You only have to read the opening paragraph of your alleged "in-depth rebuttal" (which gives no indication as to its peer-review status, incidentally) to smell the prejudice: "In 1999 – compelled by the errors and misrepresentations voiced by Bjørn Lomborg, Associate Professor – the Danish Ecological Council published a book intended as a countermove."
Well, that's clearly an entirely unbiased and objective assessment...
Now, as I understand it your argument here is that Lomborg is a liar and a knave because something he wrote in a newspaper article refers to a paper by someone else entirely whose analysis you don't agree with, apparently on the basis that there's a "non-zero chance" of catastrophic results from climate change.
Well, as you know there's a non-zero chance that the sun will explode in the next three seconds, but I can confidently predict that it's not going to happen. There's a non-zero chance of winning the lottery, but it won't be you. In the real world, where people's lives and livelihoods are at stake, we don't make policy based on remote possibilities but on the likely outcomes. Which is exactly what Lomborg does in his book - which, as you seem to be fixated on some article in the WSJ, I presume you haven't read.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2010-01-07 12:52 pm (UTC)Well, that's clearly an entirely unbiased and objective assessment...
Now, as I understand it your argument here is that Lomborg is a liar and a knave because something he wrote in a newspaper article refers to a paper by someone else entirely whose analysis you don't agree with, apparently on the basis that there's a "non-zero chance" of catastrophic results from climate change.
Well, as you know there's a non-zero chance that the sun will explode in the next three seconds, but I can confidently predict that it's not going to happen. There's a non-zero chance of winning the lottery, but it won't be you. In the real world, where people's lives and livelihoods are at stake, we don't make policy based on remote possibilities but on the likely outcomes. Which is exactly what Lomborg does in his book - which, as you seem to be fixated on some article in the WSJ, I presume you haven't read.