September 30, 2003


Alan Wood on the ”discredited” Bjorn Lomborg:

The ABC's Earthbeat program had a panel discussion a week ago on Lomborg's Australian visit.

The program's presenter, Alexandra de Blas, introduced the discussion this way: "Lomborg's book has been discredited by some of the world's premier environmental scientists."

But what about the credentials of those who so savagely attack Lomborg's?

Good question. Read the whole piece.

Posted by Tim Blair at September 30, 2003 01:00 PM

Ehrlich should have packed up his doom and gloom tent and retired, or at least kept his mouth shut, after he made a fool of himself betting with the late Julian Simon. (Scroll down to the 1980-1990 Ehrlich-Simon Bet.)

Posted by: S Whiplash at September 30, 2003 at 02:49 PM

To this day, Ehrlich will not discuss his bet with Simon, although he did quietly pay up. I guess it's difficult to admit everything you claim to know turns out to be shit, right Mr. Ehrlich?

Posted by: timks at September 30, 2003 at 04:11 PM

Oh. Four hand-picked critics debunked.

Have (at least) seven more:

Read the seven reviews. They aren't savage attack pieces, and are more telling for that.

Posted by: GregG at September 30, 2003 at 04:37 PM

Oops. I meant to write "the seven's reviews". There are *three* pdf reviews on site, with links to more information.

Posted by: GregG at September 30, 2003 at 04:38 PM

Interested readers should have a read of Lomborg in today's Australian.

Via Habib.

Posted by: ZsaZsa at September 30, 2003 at 06:16 PM

What about the credentials of the those who attack the credentials of those who attack Lomborg?

Posted by: LD at September 30, 2003 at 06:22 PM

The 7 reviews you cite *include* the four which were debunked.
Are you trying to make the Lomborg-haters look even more stupid and dishonest?

BTW, it is my considered opinion that three of the four scientists who attacked Lomborg in Scientific American were deliberately trying to deceive their readers, as was the magazine's editor, John Rennie. The only attacker who put truth above ideology was Thomas Lovejoy.

For more details, see
on Patrick Moore's website. (He co-founded Greenpeace.) Warning: unlike GregG's link, this page involves long and detailed fact-based argument.

Posted by: Chris Chittleborough at September 30, 2003 at 11:06 PM

The four scientists mentioned in the Australian link were Paul Ehrlich, Stephen Schneider, John Holdren, and Ian Lowe.

The onsite, pdf reviews to which I was referring were by Peter H Gleick, Jerry D Mahlman, Edward O. Wilson, Thomas E. Lovejoy, Norman Myers, Jeffery A. Harvey and Stuart L. Pimm. I think you'll find they are at least as long and fact-based as the Moore site.

Perhaps I ought to have been clearer, but I thought my second post achieved that. Seven scientists, as I clarified. I can't find "seven reviews" on the site (it was a typo) and I have yet to find mention of the former four (debunked) scientists on the page that I linked to. It is late at night though, so perhaps you could give me the direct link that you found.

Posted by: GregG at September 30, 2003 at 11:32 PM

The Australian has today published an article by Paul Ehrlich on Lomborg which doesnt seem to be much more than a ranting personal attack. Really not much point in a 'quality' newspaper printing rubbish like this which ads nothing to any informed debate. Ehrlich also attacks The Economist magazine which of course would have nothing to do with past criticism of him in that journal haha. Curiously the bio at the bottom of the article refers to Ehrlich as author of some scientific sounding book with no mention of his more widely known authorship of discredited populist rubbish such as 'The Population Bomb'. Its total hypocrisy to have accusations about being discredited come from someone as discredited as Ehrlich !!!,5744,7422161%255E7583,00.html

Posted by: Mark at October 1, 2003 at 10:06 AM