Talk:The Skeptical Environmentalist/Archive 2

POV?

... is a controversial book by political scientist Bjørn Lomborg ... "by political scientist" kind of gives away that there will be bias in the article, setting up the reader's mindset that the guy wrote the book mostly or partially for political reasons. While I'm all for preserving the environment, I find this to be hypocritical, considering that environmentalism is one of the favorite topics of the left, which stands to benefit politically from environmental fear mongering. Sure, there is all kinds of data showing that environment needs attention, but just how alarming is it? And why should I trust someone who tells me I will die in the next 5 years when they are trying to sell me life insurance policy? 69.107.71.8 19:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC) He seems to be a political scientist of sorts... at least, some of his areas of expertise relate to political sciences. However, that has nothing to do with the book. He's best described as perhaps a "Danish professor". 71.185.135.209 01:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think thats misleading at all. 'Political science' is a field at most universities in the US, and I would not assume that a member of that field has an interest bias, any more than i would assume that a 'historian' or 'sociologist' works mostly for political reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by G34j (talk • contribs) 13:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Section 'The "so damnably reasonable" critique' (revert war)

Do us a favor and either come up with some support for this or drop it. You have sofar failed to show any relevancy of Kirby's commentary and unless you do, I will continue to remove it. --JonGwynne 05:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Is there some context some of these these quotes can be included that JonGwynne. Luis rib, and Ec5618 would consider acceptable? The gist of the arguments seem to be that too much weight is being given to someone whose credentials are being questioned, not that the comments are "irrelevant" to the subject, which argument I don't follow at all. The current "all or nothing at all" choice seems more than a little stark.

Like I said before, if someone wants to include links to them in the "External Links" section, that would be acceptable - otherwise, they have no business here. They are the idle speculation of someone who, according to his own writing, lacks the experienc or knowledge to comment meaningfully on the book. It is a book review - no more or less relevant than the thousands of other ones out there on this book. It doesn't warrant its own section. --JonGwynne 05:44, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

And Ec5618, please don't revert someone on the grounds of their edit being "controversial" and not "explained on the talk page" if you're also not going to discuss it on the talk page, and you furthermore fail to label it as such. That way lies a sure-fire recipe for continuing the edit war in question, since by your own logic, your own (evidently controversial, and clearly not-talk-page-explained) edit ought to be reverted (and so on, ad infinitum). Alai 10:39, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I am merely commenting on the revert war in progress. Tsavage has been asked to explain his reasoning, he failed to do so. As I see it, this section should be discussed. Please, both sides, argue your points. -- Ec5618 11:33, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Ec5618 seems not to have read the voluminous discussion above. Tsavage has provided more than ample reasons for the inclusion of these criticisms. I agree with Tsavage's analysis above and feel that even more detail from the Grist essays should be included. Vsmith 12:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Summarising arguments made so far

This section has been the subject of debate, as one side wants to remove it from the article, and another side wants to keep it. The book, TSE, has generated a lot of criticism, a lot of which comes from scientists who disagree with Lombergs findings. The section Criticism from scientific circles deals with these critics.

The The "so damnably reasonable" critique section tries to present viewpoints that do not critique the scientific basis of the numbers Lomberg offers, but disagree with the interpretations Lomberg offers in the book.

Different arguments speaking specifically to one of the people being quoted in the current version, ie Alex Kirby (there are also the Grist editor, and Mark Lynas quoted, and others not mentioned who viewed and criticized TSE along these lines):

• Kirby dismisses himself in his own writing. He states explicitly: "I am neither a statistician nor a scientist, and I lack the skill to judge Lomborg's reworkings of the statistics of conventional wisdom". His opinion therefor doesn't matter. Without the requisite work and expertise, valid criticism of the book is impossible. So why bother with what Kirby himself admits is little more than idle speculation on his part?

• Lomborg is NOT a statistician himself. He does not hold a degree in statistics. He is not a part of the statistics department at the University he graduated from and taught at. He did teach a course in statistics for poli-sci students. Lomborg is not an environmental scientist. So what is Lomborg's own qualification for writing TSE? A paper on game theory? Lomborg has no professional or educational background to qualify him for writing TSE as a "scientific work". His Masters and PhD are in Political Science.

• Kirby is a BBC-vetted professional environmental analyst. And a full-time activist is a "professional".

These arguments were then bounced back and forth. I may have missed a few. -- Ec5618 14:52, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Ec5618: It's kinda nice to see the clutter "cleared" - it was indeed...voluminous - but that's I suppose the nature of this type of dug-in argument/discussion/debate and forum: persistence and painstaking reiteration, restating and such are the order of the day, or don't bother playing?! The archived comments probably have more relevant stuff than included here, depending on where this goes, so it's like a bunch of papers shoved in a closet: are they garbage, or closed, or simply put out of sight?

Your summary of the arguments is reasonable, but I think it misses the core point, which I've inserted above heading. Tsavage 16:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

You and JonGwynne are probably better capable of defining the core point of the discussion. I spent quite a while trying to distill it from this page and failed. My hope was that a clearer talk page would be less intimidating to new editors, and that any previous quarrels might be forgotten.

If there were important points that are not covered above, please, remake the point concisely. -- Ec5618 17:50, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

It's a worthy effort and not an easy task, wading through all that! With all due respect to JonGwynne's own internal processes, I think he just doesn't like the "so damnably" section, and isn't willing to discuss the reasons for it beyond a very limited point. The section represents one line of criticism, which he feels is categorically invalid. He attempts to defend that opinion by saying the particular people quoted aren't qualified to comment on TSE. That explains all the verbiage (well, repetition) about Mark Lynas, and then somewhat less about Alex Kirby. But when the topic is framed as, "who IS qualified?", he has no answer and reverts to deleting and reverting. So you did get an essential sample of the argument, and the central question (to JonGwynne) is simply: Who IS qualified to comment on TSE?" Tsavage 01:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

The answer to your question is self-evident; take a look at the other scientists mentioned in the page. Clearly they're qualified to comment on the book. Kirby clearly isn't. As to your dismissal of my objections as "he just doesn't like it". I don't like Stuart Pimm's hysterical ad hominem attacks but he's a qualified scientist and he certainly has not only the authority to comment on the book but also the right to make an ass of himself by saying such ridiculous things. So, I don't remove it. --JonGwynne 05:55, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Why are you persistently invoking these "scientists" like they're our Higher Order Alien Masters? What are you talking about? Which scientists might in your opinion be acceptable to address, for example, this:

When things are not going well enough we can sketch out a vision: fewer people must starve. This is our political aim.

But when things are improving we know we are on the right track. Although perhaps not at the right speed. Maybe we can do even more to improve the food situation, but the basic approach is not wrong. We are actually saving lives and can look forward to fewer people starving in future.

Which branch of science produced that bit of reasoning? Which scientists are qualified to criticize it? Any scientist? Environmental scientists? Nutritional scientists? Physicists? Marine biologists? What about an international food policy expert, with a law degree but no sciences degree? - Tsavage 04:40, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

What is TSE and who is qualified to comment on it?

--MichaelSirks 14:10, 21 May 2005 (UTC) If I understand you correctly, I think it isn't bad idea to analyse from TSE every topic in a way litany, validity litany, conclusion. ( instead of just listing opnions of other people)

One more try, JonGwynne! The question/argument here stems from: who is qualified to comment on TSE?. To address qualifications, it must first be determined what exactly TSE is:

Is TSE a "scientific work", or is it opinion, characterizable primarily as a "contribution to the general environmental debate"? Or perhaps, a bit of both?

--MichaelSirks 14:10, 21 May 2005 (UTC) I think you can't describe it as a scientific work just as you can't describe "Silent spring" a scientific work. That doesn't mean that it isn't wel researched. I wil come back in a few days how we could set up a new article.

The content of TSE can be divided into at least three practical parts:

1. a hypothesis: the Litany, which essentially has a media component (were these indeed pervasively publicized?), and a psychological component (what effect on people/society's peace of mind and actions?). Lomborg sets out to prove it primarily by furnishing media excerpts whose relevance is largely left to be self-evident (i.e. Lomborg doesn't "prove" the Litany by conducting or extensively citing studies showing the effect of the Litany on attitudes and behaviour, he shows by examples that we "all" seem to share some pretty profound fears). Once described, the Litany is taken to be obvious. This is a big given: if the Litany exists but is not at all a "bad" or even particularly consequential thing, then a lot of the impact and imperative behind TSE is lost. So, the Litany construct could be "expertly" examined and challenged by communication and media theorists, psychologists, philosophers and semioticians, social historians, social anthropologist, a wide range of academic people, and probably others.

2. the validity of the specific claims that comprise the Litany: The core focus of TSE, from publicity to criticism and by Lomborg himself, is that the hard numbers supporting the Litany are incorrect, generally, gross exaggerations. He attempts to prove this aspect by gathering statistics, analysing them, and comparing his results with results which he has selected as representative of each particular general argument (e.g. for "air pollution", he picks certain specific indicators and specific measurments for comparison). This is some form of "statistical analysis", the technical quality of how he selected his data and what he did with it could be examined, I presume by statisticians.

3. opinions: comparisions, conclusions, interpretations, suggestions, recommendations This area seems most responsible for the controversy, but also tends to be tied in with #2 the "statistics", when they are quite separate. There is a lot of IF-THEN logic, where the IF is derived from the statistics, and the THEN is strictly Lomborg's own opinion, e.g. IF air pollution is lower THEN we needn't be worried and we needn't spend so much resources on it... The opinions do not depend on Lomborg's statistical work itself, but simply on its conclusions (IOW, Lomborg could have started with another source of Litany-disproving statistics, which in many cases did exist, cited them and argued as he has here from them, and still have TSE in about the same form; he could also have simply disproved the Litany claims and stopped there, without extensive suggestions and conclusions - he chose to use his results to construct a social/political platform of sorts). The statistics may have disproved claims in the Litany, but they did not necessarily or particularly logically lead to the specific opinions expressed in TSE (which are largely based on Lomborg's appeal to reasonableness and common sense: "IF this is so, THEN it only seems reasonable that...). Therefore, the opinions (which are thus personal opinions of an interested observer who has "looked into things"), could be examined by a wide range of people, with various types of experience and expertise, including economists, political scientists of various sorts, policy experts in the many areas involved, researchers and analysits (which includes journalists, full-time activists, NGO and government staffers), also all sorts of natural scientists when the conclusions deal with specific theories and technologies, also public focus groups and other controlled public input methods, and so forth.

SO, it seems that TSE can be classified as a bit of a few things: statistical investigation, political statement, environmental think piece...

AND, "so damnably", Alex Kirby, Mark Lynas, et al fit in, or are "qualified" to comment on, the third content category, LOMBORG'S PERSONAL OPINIONS, at the very least... - Tsavage 16:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

If Kirby, Lynas et al. are fit to criticise Lomborg's personal opinions, so is our neighbours cat. What on earth makes Kirby, Lynas et al. more important than the cat? Why are their PERSONAL OPINIONS more valid than mine, for instance? Or yours? Luis rib 18:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Theirs are not personal opinions, they are professional opinions. Kirby is a veteran environmental reporter for a world-class news organization (the BBC). Lynas is a full-time environmental activist, has written on environmental issues for major news media, and authored an environmental book about global warming published by a major publisher (Macmillan). Grist is a well-known environmental publication, an online magazine with a full-time staff and a funding history in the millions of $US. All three can be looked up in Wikipedia, in unchallenged, non-NPOV tagged articles/stubs. I don't know your neighbor's cat. Does it have relevant and recognized expertise on environmental issues? Does it even have an opinion? - Tsavage 03:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Finally some indication about the notability and competence of these people! That's what I was looking for for a long time! Sorry, but personnally I didn't know any of them. Now that you have proven their relative competence on this matter, one of my objections to the "damnably reasonable" paragraph disappeared. Luis rib 20:36, 22 May 2005 (UTC)15:07, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Excessive quoting

Although I still have doubts about the necessity for the "damnably reasonable" critique, I will put those aside for the moment to concentrate on another question: excessive quoting on this page. As you surely have noticed, this article is full of X says "quote", Y says "quote", etc. The "damnably reasonable" paragraph is especially bad in this respect, but other paragraphs are at fault too. Usually, quoting should be restricted to a minimum. Yesterday, I tried to reduce it by deleting Kirby's quotation and simply summarising it. Someone objected and simply reverted. My summary may not have been the best one, but I would prefer that the people that introduced the "damnably reasonable" critique shorten the section by summarising the quotes. Indeed, because of all the quotes the current paragraph is taking up a large part of the article. Having worked on the page of another controversial book ( The Black Book of Communism) I would like to point out that that article doesn't have a single quote but just presents the arguments of proponents and critics. I think this article should do the same. Luis rib 15:07, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you do have point, there are lots of quotes, and that's probably not the ideal way to present things here. I think this quote situation can be greatly attributed to the recent editorial working style of this page, and specifically a good deal to JonGwynne, and also my reaction to his actions. A dynamic developed where things would be reverted or changed (usually by JonGwynne) unless they came from "qualified sources", or if they seemed POV (which applied to numerous phrasings of various things), without real discussion. So the only way (that I found, at least) to get things moving was to establish the "credibility" of sources, and then to quote them so arguments wouldn't erupt over the phrasing of a summary of what they had to say. This may've been a bit of an exaggerated reaction on my part (JonGwynne didn't go after every edit, only particular sections...like "so damnably"), and there were already lots of quotes before I started contributing, but I think this recent activit has pushed it a little bit over the top in the quote department. If there could be a reasonable agreement on where the article was going (MichaelSirks I think has perhaps identified a good path: look at TSE on the basis of a content breakdown, like 1. the Litany itself; 2. the statistical investigation of the Litany, 3. Lomborg's speculations on what to do about the "real", "post-Litany" state of the world; instead of as one big...lump), then it would be possible to progressively summarize various critical ideas in the proper NPOV language, without having things constantly subject to hairtrigger reversion. IMO... :) - Tsavage 15:42, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with MichaelSirks's proposal. I also agree with you that we should most of all refrain from edit warring. That's why I didn't revert to my own version but started this discussion thread. Should we agree to try to summarize all the quotes in this article (very short ones should be allowed, of course)? Maybe the original quotations could be left here on the talk page as reference. What do you think? Luis rib 20:42, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I reverted to the Kirby quotes because your summary basically went flat, Kirby's wording is rather hard to summarize without losing the punch - the full meaning of the quote. I really see no problem with quoting the sources as has been done here, there are quite a few quotes I'll agree, but as Tsavage notes, keeping a balanced critical section in this article is difficult. So, I would tend to not favor an effort to summarize all the quotes. Vsmith 22:09, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that an across the board effort to "summarize all the quotes" would improve the article, it would instead likely reduce the clarity and accuracy of what's being conveyed, and also lead to lots more...drawn out arguments. I do think the article could be improved by restructuring along the Litany/statistical investigation/Lomborg conclusions line. That would make clear some points that are currently being kind of tossed in arbitrarily under Praise or Criticism, and may seem borderline POV to some. Certain quotes might be reduced in the process, and it would be made clearer in other cases why the longer quotes are present, instead of simplified summaries, which in this case, often lose something in the summarizing. With the Kirby summary, I found there was a definite loss of immediacy and the overall sense of what he said, compared to the actual quote. That can't be a good thing. I think the article, better structured to show exactly how TSE is constructed -- how it "works" -- would really remove any impression that it is only a bunch of quotes strung together. That, through some good-faith plugging away by whomever's interested, could do the trick?!- Tsavage 02:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the thing about changing the structure of the article. I disagree with the quote issue however. Quotes are always POV, and what you call "punch" I call "ranting". Seriously, I don't know what you find so cool about these quotes. They're clearly POV, the logic behind them is faulty, at best, and they are clearly made to grab attention (something, by the way, you criticize about TSE). Their points could be resumed easily, so I don't see why we should keep them. If you insist õn keeping them, I'll add several "punchy" quotes from TSE to balance the article. Luis rib 16:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I think you should try and "rebalance" the article with some choice TSE quotes. It can't hurt to see what you come up with!

I considered this excess of quotes thing more, and arrived at about the same conclusion I mentioned above a couple days ago, in that quotes are often used (in this topic, at least) to justify and defend positions against other contributors. An authoritative encylopedia article I think must take an editorial position on each topic, fair and balanced, but a position nonetheless. In this case, it'd be either TSE is one of God's gifts OR it's a scam OR the jury's still out. Anything "in between" is not an authoritative position, without which, a cohesive article is hard to come by. Once the editorial angle is settled, then strong statements can be written and summaries of quotes made. Until then, it's mainly about trying to build consensus between various...contributor factions. :) What do you think? Tsavage 19:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I guess we could follow that way for the time being. As stated below, I rewrote the Litany. It's Lomborg's point of view, and I hope the language I used is NPOV. In the end I didn't quote Lomborg, but preferred to make a large summary, showing that Lombog touches many subjects, even some unrelated to ecology (for instance food, or poverty). This would fit with the introduction, which states that TSE has a all-encompassing approach. I hope this new section is ok with you. Luis rib 20:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Overall, I think the expanded summary of TSE...works. In the context of the rest of the article, it does give a good sense of what the book is like, something that using only labels like "controversial", and descriptions/quotes of the praise and criticism, didn't (and this was the problem I had when I first read and started contributing to this article). Reading the "new Litany", I don't find my personal views changed, and I can see how it can be read both ways: someone inclined to like or agree with Lomborg's assesment might be motivated to read the book, while those who would eventually be inclined to disagree would start to get their hackles up on reading this summary.

What I think is still missing (perhaps not even so much in missing material, but in how it is organized and written) is getting across an impression of:

1. the validity of the Litany;

2. the quality of the statistical work.

These are points that I imagine many people looking up TSE would expect to find addressed in a direct, summary way (even if no decisive conclusions about them are reported).

Also, the article is long, now even longer, and a BIT tiresome to read. It can use a good edit, which is another big task.

That's my opinion! I'm gonna take a fresh look at TSE (yikes!), and continue to contribute as I am able...!! - Tsavage 02:58, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Lombarg league appear to think that more critical quotes appear about Lombarg, the worse he looks. I have made better attribution of critics and supporters. So this tactics is bit pointless now. FWBOarticle 05:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Litany

I rewrote the Litany section to make it a more accurate summary of the book. I think the methodology part should stay, to explain how Lomborg reached his conclusions. Then the criticism section should follow.Maybe some of you would prefer another arrangement of the parts. Personally, i think it flows pretty well now, but I'm of course open to other arguments. Luis rib 20:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

"could fit into a square whose side would be 28 sq. km (i.e. 0.009 % of the total surface of the United States)." should this read 28 km?

If you're referring to the part about the size of the trash heaps of the 21st century, it'd seem right. In Danish version of the book, Lomborg argues that the future trash heaps of Denmark could be located on a small fraction of the island of Mors. The percentage seems about right. --Valentinian 00:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for better attribution

The book was peer review in "environmental economics" by Cambridge University Press. It is a work of "social" science not "natural" science. The confusion of the attribution appear to be souce of controversy even in here. It is not meant to be a book for someone who want to learn about biology or meteorology. If you want to know about environemtal policy or politics or ecnomics, it is probably an required reading. I will add bit more edit to make this distinction clear. FWBOarticle

Oh, as of my "personal" opinion, given that green has been using (sometimes dubious) science to bolster their case, "natural science" part of debate is a silly ass argument on either side. FWBOarticle

The Skeptical Environmentalist as media construct

This section has NPOV proglem. After "scientific critism", the section looks like an attempt to imply that support for the book come from tabloid journalsim or media hype. It fails to mention almost universal praise the book received from the peer reviwed academic journal from economics and politics as well as more serious policy magazines such as the economist. FWBOarticle 22:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Satellite Data

From a parenthetical remark within the article: "the satellite-surface disparity, which has subsequently been resolved in favour of the surface measurements; see [satellite temperature measurements]"

Could someone explain this statement to me? I have just read the article in question, and do not see this to be the case. There is a surface/satellite disparity, is there not? If so, how has it been resolved? I think that this should just be changed to "see [satellite temperature measurements]". Calion | Talk 23:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

When TSE was written, there was a disparity betwen sfc measurements (showing warming); model predictions (which indicated the troposphere should warm *more*) and sat obs of the trop, which showed *less* warming). This was much hyped by the skeptics; as I recall, its one of the major issues BL raises about the science. Subsequently (aug 2005) the issue has been pretty well resolved in favour of the sat obs available then being wrong. Thats on the STM page, I think William M. Connolley 09:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC).

The edit was pointless details which most wikipedian wouldn't understand. I changed it to "he made some criticism over the method of data collection". Whether this criticis is warranted or not, it is almost irrelevant to his main argument of global warming which isn't about science of global warming, which he didn't really contest. FWBOarticle

Your change indicates that you don't understand the issue either. No matter; I'll get back to it... although... how about the bit about GW saying, essentially: "BL mainly accepts the science of GW as contained in the IPCC reports, but disputes the appropriate policy responses"? Would that be more peaceful? William M. Connolley 09:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I actually do, somewhat. Lomborg pointed out some inconsistency in data aspect of GW which was later corrected, which antiBL side use it as a "proof" that BL is wrong. It may be one of the major "sicience issue" BL raised but the point is "science issue" isn't the major point of BL's contention. So unless BL said "noooo, GW is a hoax" which he didn't say, which antiBL side want to imply, obsessing over satelite is bit pointless and a bit of antiBL spindoctoring. Anyway, feel free to recover it. Doesn't really change anything because I have clarified BL's argument. FWBOarticle

Overview

Kind of waste of space because overview supposed to be in intro so we are repeating the same thing three times, intro, overview and the rest of article. I think I just change it to "BL". FWBOarticle

Criticism section

I think my rearrangement answer problem raised in "excessive quoting" section. Most just repeat the same argument. This article was mess because it was used as a platform of expression for anti Lomobog wikipedian. Feel free to create subcategroies (scinece and non science for one) which might give more coherent overview of criticsim. IMO, at least half of the quotes are just duplicate and ought to be deleted. FWBOarticle 17:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the quotes can be significantly reduced and written into the article, and the whole article eventually edited down by at least 30% to improve readability. What is still critically missing, and wasn't well put previously, is a proper statement of both support and criticism. Looking at it from a simple, non-expert reader's view (like, mine), to make this article encyclopedic, it should synthesize the gist of the controversy. The quotes I think were an attempt to keep the peace in the editing, while getting across "both sides". But that just gives the reader a bunch of excerpts to work through, DIY style... Where's the convenience? Really, the article ought to address and plainly summarize, at the appropriate spots, the two "obvious" (and not really mutually exclusive) pro and con conclusions:

• TSE is a comprehensive/refreshing/stimulating review and reassessment of "popular environmentalism"
• TSE is a severely reductionist view of "environmental issues" that presents one author's opinions in a way that blurs the lines between "science" and conjecture, and as such, can easily mislead (for one, look at how mainstream media "used" it: "Cleanest London Air for 400 Years," "Bjørn Lomborg's good news about the environment",..., and consider the "general" audience it was aimed at, and if, copies sold are an indication, it reached)

I think both are fair and accurate summaries, and the article to date, while improving, is still grappling with an inability to come up with a basic synthesis of all the support and criticism... --Tsavage 03:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

re Criticism rearrangement: Conflating support and criticism into Responses seems at first glance helpful and "neutral", but in fact, as it stands now, seems to actually add to the confusion. In the case of TSE, the for and against "responses" come for quite different angles, with really the only thing generally in common being the book itself. The "science" detractors weren't arguing the social value of the discussion TSE proposed. The enthusiasts and champions weren't defending the "science". Removing the leads that went with each section reduces by another fraction the summary content of the article and creates more of a...list of quotes. The "policy" side support and "science and politics don't mix" seems new to the article and interesting... In any case, neither previous or current approaches do much for me in the way of getting to a (summary) point. --Tsavage 03:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, as far as "Support" section goes, it is concise and coherent. The confusion is solely on "Criticism" side which is largely due to duplication of the same argument. FWBOarticle

So far, I think your efforts in condensing and unpoint-forming are great, but regardless of your intentions, I also find already (and, unfortunately), that, as you charge the article with "having been" a platform for anti-Lomborg Wikipedians, you are now slanting it toward a "pro-Lomborg" stance. Perhaps this is not intentional, but IMO that is becoming the effect. A good first step to "neutralizing" (as opposed to "making coverage neutral") is taking off the sharp corners, reducing everything to monotonous balanced voice, and it's a lot harder to decipher what's missing in a smoothly worded summary than a bunch of fairly raw quotes. In the TSE article, the abundance of quotes at least illustrated some of the range of issues. In your edits, you've removed what I found critical bits, and added loaded summaries. For example:

• The Rolling stone 'support' (praise) was removed: "Lomborg pulls off the remarkable feat of welding the techno-optimism of the Internet age with a lefty's concern for the fate of the planet. That's a quite different take from the Economist's "one of the most valuable books on public policy", and RS was quoted prominently by Lomborg and Cambridge U Press as supporting the book. A lot of the publicity centered around the clearly proffered hook: "hey, the 'environments not really in trouble after all" and that's what MUCH of the massive worldwide publicity was about. TSE wasn't a quiet policy book that freakishly took off, it was from all appearances a deliberate English language follow-up to an unexpected Danish overnight mainstream sensation. This isn't right or wrong, but it is a central aspect of the book: targetting a general, mainstream audience.
• "who while conceding that Lombarg is right in regard to population and food supply still gave somewhat skeptical outlook" - This type of wording is arguing both sides, and it is not isolated. The Environmental Science & Policy addition is good, but seems to be used as a ticket to attack (in the article) the critics from the support side. If you're advancing the "great for policy makers" support argument, which seems like a good thing, then go all the way. In a paragraph, you can easily and succinctly reel off several policy magazines and summarize their TSE findings. Using one quote to justify an editorialized indictment of some of the critics seems to me more of the same problem the article had before...bias. Putting bias in apparent balance doesn't seem the same as just fairly summarizing...

Those are just a couple of specifics. It's a difficult article. Perhaps an approach would be to get away from all reaction, and concentrate directly on the book, but that's A) not the general encyclopedic style of WP, where "issues" is a common section, and B) kind of a disingenuous approach to covering a book that is mainly being covered at this depth likely more than other single factor because it was a "mainstream hit". So we can't get away from that... TSE is a great "policy debate" exercise, but it also is taken as a "scientific" reevaluation of environmentalist concerns, whether rightly or wrongly so... An NPOV can't argue that huge batches of readers simply "read the book wrong", that'd be some sort of primer or preamble or instructional book review, not an encyclopedia article. --Tsavage 16:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The version before the last major rearrangement

For the sake of convenience/future comparison, here's the "old" version, prior to the start of FWBOarticle major readjustment undertaking. --Tsavage 03:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

"Controversies" section

"What is still critically missing, and wasn't well put previously, is a proper statement of both support and criticism." I totally agree you there. The problem of the previous criticism/praise section was it's failure to actually engage in the actual content of the book. I have created new section. As I see it, there are four major controversies, most contentious being biodiversity/defrostation and globalwarming/Kyoto. Since Scientific America has both criticism and Lomborg's response, we have enough source to summarise the actual controversies itself. Once we are through this section, Criticis/Support sections become less relevant, IMO. FWBOarticle

Can TSE be fairly reduced to a couple of representative "most contentious" areas? It seems more like the overall platform it is written on is what would interest and concern the general encyclopedia reader. For example, for the "cleanest air in London in 400 years" hook, which may have helped launch the English media...frenzy over TSE, I followed through a critic's breakdown of how Lomborg arrived at that statement. I don't have to be an expert to see the degree to which various sets of data were wrangled and prodded to come up with his conclusion, combining different series, appending one type of data to another to complete the timeline, it seemed like a statistical Frankenstein's monster. Isn't making the assumptions to do such severe...assuming at least also the province of the scientist involved in the areas being covered? One might easily ask, "How HAS air pollution been consistently measured over the last 400 years?" And the answer, of course, is that it has not. In the service of "best figures available", clearly a lot of wrangling went on, and this for dozens and dozens of core reassessments in the book, BEFORE even getting to Lomborg's alternatives (which are big part of TSE's overall sizzle), and which he again bases on more of "best figures and best guesses". The whole is a lot greater than the sum of the parts, here. I think I can grasp the rudiments of cost-benefit analysis, and this seems to be an extreme use of that approach... Maybe I'm displaying a basic ignorance here, but I'm just a reader, one of TSE's target audience... --Tsavage 16:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

As someone who live in Britain, I can assure you that "Cleaneset in 400 years" is not what launched the book. I was not aware of the headline but was aware of the book because I read the Economist. I'm quite sure people who despise the book would like to believe to be so. But people who read tabloid newspaper will not buy and read TSE. As of 400 years, it is a "quote" used in tabloid journalism. Are you sure Lomborg didn't actually stated in TSE that the such estimate is hard to come by? It is not fair to judge the book by the cover. It is certainly not fair to judge the book by what was said in tabloid paper, which is what you are doing. "The whole is a lot greater than the sum of the parts" I disagree. This is not a literature critics. This sound like an excuse to avoid engaging in debate. How could allegation be proved without specific evidence? How could allegation countered without specific of allegation? Personally, most interesting question is, even if we accept some more less conservative estimate Lombarg's critics assert, would his policy recommendation (such as damping Kyoto) still be valid. FWBOarticle

I have no taste for argument, at the moment, so I'll simply point out that the "cleanest air" claim is in the article—in a quote—ascribed to the Sunday Times. Aren't you reading the article as you edit? --Tsavage 23:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure but what if Lombarg already spelt out all the difficulties you listed in producing such estimate before saying "cleanest air". Then the statement is properly contextualised. Basing one's argument on Tabloid newspaer instead of the book itself is not fair criticism. Are you going to say Elvis is alive because it was quoted in a newspaer? FWBOarticle

Disagreement with FWBOarticle major article edits

FWBOarticle: Taking your edits in good faith, at this point, reviewing the entire overhaul of the article (some 100 edits in the last week), I am pretty much in disagreement with what you are doing. Perhaps you have a clear end result in mind, but on the way to doing it live on the page, what I see now is a serious reduction of clarity. You've removed subheadings, sections, and text that, at the very least, made clear the various components of the article. I don't disagree that more summary and refinement are in order. However, you don't seem to be "refining", instead, steadily obliterating the previous structure (which was worked on by a number of people and seemed to in the end achieve a consensus among several editors with opposing views), while proposing whole new sections that would make the article even more unwieldy. In addition, your new "Controversies" section seems to be a platform for attempting to actually argue cases from the book, which is clearly not an encylcopedic approach. In summary, you've added some interesting material (more "policy" stuff), and also reduced clarity (such as removing all of the subsections in Criticism). I think it would be fair and more effective for you to outline a major overhaul of the article here FIRST, to allow opportunity for discussion, before entirely remodeling an article which so far is the work of a number of editors who invested time and discussion to bring it to this point (see talk/talk archives). Thanks. --Tsavage 23:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The current state of "Support" section is a coherent counter argument. So leave this section alone. Afterall, you appear to be a LB skeptics. Feel free to revive deleted subsection within Criticism section. I only copyedited so all the contents are still there. As of "Controversies" section, this should be where "both" criticism and counter criticism should be presented. If you don't want to contribute to this section, fine. Just leave it alone. It's a stab after all. Lastly, I believe in editing first and defending such edit in talk page. Different people have different degree of commitment at different point in time. It makes no sense that everyone adjust to the person with the least commitmment. FWBOarticle

OK, I'll work on the article... --Tsavage 05:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Material removed from "Support" as unsupported/POV

Am I right in guessing that you are bit new to wikipedia. Your objection to the controversies section sounded bit unwikipedian. Anyway, I will answer each of your criticism. Sorry to cut into your writing.FWBOarticle

I edited out the following sections -- in context, they are from this version. The reasoning is:

Supporters of the book pointed out that the green opposed to the book deliberately spinned the book as a work of "environmental science", which is factually untrue. Subsequently, they focused their attack only on this aspect, deliberately ignoring the majority of the content of the book. Moreover, it was commented that the critics fail to engage on the main contention of the book that even if one accept the scientific implication of global warming, Kyoto protocol is not an approrpitate policy response and the environmental policy should be assesed on the basis of the cost benefit annalysis.

None of this is supported or even made clear: which "supporters" made these particular charges. As it stands, this is only the author's interpretation. The rest is the author arguing points directly. If this material belongs here, then it needs a basis. "It was said", by whom? "critics fail to engange on the main contention of the book" -- whose conclusion is that...?

This criticism is valid. However, many of supporters of TSE did imply that "scientific" criticism of TSE was in fact ideological or political. It appear that you have already read some of these criticism. I will change this section of edit along the line which more accurately represent the counter criticism. Summary of prevailing opinions is not original research specified in wikipedia no-original policy. FWBOarticle

This was particulary apparent in the involvement of Union of Concerned Scientists and Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (see below).

Apparent to the author. Simple editorializing.

Not quite, both UNION of Concerned Scientists and Danish Committees has been named in some of counter critcism. You read it yourself. You should read wikipedia policy in regard to NPOV and Verification. FWBOarticle

For example, all four reviewer of journal, Scientific American, whose review of the book had the title "Science defends itself against the Skeptical Environmentalist" has political ties to the environmental cause. Stephen Scheider is also a well known environmentalist, publishing a book "The Genesis Strategy: Climate and Global Survival". Another contributor is John P. Holdren who stated in 1971 that "it is fair to conclude that under almost any assumptions, the supplies of crude petroleum and natural gas are severely limited. The bulk of energy likely to flow from these sources may have been tapped within the lifetime of many of the present population." ("Engergy: A Crisis in Power", Sierra Club) Third reviewer is John Bongaarts, a vice president at the Population Council who while conceding that Lombarg is right in regard to population and food supply still gave somewhat skeptical outlook for the future. The last reviewer is Thomas Lovejoy who was U.S. director of the World Wildlife Fund. In 1979, he stated that "an estimate of extinctions that will take place between now and the end of the century. Attempting to be conservative wherever possible, I still came up with a reduction of global diversity between one-seventh and one-fifth."

This information may be relevant, but as presented in the article, it is the author's own construction in support of a quote from another magazine about science and politics don't mix. This has nothing to do with support, only attempting to undermine the credibility of the SciAm critics, done in a completely unencyclopedic manner. This is basically original research: "because these associations exist, these scientist must be examples of scientists trying to use science for poltitical reasons."

Again, you miss the point. Each edit satisfy verification criteria of wikipedia. The fact that these facts are also used by other author is irrelevant. More importantly, mention of LB's criticis's ties to enviromental cause has been made so it ought to be included in this page. Whether you think such criticism is fair or not is irrelevant. I could raise same objection to TSE/LB criticism. Only objection you can possibly raise is NPOV mis-attribution. You edit appear to be an attempt to censor counter critcism of TSE's critics. Please read wikipedia policy. Your idea of "encyclopedic" seems to differ greatly from what wikipedia is. FWBOarticle

Start with citations.

Stuart Pimm, co-wrote highly critical review in Nature, described Lombarg's book, which was peer reviewed by Cambridge University Press, as "Like bad term papers,", then went on to state, "Lomborg’s text relies heavily on secondary sources. Out of around 2,000 references, about 5% come from news sources and 30% from web downloads -- readily accessible, therefore, but frequently not peer reviewed.", which actually fail to clarify the actual content to peer reviewed or source of government or official international organisation not to mention the fact that Lomborg sited lot of non peer revied work as an example litany. "This bias towards non-peer-reviewed material over internationally reputable journals is sometimes incredible." However, Pimms himself wrote "The World According To Pimm: A Scientist Audits the Earth", with chapter such as ""Man Eats Planet! Two-Fifths Already Gone!" or "Water, Water Everywhere?". Half of the endnotes are not peer reviewed material, many of them from environmentalist group, newspaper reports and government and international organisation which are available for web download.

This seems to be another author's attack, now on Stuart Pimm. What's it doing in the Support section? Is Support a freezone for any sort of pro-TSE content. Why is a TSE article digging into Pimms own publication history for the purpose of indicting his credibility.

Ahhh, yes, "Support" section is where pro-TSE content goes. Anc Criticism is where anti-TSE content goes. Again please read NPOV policy of wikipedia. Wikipedia promote "constructive" presentation of debate. Your attempt to censor opposing view is opposite of what this site try to promote. As you have read, many counter ctisicism refer to TSE's critics' ties to environmental movement. Whether you believe such counter critcism to be unfair is rather irrelevant. FWBOarticle

How does your explaining how Stuart Pimm is biased, hypocritical, inconsistent, or whatever fit here? It's just your opinion. You are choosing to criticize Pimm's TSE comments by pointing out what you think is information about Pimm that discredits him as a TSE critic. --Tsavage 07:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You are missing the point. It is not about wheter "I" who hold view about Stuart Pimm is being biased. And similarly, your (apparent) view that SP not being biased is also not relevant. My edit merely represent view held by many critics of critics of LB/TSE. Two article I cited specifically mention SP and others in their criticis including their background and past publishing history. And it is NPOV to describe general mariority/minority opinion then cite an example of such view. Your deletion based on the argument that such criticis is "unfair" is totally POV edit. FWBOarticle

I think the article got so quote heavy because the various editors working on it last active round, myself (probably :) included, were somewhat divided pro/anti TSE, and quotes (as cheap citations) at least made it difficult to simply make up arguments on our own... Which is what you've done above, regardless of whether the content is "valid" or "true" -- it's not supported... --Tsavage 06:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Please, read wikipedia editorial policies. It is difficult to conduct discussion when someone resort to deleting edit based on his personal view about what encyrcopedia ought to be. You might notice that I did not delete hardly anything when I did my revamp. FWBOarticle

My edits were fully explained. I suggested we discuss major changes here first, and you declined, that dialog is directly above. So I'm simply doing the same, editing boldy in the direction I see as encyclopedic and per WP policies and guidelines. You're implying I'm editing with an anti-TSE bias, and I'm saying it appears to me you're editing with a pro-TSE bias, which you can call "balancing", but remains bolstering one side of a controversial topic.

I do understand what your concern is, and how you're trying to fix it. The former Praise section listed a bunch of one-line quotes, and that was it. The Criticism section was five times longer, with a whole array of critical subtopics. In that state, it might have had the appearance to some of "favoring" the critical side. But I don't see a way around that. The Support section should be expanded, to make more clear why "serious" supporters (Economist, not Rolling Stone) supported it, but once you start including in criticism of the critics it all spirals out of control, because the critics also criticized the supporters. There were claims that the Cambridge U Press peer-review committee was staffed with people favorable to TSE's position (there is a list of the review panel somewhere), and also that the book was slipped by CUPs natural sciences divsion, that a book reviewer for a prominent newspaper was not qualified to evaluate it in the way he did, and so forth. There's no end to it. Like, look at those petitions, on both sides... Going to argue actual cases is worse, it'll never end, because you have to go into Lomborg's statistical work, and that, from the breakdowns of how several of TSEs findings came about that I've read, is interesting, but also very difficult to summarize, the article would likely get longer and longer. Also, the article does quite clearly explain what the book is about. If the criticism was a bigger issue than the praise, then, with care taken in the writing to avoid "appearance" of bias, so be it. Challenging Pimm and the SciAm reviewers seems futile. I imagine just filling out much more of the Economist's position might solve much of this, or at least be a good start... --Tsavage 07:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Support Section (Reverted material)

FWBOarticle I explained my edits above, which you have in great part reverted with no substantive reply. The bottom line, then, if you're talking about "WP policy" is, assertions, especially controversial or contested ones, have to be cited (WP:V, WP:CITE). So, whenever you summarize using vague terms like "Many of the supporter", "Some raised concern", "Half of the endnotes are not peer reviewed material", "a well known environmentalist", please make clear who you are referring to and/or the source. I would like to be able check the material you're adding. --Tsavage 07:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted back to me, removing FWBO's re-additions. I think most of the re-inserted material was over-long, unsourced or POV. Picking some (but not all of this...):

Moreover, many have pointed out that the critics fail to engage on the most controvercial proporition of the book, that even if one accept the scientific implication of global warming, Kyoto protocol is not an approrpitate policy response...

Who says this is the most controversial bit? Who has amde the above argument? Why should, say, an evolutionary biologist criticising the bio section of the book be expected to engage in the GW policy bits, as the above appears to assert they should? Its just not acceptable.

The Pielke quote is not acceptable either: its the usual delightful vagueness from Roger, you can't tell which side he is on, and the answer is probably neither.

The bit about political ties is grossly POV. Dredging up 1971 remarks is unreasonable. If there is nothing more recent, forget it. And the lengthy section attacking Pim is totally inappropriate William M. Connolley 12:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It is just copyediting and paraphrasing of one of the article cited. The BL's "scientific" critic's tie to environmental movement has been raised by the supporters. Whether such critcism is reasonably/inappropriate or not is your POV. Readers could make up their own mind.FWBOarticle

As of critic of BL/TSE being ideologue, it is almost central contention of counter criticism. Two article cited in "Support" section are example. Here is few from the Economist magazine. [3], "THE Bjorn Lomborg saga took a decidedly Orwellian turn this week." [4], " Defending science-The fury inspired by a new book is extraordinary, and raises some questions " [5]. Some? Many? Looks like a nitpicking in an attempt to censor edit which you don't want the reader of wikipedia to see. FWBOarticle "Half of the endnotes are not peer reviewed material"-It is in Green with Ideology. Plus it is a verifiable info. As of "a well known environmentalist", hmmm, let see. How do we know Green Peace, Concerned Scientist are environmentalist? Is it to do with their support for Kyoto and various other policy orientation? The guy, who supposed to be a natural scientist wrote a "policy" book endorsing Kyoto, despite the fact that he has no expertise in economics or political science what so ever. Please, do we have to argue whether the guy is an environmentalist or not. "A well known environemtalist" could mean either "he is s famous environmentalist" or "the fact he is an environmentalist is well known". Feel free to do extra disambiguation if you feel like itFWBOarticle

You cannot possibly consider the Economist to be neutral in this. TE is very strongly pro-market and sympathetic to Lomborgs views. And can you give up on the censorship stuff? Its dull, it won't work, I've seen it all before on global warming William M. Connolley 13:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC).

Do you know what NPOV is? Please first understand what wikipedia editorial policy is. What matter is not whether opinions/views written in the artciel is "neutral" (according to your POV). It is whether it is attributed. This is pro BL/TSE view and it is clearly spelled out in the title of this section which say S-U-P-P-O-R-T. FWBOarticle

Oh dear, I forsee one of those tedious disputes over the meaning of NPOV. I can assure you I'm very familiar with it, and I'm very pamiliar with people trying to use it as a bludgeon to get their favoured unbalanced text into an article. Oh, and please mark your reverts as such: (rv) is usually enough William M. Connolley 13:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC).

"You cannot possibly consider the Economist to be neutral in this. TE is very strongly pro-market and sympathetic to Lomborgs views". What is your point about the economist being not neutral? Am I missing something here? FWBOarticle 13:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Could the line "Of course, Mr. Lomborg's factual conclusions may not be correct nor his policy proposals effective, but his criticisms should be addressed, not merely dismissed out of hand." be clarified? Who is the 'should' voice here? It appears to be a non-neutral POV presented on behalf of wikipedia. If it is meant to be - as i think it is, in this paragraph - representing the opinion of a particular source which supports him, then it should make that clear. (By the way, I think the piece is nicely edited overall for balance.)

Ongoing reversions by FWBOarticle

I've removed these two paragraphs once again. They were removed by more than one editor, and reverted by FWOBarticle. Both paras were in the Support section, and as presented are simply the editor's arguments backed up by information. This is original research, reasoning and conclusions arrived at by the editor. No citations are provided to either the statements made, nor anywhere these arguments were made. You can't quote someone's criticism, as in the Pimm case, and then argue why the critic is somehow not fit to make such a claim because...he's a hypocrite? He "did the same thing"? Even with proper source for this, forays into the histories of individual critics in order to shore up specific arguments is unnecessary. Summary, not trial... --Tsavage 18:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

For example, all four reviewer of journal, Scientific American, whose revier of the book had the title "Science defends itself against the Skeptical Environmentalist" has political ties to the environmental cause. Stephen Scheider is also a well known environmentalist, publishing a book "The Genesis Strategy: Climate and Global Survival". Another contributor is John P. Holdren who stated in 1971 that "it is fair to conclude that under almost any assumptions, the supplies of crude petroleum and natural gas are severely limited. The bulk of energy likely to flow from these sources may have been tapped within the lifetime of many of the present population." ("Engergy: A Crisis in Power", Sierra Club) Third reviewer is John Bongaarts, a vice president at the Population Council who while conceding that Lombarg is right in regard to population and food supply still gave somewhat skeptical outlook for the future. The last reviewer is Thomas Lovejoy who was U.S. director of the World Wildlife Fund. In 1979, he stated that "an estimate of extinctions that will take place between now and the end of the century. Attempting to be conservative wherever possible, I still came up with a reduction of global diversity between one-seventh and one-fifth."

Stuart Pimm, co-wrote highly critical review in Nature, described Lombarg's book, which was peer reviewed by Cambridge University Press, as "Like bad term papers,", then went on to state, "Lomborg’s text relies heavily on secondary sources. Out of around 2,000 references, about 5% come from news sources and 30% from web downloads -- readily accessible, therefore, but frequently not peer reviewed.", which actually fail to clarify the actual content to peer reviewed or source of government or official international organisation not to mention the fact that Lomborg sited lot of non peer revied work as an example litany. "This bias towards non-peer-reviewed material over internationally reputable journals is sometimes incredible." However, Pimms himself wrote "The World According To Pimm: A Scientist Audits the Earth", with chapter such as ""Man Eats Planet! Two-Fifths Already Gone!" or "Water, Water Everywhere?". Half of the endnotes are not peer reviewed material, many of them from environmentalist group, newspaper reports and government and international organisation which are available for web download.

"Controversies" section outline

I removed this section from the article because it's empty, it isn't an obvious section, and it's been sitting there for a couple of weeks at least and the author hasn't expanded on it. It is below in its entirety for possible future use. --Tsavage 04:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Controversies

Population, Hunger and Diseases

Depletion of Non Renewable Resource

Pollution

Bio Diversity and Deforestation

Global Warming and Kyoto Protocol

Original research?

"For example, regarding overpopulation, Lomborg does not reconcile that the Earth's carrying capacity coupled with realities of current food distribution leaves 850 million people currently malnourished or starving[1], and 1.1 billion people without safe drinking water[2][2]." This appear to be an original interpretation of the book out of verified source. Unless cited material directly criticise the book, it's out. If I may add my original interpretation, Lomborg's argument is precisely that it's the lack of economic infrastructure which is the cause of the problem. Vapour

I agree with your point. Lomberg's point was that: it's the lack of economic infrastructure which is the cause of the problem. To say that Lomborg does not reconcile starvation and safe drinking water is simply wrong. Mozzie 04:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It has been some time since I've read it, but my recollection is in line with Mozzie and Vapour. It's been more than a week now. If there is no direct citation forthcoming, and if Vapour doesn't get around to it in a day, I'll be removing the sentence under the auspices of WP:NOR. mdf 13:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If one reads further down this very article, we find:

However, Lomborg notes that Africa in particular still produces too little food, an effect he attributes to the continent's dismal economic and political systems.

and

He states that the main problem is logistic and emphasizes the need for better water management, as water is distributed unequally around the world.

Which are statements that are in direct contradiction to the lead-in re: "reconcile". Given this, one is tempted to conclude that even if a sources can be found for the "reconcile" sentence, they can probably be dismissed as unreliable. mdf 13:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The offending paragraph has been zapped, as promised. If anyone wants to put it back, I expect to see a direct reference that states the things the paragraph said, and, more importantly, why the reference should be considered reliable cf. the contents of the book. I have TSE (paperback) in my lap as I type, and Lomberg is explicitly clear on page 66 re: why Africa is so fucked up, and (on the same page) why it is reasonable to expect that simple economic development will work a miracle in the manner it did in Asia decades ago. mdf 14:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

More fuel! MORE FUEL!

"This added fuel to the overall controversy..." This sentence must be a joke, surely. The irony's dripping from it. Wozocoxonoy 18:50, 28 November 2006 (GMT)

The latest rewrite

The latest rewrite has the benefit (so far as readability goes) of having a coherent point of view. That's the problem - POV. It is overwhelmingly negative. I'm not going to bother trying to sort it out, I know that in the past any attempt to introduce a note of sanity into this article will be counter-edited out of existence. At the very least it should have a section indicating which of Lomberg's arguments have stood up to scrutiny.Greglocock 22:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

In fact would it not be better to rename this article "Criticism of the Skeptical Env." ? Greglocock 22:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we revert it back (it violates NPOV) and leave a note to Kåre Fog (who maintains an anti-Lomborg website) to discuss complete rewrites first. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually the changes made are factually incorrect; they do not report what Lomborg says and are themselves seriously misleading. I decided to check a numerical example: the TB figures that Kåre Fog says are so misleading he reports as a discrepancy between an over-precise 1.69 million (Lomborg) and 2 million (Pimentel). In fact (pg 23) it is a comparison of between 1.669 million and 3.5 million. (The figure of 2m is a WHO estimate, not Pimentel's.) And this was the first example I looked at. I'm not going to check any more -- I'm reverting the whole mess. --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

My comment:

Of course I do not accept that my changes are reversed back. But before I reverse the reversion, I will explain my motives.

First of all the arguments stated above are unacceptable. First, the statement At the very least it should have a section indicating which of Lomberg's arguments have stood up to scrutiny. When Lomborg has an average of about one factual error per page, does that mean that for every page, we should cite those parts of the page which are not erroneous? If 10 or 20 % of Lomborg´s conceptions are OK - e.g. the conception that people are on average becoming richer and live longer - is it then absolutely necessary to cite these uncontroversial statements in order to balanced? I think not. But if somebody wants to point that there are SOME points in Lomborg´s book that are OK, I can of course have nothing against that.

Next, Michael Price wrote: Actually the changes made are factually incorrect. To the best of my knowledge, this is not true. Of course, not a single statement on Wikipedia should be incorrect, and if by some mistake I have happened to write something incorrect, I apologise. I think I have not. On p. 23, Lomborg compares a figure of 1.669 million (not 1.69 million)with 2 million, not with 3.5 million.

The page as it were before was in some parts very biased. I can give examples, if it is necessary. Therefore, it was not acceptable as it was.

It is not acceptable to make an article of TSE without mentioning the fact that up to now more than 300 concrete, factual errors have been found in the book, and that therefore many of its conceptions and conclusions are definitely misleading. It should be clear to the reader of the article that the text in TSE cannot be trusted, and that he would always have to check alternative sources and lists of corrections. It will then be up to each reader to form his own opinion. But any article on TSE that fails to give a proper presentation of the doubtfulness of the contents of the book, will be unacceptable to me.

It is simply not intellectually honest to refuse to consult the error catalogues and act as if they did not exist. If any one finds concrete alleged errors or flaws which do not hold up, then these persons are justified to correct what I wrote. As long as this is not the case, they are not justified to correct it.

I have kept the link to the HAN site and the postulates advanced by Arthur Rörsch that most allegations against Lomborg do not hold up. And I have inserted a reference to a paper in which I treat Rörsch´s accusations. I have carefully read most of Rörsch´s criticisms - he has sent some of them directly to me - and there are very few cases where I agree with him. He is extremely biased. The very few cases in which Rörsch rightfully points out unjustified criticisms are of course not included in Lomborg-errors as errors.

I will give you the opportunity to answer me here. But that must be qualified answers, not answers that fail to confront the critical issues. And it must be answers that accept the fundamental conception that Lomborg´s book cannot be evaluated without checking his sources. Of course, if one reads only his book, and takes all his statements for granted, one could get a quite positive impression of the book. But it must be a rule that one looks at both sides, which includes that one must look also at Lomborg-errors.

I hope to receive QUALIFIED responses to this, before I revert the reversion.

Kåre Fog

Lomborg compares the 1.669 million (actual figures from 1999) with Pimentel's estimate of 3.5 million (for 2000). The 2 million WHO figure is for the entire 1990s and therefore not relevant. That you say otherwise severely reduces your credibility as a neutral reporter of evidence. Care to quote the entire paragraph? (I have it in front of me.) --Michael C. Price ^talk 02:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I wrote here as follows "On p. 23, Lomborg compares a figure of 1.669 million (not 1.69 million)with 2 million, not with 3.5 million." That is correct. But I admit that in the article text, I said that the comparison was with the professor whom Lomborg opposes. I was too fast there. But then let us look at what Lomborg-errors has õn this subject

"Pimentel is criticized for giving an impression of a steadily increasing number of deaths due to tuberculosis in the world, and the reader gets the impression that actually, the number of such deaths is almost stable. Flaw: There are many flaws here. First, in the source that Lomborg refers to repeatedly in order to repudiate Pimentel´s claims - namely Murray and Lopez (1996) - it is seen that the total number of deaths due to tuberculosis is projected to rise slowly from 1990 to 2020. This is evident from precisely those tables that Lomborg has used to make his figure 8. Second, even the latest WHO reports from 2002 and 2003 on global tuberculosis control report a steadily increasing incidence rate in nearly all parts of the world. The global number of tuberculosis cases has increased by almost 1 mio. people from 1995 to 1999. In spite of greatly increased efforts at combating the disease, the estimated number of death cases has not dropped below 2 to 3 mio. deaths per year, and in the latest version of the WHO factsheet on tuberculosis we read: "Each year, more people are dying of TB. In Eastern Europe and Africa, TB deaths are increasing after almost 40 years of decline." A major cause contributing to this is that strains of bacilli resistant to TB drugs now occur in every suveyed country, and multidrug-resistant TB is spreading. Thus, Pimentel´s pessimism seems warranted. Next, Lomborg contrasts an "actual death toll" of 1.669 mio. a year with estimates of 2 to 3 mio. a year. However, these figures are not congruent and should not be compared. The figure of 1.669 gives the definitely known cases, whereas the more rounded figures include the estimated number of deaths that are not reported. Finally, the phrase "the WHO source that Pimentel most often uses" is misleading. Pimentel used the 1996 world health report, which indeed has a figure of 3.1 mio. deaths per year due to TB, whereas the 2000 world health report, to which Lomborg refers, does not bring a comparable estimate, but brings a statistical table with the 1.669 precisely recorded cases. It does not give the figure of 2 million dead over the 1990s."

So the situation here is that Lomborg misleads because he makes the reader believe that Pimentel´s conception of a rising number of TB cases is wrong, whereas the trend of rising cases is in fact apparently true. The 2 million are not stable, as postulated by Lomborg. And they are relevant, because according to Lomborg´s own rules, it is not OK to pick a single year that fits your conceptions. You have to look at trends or averages over longer periods. Lomborg uses the precise figure of 1.669 million to tell that Pimentel has exaggerated. Actually, Pimentel has exaggerated in some cases, but not in this case. The figures 1.669 million and 2 million are not congruent, and therefore Lomborg has cheated his reader by making him believe that they are congruent. Actually, even 2 million is too precise for the indication of the actual number of deaths. A relevant indication of the degree of uncertainty would mean that the figure should have been cited as 2 to 3 millions.

So, I am right in my text that Lomborg misuses a very precise figure here to indicate that he knows better than the man he attacks. If we accept that many TB deaths, e.g. in Africa, are not officially reported - and who would doubt that - then the figure given by Pimentel is closer to the truth than the figure given by Lomborg. At the very least, as a statistician, Lomborg should have made his reader aware that 1.669 is not the full number, only the officially reported cases. He does not, apparently because if he did, he could no longer attack Pimentel. Lomborg uses the phrase "the actual death toll". How can a statistician use such an expression, without defining it?

So I insist that my example of undue precision is relevant, but I apologise that in a hurry I happened to claim that the figure of 2 million was from Pimentel rather from "the WHO source that Pimentel most often uses". I will change that detail.

I do not see how all this could lead to the conclusion that it "severely reduces my credibility as a neutral reporter of evidence

". And there are still more than 300 other points of criticism. So I still feel justified to write as I did. Kåre Fog 08:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you still are misreading Lomborg -- but who ever is "right" is irrelevant: as Wikipedians we should not be judging content, we should just be reporting it from reliable, secondary sources. You critique is original research, which is forbidden. I've left a note in your talk page with the usual welcome message; hopefully that will help the situation. Original research is a tricky subject you digest for newbies, but will be well worth the investment of time to master if you intemd to stick around. -Michael C. Price ^talk 17:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Kare Fog makes some valid points. I think editors need be rather careful about mass text deletions, when another editor is adding clearly thoughtful material. I hope we can work through the proposed changes and sort out the valid points and add them as appropriate. regards. Anlace 15:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that Kåre Fog is attempting to judge content and has fallen foul of the sin of original research, rather than just report content from reliable sources. I've left a note in his talk page with the usual welcome message; hopefully that will help the situation.--Michael C. Price ^talk 17:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Michael Price is extremely unfair to me. I am very angry. You have insulted me.

What I have done, is to check if it is correct what Lomborg writes. In total, over the years, I have used several full months to go to libraries, check references, find errors, and build the Lomborg-errors site. And then you call this "original research", thereby dictating that my voice should not be heard. This means that everybody who makes an uncritical reading of a book is welcome to write about it, but everybody who checks if it is correct what the book says, makes "research" and should not be heard. This interpretation of "research" is extremely undemocratic, and of course I cannot accept it. You are simply a mean person who wants to prevent others from having their voice heard.

There are very few neutral facts about the book. The facts are for instance that it was first published in English in 2001, that it contains 25 chapters, nearly 3,000 endnotes and about 1,700 references, and that it is controversial. Everything else is doubtful and open to interpretation. For instance, I do not feel sure that Bjørn Lomborg was the sole author of the book. And it is also very doubtful if there was a review process, as Chris Harrison says. It is rather normal that books in the social sciences are not reviewed, and it was only after the roar of criticism was heard that Harrison started to say that there had been a review. I think that there was no review of the factual contents of the book. Harrison has said that the alleged referees all were politically engaged. I guess that this was a broad hint that the "review" was a process where the four persons read the book and found that they could agree from a political/ideological point of view. Instead of just stating this suspicion, I wrote a piece of text giving an argument why this may have been so.

I do not understand what you write about not judging content. There is a lot of judging content in the article as it is on my screen now. The various parts of Lomborg´s book are reviewed like this: "he analyzes ..", "he finds no indication of . . ", "he points out that. . " and "he states that the main problem is . . ", all written in a tone as if Lomborg is just reporting what everybody would have found out if they had cared to analyze the same issues. And then, after a long piece of text that goes like this, you write "The previous sections of the book were less controversial . .", as if there may only have been minor corrections to Lomborg´s presentation in these parts, i.e. as if Lomborg was essentially correct here. That is absolutely not so! The parts of the book referred to are extremely controversial. I would say that they are full of bias, manipulations, crucial omissions, deliberately misleading interpretations, and ad hominem attacks on others. To give the impression that these parts of the book are uncontroversial is definitely unacceptable to me.

The reasons given by mr. Price to reverse my change were below the threshold of decency. I have used months of my life to find the best possible evidence, and he just writes that it is all factually incorrect. I think you had the intent to insult me, and congratulations, you succeeded. You also state that my text is exclusively negative towards Lomborg. That is not true - of course I kept relevant text pieces about the support to Lomborg, and I kept the reference to HAN.

Now, the crucial point is that nobody should think that he can read TSE and trust it as it stands. The documented errors are so many and so widespread that any reading of the book without consulting error-catalogues or criticism is irresponsible. Using the book in education of university students is at par with telling students that they should believe all that is said in the holy Koran. Any version of the article that does not confront this problem is unacceptable to me, and I will reverse it.

So I ask you to tell, what parts of my text were factually incorrect? I will give you two days to answer that. Then we may have found out what parts of my text may need revision. After that, I will certainly remove the version that is on the screen now.

83.92.19.186 18:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to feel angry or insulted. You admit you did the research yourself: that makes it original research -- it doesn't mean it's good or bad, just inadmissable here. To understand what is meant by not judging content please read the links / guides I left on your talk page. As for your final point that no one should read the TSE uncritically, well I agree: no one should read anything uncritically. And that includes this advice, which you can check against the policy guidelines, if you think I am being harsh or dismissive. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Price has completely rejected my version of the article with the argument that it is factually incorrect. I have asked him and others to point out what in my text is factually incorrect. There must be substantial errors if the whole text is completely rejected, so I ask: what are these errors? It is disappointing that Mr. Price has not attempted to answer that question.

In the Wikipedia tutorial page, under the heading "neutral point of view", I read:

"In a less extreme case, an article might have "POV" problems if it spends significantly more time discussing one view than another view of equivalent significance, even if each view is presented neutrally."

This is precisely the problem with the existing version of the article on TSE. The view that is over-represented is clear from reading the personal page for Mr. Price, where a book by Julian Simon is listed as the most influential book. So when the whole idea of TSE is to defend Julian Simon, Mr. Price clearly is interested in supporting that defence.

Mr. Price might choose to defend Simon no matter what, or he might have a mind open to the idea that Simon might be more or less wrong. There is now a good opportunity to show which of these options are chosen. If Mr. Price has an open mind, he will pick some randomly chosen places in the error-catalogue on Lomborg-errors and judge for himself if some of the criticism stated there might be justified. On the other hand, if the mind is "closed", Mr. Price will refuse to read the evidence against the claims made in TSE. He will then find some far-fetched argument that Lomborg-errors should not be consulted at all, e.g. the absurd argument that because it is original research, it can be neglected completely.

From the Wikipedia page "no original research" I cite: "the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say. " and "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, verifiable, published secondary sources wherever possible." So when I refer in some cases to the Lomborg-errors web site as a primary source, then the references given on that web page are secondary sources. So I am doing exactly what I should do.

I do not defend a particular ideological or political point of view. My business is to bring things as closely as possible to the verifiable truth. And I have found more than 300 points where TSE does not agree with the verifiable truth. The book is so much permeated with bias and deliberate misleading, that it is essentially scientific bluff. Therefore it is unacceptable that the book is presented as a decent, although controversial work. This is not a question of diverging opinions. It is a question of one part refusing to confront himself with the verifiable truth.

So, I ask once again: If I am wrong, please tell me: where am I wrong?

80.166.185.65 20:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The latest rewrite once more

I have now inserted the version from 25 February once more, with a few changes (in the section on the review process, and conceringin the TB figures).

I have done this because I have received no comments as to where this version might be wrong.

As to bias, I have made a little statistics: If we do not count the text section dealing with references, and only the main text, then the version inserted now has criticism of TSE in 45.9 % of the text. To this may be added 6.9 % of he text dealing with DCSD. This is not criticism as such, but a report of something that happened.

So, if somewhere about 50 % of the text presents criticism, this should be a fair balance.

Kåre Fog 10:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not think you should be using your website as a source for an article that you have so heavily edited. Unfortunately the arguments you make on your website are so jumbled and poorly written that I cannot tell whether they are sensible or not. However, I am not going to revert your changes to the main article, as I have said before, attempting to maintain neutrality in this article is beyond the current immature state of the wiki community. I still believe that the general tone of the article is not NPOV, and is in general far more negative than positive. Many paragraphs have weasel words in them that are unneccessary. OK, I'll do a weasel word edit.Greglocock 11:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I couldn't do a weasel word edit. Basically it needs a total rewrite. I'd suggest that first third or so is basically fine, then it needs a NEUTRAL section on the contents and the controversy and then ONE section of criticism, with no weasel words in the other sections. Greglocock 11:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Kåre Fog & TSE article

First of all, I want to express my respect for Kåre Fog in honestly telling us who he is, rather than inventing an anonymous screen name under which he could have performed the same edits, thus providing a false impression of objectivity. That he did not do so speaks volumes about his character, and though I disagree with his edits, I appreciate his sincerity.

Having said this, I must object strenuously to his editing of this article.

• First of all, as another editor (or two) has pointed out, it is almost certainly improper for Mr. Fog to use his own website as the source of this material. This is akin to conducting original research, which is prohibited in Wikipedia. Yes, I am aware of the point he makes that this material on his website comes from other sources, but then, those sources should have been used, not Mr. Fog's website.
• Secondly, Mr. Fog is himself a party to this matter, and as such, should not be an active participant in editing this article. I recall reading that we had a bit of a scandal some time ago when Jimbo Wales edited his own article; that is now recognized as improper. I submit that, since Mr. Fog was one of the original complaintents to the DCSD regarding TSE, that his editing of this article is equally improper. It is no different than editing an article on himself.

Look, as I read through these edits of his total re-write, I can feel his attempts to be objective. It's clear that he's trying to write NPOV. It's equally clear that he's failing, quite miserably. I am therefore going to revert back to the point before he rewrote this entire article. It was more readable before, less smarmy, and less POV. I'm sure it was also flawed. But a total rewrite like this should, first of all, probably be done only after some discussion of editors as to its need, and secondly, be done by somebody with less of an axe to grind.

You know, I'm supposed to be taking a break from editing Wikipedia, and I've been very good about it. But this was just too unacceptable to let sit until next month, when I was planning on coming back. Maybe I need to quite reading Wikipedia as well. Unschool 15:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

To those editing this article:

I do not know how many of you are English, but I suppose some of you are. The English are known for a culture in which "fair play" is a central theme. I am therefore frustrated and angry because of the obvious lack of fair play in this case.

There are notoriously many things in Lomborg´s book that are not true and have led to intense criticism. In spite of this, Lomborg´s supporters repeatedly say: you may disagree with his interpretations, but you cannot repudiate his facts; you have not demonstrated any concrete errors in Lomborg´s book. The answer to this is of course to demonstrate these concrete errors. There is only one way to do this, namely to check Lomborg´s references. The important point here is that this a very large work, and therefore most people are too lazy to do it, and therefore Lomborg can count on that nobody will do it. So, somebody has had to do the tedious work that most people are too lazy or too busy to do. I have had enough freedom in my time schedule to put aside those jobs for which I might get paid, and instead using months to do this job which is more important to society, but which is certainly not paid. I have found many proven errors in Lomborg´s book, and many of these are likely or sure to have been deliberate. Next, I make an error catalogue and put it on the internet.

Now, would some of you please tell me: What have I done wrong? If we imagine the perfect opposition to Lomborg´s book, in what way would that differ from what I have done? I have been factual, concrete, and as objective in my descriptions of the errors as it is possible for a human being. And what do you do? You say: you have become engaged in this issue, so therefore your voice should not be heard. So if somebody has actually performed what somebody should ideally do, then this person will be rejected. Only those who are too lazy to actually consult the facts have the right to write about the issue. It is the victory of the ignorant over those who know what they are writing about. It is the victory of those who support manipulations and lies. And all I can say is. Forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.

You really do not know what you are doing. And you are too lazy to care about it. You read only Lomborg´s book, and allow him to seduce you. You refuse to confront yourself with other sources of information that contradict Lomborg´s claims. That is intellectual dishonesty.

I am sure you think that I am mad, and that you yourself are sensible persons who care for a balanced article with no negative words about Lomborg. For instance, one of you argues that the presentation of the contents of TSE should be neutral, and that there should be only one section with criticism. But that is impossible! If you make a section presenting the contents of the book, as you have done, then it would be necessary to add to this another section stating that most of what was said above were just Lomborg´s false claims, and that actually, things are not as described. For instance, food production is actually approaching an upper limit in important areas. The world´s forest area is actually declining steadily, even if you use Lomborg´s source as your data base. Acid precipitation actually has negative effects on the forests. Oil resources are actually being depleted fast, and "peak oil" is approaching. There are actually large problems with groundwater resources in some regions of the world. Etc. etc. etc. So you would have to describe the same things twice: First you would say: A is not true, B is not true, C is not true . . . and in the next section you would have to say: after all, A is true, B is true, C is true . . This is why I wanted to change the text so that it just lists what issues are treated in TSE, but does not report what Lomborg says about these issues.

Apart from that, it would be possible to make a special section on criticism, in which all the "weasel" words are concentrated. This would then include paragraphs such as the one where Lomborg´s complete neglect of usual statistical terms and principles is described. In such a section, those critical of Lomborg should have their hands free to write what they find appropriate. For instance, I write: " Where the tone is sharper, as for instance when The Union of Concerned Scientists states that "Lomborg consistently misuses, misrepresents or misinterprets data", then this is a justified description of the book." The evidence that Lomborg indeed consistently misuses, misrepresents or misinterprets data, is strong. Therefore, this criticism must be presented as a realistic criticism, not just as a subjective opinion of people who do not like Lomborg. You may say that such directly negative statements about Lomborg should be avoided. But no. If you write about an author of novels, then you should avoid that kind of negative statements. But if you write about Lomborg, who purports to describe "the truth", and actually lies, cheats and manipulates, and whose writings have very important consequences for the whole globe if they are believed - then you are absolutely obliged to report on the evidence that he does indeed lie, cheat and manipulate. The regard to Lomborg´s reputation must be less important than the regard to avoiding misinformation about some of the most important issues in toady´s society. Any version of an article about TSE that does NOT include very negative statements about the book (along with positive statements), will be a failure.

I may add to this that the existing version of the article is definitely flawed in some respects. For instance, the article refers the postulate from HAN that 25 accusations against Lomborg were false, but does not mention my postulate that more than 300 accusations against Lomborg are true. The explanation for this bias could be that you simply did not know about the Lomborg-errors catalogue. But now you know, and somebody (obviously, this could not be myself) should hurry up to correct this bias. If you do not, then you prove your own bias and that you are not honest.

The article as it now stands is flawed and biased in many ways. The most important flaw is that the reader will not understand that the uproar against the book, and the heavy criticism, was not just due to different opinions, interpretations and ideologies, but first of all due to the fact that very much of what is said by Lomborg is simply not true. The fact that I and many others point out a lot of errors, and that in spite of this people continue to trust Lomborg, and the media continue to support him, point at a crucial defect in people´s minds. If somebody lies, and somebody else claims "he lies", then people tend to love the liar and reject the opponent. People love to hear what Lomborg says. They do not love the truth.

The conclusion for me is that I have good reasons to hate you. Maybe (I am not sure!) most of you do not have evil intents, but by supporting Lomborg´s views and by rejecting alternative views, you contribute to an evil world, a world where lies win over truth, a world where alternative views are not balanced in a democratic way, a world where idealists are pulverized, whereas liars contribute to the destruction of the world´s environment and are rewarded with huge amounts of money. You ought to have very bad conscience, but I guess you have not. I wish you very bad dreams. You deserve that. Kåre Fog 09:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No I'm sorry but you misunderstand the nature of Wiki. Even if everything you have written was absolutely and demonstrably true, then it still does not belong in this article. The reason is that NPOV and NOR are extremely strong policies here. Wiki is not the place for the sort of article you appear to wish to write. I don't know why you have to start hating anybody, I don't hate you, I am merely trying to explain the process to you. Now, I have suggested an article structure which to my mind would at least allow a satisfactory article to be made, but as it is replacing the work of many people over the years by a one-eyed polemic is not progress in my opinion. Greglocock 11:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

To Greglocock.

You forget certain things. First, you forget that I also wrote: "the article refers the postulate from HAN that 25 accusations against Lomborg were false, but does not mention my postulate that more than 300 accusations against Lomborg are true. " So the article, as it stands, is not balanced on this point. Secondly, the simple idea that the opposition against TSE could be due to the fact that the contents to a great extent are incorrect (and deliberately incorrect), is practically missing from the article. So the reader will not understand why there is so much opposition against the book.

It must be a part of NPOV that when the contents of the book are controversial, then the reader will be made aware where to find alternative statements, so that the reader is able to judge for himself.

You write: "I don't know why you have to start hating anybody". Yes, that is difficult to explain, also to myself. But I do see why I get angry. When the article avoids mentioning the conception that the opposition is fueled by the contents of TSE being simply incorrect, then it stands out as if I and other opponents do not have proper reasons for our opposition. It goes like this:

• 1) Lomborg lies
• 2) I document his lies
• 3) You refuse to consider the evidence
• 4) When I understand that you reject all my idealistic efforts, without even bothering to consider the evidence, then it is a slap in my face. It is impossible for me not to hate those who slap my face. :From my point of view, the article cannot be NPOV when the evidence of verifiable incorrectness is left completely out of consideration.

I will withdraw now, and conclude that the article remains hopelessly unbalanced. 83.88.137.74 12:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Kåre Fog, but that you take such a hostile approach to repeated efforts to help you understand how Wiki operates is not helpful. I agree with reverting all your changes. Calling Lomborg a liar -- as opposed to mistaken -- is a clear sign of your lack of objectivity, alongside your unwillingless to learn.--Michael C. Price ^talk 00:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not him, but I disagree strongly. I believe it is you who is demonstrating a lack of objectivity. Whether someone lies or is mistaken is a fundamental difference. You are trying to sell your own POV as NPOV and in doing so, trying to have this article wrong in fact. Lomborg violated practically every single tenement of modern scientific theory. He knows that. There is a difference between being honestly mistaken and deliberately doctoring your data. Your other edits show quite well that you try to subvert scientific fact for Lomborg-style propaganda. This has nothing to do with what Wikipedia is about. It is most definitely not about turning an encyclopedia into a collection of falsehoods that you try to sell as NPOV. --84.46.9.9 05:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

People have to think for themselves. In the end, that's all that ever works. As it stands, this article is "flawed". For example, a variety of sources are given apparent equal weight when that should not be so (HAN is a fine example), and it is not written in a conventionally "encyclopedic" style, what with the huge chunks of quoted material. What it does manage is to provide a thoughtful reader with a convenient framework for considering the book, after having read it. For the casual reader, the summary quite efficiently describes TSE and puts it into a practical context. In this case, the often painfully skewed compromises of WP NPOV compliance seem to have worked out. This is, in balance, a notable accomplishment given the complex, emotionally-charged and fundamentally important topic. An article in a general encyclopedia shoule, in cases where it cannnot provide a "definitive answer", then provide readers with the concepts and resources to continue their critical thinking. This meets that mark (albeit in a somewhat long and rambling way)! --Tsavage 17:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

This is to announce that I have placed a "request for comment" on the discussion page of the article An Inconvenient Truth. The questions raised there deal also with the article on "The Skeptical Environmentalist" --Kåre Fog (talk) 11:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

For anyone tempted to respond first see [[6]]. I won't bother repeating their observations. I'd also suggest that discussing TSE on the AIT Talk page in an attempt to foster support for a rewrite of this article has a distinct smell of advocacy, if not meatpuppetry, about it. Greg Locock (talk) 11:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Theskepticalenvironmentalist.jpg

Image:Theskepticalenvironmentalist.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Error in Kare Fog section

> Lomborg has never stepped forward to refute any of Fog's accusations from the website, nor has he > publicly even commented on the existence of Fog's website.

Lomborgs site does point to lomborg-errors.dk:

http://www.lomborg.com/faq/ section "Q: Hasn't Kaare Fog produced a copious list of how wrong Lomborg is?". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjors (talk • contribs) 01:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

OR

In copyediting, I couldn't help but think that while uneferenced, much of this article falls under WP:NOR. Particularly "original" seemed to be the Methodology section:

Much of Lomborg's examination of his Litany is based on statistical data analysis, therefore his work may be considered a work of that nature. Since it examines the costs and benefits of its many topics, it could be considered a work in economics, as categorized by its publisher. However, The Skeptical Environmentalist is methodologically eclectic and cross-disciplinary, combining interpretation of data with assessments of the media and human behavior, evaluations of scientific theories, and other approaches, to arrive at its various conclusions.

I wish this and the rest of the article could be better sourced, because as it is these claims seem unverified. Qizix (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

SYN on rice yields

This is WP:SYN, no?

Some claims of Fog have also been proved wrong over time such as his claim that rice 6.7 tonnes per hectare was the maximum yield of rice, and had already been achieved by Japan and Korea. Today Korean production stands at 7.3 tonnes per hectare.

The second reference is not commenting on Lomborg or Fog. It's just a bit of original research in the article unless a source previously refers to this error. Cool Hand Luke 18:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Skeptical Environmentalist. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080626022030/http://www.nyls.edu/pdfs/v46n3-4p581-614.pdf to http://www.nyls.edu/pdfs/v46n3-4p581-614.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Skeptical Environmentalist. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110825145806/http://www.math.ku.dk/~dlando/indsamling.htm to http://www.math.ku.dk/~dlando/indsamling.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.02/ffsimon_pr.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080626022030/http://www.nyls.edu/pdfs/v46n3-4p581-614.pdf to http://www.nyls.edu/pdfs/v46n3-4p581-614.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Anti-publication pressures

Where does all the CUP internal stuff in this chapter come from? Is it needed? It reads like publisher's PR. I think the whole chapter should be trashed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 02:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Deleted. If anybody finds published sources, the sourced part can come back. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Well spotted. It was added by a now-banned nutter ages ago ([7]) William M. Connolley (talk) 09:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

"A group of scientists published an article in 2005"

There is some context missing here: the word "scientists" suggests expertise, which is simply not there. None of those people are climatologists or anything close to it. Arthur Rörsch, a geneticist, is a climate change denier himself and a member of the denialist club de:EIKE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:19, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Oof good to know - please go ahead and modify/add relevant context if you would like! Arcahaeoindris (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

"Response of the scientific community"

That header was added by a sock puppet in 2008 [8]. Just deleted it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)