Peer review, like democracy, is not perfect, but it has served science very, very well. There is no area of human activity that is more successful than science, and peer review is an essential and critical component of that success. If Barry has a better idea, let’s hear it, but please let it show an understanding of how science actually works.

Are we really supposed to pay attention to Paul Reiter, a medical entomologist, regarding climate change? According to Reiter, “Science proceeds by observation, hypothesis and experiment.” Sounds reasonable to the public. Also sounds like a grade-school formulation of the scientific method. Sigh.

A Bangladeshi scientist had warned that Bangladesh would be submerged decades ago… but nobody paid attention. Nobody bothered even after scientists from around the world raised the alarm.

RQ

If there is truly a problem that man can actually affect, why isn’t the process transparent? No we have the likes of Al Gore telling us not to look at the dust in the corners. Why does the IPCC and its affiliates strong arm anyone who disagrees. The mockery of the concept of peer review is totally ridiculous. Those who make the report are responsible for choosing those that will do the peer review. Then if those that did the choosing don’t like what was said by the reviewers they simply ignore it. Just how inbred a process do we need to have for you to open your eyes and see that what is being sold to you is deception on a huge scale.

In my humble opinion the IPCC needs to be held accountable for its actions. The whole process needs to be audited and cleaned up. It needs to have an independent review process, not selected by those in the system.

If scientists, such as Dr. Paul Reiter, are bringing valid questions contending the assertions made by this bunch of clowns. Then “scientists” need to address the issues and stop with the BS ad hominem attacks. If it is a good question, it doesn’t matter if it is a child who has raised the point, it needs to be addressed.

Two points — even without the discounting issue, Lomborg’s economics are wrong. See RFFs paper, “An Even Sterner Report.”

As to whether there’s any evidence that Lomborg is being dishonest, I echo Joe’s response above.

There are two options with regard to Lomborg’s research.

One is that by sheer happenstance, his research turned up only facts and forecasts that supported his contention that global warming is not as big a deal as folks are saying. Highly unlikely.

Option two is that he did comprehensive research but used only those studies and those sections of studies which suport his perspective. Much more likely and fundamentally dishonest.

In fact, it is evident from the nature of studies Lomborg cites that he was reasonably comprehensive in his review of the literature, but selective in how he used it.

Ergo, he was dishonest.

Finally, your metaphor about the Isreali and Palestinean suggests you have missunderstood my point about how science works. History, politics
religion and other such issues are inherently maleable. Science, on the other hand, is composed of observed phenomena that can be tested and verified (or refuted). Bacon laid out the requirements of scientific inquiry in his New Organon — one of the rules is that all data must be used and assessed in formulating a hypothesis or in attempting to refute one.

This isn’t a cultural issue in the way you describe it. it’s not a “on the one hand, this; on the other that” — I refer you to C.P. Snow’s essay on this exact topic.

As long as we’re being tendentious, in my earlier comment about the Scientific American editorial, you stated you thought it was unfair … but what discredited Lomborg were the many articles by scientists themselves which effectively and unequivocably discredited Lomborg, not the opinion piece published by the editors.

If Lomborg were right about the impacts of global warming, he would be (mostly) right about the economics. But I will get around to critiquing his economic analysis.

Lomborg’s selection may be skewed or yours may be, or both. In fact I am inclined to believe that Lomborg is in fact a bit skewed. That doesn’t make him intellectually dishonest.

Also his facts are not nearly as skewed as I see made out. So far I haven’t seen him say anything that is unsupportable, and in fact everything he says is, as far as I know, compatible with WG1, and with the opinion of some of the more conservative climate science professionals I am personally acquainted with and who have no problems with the WG1 reports. It’s more his reasoning and his conclusions that are skewed.

It’s a missed opportunity to challenge Lomborg on the climatology, when it is the fundamental economic axioms that need to be called into question. The real difference between Lomborg and Stern is about how to treat long time scales economically, not about how fast sea level is rising. This is a real substantive diference on the matters on which they are expert, and on this matter Lomborg is closer to the economic field’s consensus.

If the Hansen scenarios don’t play out and sea level rise is hundreds of years in the future, we will still be as morally wrong to commit our distand descendants to it as we would be if it were the very next generation we were messing up. Conventional economics cannot process that thought, so either the thought is wrong or economics is wrong. This is what we should be talking about when we talk about Lomborg.