Talk:Bjørn Lomborg/Archive 1

message: Whilst Mr. Lomborg might be homosexual, it looks a little incongruous in the article as is as the only aspect of his private life that gets mentioned - you might even read it as a context in which to judge his environmental ideas (which is clearly nonsense - none of the scientific criticism of his work I've read has even bothered to mention his homosexuality).  If we are to mention his homosexuality, shouldn't it be presented in the context of a more extensive discussion of his personal story?  --Robert Merkel
:Also, this is another not scientifically rigorously defined label that is being placed upon Mr. Lomborg.  And shame on Lomborg if he defines himself without the same rigor he demands of the environmentalists. --T. Mc. 04:42, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homosexuality mention 

message: I've also removed the following 
:and opponents of his hypothesis point out that he lacks a degree in environmental sciences.
This seems like a stray argument from the controversy over his book, and putting it here looks like his critics are playing the man rather than the ball (so to speak) and does both Lomborg and his critics a disservice. --Robert Merkel
:I think from seeing this in the media before, this was one of the major points of his opponents, though, that lay people can't contribute and that accredited scientists don't need to explain.  In otherwords, a main point of his opponents is that he sites (or analyzes them with a different science, statistics) experts but is not one of them. --T. Mc. 04:42, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credentials 

message: Mr. Lomborg was trained in political sciences. His Ph.D. paper was about simulation/game theory. According the circulumn, the statistics was taught together with methodology for about 30 hours on the first year of the education. He was hired as associate professor to teach statistics for students studying political science by his mentor, now president for the board of the institute that Mr. Lomborg is heading. The president was in turn appointed by the minister of environment in Denmark, whose declared goal is to cut environmental investments.
:Mr. Einstein was a patent clerk and he became the greatest scientist of the 20th century. Well, Lomborg has been listed in the list of 100 most influential people of 2004. Was the comment about his training in political sciences meant as an insult? In that case I did not understand the logic. He is quite clearly a better scientist than 20 average catastrophic environmentalists altogether. --Lumidek 02:30, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Einstein published in peer-reviewed journals. Lomborg has not (the one paper he published has nothing to do with The Skeptical Environmentalist). --Orzetto 20:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As Lomborg himself makes absolutely clear in the book, if his conclusions are correct then it does not matter who he is. Debate the conclusions and the methodology people, not the person! Batmanand 19:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's of course the focus of the problem. They are not. --Orzetto 14:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mr. Lomborg was not trained as statistician by profession 

message: Lomborg was never a member or a registered supporter of Greenpeace. He was challenged about this in a radio discussion with Tom Burke and said that he'd given money.   --Simon Dresner
When did he ever clain to be a member? --Crid 20:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Green peace relationship 

message: I've checked the article, and it is perfectly neutral. The user who decided to place the NPOV tag at the beginning of the article, without giving an actual reason, probably dislikes Bjorn Lomborg, but that's simply not enough to tolerate randomly placed NPOV tags, despite his "power" in the Wikipedia hierarchy. --Lumidek 15:24, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very good article 

message: Here is an approximate translation of DCSDs annual report 2003 , page 23:
: The defending scientist appealed the decision to the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. The Ministry of Science made its decision on December 17th 2003 and remitted the case to DCSD. At the same time the decision was published. The decision, which was an invalidation of DCSDs decision, was in several areas critical of DCSD, [...].
The DCSD is a committee under the Ministry of Science. As such there is precedent for the Ministry revoking decisions when it decides that the legal procedure has been incorrect.
::The annual report has been moved to  (english version) and their own translation of the passage above reads:
::: The defendant researcher appealed the decision to the Danish Ministry of Science,  Technology and Innovation.  The Ministry of Science delivered its ruling on 17 December 2003 and remitted the case to the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty. At the same time, the ruling was made public. The ruling, which implied a reversal of DCSD's decision, was critical of DCSD in a number of respects, [...]
::Note the phrasing The ruling [...] implied a reversal of DCSD's decision" which is rather different to "which was an invalidation of DCSDs decision" in terms of the extent to which the UVVU accepted the criticism.
::They also write (p. 27): "DCSD decided not to resume consideration of the case, however, shelving it on the following grounds:" --Erik Corry 19:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the invalidation of DCSDs decision 

message: In the Ministry of Science's decision  they listed several reasons as to why the DCSDs decision should be remitted. None of them were because the DCSD "did not establish that scientific dishonesty had occurred". Rather they were:
*The DCSD did not use a proper standard for deciding "good scientific practice" in the social sciences.
*The DCSD did not evaluate its authority to decide the case in regards to the order stipulating that "The case must be of importance to Danish research.".
*that DCSD did not document, where the defendant (BL) was biased in his choice of data and his argumentation, and that the decision lacks any argumentation for, why DCSD finds that the complainants are right in their criticisms of BLs working methods. It is not enough, that criticism of a researchers scientific working methods exists; DCSD must adopt an attitude to the criticism and take a stand to whether or not the criticism is just, and why. It is exactly these tasks that are DCSDs primary duty to solve, and since this have not occured, the decision must be remitted to DCSD, cf. what has been quoted above from administrative law of the consequence of neglecting the investigative principle. Such an considerable breach in DCSDs consideration of the case is in itself to be critiqued.
It is obviously the last reason which has been misquoted. Perhaps a better wording would be "and that during the review they did not investigate whether the criticism of Lomborgs working methods was just." --Rasmus (talk) 11:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the 'strawman' 

message: MichaelSirks 22:39, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (William M. Connolley 23:02, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: MichaelSirks 23:19, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (William M. Connolley 23:39, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: MichaelSirks 08:10, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: (William M. Connolley 10:00, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: So you accept that you were wrong in the matter that the verdict of 6 january doesn´t still stand. Now you don´t want correct the errors on Lomborg text, but place the correction on some less populair page. The Lomborg text contains factual errors and these must be corrected. And why not use the text of the DCDS and the ministery of science. --217.169.231.130 12:00, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (William M. Connolley 15:24, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed revision of text 

message: I started an RFC regarding user William M. Connolley, located here:  Wikipedia:Requests for comment/William M. Connolley.  If you are interested, please comment or sign as appropriate.  -- — Cortonin | Talk 12:25, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute Resolution RFC, William M. Connolley 

message: It is written more like a blog than an encylopaediac article. Shouldn't it carry a standards disclaimer tag or something? 
:Indeed. It really makes me wonder if wikipedia is all it's supposed to be cracked up to be. Why do people describe him as an anti-environmentalist? His complaint is the lack of cost/benefit analysis that is done (for example, if Kyoto only delays the enevitable by 7 years, for the same cost as giving everyone on the planet fresh drinking water, is that a good use of our money?). TSE makes it plain that global warming is a very big deal. Lomborg irritates precisely because he is hard to argue against - the facts and figures in SE aren't his own, theyre from respected sources (and the figures aren't under dispute). Some have argued against his conclusions, and he has replied to those criticisms on the book website. To just put 'many scientists disagree' and 'on this website' is, frankly, lame. Quote them. As it stands, it's totally biassed - we have a huge discussion about DCSD, but not the quote from L when it ended:- "More than two years have passed since the case against my book was started. In that time every possible stone has been turned over, yet DCSD has been unable to find a single point of criticism that withstands further investigation." Others choose to attack him are that they are uncomfortable with the idea that the world can be broken down that of opportunity cost. By all means disagree with the conclusions, or the way in which they are drawn, but at least do it in a transparent way! I would suggest splitting the page into something about the man himself (so people can go on forever discussing whether the fact that he is gay is relevant) and a separate one about the SE book. Which should, for NPOV, contain some kind of information about what is within, the responses and counter responses that have been generated. --nzm
::(William M. Connolley 19:56, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is terrible 

message: I removed the following section from the USC quote:
:It should however be noted that while it is a non-profit organisation, the UCS is (though not apparent from its name) specifically pro-environmentalist, and therefore might be expected to oppose critics of the environmental movement.
It's basically saying that the USC statement should be viewed with skepticism, a strong and unsupported charge. The same argument holds for the "HAN academics" (from the other side), and can be applied to greater or lesser degrees to every quote here, everybody's on a side. I don't think this is a profitable avenue to go down, not likely to lead to a more readable or authoritative article. 
In this case, the "specifically pro-environmental" aspect should at least FIRST be made clear in the Union of Concerned Scientists article, which it is not at present. This whole Lomborg article needs work, including the USC quote (which for one is questionably grouped with the Economist and Scientific American under "Discussions in the media"), but I don't find tacking on that para to be of any help. --Tsavage 19:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Union of Concerned Scientists: "specifically pro-environmentalist" 

message: Whether Bjorn Lomborg is gay or not should be relevant only if a detailed history of his life, bio, is given. Although, it is a pretty important piece of info, being presented in any other context, I do not see it as appropriate. I think that considering that he is such a good looking guy, many gay guys would like to know that he is gay, and probably they would like to get his phone number or email -I wonder who should we write to in order to get that info, any ideas anyone?- Going back to the point, and seriously this time, although some of his ideas are hard for me to accept in the order he presents them, I do not see him too far from a role in stirring up conversation and moving forces to really re-think how we are approaching the protection of the environment. It is not less important to notice that he makes some good points in terms of highlighting some important issues that need to be put in the forefront of the discussion and policies for the protection of the environment. My problem with his ideas is that all that we do, to protect the environment, is important, in my opinion, but more it is needed. I guess it would be nice to talk to him in person. I have seen him on TV a couple of times, but I have missed the chance to ask him a couple of questions myself. The topic is really serious, so is the way to approach it. As he presents things from a sided view, so do his detractors portray him.
:: Lomborg is very openly Gay, and i personally consider it very relevant in this article (whereas it would be very inappropriate on the page about The Sceptical Environmentalist). Lomborg is (actively) using his fame in promoting gay rights and gay understanding in Denmark - he has appeared in several general TV programs about homosexuality (in fact so often that i'd consider it strange if he didn't appear in one), he has actively entered debates in Denmark about subjects like gay marriage etc. He has appeared in TV spots warning about the AIDS risk etc. He has also never hidden this facts in TV programs about himself, quite the opposite in fact. Thus i feel that it would be very wrong not to mention this - since this page is about the public Lomborg, and being openly gay is very much part of his public image.--Kim D. Petersen 23:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My opinion on informing that Bjorn Lomborg being gay 

message: Mr. Orzetto has vandalized the text of the timeline of the DCDS case. If he had read the talk pages he would know that this text is from the DCDS herself. He should note that the initial verdict is no longer valid according to their own web-site and according to Kåre Fog who sad(see talk page); 
The ministry has informed UVVU that UVVU´s decision of 7th Jan. 2003 is no longer valid, because of the formal errors made in the treatment of the case. And because UVVU has decided not to hear the case again, there will not appear any new decision to replace the one that has been cancelled. Even the decision that Lomborg is "objectively dishonest" and has acted at variance with "good scientific practice" is no longer valid. There simply does not any longer exist any decision. Perhaps the most unfortunate consequence of this is that people in general are confused, and there is no authority to lean on when you want to find out what is right and wrong in this case.
Expanding on the intial verdict by repeating the accusation is not interesting because the DCDS committee hasn't investigated and documented these accusations. This is according to the ministery of science and HAN. So what is your source that they did investigate the accusations. I have offered you the choice of investigating the accusation on wikipedia. I haven't got a response. So I reverted your initial change. Next came WMC reverts my revert without any comments why he reverts it. I thought he was on parole for reverting things without any comment.--MichaelSirks 18:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Michael, FYI, I did not "vandalize", I reordered to a more legible format and with less acronyms. And it is DCSD, not DCDS. Also, taking out quotations and substituting with links was discussed in this page, for legibility and copyright issues. --Orzetto 21:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  timeline text from the DCDS again