Time for our Moment of Bjorn: The green inquisition

[phantom power]

Ahhhh... the Inquisition Card. Well played, Bjorn.... well played!

Simply put, we're being force-fed vastly over-hyped scare stories. Proclaiming six meters of sea-level rise over this century contradicts thousands of UN scientists, and requires the sea-level rise to accelerate roughly 40-fold from today. Imagine how climate alarmists would play up the story if we actually saw an increase in the sea-level rise.

Increasingly, alarmists claim that we should not be allowed to hear such facts. In June, Hansen proclaimed that people who spread "disinformation" about global warming – CEOs, politicians, in fact anyone who doesn't follow Hansen's narrow definition of the "truth" – should literally be tried for crimes against humanity.

It is depressing to see a scientist – even a highly politicised one – calling for a latter-day inquisition. Such a blatant attempt to curtail scientific inquiry and stifle free speech seems inexcusable.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/14/climatechange

[hatrack]

1. So, Bjorn, when's your next batch of peer-reviewed climate science coming out?

Oh, that's right, it won't be. I must have forgotten.

Given that, do us all a favor and shut.the.fuck.up.

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. I misread that as saying "beer reviewed". LOL

[XemaSab]

4. If you're ever in Chico, try Sierra's Brown Ale

:9

('Cause this thread DID need some beer review.)

[OneBlueSky]

2. hmm . . . Mr. Lomborg appears to have zero academic credentials in envoronmental science . . .

and his works have been roundly criticized by those who do . . . for example . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B6rn_Lomborg

Accusations of scientific dishonesty

After the publication of The Skeptical Environmentalist, Lomborg was accused of scientific dishonesty. Several environmental scientists brought a total of three complaints against Lomborg to the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD), a body under Denmark's Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. The charges claimed that The Skeptical Environmentalist contained deliberately misleading data and flawed conclusions. Due to the similarity of the complaints, the DCSD decided to proceed on the three cases under one investigation.

DCSD investigation

On January 6, 2003 the DCSD reached a decision on the complaints. The ruling was a mixed message, deciding the book to be scientifically dishonest, but Lomborg himself not guilty because of lack of expertise in the fields in question:<4>

Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty. ...In view of the subjective requirements made in terms of intent or gross negligence, however, Bjørn Lomborg's publication cannot fall within the bounds of this characterization. Conversely, the publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice.

The DCSD cited The Skeptical Environmentalist 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.

- much, much more . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B6rn_Lomborg