vixstile

I wasn't very impressed with it.

I haven't read his book yet, but I have read the boiled down article in Skeptic. This peaked my interest, so I've been following the critiques/rebuttals, and as of now I'm on the side of Lomborg. I would have to say the majority of criticisms of the book have been lame strawmen, and I believe Lomborg has done a good job of defending himself against some of the more informed critiques.

I'm just stating my current position, so don't try to get me to defend The Skeptical Environmentalist. I'm not knowledgeable enough on the issue to defend it.

I try to avoid debate anyway because, for one thing, I'm not good at it. Hanging around on these boards, you can sometimes forget that debating is a skill that not everybody has.

Corey Hammer

So you're knowledgeable enough to agree with it, but knowledgeable enough to defend it?

Excuse me if I find your excuse incredulous.

vixstile

Not "agree" necessarily. I simply find Lomborgs arguments better. I don't see how that is an excuse or incredulous. I don't know anything about environmental science or statistics, so I can't really debate on either side of the issue, but I don't see how this excludes me from observing the debate and judging on who I think makes the better argument.

Clutch

How can you find L's argument more impressive if you haven't read the damn thing?

Sheesh.

vixstile

The article in Skeptic is essentially a 30 page distillation of his book, dealing mostly with statistics. In the article, I feel he makes a strong case that certain claims by environmental groups are false. But your right, in that, I can't really judge the merit of some of his conclusions in regards to how he believes we should handle certainer environmental problems, like global warming. If I get around to reading his book, i'll get back to you on that.

Clutch

You're still missing a large part of the point. The replies dealt with how BL argues in the book -- ie, on what they describe as his poor stats, his massive focus on popular media articles while purporting to engage the scientific literature, his baffling leaps of reasoning and invention of precise values at crucial junctures, and so forth.

A different article provides no grounds at all to judge whether these criticisms of the book are sound.

vixstile

OK, ok. I'm just saying, from what i've been exposed to, I seem to find my self siding with Lomborg. Thats all.

Oolon Colluphid

For what it's worth vixstile, I'm with you. I have no intention of getting into a discussion on it, because I am in no way an expert. However, I am a reasonably experienced sceptic, and as a sceptical layman, I sniff out more bullshit on the eco-warriors' side than Lomborg's.

DT

vixstile

Darwin's Terrier

99Percent

As of the last several years, I have been increasingly disappointed with Scientific American. They seem to have become too political with excessive social commentary and some of their "science" articles cross over too much on philosophical issues.