It is quite possible to discover a person doesn’t know what they are talking about in their first sentence. If a person says “most pianos have 64 keys” I know they are not knowledgeable about pianos.

The difference with what Victoria did? I didn’t dismiss everything ever published by this magazine because they allowed this guy to print something.

D.

You debunk nothing, you just discard that with which you disagree, the same thing you accuse me of.

DAR
Lomborg is precious. Good to see Scientific American exposed him too. That’s as hard as falling off a log. Any background in the applicable sciences from this fellow? Nope.

“…master’s degree in political science… and a Ph.D. in political science… He has no training in climatology, meteorology, or the physical sciences…”

Of course. But worse, as I’ve told you before, Bjorn Lomborg is a profoundly dishonest person. One of his books has 300 lies in it. See this documented over and over, here:

http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/

Chapter by chapter errors here:

http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/skeptical.htm

His stupid book (very popular with rightwingers) was so bad the “Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty” investigated his book and cited him for:

1. Fabrication of data;

2. Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation);

3. Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods;

4. Distorted interpretation of conclusions;

5. Plagiarism;

6. Deliberate misinterpretation of others’ results.

DAR
Is this the type of fellow one wants to look to for good science information? I don’t think so.

Bigd: [quote] “Cato Institute fellow Patrick J. Michaels said…”>>

DAR
Finally a fellow with training in climatology! But alas, after being exposed in excruciating detail for receiving direct payments of hundreds of thousands of dollars from the energy industry, people don’t pay him much mind anymore. And he’s never published anything interesting on the subject. I wonder why? After all, that’s how you change the science. You don’t go around and do PR and give lectures to the industries that pay you to lie to them. That is, unless you are just in it to make big bucks, as he is. He was big in the early 90′s. He’s just a tired old prostitute now. Probably has lots of money though. That’s important.

I once went through and detailed how he clearly doctored a chart when he was before congress trying to smear Jim Hansen. It was so clear, so blatant, the GW denier I was debating had to admit it. Let me know if you would like the link to this exchange. It’s on our forum and I can find it in a snap.

D.
——————
“Dr. John Holdren of Harvard University told the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee, “Michaels is another of the handful of US climate-change contrarians… He has published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science.”[37]

Dr. Tom Wigley,… one of the world’s leading climate scientists, [said] “Michaels’ statements on [the subject of computer models] are a catalog of misrepresentation and misinterpretation… Many of the supposedly factual statements made in Michaels’ testimony are either inaccurate or are seriously misleading.”

–ibid

DAR
I only needed to read the first sentence to know the man is a fool. He passes along the “global cooling in the 70′s” that I have debunked dozens of times. You quote an economist magazine. Sorry, that’s not where you go to get good science.

Try again.

Let me try again. The guy says:

“And The New York Times, Aug. 14, 1976, reported “many signs that Earth may be headed for another ice age.”

Here the fool is confusing the fact that on a cycle of tens of thousands of years, yes, we are headed for another ice age.

Why is he saying such stupid things? Is this fellow a scientist? Let’s check:

“Gary Sutton is co-founder of Teledesic and has been CEO of several other companies, including Knight Protective Industries and @Backup.”

That’s nice. He knows how to make money. Not a drop of evidence that he knows anything about climate science and what he does print is the same lines of crap all these know-nothing deniers like to publish. Pick something you would like to defend and we’ll see how it stands up. None of it will. His Gore smears are similarly false and out of date.

Post it in our freethinker forum and I’ll shred it line by line.

Bigd: no intellectual cowards except those who cut off debate>>

DAR
Oh I am very much for not cutting off debate. You should know that.

When would you like to begin?

Let me know. What have you got? Let’s see your good solid peer reviewed science. You’ve got nothing because as I said, *everything* you have tried float has been easily roasted and the entirety of every thing you have even shot off is completely dusted in the simple and short Scientific American article I just cited. Everything.

D.

In its January 2002 issue, Scientific American published a series of criticisms of the Bjorn Lomborg book “The Skeptical Environmentalist”. Cato Institute fellow Patrick J. Michaels said the attacks came because the book “threatens billions of taxpayer dollars that go into the global change kitty every year.”[5] Journalist Ronald Bailey called the criticism “disturbing” and “dishonest”, writing, “The subhead of the review section, ‘Science defends itself against The Skeptical Environmentalist,’ gives the show away: Religious and political views need to defend themselves against criticism, but science is supposed to be a process for determining the facts.”[6]

No, the science is not settled and there are no intellectual cowards except those who cut off debate by declaring that an issue is settled.

Like if I said we should cut off health care reform debate because the issue was settled when the country did not want it from Clinton. Most Americans oppose what is going on and realize that this is not the reform needed.