Sweeter than Jacky Gleason’s Coffee.?
Posted by bobbapink on Jan 04, 2002 at 23:06
Re: Isn't that sweet? (bio_ladi)
Lomborg has not yet submitted anything of proof for his assumptions.
As far as proof goes, you are correct. What he did do was submit a very convincing argument, or counter-argument as it were, to the arguments of others (who, i might add, have also not yet submitted proof of anything.)
Yes, I have read his work. He is too refutable.
All arguments are refutable. Hard data is less so. Consider again the satellite data which indicates no warming trend whatsoever. Refutable; no. Ignorable; of course. The global warming proponents do it continuously. They ignore the satellite data, even when confirmed to a high degree by balloon data, in favor of obviously biased land measurement data and outrageously corrupt computer models.
Lomborg finally realized that Greenpeace wasn't going to get him anywhere and backed out, violence does not educate.
Is it then your contention that he backed out of greenpeace for political purposes? If so, what was his gain? And even if correct, so what? That's a personal problem and has nothing to do with his argument.
When he can back what he is saying then he will be taken seriously.
His arguments are backed by some pretty impressive footnotes from the very activists he set out to refute. It was brilliantly compiled, IMO. If you’ve some objection to a point or points he raised, raise them here and let us debate them in a civilized and scholarly manner (or at least as scholarly as I am able. Civil won’t be too hard so long as you are civil with me but I promise to tease at every opportunity and would expect nothing less from you :-).
However, science is not always perfect and I realize that. He may have many points worth pondering but how many others must prove him wrong before he begins to listen to someone besides his own hardheaded self?
I’ve yet to see even one come close to proving him wrong on any major point (though at least two pointed out some pretty serious typo's). I say this after having read more than many reviews from very prominent scientists that clearly and dearly loath his work. The majority of their criticisms are nothing more than ad hom attacks, red herrings, appeals to authority, and strawmen. Show or reference one error and we’ll debate it.
We still live within this ecosystem and we are doing far more damage to it than good.
Given the subjective meaning of the term “good”, I’d have to concede that you can’t be proven wrong on that point. My question however is, are we doing so much damage that we endanger our species’ ability to continue unabated in the manner we, as civilized nations, se fit? I think not. As to the less than civilized nations (also a subjective personal opinion) i can see them doing damage on a daily basis.
At any rate we, being the current populace, do not own this planet.
What do you mean by “do not own this planet.” If not we, then who? Ownership, in the manner in which I think you used the word, is a purely human concept. Therefore, we, as humans, do indeed own this planet, unless some alien shows up with clean title or at least a legally enforceable lean on the property.
We hold it in trust for those who will follow.
And who might they be? Have we signed some contract, entered some trust, even shaken hands in agreement with these mysterious “those”? (see, I told you I would tease. That’s all it is though. I mean nothing by it :-).
I will always stand firm on the belief that we should keep it the very best that we can.
me too but clearly not for the same reasons as you and just as clearly, our methods of keeping it the “very best” may differ considerably.
Mass pollution and disease is not the very best we can offer for those that we will leave behind.
And each is getting more rare everyday.
BTW, you never answered my request that you offer up some “endangered natural resource” for which we could debate and discuss proper management.