn't trying to misrepresent anything or even really put a spin on it. Of course Lomborg had more information available to him then I did, but I wouldn't consider this particularly damning unless the other charge against him about distorting data (picking years that highlight his case while ignoring ones that are against his argument, and worse yet changing the definition of what constitutes forest in such a way as to make the earlier figure smaller and the later figure bigger) are true. If those accusations are true then its such an obvious case of misrepresentation that I don't think the part that we are arguing about it important. If they are not true then I don't have too much of a problem with his work. Oddly in one sense if the most serious charges against him prove to be true I might have more reason to be annoyed at him then someone who does think the environment is in serious decline. Proving that he has made serious errors or even lies would not logically prove that the overall point that he is talking about it wrong, but it would give many people the impression that his ideas (and those of others who are making similar points) have been proven wrong. I would politically weaken those who argue that many environmentalist activists have gone to far, even though it would not really prove anything (except perhaps something about Lomborg's character or sloppy research). I don't consider the case against Lomborg closed yet. The fact that his research has been criticized does not make it wrong, but I hope that if his research really is worth anything he puts some effort in to supporting it. Tim