Talk:The Skeptical Environmentalist/Archive 1

message: An authoritative article on TSE should make it clear exactly how the book is positioned in terms of "science vs non-science", and what sort of expertise was brought to its writing.
In working on and around this page, I started as an interested TSE reader. As I grew more acquainted with its background, it became increasingly unclear to me what exactly TSE is. Is it a statistical work? Is it really environmental economics? What relationship does it have to economics in general? Who would peer-review this work as a whole - an eclectic collection of scientists as in the CUP panel? Statisticians? Economists? And so forth.
Directly related to that, what are Lomborg's qualifications and credentials? What does a PhD in Political Science, with a paper in Game Theory, new views of the iterated Prisoner's Dilemma mean? What was Lomborg actually teaching, since his professorship as a statistics teacher is frequently cited?
This may all be evident to many, but it's not to me, and is certainly not answered in the current version of this article. Somehow, with the briefest nod to qualifications ("PhD, associate prof statistics"), it goes into the substance of the book. If there is no academic or other qualification expected or required, that should be stated outright from the start: "This book is written outside the framework of any strictly academic discpline. It consists of personal arguments and opinions, based on the author's own extensive research." Something like that... Tsavage 15:53, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What are Lomborg's qualifications for TSE?

message: NOTE: this topic is also mentioned in the general discussion above
"Jeff Harvey of the Netherlands Institute of Technology wrote: "the text employs the strategy of those who, for example, argue that gay men aren't dying of AIDS, that Jews weren't singled out by the Nazis for extermination, and so on."" - I am confused by the intention of this comment. Did Mr. Harvey imply that he agrees with Lomborg? Surely he realizes Jews weren't singled out by the Nazis; they killed Slavs, Gypsies, blacks, etc. too. In any event, this article makes it hard to find out what Lomborg said in the book through all the criticism levied at it. It might be better to restructure it to describe the book, its claims, and then describe all the criticism.
:I agree. If anywhere, Wikipedia would be the place for a comprehensive summary of the book's message, glaringly missing from the article as it is now. This wouldn't be too hard to do, given that the book is set up around convenient, popularly understood topics. What is Lomborg's conclusion about each of the main components of his Litany? --Tsavage 20:02, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of Nazi/Holocaust denial comparison

message: I have modified the following in the article. Emphasis added to my additions. Qouting out of context, as this was without the added parts, is quite deceptive and akin to lying. We can do better than that.
:Peter Gleick's review, for example, states "There is nothing original or unique in Lomborg's book. Many of his criticisms have appeared in these previous works -- and even in the work of environmental scientists themselves. What is new, perhaps, is the scope and variety of the errors he makes."  Jerry Mahlman's review of the chapter he was asked to evaluate, states "I found some aspects of this chapter to be interesting, challenging, and logical.  For example, the author's characterizations of the degree of difficulty in actually doing something meaningful about climate change through mitigation  and coping/adaptation are perceptive and vaulable. In principle, such characterizations could provide a foundation for more meaningfull policy planning on this difficult problem. Unfortunately, the authors' lack of rigor and consistency on these larger issues is likely to negate any real respect for his insights." 
-Vsmith 18:11, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... User:JonGwynne appparantly believes that it is fine to distort the truth by quoting out of context and thereby giving the false appearance of pseudo-support where there wasn't any. Distortion of the truth by quoting out of context is lying. Especially after the misuse of the quoted material was pointed out in the article and above. -Vsmith 16:44, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes from UCS 

message: Well, this slimmed-down version gets to a point more quickly, for now. I further pared it down by removing:
:*TSE became an international bestseller. It initially reached into the Top 50 in sales ranking at Amazon.com and currently resides far above other titles categorized with it.
The bestseller bit is redundant (it is already noted just above in the section intro). The statement about current ranking (which I originally submitted) is based simply on Amazon.com sales ranking at one point in time, mainly in comparison with the other titles listed with TSE as "customers also bought this". The subsequent Talk conclusion (well, JonGwynne ruling, for the moment unchallenged), is that type of Amazon data is too transient, and inconclusive as to the larger group of readers in general. Therefore, there is no support in that statement for the assertion that TSE ranks higher than anything meaningfully related to it.
I also removed:
:*Lomborg was named one of Time magazine's 100 most influential people in the world for 2004. That, and the current book tour for his TSE follow-up, Global Crises, Glbabl Solutions, have kept TSE "in the media".
Upon reflection, in the context of the current edit, this statement (which I originally submitted) is both irrelevant and unsupported. In the first part, the article is about TSE, not Lomborg, so a title bestowed three years after TSE, and for his general standing relating at least equally to his more recent Copenhagen Consensus project, belongs in the Lomborg article. In the second part, that TSE is "in the media" is subjective at best. Lomborg is indeed in the media, right now promoting his latest, "Global Crises...", but direct references to TSE in mainstream media have been virtually nonexistent in recent months. Therefore, while it could be argued that significant awareness of Lomborg/TSE/Global Crises/Copenhagen is out there (an argument this statement, strictly speaking, does not make), there is no support for TSE specifically being "in the media".
:I like the newer "slimline" version better.  --JonGwynne 18:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk on substantial revision of Longer-term impact

message: I changed the reference in the heading from "HAN academics" to "Heidelberg Appeal Nederalnd", since there is not reference in the text to these "academics", and no indication other than the name of the group, who exactly they are. Tsavage 00:34, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Heidelberg Appeal Nederland