Comments on: Lomborg and Shellenberger & Nordhaus Redux http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/09/lomborg-cool-it-shellenberger-nordhaus-break-through/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Thu, 04 Dec 2008 04:56:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1 By: John http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/09/lomborg-cool-it-shellenberger-nordhaus-break-through/#comment-6063 John Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:40:18 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/09/lomborg-cool-it-shellenberger-nordhaus-break-through/#comment-6063 "Pretentious sniping." I think that phrase encapsulates what S&N and Lomborg are doing, and why it's so lame. “Pretentious sniping.” I think that phrase encapsulates what S&N and Lomborg are doing, and why it’s so lame.

]]> By: David http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/09/lomborg-cool-it-shellenberger-nordhaus-break-through/#comment-6075 David Thu, 11 Oct 2007 03:37:53 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/09/lomborg-cool-it-shellenberger-nordhaus-break-through/#comment-6075 OK, I'm no climatologist, but because of my background in science I sometimes try to educate myself on issues that are not in my field. So far, I've spent a good chunk of an evening browsing around to find out what S&N actually argue, as well as the counteraguments of their detractors. In this, I found the views of S&N, even when reported by those who obviously disagree, to be not crazy. Now, every scientific field had its quacks. My field physics has more than its fair share. But we physicists can dispell quackery in a few short paragraphs. Whether anyone finds those paragraphs or believes them is another issue. Now, I tried very hard to find a real expert lay out the obvious factual problems in S&N. I didn't find it. I suspect that their claims, if wrong, are not wrong in any easy or obvious way. In any other science, this would certainly warrant furhter investigation and substantive discussion. So here is what puzzles me: Why is this discussion so hard to find? Why is everyone so quick to change the subject and suddenly start talking about politics instead of statistics? Why all the truly unprofessional namecalling? Are there any scientists actually following along? OK, I’m no climatologist, but because of my background in science I sometimes try to educate myself on issues that are not in my field. So far, I’ve spent a good chunk of an evening browsing around to find out what S&N actually argue, as well as the counteraguments of their detractors. In this, I found the views of S&N, even when reported by those who obviously disagree, to be not crazy. Now, every scientific field had its quacks. My field physics has more than its fair share. But we physicists can dispell quackery in a few short paragraphs. Whether anyone finds those paragraphs or believes them is another issue. Now, I tried very hard to find a real expert lay out the obvious factual problems in S&N. I didn’t find it. I suspect that their claims, if wrong, are not wrong in any easy or obvious way. In any other science, this would certainly warrant furhter investigation and substantive discussion.

So here is what puzzles me: Why is this discussion so hard to find? Why is everyone so quick to change the subject and suddenly start talking about politics instead of statistics? Why all the truly unprofessional namecalling? Are there any scientists actually following along?

]]> By: Paul K http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/09/lomborg-cool-it-shellenberger-nordhaus-break-through/#comment-6077 Paul K Thu, 11 Oct 2007 04:39:54 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/09/lomborg-cool-it-shellenberger-nordhaus-break-through/#comment-6077 Joe, Your recent posts show the theory that unknown technologies must be developed to stop AGW is wrong because the technology is already here. I think Robert Collier is also wrong to call Nordhaus and Shellenberger part of a new breed of anti-environmentalists. They are environmentalists, who as you have pointed out are not the same as AGW advocates. Some environmentalists may resent the climate change emphasis. Joe,
Your recent posts show the theory that unknown technologies must be developed to stop AGW is wrong because the technology is already here.
I think Robert Collier is also wrong to call Nordhaus and Shellenberger part of a new breed of anti-environmentalists. They are environmentalists, who as you have pointed out are not the same as AGW advocates. Some environmentalists may resent the climate change emphasis.

]]> By: Dano http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/09/lomborg-cool-it-shellenberger-nordhaus-break-through/#comment-6093 Dano Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:23:58 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/09/lomborg-cool-it-shellenberger-nordhaus-break-through/#comment-6093 <i>Why all the truly unprofessional namecalling? Are there any scientists actually following along? </i> Aaaa-men David. Folks have their identities wrapped up in the environmentalism fight. S&N has said the fight isn't winning any more. Perhaps the identity-wrapped think S&N are calling them losers. IOW: don't take it so personally, folks. Get over yourselves and change tactics. Best, D Why all the truly unprofessional namecalling? Are there any scientists actually following along?

Aaaa-men David.

Folks have their identities wrapped up in the environmentalism fight. S&N has said the fight isn’t winning any more. Perhaps the identity-wrapped think S&N are calling them losers.

IOW: don’t take it so personally, folks. Get over yourselves and change tactics.

Best,

D

]]> By: Lorna Salzman http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/09/lomborg-cool-it-shellenberger-nordhaus-break-through/#comment-8049 Lorna Salzman Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:22:44 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/09/lomborg-cool-it-shellenberger-nordhaus-break-through/#comment-8049 Reviews of Nordhaus & Shellenberger's latest "Break Through" have failed to recognize that the book is not only utterly ignorant about the history of environmentalism but that it is a compendium of public polls called "psychographics" which they have elevated to an undeserved status they call Truth. But N&S conceal the real source materials for their book, pretending that they have developed their own infallible analysis of global problems. Essentially the book is a fraud, an attempt by two rank amateurs with no hand-on environmental experience, to promote their polling company Environics and get more gullible clients on board. Anyone wanting an in-depth analysis of this book by an activist with four decades of experience under her belt can go to my web site (www.lornasalzman.com). Reviews of Nordhaus & Shellenberger’s latest “Break Through” have failed to recognize that the book is not only utterly ignorant about the history of environmentalism but that it is a compendium of public polls called “psychographics” which they have elevated to an undeserved status they call Truth. But N&S conceal the real source materials for their book, pretending that they have developed their own infallible analysis of global problems. Essentially the book is a fraud, an attempt by two rank amateurs with no hand-on environmental experience, to promote their polling company Environics and get more gullible clients on board. Anyone wanting an in-depth analysis of this book by an activist with four decades of experience under her belt can go to my web site (www.lornasalzman.com).

]]>