Talk:Bjørn Lomborg/Archive 3

Danish and English Wikipedia contradicts each other
Danish and English Wikipedia completely different explanaitions of the UVVU judgement of scientific dishonesty. The Danish Wikipedia has a completely different explanation about the whole business. Both these explanaitons can not be true at the same time. Maybe some political activists here on en.wikipedia.org needs to clean up their act?
 * I'm not sure when this comment was posted, as it is unsigned, but there were some significant errors in the description of the scientific dishonesty controversy. I corrected those errors several months ago, and added some citations. SkipSmith (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Please Consider
I have removed the Trivia section from this article, per the guideline and manual of style at WP:TRIVIA. Please do not reinstate the trivia section unless you can make a compelling argument that is is necessary for this article and adds to its encyclopedic quality. Eusebeus 11:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"Cool It"
Consider this sentence: "The book demonstrates that the problem needs to be dealt with in a responsible way." The statement in the predicate is a truism that does not need demonstration, and so the whole assertion is either vacuous or a puff, which would be a pro-Lomborg POV. Use "underlines" instead, continuing with some explanation of what Lomborg understands as "responsible" (i.e. minimal).

Link to some of the hostile reviews of the book, which cite for example Lomborg's disregard for low catastrophic risks - a cavalier mistake in cost-benefit analysis. Example: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/09/if-the-uncertai.html#more.

--JamesWim 14:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to be bold and edit it. I haven't read the book yet. But i suspect from readings of the SE that the above is correct. Keep it neutral and with adequate sourcing. (the above link cannot be used since its a self-published source, but i'm sure that you can find other sources). --Kim D. Petersen 16:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I still think this paragraph distorts his position in relation to most global climate change scientists and activists. It reads: "Lomborg argues that there can be no ten-year quick-fix solution." In this case, he is in agreement, not argument: as I understand, the usual case is that climate change will take a long time to deal with (even setting aside the 'given' that actions taken on it will need to be kept up for a century, not just ten years). —Preceding unsigned comment added by G34j (talk • contribs) 13:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a Trained Scientist?
Does Lomborg himself say he's not a trained scientist? A PhD in Political Science would technically qualify someone as a trained scientist. Any field that uses the scientific method and empirical data would qualify, actually. I've modified that section of the article in light of this. SkipSmith 07:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, political scientists are only broadly classified as "scientists" (in the-search-for-knowledge meaning of the term): since political science is technically a social science, and he's writing about natural science, I think that that this revert is justified because it emphasizes that he's not writing in his area of expertise. Furthermore, since he openly admits to not being a trained scientist, then he probably really isn't a trained scientist in *some* meaning of the term. Mitsein (talk) 06:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Any field that uses the scientific method is a science, and that would make Lomborg a scientist. It doesn't matter if the data and hypotheses relate to plate tectonics or voter turnout.  I suspect his claim of not being trained in the sciences was a reference to climate or natural science, and not meant as a broad claim (the provided link provides no information on this point).  I'm going to try a compromise edit, and change the article to "not trained in the natural sciences".  SkipSmith (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Political scientists are not scientists. They have essentially no training in scientific methods, and rarely attempt to apply such methods to their work. Social scientists are arguably scientists, but many physical scientists (including myself) view social science with disdain. Lomborg does not appear to be a scientist to me. Certainly he is not working in an area of demonstrated expertise. To the contrary, he appears to be way over his head much of the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.220.1.149 (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Arrogance plus ignorance is never a pretty combination. Your statement about political scientists and their training in the scientific method is completely false. SkipSmith (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

But he has been a statistics lecturer - statistics is surely a science? (Applied maths anyway.) Ben Finn (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Environmentalist Author?
His caption listed him as an environmentalist author. Just because he asserts that he's an environmentalist (The Skeptical Environmentalist) doesn't make it true. Since the rest of the article doesn't refer to him as an environmentalist, I think it's fair to remove this. Note that his views don't fit in with traditional environmentalism. I see his self-classification as an environmentalism more as political framing, subterfuge, or "green washing." Mitsein (talk) 06:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

He writes on environmental issues, and aims to improve the environment. Surely this is sufficient for him to be an environmentalist author. And just because he is not a traditional environmentalist doesn't mean he's not an environmentalist. Ben Finn (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * He aims to improve the environment by doing nothing to cut GHG emissions. He's an environmentalist in the same way Bush was an advocate for science. MonoApe (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * MonoApe, your statement makes clear that you have not read his book. Lomborg's concern for the environment is immense.  He merely recognizes that we have limited resources with which to make improvements, and he believes that the monies that some propose spending on massively reducing GHG emissions could have a far greater and far more positive effect if spent on other concerns.   Un  sch  ool  06:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't need to buy and read his book to be familiar with his arguments. I've read his output, watched him in debate and seen the science-based response. He denies scientific reality (while saying he accepts it) and proposes inaction that will very likely cause mass species extinction and global chaos for humanity. "Lomborg tends to choose one scenario and discuss it, while ignoring other possible scenarios. This works fine if one wants to make a political point, but it is not good science." - http://www.fredbortz.com/review/CoolIt.htm t MonoApe (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I readily grant you that it is quite possible for one to gain a grasp of the essentials of an argument, a novel, or most any substantive piece of writing by absorbing synopses provided by intermediaries. Without such dispersal of information, we would be at a loss to grasp much of anything in this increasingly complex world, if for no other reason than available time.  Despite this, I have little confidence that most of Lomborg's detractors have a good grasp of his work.  I read The Skeptical Environmentalist from cover to cover over the period of several months.  I have yet to see any significant discussion of Lomborg which even conveys the essence, let alone the details, of his arguments.  And the failures come from both sides of the debate.  His arguments are distorted by those on one side completely deny AGW and ignored by those who at the other extreme believe all global warming is exclusively the fault of man.  Lomborg does not deny AGW, he explicitly expresses belief in it.  His argument is not about the science, it is about policy. And yes, he may very well be supporting policies that history might judge as being the "wrong" policies.  But what is "wrong"?  Hypothetically speaking, if Policy A will save thousands of species but increase human poverty and disease, and Policy B will improve human living conditions but result in mass extinctions, which is "better"?  Believe it or not, this is not a cut-and-dried issue to everybody.  Some people will take the mass extinctions, others will take the increased human suffering.  But regardless of what you or I favor (and, as for me, I'm not sure where I would stand on such choices, this is not exactly a pleasant topic to consider), we don't have to worry about it here, because Wikipedia has an NPOV policy.  NPOV allows us, where relevant and appropriate, to indicate that the scientific consensus is solidly supportive that global warming is real and anthropogenic in origin.  But WP:NPOV does not allow us to deride someone for favoring one policy over another, WP:CRYSTAL does not allow us to include in articles projections that one policy is going to cause global chaos (not that you said that in the article; I'm just using your talk page comment as an example of something that would be inappropriate to assert in an article), and WP:WEIGHT informs us that the way in which we present information is sometimes as important as what the information is itself.


 * MonoApe, your edits have been, for the most part, quite good, a step above most editors I see with your small number of edits. You wield a scalpel skillfully, and for the most part, you have not only kept your POV out of your editing, you have successfully trimmed POV where it already existed.  I guess I'm only writing this because I can't help but worry that when one feels as passionately about a subject as you appear to feel about this one, that sometimes the POV creeps into the writing.  Just suggesting caution.   Un  sch  ool  09:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "His argument is not about the science, it is about policy." No, his policy recommendations are based on his belief of how bad things will get if we do not take drastic measures to curb carbon production. By doing this he is making a scientific statement and it contradicts the vast and overwhelming science that confirms anthropogenic climate change and its effects.  Also, it is the biggest lie of the Denial Industry that reducing carbon output will cause human suffering.  It won't.  It will bring massive benefit for all life - human and non-human - in the form of renewable energy and no more wars over dwindling resources.  Yes, I'm passionate about the subject but do my utmost to remain dispassionate when editing articles - and if I fall short, there's no plenty of people to correct me.  MonoApe (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Your last twelve words are quite wise; I retract my minor concerns. Now as to your unalloyed claims of a post-carbon paradise, I certainly hope you are correct.  My guess is that it will likely be less simple than you envision.  Nuclear energy has absolutely no carbon footprint at all, but it comes with an eternal waste problem which no one is willing to step up and take care of.  Wind turbines (which are one of my personal favorite alternative sources) are said to chop up birds by the hundreds.  And "energy independence" via the American farmer ended up raising food prices and probably caused the starvation of at least a few folks in the poorer countries. None of this is to say that we shouldn't pursue these alternative sources; my point is merely that today's utopian vision always seems to have some unanticipated side effects, and utopia never seems to arrive.
 * But of course, we are supposed to be discussing Lomborg on this page, and how he is portrayed in the article. I think you and I and Lomborg all agree that there exists a consensus in the scientific community that global warming is occuring.  It is my impression that there also exists a consensus that global warming is anthropogenic in origins (though it this consensus is not quite as large as the first we mentioned).   There appears to be a consensus as well that the net effects of AGW will be negative, but this too seems smaller than the consensus before it; some scientists point out that AGW may possibly cause a net increase the amount of available cultivatible (is that a word?  Oh well, I know you know what I mean) land and thus may increase the food supply; Lomborg says (and I attribute this to him because he's the only one I've read making this claim) that historically, the number of people killed from cold in the north exceeds by a wide margin the number of people killed worldwide from heat, and thus fewer people may die of temperature extremes (feel free to point out possible logical errors, I see some myself), and there are scientists that say that, while this period of warming is anthropegenic, that the earth naturally cycles in this way anyway, so nothing that we experience isn't rather natural for our planet.  My point?  There exists huge uncertainties as to what the end result of AGW will be; even the top promoters of AGW speak in terms of a large range of change that may not occur.  Now I have no environmental or meterological training, so I just have to read and hope that people in the know really know.  My training is historical and economic.  And Mono, history tells me that certainties are rarely as certain as they look when you're staring one down.  To some, this scenario means that we should prepare for the worst possible outcome.  And on the surface, that seems sensible.  Who wouldn't prepare for the worst possible outcome?  But given an economic perspective—and that is where Lomborg is coming from—it almost never makes sense to prepare for the worst.  Why?  Because it's just too expensive and almost never, in the end, necessary.  I'm going to use an analogy here.  Please realize that this is just that, an analogy, and one I'm thinking of as I write right now, so it'll be imperfect.  But here goes:
 * "A man buys a house in what he believes is a nice neighborhood. He marries, and begins to raise his family in the house. As his kids are getting old enough to start going to school, the neighborhood starts to have problems.  Talking to neighbors, he learns of a home being robbed in the neighborhood almost every other month.  He decides he must take action.  But what to do?  Should he do everything he possibly can to avoid the worst possible scenario?  Let's say that he does.  Worried not only about robbery but also about their personal safety, he and his wife take the children out of school.  The mother quits her job so that she can stay home and teach the kids and protect them.  But the man still worries that it won't be enough.  What if someone is bold enough to break in during the day.  He first buys his wife a handgun, then, realizing that that's not enough power to guarantee safety, he buys her a semi-automatic machine gun, and tells her and the kids to stay indoors at all times.  But he's still nervous, especially after hearing that a neighbor only four doors away was robbed by someone who actually broke down their solid oak front door in the middle of the day--the neighborhood's fifth robbery in only eight months.  So the man decides to install a solid steel door, and, just to be on the safe side, he replaces all the windows in the house with bullet-proof plexiglas.  And he knows that in other cities, some children have been accidentally killed in drive-by shootings that had nothing to do with the family of said children, so he installs quarter inch steel plating on the outside of the entire house."


 * Now has this man taken the right course? Some would call him a fool, that would be arrogant, because we cannot know for certain what measures were necessary, because no one, absolutely no one knows for certain exactly what the worst case scenario is going to be, until it happens.  He would say that he wanted to have the security of knowing that his family is ready for anything.  But would we do that for our own?  What is the cost?  Is it worth it to have your family locked up in a bomb shelter so that you can say that they're safe?  That's not for you and me to say, except for our own families.  But it cannot be denied that these decisions are expensive ones.  Besides the emotional burden, there's simply the money that was paid out to buy this protection.  But this man and his wife have the undeniable right to make the decision to take on these burdens because it's their money.


 * But who decides such things when it is for our entire society, indeed, the world? The policy makers, the government leaders, of course.  And how much cost should be taken on?  If we assume 1°C increase by the end of the 21st century, our preparations will be very different than if we assume a 6.4°C  increase (and that is the current range of change projected by the IPCC.  Which change do you prepare for?  If you assume that it will be the greater change, you could take on expensive adaptations that were in fact unnecessary, at great economic cost.  If you prepare for the minimum change, you may invest what you thought was a lot of money, and yet see little or even no benefit.  (Now I see that you don't believe that these changes will cost anything.  I have never read of anyone in the environmental movement that has denied that there would at least be short-term costs in making the transition away from carbon.  It is possible, as sometimes happens with technology, that eventually the changes will pay for themselves.  But that is not guaranteed.  The only thing that can reasonably be projected—and that is a fairly wild guess, too, since economic models give as wide a range of projections as do climatological ones—are the short term costs, and even the promoters of Kyoto recognize that these costs are real.)


 * The point is that Lomborg has chosen to believe in the minimum changes, and has encouraged policy responses along those lines. He may very well be proven in the end to have been wrong, and those who follow his advice would, in such a scenario, pay a heavy price.  But those who follow the advice of the worst case 6° to 7° change may also be proven wrong, and may cause terrible and unnecessary hardship on millions of people.  I have no idea who is right.  I know only that our policy makers need to listen to all responsible voices in the climatological and economic arenas in order to make their decisions.  To the extent that anyone in power makes a decision based upon anything else but climate science and economics, they are betraying the public trust.  But honest men and women disagree both about the extent of climate change, as well as the costs that will be undertaken in facing AGW.  I believe that Lomborg is sincere when he decares himself an environmentalist, he just happens to be on the fringe.  But in terms of his economic analysis, he is not on the fringe, but is a significant voice in the discussion.  Again, I don't know if he's right or wrong, and I won't vouch for his science or his projections.  What I will say is that he is not a monster, and I think it would help bring about action if his opponents would assume just a little good faith on his part, and ask him to come to the table to discuss policy.  They can reject his analysis without any criticism from me, as long as they base it upon his actual work, and not engage in ad hominem attacks.  It amuses me to see that in casual conversation this highly educated, independent-minded, gay vegetarian is somehow made out to be the personal tool of the political right.  That's my 3¢ worth.  Un  sch  ool  21:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not sure wether an anti malthusian standpoint does decide wether an author is an environmentalist or not. Lomborg tackles e.g. with Paul Ehrlich and others, its more about the role of mankind, not about taking care to preserve certain species and life forms (often in close combination with certain human ways of living).
 * Same applies to a - controversial - standpoint about global warming. What has cutting of some percents of carbon emissions to do with preserving the variety of species? Nothing and dont come up with icebears.
 * Lomborg has put strong doubts against "common sense" in way how the environment and the relationship man-nature is seen. Its btw. backed by historical evidence - e.g. Joachim Radkaus history of the environment. He surely is an important voice in environmental science. --Polentario (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Biased profile
This is one of the most biased, incomplete and misleading profiles I have ever read. It was clearly written by someone who has an uncritical acceptance of the man-made global warming hypothesis. Articles like this help give Wikipedia a bad name. Bob Dow (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Then fix it. Unschool (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Better yet, let it stand. Wikipedia deserves a bad name Nicmart (talk) 03:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It was clearly written by someone who has an uncritical acceptance of the man-made global warming hypothesis. Like Lomberg himself, and almost everyone in the scientific community? Are you a self-parodist or something? Richard001 (talk) 03:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Three of the four orginal articles
Three of the four articles published in politiken in 1998 was reprinted in an issue the right winged journal Libertas (Libertas.dk) and these have now become available for free: http://www.libertas.dk/indhold/pdf/libertas27_28.pdf

Here are some quotes I found interesting:

"Vi løber aldrig tør for olie eller ressourcer." (eng: We will never run out of oil or resources)

"Drivhuseffekten er yderst tvivlsom" (eng: The greenhouse effect is extremely doubtful)

"... siges det, at vi kan forvente “knaphed og kraftige prisstigninger” på olie og gas et stykke ind i det næste årtusind (p4). Vi har hørt historien før. Og der er stadig ikke belæg for den." (eng: ... it is said, that we can expect “sparseness and large increases in prices”) on oil sometime in the next century (p4). We have heard the story before. And there is still no justification for it)

anders (talk) 07:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Vi løber aldrig tør for olie eller ressourcer." (eng: We will never run out of oil or resources)
 * This sounds crazy, if you don't understand the context. Look, have we run out of whale oil?  Sure, it has become very scarce, but when it became scarce we turned to something else to light our homes, and today there is still whale oil out there—we didn't run out, because we never got far enough to run out.  Lomborg does not question the finite amount of petroleum, he merely states that as it becomes increasingly scarce, we will turn elsewhere for our energy and eventually, we will quit using oil.  Not because we've run out of it, but because scarce supply will make us turn to other sources before we run out. Unschool (talk) 02:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually in that particular article, Lomborg is arguing that we wont run dry. He reasons that we will always find more resources, and the we will get more efficient at using it, so that price will never rise. (kinda ironic in the current environment, but short timespan should never be used this way). He uses the example, that oil prices haven't risen during any other oil-crisis, despite claims of us running out. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

.
 * One should take into account that this refers to Julian Lincoln Simon, which was, according Lomborg - instrumental in giving Lomborg the idea for the sceptical environmentalist. Lincoln, based on studies of historical metal prizes was going so far to state that prize curves for natural resources tend to decrease long term. Btw. he way he was right, with the interesting exception of Oil: Prices only recently - and for a short time - have been higher than in the early past of the modern oil production. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polentario (talk • contribs) 18:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Lomborg's position on global warming
In a moment, I am going to be reverting an editor's revert of my edit, but I can't fit my points into the edit summary, hence this post.

In his book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, Lomborg clearly accepts not only that global warming is happening, but that it is at least partly anthropogenic in nature. Although the topic of global warming is only one section of many in TSE, this point is abundantly clear to those of us who have read the book from cover to cover. Other editors have attested to this before on Wikipedia's talk pages. So it appears to me that my fellow editor is simply mistaken when he writes in his edit summary the book clearly argues against the conclusions of climate change science.

Yet Lomborg is not considered a friend of the environmental movement. Why? Because, while he accepts that global warming is happening, he disagrees with the policy prescriptions of the environmentalists. He basically says that the cost of going along with Kyoto and other proposed changes in policy will be greater than simply learning to live with the consequences of global warming. Now I don't know if he's right or wrong about that. The point is, that's his position, period. Un sch  ool  17:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * One additional point. Another reason that the edit I reverted was incorrect, is that it spoke of global warming as the main thesis of the book.  In point of fact, global warming is the subject of easily less than a third of the book, perhaps much less (I don't have a copy here with me).  Lomborg speaks at great length about many environmental issues in TSE.  Un  sch  ool  17:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry - but i have read both of his books on this topic, and while Lomborg does consider the IPCC reports "gospel" as to human contributions (TAR WGI and AR4 WGI) - he does significantly differ on the cost/benefits as they are presented in the WGII and WGIII. Added to that is that Lomborg is rather one-sided in picking the "good" scenario's (in the TAR and AR4) and using the figures from those, and at the same time, considers the picking of "bad" or "medium" scenario's exaggerations. So he does say that "many of the most-publicized claims and predictions of global warming are exaggerated".
 * Kyoto is a whole other ballgame, where Lomborg is also in contradiction to the opinion expressed by the IPCC (and several other assessments). In simple terms: He is at least as or more optimistic than Nordhaus and Tol, who are amongst the most optimistic of the economic analysts on this subject. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nb: its btw. correct that its not one of the main thesis' in the book. Its one chapter (or subject) of many. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, two separate issues here.
 * Does Lomborg use the most optimistic estimates on warming to create his estimates of costs? Let's say for a moment that this is conceded, so what?  They are not estimates that he has created, and they are part of the debate.  As long as he's being upfront about it (and he is; he notes clearly that he rejects the most pessimistic scenarios), and he's not denying AGW, what does it matter?  Is he a "denier" because he's not within the "mainstream" of climate scientists?  That's an awful high level of orthodoxy we're expecting now, isn't it?  Calling [Rush] Limbaugh a denier is appropriate, calling Lomborg one is truly unfair, methinks.


 * Second point (and less debatable, I tend to think), is this: My edit was still more correct, because, as you yourself noted, Kim, the book covers several subjects.  So which of these sentences about TSE is more accurate? (I have added bolding, in the hopes of making my point clearer.)
 * a controversial book whose main thesis is that many of the most-publicized claims and predictions of global warming are exaggerated.
 * a controversial book whose main thesis is that many of the most-publicized claims and predictions of environmentalists are exaggerated.
 * Clearly, given the coverage of sanitary systems, particulate pollution in the air, trash disposal, chemicals in the water supply, and other topics (It's been a long time since I read it), the second sentence is a more accurate reflection of the book. Your thoughts?  Un  sch  ool  21:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * First point: The fact that Lomborg is using the most optimistic scenarios, ignoring the equally likely scenarios, and that makes his analysis scewed. He is in effect betting that the best case scenario will play out, despite the odds. You cannot do an economic analysis on such a basis, it might be the correct analysis - but the likelihood is against it. And it is therefore in contradiction to the scientific analysis.
 * Second point: Both are incorrect. In most cases they are not environmentalists - but simply experts that Lomborg disagrees with, no matter whether or not they are representative of the scientific consensus on the subject or not. Case in point: Lomborgs analysis of/opinion on extinctions, is contradicted by (close to) everyone within the biological sciences. Lomborg might (again) be correct - but that is not what we are here to discuss. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To be more specific: In many cases Lomborg is arguing against the current scientific opinion on specific subjects. So therefore they are both incorrect. I've corrected the sentence to something i think that we can both agree on? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, your current wording is, IMHO, quite accurate.  Un  sch  ool  00:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Separate (I think) issue
I'm confused, Kim. Why did you write: "'environmentalists' here is POV (as simple as that)" What do you mean? Why is the term "environmentalists" a POV term? Surely you don't consider it to be pejorative? Un sch  ool  21:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Its POV because it is a labelling based not upon their stand, but simply on whether or not they agree with Lomborg. (see above) Environmentalist is not inherently a pejorative term, but usage in context, can (and here does) make it a POV term. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still having a bit of a problem getting my head around this one. You don't have to re-explain it just yet; let me come back later after I've rebooted my brain; I'll re-read it and try to understand.  Cheers.  Un  sch  ool  00:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It was being used here as rhetoric. It framed global warming and its impact on the environment as something that 'environmentalists' were responsible for. Much easier to undermine an argument when you suggest that it's from a bunch of 'wacky enviro freaks' - which is exactly the image plenty of people have of 'environmentalists'. The reality is that Lomborg is denying, distorting and lying about many scientific fields of study - hence the finding of dishonesty / incompetence. MonoApe (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Netter refer to WP BLP next time. The alluded claims dont and didnt hold water. --Polentario (talk) 22:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Environmental Training
Statement in the Academic carrer section: "He has no training in climatology, meteorology, or the physical sciences, but is trained in the use of mathematics and statistics in the social sciences." Anyone with any kind of science degree is trained in the use of mathematics and statistics; is this statement pertinent to anything, or is it simply a way to spin Lomborg's degree in a way that makes it look tenable when he gives his opinion on issues that are not in the political science arena? Or to put it another way, if Brian Kernighan suddenly started writing about global warming, would folks be inclined to give his voice more credence simply because he was "trained in the use of mathematics and statistics in the physical sciences?" I would recommend simply cutting this sentence.Dougom (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Its pertinent, and entirely correct, information, stated neutrally. The reason for it, is that Lomborg is often portraited as being an expert in these subjects, which he isn't. His background is as a political scientist. I do not see where the "spin" is... if anything then the spin is the reverse. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it's the very definition of WP:UNDUE: an attempt to advance an opinion that Lomborg is full of shit by highlighting a fact that could easily be highlighted for any other person on any other topic. Are we going to go through every environmental scientist bio and add notes that they have no training in economics or public policy? Rvcx (talk) 08:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Does it state that "Lomborg is full of shit"? No. Is it a fact (and a pertinent fact) that he isn't an expert on these subjects? Yes. (is it sourceable/verifiable) - yes.
 * If there is some env sci who is commonly cited as if an expert on economics - then we most certainly should add such caveats. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Not only have you not provided sourcing for the contention that Lomborg is cited as an expert on environmental science (his novel contributions are in the economics of environmental policy, not science), but it is not the role of editors to "refute" statements by conducting original research or synthesis. It is blatant wp:undue to add "Obama has no formal training in economics" or "Sarah Palin has no formal training in geology" to the relevant articles in an attempt to undermine credibility. Beyond this, of course, there isn't even any sourcing currently offered for Lomborg's lack of formal training. Rvcx (talk) 09:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a big difference between Lomborg and the examples you mention. Lomborg is himself regarded as an expert in the field of environmental science and economics, while Obama and Palin are merely politicians acting on the advice of other experts (hopefully). His lack of formal training in climatology, meteorology etc is exactly what most of his critics use as an argument. Of course it should not be mentioned in the article unless it is via a statement from a cited reliable source, otherwise it would violate WP:OR. But somehow I think that this should not be too difficult to dig up. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. And with regards to sourcing, it is definitively not a problem - since this is addressed several times in the article. Ref 3 should be usable. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For my part, the sentence in question strikes me as totally neutral. No change necessary, methinks.  Un  sch  ool  03:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My objection is the phrase "is trained in the use of mathematics and statistics in the social sciences." So what?  We're not talking how Lomborg is "regarded;" we're talking about his Academic career in this section.  I don't put "has significant musical training" on my C.V. because I took a few music classes at UCSC so that I can present myself as knowledgeable as a professional concert pianist about the acoustics of Carnegie Hall.  Anyone who has any science degree can claim "training in the use of mathematics and statistics."  It is bolstering his bona fides in a way that could be done on the page of anyone else with a science degree, and strikes me, quite frankly, as somewhat underhanded, not neutral.Dougom (talk) 06:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Making a point that he doesn't have training in something is similarly WP:NPOV. The offending sentence wanders into some very questionable territory on both sides because it picks a few facts whose relevance is unsupported in attempts to make points. The attempt to "balance" the sentence with two such opposing claims is admirable, but it still strikes me as very poor editing policy. Rvcx (talk) 11:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Except of course that it isn't unsupported, as stated above ref 3 could be used as a reference if really neccessary. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is why I suggested removing the entire sentence. Again, this is the "Academic career" section, i.e. what he has been trained in.  If Kim feels strongly that his lack of environmental training needs to be mentioned, then mention it under "Continued debate and criticism," or create a sub-section somewhere else that discusses his lack of envisci training.  But as Rvcx points out, trying to slip a criticism in here and then provide "balance" by inserting the end phrase seems quite inappropriate.Dougom (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So, do we have consensus, or what?Dougom (talk) 21:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and removed the sentence. SkipSmith (talk) 07:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Accusations of scientific dishonesty
This whole part is - as said a third of the article and longer than the description of the book itself, which was published by Cambridge University press and has its own article. Its a clear breach of Undue weight to describe a dusty controversy of no actual value (no source nowadays cares a dam) in that length. Downsize it to a three liner or move it out. There is no use to have it here. Btw "Lack of consensus'' is no point at all. --Polentario (talk) 12:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats because the controversy about the book actually filled more in reliable sources, than the book. Thus the weight lies in the controversy. And while your assertion that no one "cares a dam"(sic), may be correct - it is just assertion. The controversy described, with the DCSD was about Lomborg - not about the book, thus it belongs here, with a summary in the book article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As said, it treats the book. The main point it hasnt harmed his career in any way, neither the international interest in his works and its grossly overstatet in the article. To summ up its a bloody smear and WPundue weight applies. Btw: Who is Kåre Fog ?--Polentario (talk) 14:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You have been told many times now to stop deleting large amounts of this article before having established consensus. By continuing deletion your actions are bordering disruption. Please state your case on this talk page before carrying out changes, as several editors have voiced clear objections towards them. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You havent reacted so far on the gross overrepresentation of a gone and minor controversy with hasnt had any influence on Lomborgs carreer and international reputation. This is a clear breach of WP:BIO and Undue weight and majorities dont balance that off. --Polentario (talk) 15:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact it had a very large influence on his career, it made him more famous. In Denmark he became so notable that the Fogh administration provided him with a specially designed institute, by their own words: So that a sceptical and controversial voice would be available to the public. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * please prove that the dishonesty claims had anything to do with his reputation. I would prefer to say that a book published at Cambridge UP and sold world wide has done the miracle. If you can prove, change the wording accordingly. It can be done with three lines. If not, leave the whole issue out. --Polentario (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * To quote the entry: He became internationally known for his best-selling and controversial book The Skeptical Environmentalist. This has to be described with due weight. If the danish bohoo was of any interest, change the wording of the intro - and quickly write the Lemma Kare Fog btw. The error list didnt make it into an article btw, compare: User talk:Kåre Fog--Polentario (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion
Suggestion: He was cleared on an accusation of scientific dishonesty.

As said, the claim of scientific dishonesty is a minor stepstone. If it is worded according due weight - that means shorter as a summary of the book and Lomborgs international accomplishments, it can be mentioned. As said, a threeliner would be completely acceptable, a oneliner similar to german WP is to be found above. Any mentioning beyond has to be proven - I am talking about evidence that the SD controversy was of ANY enhanced importance. --Polentario (talk) 16:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * When we look at all the published material on Lomborg, then the DSCS case filled rather a lot. (and it still gets mentioned), thus it has rather a lot of weight. Lomborg was not "cleared", the case was dismissed by the DSCS because tSE wasn't a scientific publication, thus whatever Lomborg wrote couldn't be classified as scientific (and sci.dishonesty). This is all in the article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely with Kim that the current (admittedly) lengthy section on the matter of the book is necessary. The issues are complex and nuanced, and I fear that a one or three sentence synopsis will convey the wrong impression one way or another.  You say that the claims of dishonesty were a "minor stepping stone".  Poppycock.  For those who oppose Lomborg, these charges against his work are the summation of why he and those of his ilk are dangerous.  For those who support him, the final disposition of his case is evidence that those who oppose the current scientific consensus on environmental issues can expect attempts to silence them.  Either way you look at it, the case was a very big deal.  Un  sch  ool  18:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Error in sources
The 25th listed source is a dead link. Should be replaced with this URL:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/ucs-examines-the-skeptical.html


 * The source numbering has changed, but I made the fix.-- SPhilbrick  T  18:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The link www.lomborg.com seems dead Brownturkey (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to be working now. SkipSmith (talk) 07:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian article
The 30 August 2010 Guardian article is a fairly big deal, and deserves to be handled carefully. link. I added a sentence to the lead, but it deserves more coverage in the body, although perhaps additional sources will help. In view of the implied major change of position (although I think there's less than meets the eye), it would be helpful if editors proposed how it should be handled (new section, a sentence in an existing section, wait for more sources, etc) so the inclusion in the body can be done properly.-- SPhilbrick  T  23:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The Guardian seems to have some sort of exclusive on this story at the moment. Perhaps we should wait for other media to break the story as well? --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Please stop talking nonsense. The Guardian has no exclusive, except that about they actually read what he wrote instead of what they think he wrote. Greglocock (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

No wait; category removal
Why wait? Yahoo News has also announced (31 August) his moving away from global warming skepticism. Given his change, I have removed his name from environmental skepticism.Dogru144 (talk) 10:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously since I wrote that 2 days ago, the story has been widely reported in all media, and thus that particular reason to wait is no longer valid. However the book itself will only be released in October, so all we have to go on is the story in the Guardian (which all the other media seems to rely on), that seems to me somewhat of a shaky foundation to remove categories and what not. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No need to be mealy mouthed about it,. He has accepted GW since 2008 in published sources. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/hot-air-from-obama/story-e6frg6zo-1111118315425
 * "Yes, global warming is happening, and mankind is partly responsible" Greglocock (talk) 01:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I can only ask: "Where were you in 2008?". As far as I know this recent discussion is about the interview in the Guardian and his forthcoming book. --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed edit
I'd like to discuss the sentence:

''In 2010, in conjunction with an announcement of a forth-coming book, Lomborg reversed his position away from opposition to global warming theories.''

A brief history:
 * user:Dogru144 added "reversed his position away from opposition to global warmingtheories."
 * User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris reverted, noting in an edit summary "...not strictly correct"
 * User:Tjmayerinsf, with no edit summary, reverts the revert

Let's remember that it is helpful to use edit summaries, and when material is contentious (and add, edit, revert, and re-revert qualifies), it is best to discuss on the talk page and reach consensus.

To be blunt, it is wrong to say imply that Lomborg was opposed to global warming theories. His past opposition related to mitigation plans, and cost benefit analyses of those proposals, but he largely accepted the IPPC report and its conclusions. We need look no further than this article itself:

"Global warming is happening. It's a serious and important problem ..."

Note that this is a direct quote, not simply some editors (possibly misunderstood) summary.

My suggested wording:

''In 2010, in conjunction with an announcement of a forth-coming book, Lomborg revised his position regarding mitigation of anthropogenic global warming.''

Does anyone disagree?-- SPhilbrick  T  14:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree, but I think it'd be helpful to the reader if it were stated the positions he revised from, and revised to, and possibly why (depending upon sourcing, of course). -Atmoz (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent suggestion. Some of the answers are hinted at in the source, but let me see if I can dig up some other sources, to make sure it is solid.-- SPhilbrick  T  16:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Expanded wording to reflect the suggestion of Atmoz In 2010, in conjunction with an announcement of a forth-coming book, Lomborg revised his position regarding mitigation of anthropogenic global warming. He has consistently supported the position that global warming exists, but cost benefit analyses, as calculated by the Copenhagen Consensus ranked climate mitigation initiatives low on a list of international development initiatives when first done in 2004. That ranking improved in 2008, and improved further with an examination of a broader list of possible solutions.

The support for the statement that he was supported the existence of global warming is in the Dykes article:

Lomborg's essential argument was: Yes, global warming is real and human behavior is the main reason for it, but the world has far more important things to worry about. He is explicitly quoted with a source in Bjørn_Lomborg.

The mention of the 2004 ranking is in the Jowit article: But he said the crucial turning point in his argument was the Copenhagen Consensus project, in which a group of economists were asked to consider how best to spend $50bn. The first results, in 2004, put global warming near the bottom of the list, arguing instead for policies such as fighting malaria and HIV/Aids.

The change of the ranking in 2008 is cited in Jowit: But a repeat analysis in 2008 included new ideas for reducing the temperature rise, some of which emerged about halfway up the ranking.

The new analyses are cited in Jowit: The difference was made by examining not just the dominant international policy to cut carbon emissions, but also seven other "solutions" including more investment in technology, climate engineering, and planting more trees and reducing soot and methane, also significant contributors to climate change, said Lomborg. -- SPhilbrick  T  20:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that's much better, although I would be hesitent to say the "ranking improved". Perhaps something along the lines of: "In 2008, the issue of global warming saw an increase in its priority ranking, culminating with examination of a broader list of possible solutions." -Atmoz (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the concern about the word "improved"; adopted your suggested wording.-- SPhilbrick  T  00:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see that he has "revised" his position, which suggests he believes his earlier beliefs were wrong. Rather than performing original research to interpret his words, why not simply lists the facts?  He's never believed emissions reductions would pay off.  His later work expands on that to state that other solutions might.  Fell Gleaming talk  18:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with that approach as it seems to be the difference between TSE and now, he has taken notice of new information and revised his stance. Would that others in the debate were as open minded. Greglocock (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that Lomborg is the only person in the debate who has modified their stance as a result of receiving new information? And if he were really open minded, he wouldn't ignore or dismiss so much relevant information. 98.108.230.174 (talk) 04:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Lomborg has not replied to the criticism from Kåre Fog
In the section `Continued debate and criticism´ I read: `Lomborg has on numerous occasions commented and defended himself against Kåre Fog's critique, especially in the web-book "Godhedens Pris".[20][21]´ This is not true. The book "Godhedens Pris" is from 1999, whereas the complaints at DCSD were from 2002 and the Lomborg-errors web site was established in 2004. See more details here: www.Lomborg-errors.dk/LomborgonLomborgerrors.htm Concerning the thorough criticism on the Lomborg-errors web site, it is peculiar that Lomborg has never publicly commented on any points of criticism raised there.

As I am personally involved, I am not allowed to make any Wikipedia changes myself. But I hope somebody else will make appropriate changes so that the text can be correct. Kåre Fog Kåre Fog (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Shrugs, the Fog website hasn't been mentioned in RS (it is mentioned in blogs) for about two years, from what I can see on google. Wiki does not exist to give oxygen to self publicists. Greglocock (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey Greg, is there a special reason the civility policy doesn't apply to you? Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  08:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

potential resource
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/11/28/the_global_thinkers_20_most_recommended_books?page=0,3

4) Getting Better: Why Global Development Is Succeeding and How We Can Improve the World Even More (2011) by Charles Kenny Recommended by Bjorn Lomborg and Steven Pinker

99.19.42.30 (talk) 07:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is his Reading List: "Getting Better, by Charles Kenny; The God Species: How the Planet Can Survive the Age of Humans, by Mark Lynas; The Quest, by Daniel Yergin." 99.181.130.83 (talk) 09:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

potential future addition

 * Environmental Alarmism, Then and Now; The Club of Rome’s Problem -- and Ours by Bjørn Lomborg in July/August 2012 Foreign Affairs; regarding The Limits to Growth ... but ignore more current versions, such as Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update and previous Beyond the Limits in 1993 as a 20 year update. 99.181.141.127 (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A form of climate change denial. 99.181.134.12 (talk) 03:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Climate Change denial linky
I see someone who obviously hasn't either read or understood TSE would like to put the above link in. I suggest you read the relevant chapter since he states that he does agree that AGW exists, a rather lunatic assertion in my opinion., but thar ya go. Greglocock (talk) 04:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Add review
99.181.130.223 (talk) 04:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Resisting Climate Reality April 7, 2011 Bill McKibben

Shrugs, the part visible to this editor doesn't even mention lomberg. Greglocock (talk) 06:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding a clarfying quote from Skepitcal Environmentalist
The summary on this page uses a quote from Sketpical Environmentalist to suggest that in that book Lomberg rejected climate change. This is misleading, and I'm adding a specific quote from that book that outlines his position stated in the book (Climate change is real and caused by human emissions of CO2).

- Actually I've just re-read the section being quoted and the claim made is actually false. Although the quote is accurate, what he's actually saying is that the IPCC model (in the TAR) doesn't accurately match the real world measurements. The full context is as follows;

"How much does CO2 affect the temperature; Particles The first issue of the cooling effect of particles (the so-called aerosols) has turned out to be absolutely essential in the IPCC predictions. The problem was that the original computer models used in the 1990 IPPC [sic] report and well into the nineties just did not match up with the data: they predicated way too much warming from CO2 and other greenhouse gases.  This is evidence in Figure 138 [which compares the models to actual observations], where the simulation only with greenhouse gases predicts a temperature for 2000 of about 0.91 degrees C or almost half a degree higher than observed.  The IPCC admitted this much in their 1996 report in one of their surprisingly overlooked statements:

"When increases in greenhouse gases only are taken into account in simulating climate change over the last century, most GCMs... produce a greater warming than observed to date, unless a lower climate sensitivity than that found in most GCMs is used. ... There is growing evidence that increases in sulphate aerosols are partially counteracting the [warming] due to increases in greenhouse gases"

The IPCC Basically tells us that previous models got it wrong - either it is not going to warm as much as previously claimed or something is hiding the warming. This could very well be sulfur particles from fossil fuel burning and other particles from volcanoes, biomass burning and land change, some of which reflect solar energy and thus have cooling effect.

Incorporating sulfate particles in the simulations has gone some way towards producing a temperature development more closely resembling the observations. In figure 138 this is demonstrated when the predicted general warming signal is tracking the latter part of the 20th century fairly well, although the rapid temperature increase from 1910 to 1945 is still left unexplained" - Skeptical Environmentalist pp. 266-267.

In light of this, I'm editing the sentence to reflect both the actual meaning of his quote, and his earlier statement in the book, that human emissions are driving global warming.

- I've just had a look for the two references for the claims that he thinks global warming is "myth" and "extremely doubtful." The first I can't find. The second makes no such claim, or anything that could be possibly concluded to be opposing anthropogenic climate change. I'm going to remove that reference and change it to a citation needed tag. --Owheelj (talk) 04:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that the reference for [1] seems to be a 15-year-old print article *in Norwegian*, it seems unlikely that even if found it could substantiate the english word "myth" having been used. The second part having been marked "citation needed" for over 6 months, I'm removing that inflammatory and poorly sourced sentence. Blogjack (talk) 07:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

reverted misleading quotes again
This part got added again, and I just reverted it: Lomborg initially called the greenhouse effect a "myth"[2] and "extremely doubtful" There are several problems here. (1) Neither article referred to as support was written in English so the quotes "myth" and "extremely doubtful" can't possibly be what Lomborg actually said. At best, they are translations made by some unidentified third party as reported by some unidentified third-party source. So even if the statements were "true", those quotes are misleading. (2) The last time somebody who knew the relevant language and had access to the right library looked into it, one of the sources was just bogus - the underlying article didn't say what was claimed. (3) Lomborg has occasionally written in english about "global warming myths", as in a typical popular press type article running down "myths about global warming", which is different from saying global warming itself is a myth, so even *if* the word "myth" by itself were used in an article, it would take additional care to establish the point as claimed.

Given that Lomborg is a Living Person and all available CURRENT, ENGLISH-LANGUAGE sources don't have him saying anything like that, we should be reluctant to accept as authoritative the claim that he said it in a 15-year-old print-only article written in Norwegian, when said claim is made by some third party who has an axe to grind. And even if we did have to accept that claim, we should accurately reflect its provenance. eg, you could say professor X claims that Lomborg initially called the greenhouse effect a "myth"... referencing the secondary source in which that claim was made. --Blogjack (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * whether he called it a myth at some point, certainly by TSE he was in print arguing that AGW was real. His point ever since then (and i think before) has been that adaptation to it is a more rational response than attempting to prevent it.Greglocock (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

"Neither article referred to as support was written in English so the quotes "myth" and "extremely doubtful" can't possibly be what Lomborg actually said" - irrelevant, clutching at straws, scraping the bottom of the barrel. By this ludicrous 'argument', we could never quote in English anything that anyone has ever said or written in anything but modern English. Just a tad Anglocentric and arrogant, eh?

Lomborg and fracking
Lomborg is pushing for the expansion of fracking, which contaminates ground water and releases all kind of toxic chemicals. That tells you a lot about his 'environmental and scientific credentials'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.231.158 (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC) It tells you that unlike Fracking opponents he looks at the facts and that Fracking is safe.204.14.66.194 (talk) 21:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Considering that fracking is one of the main culprits for California's current drought problems, the preponderance of evidence from multiple sources are not affiliated with fracking companies (oh, I don't know, like the University of Utah recently did a study on it where it showed fracking was an environmental disaster), I'd say your opinion is not supported by the evidence, and you should not present it as fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.138.240.82 (talk) 00:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Bjørn Lomborg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130919173105/http://www.lomborg.com/dyn/files/basic_items/118-file/BL%20reply%20to%20Howard%20Friel.pdf to http://www.lomborg.com/dyn/files/basic_items/118-file/BL%20reply%20to%20Howard%20Friel.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Kåre Fog
Using any criticism by this Kåre Fog person is inappropriate. He is not authoritative; he doesn't even have his own page on Wikipedia. His sources are links are to blog pages in complete violation of Wikipedia policy. This should be removed immediately if this article is to have any credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.162.50 (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2014‎ - added by 220  of  Borg 08:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Basis?
I would like to know the basis of this (unsigned) claim. Kåre Fog is a PhD. biologist who has worked in ecology and has several books to his credit. If his assessments of Lomborg's work (e.g. the chapter on forests in TSE) are to be discounted for lack of sufficient expertise, what of the other complaints about Lomborg's work? Are they equally un-authorative? ChrisWinter (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sure Fog is qualified to offer criticisms of Lomborg, but there's also a bit of Undue Weight given to the importance of his critique that isn't supported by secondary sources. That impression isn't helped by the fact Fog apparently has contributed (constructively) to the writing of this article. I'm editing with a view to keeping the substantive content and links but removing the section heading and fluff Dtellett (talk) 10:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I wonder if would have anything to say here? 220  of  Borg 08:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Is Lomborg employed by Copenhagen Business School?
I Lomborg still an adjunct professor at CBS? I can't find his web-page there. I was looking for it, because I was surprised that he could have an adjuncture at CBS, when his scientific production is almost non-existant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.242.115.68 (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

POV-pushing about "scientific credibility" removed
I have removed this edit as undue POV-pushing without any uninvolved reliable sources to back up these assertions. The same claims have been edit-warred by the same IP in 2 related newspaper articles, again without any appropriate 3rd-party source. The usage of self-published information for such critical and excessively-detailed information clearly violates WP:BLP and WP:SPS (and is undue weight to boot). Such content needs independent uninvolved sources to establish its relevance, and to describe the aspect in a dispassionate succinct manner if it merits encyclopedic inclusion to begin with. Criticism of Lomborg's views is already covered in some detail in other sections. GermanJoe (talk) 11:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)