John Mashey recommends "Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming"

I noticed that and put in an order. Thanks John.

I also checked out your other recommendations and they looked good as well - except maybe that one in 2001, a 5star to Lomborg's Skeptical Environmentalist. Do you think it may still be worth a read?

Sounds good - I just ordered it too.

Couldnt a lot of this be applied to AGW believers as well?

No.

However, you could actually try to present a case.

3 timwells,

Including you, of course. You have already told us that:-

1) CO2 levels are rising, which is a good thing because it increases crop yields;

2) CO2 is causing temperatures to rise, which is a good thing because cold kills more people than heat.

I think you are more of an "AGW believer" than I am.

Well,I suppose I should have pre-faced my comment with..."according to the AGW believers....".
Whether the world will be warmer due to more CO2 is unknowable at this time.

Whether smokers are less healthy due to smoking is unknowable at this time. More study is needed.

Hi cce,do you really think we should do more study?I think the medical evidence is fairly overwhelming.Wouldnt you agree?

Playing dumb really suits Tim well don't you think?

Playing dumb really suits Tim well don't you think?

I don't think he's playing. (Cue standard "ad hom" whinge)

I think the scientific evidence is fairly overwhelming for AGW. Wouldn't you agree? Do you know of a scientific society that disagrees? Is the scientific community incompetent? Or are they part of a worldwide conspiracy?

The tobacco industry flaunted individual scientists who argued that it was safe for decades, while simultaneously arguing that "the government" was misrepresenting the science. Did you believe them? Yet you believe a tiny minority when it comes to AGW? Public policy based on the opinion of contrarians and front groups?

Hi cce,I dont think the evidence for AGW is overwhelming at all.We have had lots of warming and cooling periods but it does not appear possible to isolate CO2 as the cause.

12 cce,

It's worth repeating once more the fact that some of the same people have been involved in both tobacco denial and AGW denial. Just for starters, we have Fred Seitz, Fred Singer, and Steven Milloy.

Hi cce,I dont think the evidence for AGW is overwhelming at all.

Oh well, in that case I'm convinced.
Now, just so I can take on the AGW alarmists, what was your evidence again?

But those alarmists have scientific theory 101 on their side timmy. They actually have convincing evidence of AGW.
I guess the only way to debunk their evidence is to keep asserting they're wrong (the way you do).

Hi cce,I dont think the evidence for AGW is overwhelming at all.We have had lots of warming and cooling periods but it does not appear possible to isolate CO2 as the cause.

For someone who makes a lot of noise, it's clearly obvious that you have no familiarity with signal [noise](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…). Or, for that matter, with basic statistics.

And still having trouble with those between-sentence spaces, I see.

Just when we think that the Denialati's trolls can't become any more stupid, along comes one to disabuse us of that notion...

15 timwells,

That's OK then. Just a coincidence that the same lying SOS have been involved.

Just what are the facts? All we know is that you have an aversion to them.

Tim, can you give the guy a topic of his own, so we can discuss John Mashey's review and James Hoggan's book here?
The dragging of red herrings is intentional distraction.

17 timwells,

You are not a "sceptic". That's a whole other thing.

timwells:

We sceptics have no convincing evidence of AGW.

A bit like Johnny English. He knows no fear. He knows nothing.

21 Hank,

Good point. Denydiot trait no. 1 is to ignore the thread topic and repeat the same old tripe we've seen a million times before.

What I mean is that a lot of the activities of certain members of the AGW lobby fall into this idea.Gore,Hansen,Flannery etc.

"But...but...but...AAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLL GOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRE!"

Begone, foul troll.

I've banned tim wells for crap flooding.

re: 1 David on Lomborg's TSE & Amazon ratings
Thanks for the kind words. You aren't the first to wonder about that :-)

1) A unidimensional rating scheme is a blunt instrument.

A 1-star rating can clearly mean "don't bother".

But a 5-star rating can be ambiguous. If you compare the writing style of my 5-star TSE rating and that of Climate Cover-Up, see if you can tell which is which:

a) This is great, buy it and read it!

b) This will be widely-read and perhaps influential, even if it turns out to be junk, so read it *very* carefully, and you probably should, if only to understand the nature of the arguments.

I wrote that review having done one pass over TSE, but not yet having done the next month's excruciating process of chasing down references, comparing charts, etc, which actually drastically improved my knowledge of many topics, and of course, usually didn't really support Lomborg.

I did think that some of the quick responses to TSE were not as effective as they might have been, and unfortunately sometimes came off as kneejerk responses. Given that review, I can honestly say I gave TSE every possible chance, akin to following John Daly's "Waiting for Greenhouse". In both cases, I learned a lot about the specific cherry-picking examples in this turf.

2) As for reading TSE now, do so only if you really want to dig deep into Lomborgism, but if you do, first read Julian Simon's "Ultimate Resource 2", which after all seems the inspiration for TSE.

3) At this point, unless you're really a glutton for this, I'd:

a) Read Cool It! which is a lot shorter, and more typical of Lomborg's current approaches, as he's moved on. See what you think. Are any of his arguments effective?

b) Then, read my commentary at Things Break, Lomborg and Playing the Long Game (TB's title) or my title: "BJORN LOMBORG, Wizard of misdirection & Reincarnation of Julian Simon".
(Hoggan mentions this in the book).
I don't think I could have written that if I hadn't studied TSE earlier. But, I don't think you need to, now.

c) It can be instructive to compare someone's arguments at different points in time. So, here's a different recommendation, which relates to Climate Cover-UP. Read Fred Singer's old "Hot Talk, Cold Science" and then the later Avery/Signer "Unstoppable Global Warming" and do an A/B comparison to see what changes and what doesn't.

Oops, if I'd written the Climate Cover-Up review a day later, I might have added a comment on the combination of ideology/politics and financial interests described there, noting the narrowness thereof, and by contrast quoting Pacific Gas & Electric's CEO Peter Darbee from yesterday, explaining why PG&E has just quit the US Chamber of Congress:

(boldface mine).

"We find it dismaying that the Chamber neglects the indisputable fact that a decisive majority of experts have said the data on global warming are compelling and point to a threat that cannot be ignored. In our opinion, an intellectually honest argument over the best policy response to the challenges of climate change is one thing; disingenuous attempts to diminish or distort the reality of these challenges are quite another."

Now, that's a strong, succinct statement from a serious businessman who considers himself a conservative. But, he took the trouble to learn from experts, and is a relentless campaigner for efficiency.

24 John Mashey,

Am I missing something about how Amazon reviews work? What's stopping you adding a comment to your review, of even submitting a 2nd one?

Dave McCrae:

I co-reviewed Bjorn Lomborg`s book for Nature and also reviewed it for the Sierra Club. If you are looking for a book that genuinely and honestly examines the effects of humans on the environment, don`t bother. Lomborg basically ignores the natural economy and focuses on the material economy. His chapter on biodiversity is an abomination, and he consistently ignores qualitative change and instead focuses on quantitative parameters. He also starts off with a directed hypotheses i.e. that the world is going to hell in a handbasket (without actually citing any scientist who has said this) and then sets out to prove that it ain`t so bad after all, thus concluding that pretty well every indicator of environmental quality is improving. This is very, very deceptive.

He also cherry picks studies that support his position while omitting many others - even those in the pages of Science, Nature and PNAS - that do not. The book is an abomination in my view and has done a lot of damage, given the fact that Lomborg, despite possessing no relevant qualifications in any of the fields he superfically covers, has been promoted endlessly by the corporate MSM.

If you would like a much more relevant book that examines the state of the natural economy, Stuart Pimm`s "The World According to Pimm" is miles better.

re: #25 TrueSkeptic
Good thought, thanks. I wouldn't edit the original review, as it was what it was, and I would have given it 5-stars (i.e., read this, because lots of people will, if only because The Economist recommended it at the time) even a month later after I'd understood the book's games a lot better and would certainly have written some things differently. When I first read it, I didn't know the data off the top of my head, unfortunately.

I'm not sure the comment feature existed in 2001 (?), and I hadn't thought of adding one to my own review, but that's not a bad idea. I might go back and add one at some point, after I get out from under some other projects, although I'm not really sure how often comments are read. In any case, Lomborg's current approaches are more sophisticated forms of manipulation compared to TSE.

For what it's worth, on occasion that review has occasionally *helped* me convince people to be very careful of Lomborg. I'd agree with everything Jeff says, including the recommendation for Pimm's book. At *this* point, the only reason for reading TSE is for practice in cherry-picking detection, and if one is really interested in the mechanics of this kind of obfuscation.

To back John Mashey, when I read TSE, I thought it one of the most influential books on the environment ever, and was proven correct within a very brief time as it was brought into the environmental policies of a number of conservative governments. Most of it was either incorrect or misleading, and the passionate rants by a number of prominent scientists didn't help either. The key lesson from the straw man that Lomborg put up in the first 50 pages or so for advocates of any environmental position was to ensure that the data they used to back their arguments was water tight. In a nut shell, "do as I say, not as I do."

Thanks John, and ta Jeff.

I thought it may have been rated as an excellent in the way of a case study of a formidable denier.

I must admit, I've not the wit nor patience to wade through any of Lomborg's efforts. Making me not a very good strategist according to Tzu's know your bastards rule. I do greatly appreciate your efforts as well as TimL's and the many posters who do try to educate what seems to be the uneducatable.

(I do remember one of your posts some time ago when I stated looking at this that emplored one to seek out a climate researcher in the flash - I think it may have been in a Quiggen forum - I was wondering how I was going to do this, but got the chance recently with one Matthew England recently, although I had to get myself and the missus up to Sydney - I now so get your point, he was fantastic to listen to and talk with and you could not but tell he knew his stuff - so thanks again for your posts :) )

re: #29 Dave

Thanks, and thanks for the note about talking to a climate researcher live. It does help.

But, if you can't stand to read Cool It!, no worries :-) do consider reading my ThingsBreak post anyway.

Will do - and please ignore the spelling of implore :)

Readers of TSE may be interested in [this](http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/error_catalogue.htm).

27 John Mashey,

Although my comment applies generally, in this case I was referring to the 'Climate Cover-Up' review. You said Oops, if I'd written the Climate Cover-Up review a day later, I might have added...

I think the worst money-laundering of all occurred in Canada. Calgary Foundation. Truly egregious and literally dirty groups using a Uni as a launderer, and it didn't even get much of a cut. Just a conduit to people they'd been paying directly.

"Modern anti-science is most skilfully executed by a relatively small subset of lobbyists and PR agencies."

Excuse me you missed off Greenpeace and numerous environmental/single issue groups here. They are as equally adept and selective about the 'science' they promote as the lobbyists and PR agencies.

John Mashey,

You say Lomborg cherry pick's his sources in TSE and Cool It, yet both books are well provided with hundreds of references. Have you read them all and are you such a great polymath that you can truthfully assert that he is always wrong?

Likewise, Plimer quotes over 2000 references. Again I doubt anyone here has bothered to check them all. No what they do is cherry pick ones to criticise. But that's ok obviously.

Dave Andrews:

Get back to me when one of us starts citing Greenpeace instead of every single national or international professional scientific body as authorities on the subject.

Given how it's the inactivists citing the think tanks, PR firms, and lobby groups, your comment's very reminiscent of the words "pot", "kettle" and "black".

Dave Andrews:

You accuse us of not checking Lomborg's footnotes? Perhaps you haven't heard of KÃ¥re Fog?

Regarding Plimer, the situation is more dire, since several of his sources are of transparently duplicitous quality. Pointing these out isn't a cherry-pick: They highlight the sheer inanity of the argument. It's like reading a paper on primate morphology and having a photograph of Bigfoot in there for serious discussion: even if the rest of the paper were truly excellent, the author's grasp on reality would be questioned. Plimer, however, has multiple Bigfoots to deal with, which he chose to address by throwing smokebombs.

I don't wish to encourage hands-on practicums in trogloditophagology, but if this comes up again from a more creditable source, point out that in fact it's quite easy to establish the merits of something without a brute-force exhaustion attack.

You only do those when you have a computer database of some sort to search, like lexis-nexis, and even then, to a degree, your results are only as intelligent as your queries.

In the real world, the one where science works, I mean, you can simply say, if there are 2000 footnotes, then selecting 2 or 3 dozen entirely at random will give you a high confidence interval, say if you ranked them on some 1-5 scale, for instance, of accuracy, or correct citation, or whatever.

The notion that somehow there is a privileged class (the denialiasts) that never has to work at anything at all and a slave class (the scientists and those supportive of science) who have a mysterious obligation to drop what they're doing and refute every half-baked notion that pops up in the media or on the internet, and furthermore, that they are cheating if they simply footnote the first 10,000 times they refuted it, is bizarre even for people who trade in bizarre notions.

But Marion, that is how BLOG SCIENCE works.

Dave the troll just needs to say 'greenpeace is evil' and it's an established BLOG SCIENCE fact that can only be overturned by multiple peer-reviewed articles involving randomised contolled trials, but keeping in mind that people who write such articles are doing so for research grant money and therefore the results must be interprereted by eminent BLOG SCIENTISTS such as Dave the troll who are the only truly independent researchers in the field, being wholly free of the taint of BIG GRANTS.

It's all perfectly simple.

Brian D,

Of course I know of Kare Fog - a person who seems to believe his role in life is to prove Lomborg wrong to the point of obsession.

Michael,

I didn't say Greenpeace was evil, I said they spin the science just like other lobbyists do. That observation comes after many years campaigning for the abolition of nuclear weapons that involved frequent interaction with Greenpeace.

Got that Brian?

Why won't anyone check the all references of the work of Lomorhg and Plimer, instead they just cherry-picking. That's wrong........what's that? Fog. Of yes, I know all about him and how he's checked all of Lomborg's ref's - what a nut-case, that's obsessive!

....or

Shorter Dave the troll:
Not checking all of Lomborg's references is wrong. Checking all of Lomborg's references is more wrong.

More Shorter Dave the Troll:

Greenpeace's spinning is evil. Mine is just fine.

"Likewise, Plimer quotes over 2000 references. Again I doubt anyone here has bothered to check them all."

So you're saying that numerous errors were found in Plimer's book from only a partial check of his references?

An interesting parallel on the "footnotes" dispute: Keith Windschuttle, editor of Quadrant (seemingly the last-ditch home of media denialism, as it's been a while since The Australian stuck their foot in their mouth and shot themselves in it) owes his fame pretty much entirely to disputing the accuracy of some of Henry Reynolds' footnotes and cites about the impact of European colonialism on Aboriginal Australians. Claims that Reynolds' work was sloppy, unprofessional, even forged, abounded. Yet Windshcuttle is quite happy to promote [Plimer's nonsense](http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/08/creating-catastr…), despite Plimer's complete failure to do his homework. Can't think why.

*a person who seems to believe his role in life is to prove Lomborg wrong to the point of obsession*

No need to worry about proving Lomborg wrong; in most of his book that was done several years ago. Besides, since I demolished Lomborg in our 2002 debate, the guy steers clear of me and has turned down several offers of facing me again, pulling out of venues at the last minute or providing feeble excuses. I have no fear of him or of his alleged "facts".

There is a neat trick by pseudoscientists of filling their papers with references so that they can claim to have a lot of research backing them up. It's not just anti-global warming people. I've seen it with the dismal DARKNESS IN EL DORADO attacking sociobiology by making up accusations of genocide, and yes, I've seen Greenpeace do it on the subject of genetic modification. It can be very difficult to deal with because most readers will simply count the number of references as if it was some sort of measure of the quality of the argument. Some, like Dave Andrews here, will even go so far as to accuse people of not checking all the references, but then accusing them of being obsessed if they do check all the references.

Fortunately, there is an easy way to determine how good the references are. Marion Delgado advocated a random sample approach, and that works, but there is an even better way. Pick the most important claim made by the author and then go to the reference behind that. If, for instance, an author was to claim (as many do) that the single best correlation with global temperature is solar activity, then go to that reference because it is the most important plank in their argument. What I found when I did so was that the statement was a load of crap. There may be another 2000 references in that given paper, but when the single most important thing they are trying to say is based on a misrepresentation of the published data, then you don't really need to check every other reference.

Dave Andrew's I've asked you several times for evidence to support the smears you make gainst people and groups on this site.

You've not yet produced any supporting evidence. What evidence do you rely on to back you latest claim that Greenpeace do not accurately present the science?

Shorter Dave "the strawman" Andrews:

Heads I win, tails you lose.

The correct law:

Not checking all 2000 of Plimer's references is cherry-picking. Checking all 2000 of Plimer's references is obsessive.

Calling George Orwell. George Orwell to the white courtesy planchette.

Dave Andrews is just a time waster. Guys like him know nothing about the world. I don`t think it is worth expending much effort on his silly pedantics.

One of the tried and trusted strategies of contrarians venturing into fields beyond their competence is to wow the lay reader with jargon and supporting citations. The mainstream media, desperately looking for controversy under every rock as a means of creating doubt and confusion amongst the public and policymakers, literally went gaga over Lomborg`s apparent scholarship, with the number of reference sources he cited in his polemic (around 2,900) often suggested as evidence that he had been comprehensive. But, as any scientist (like me) knows, *it would be possible to cite that many references in each field he superficially covers alone*.

Furthermore, many of the references are web downloads, and he cites chapters from books from Julian Simon (whose work he claimed he was trying to refute) more than papers in journals like Nature, Science, PNAS, Global Change Biology and Ecosystems. Lomborg admits that the entire chapter on biodiversity, which is utterly appalling, was based on a chapter by Simon and another business economist, Aaron Wildavsky, published in a book edited by Simon called "The State of Humanity". The book is a compendium of chapters, mostly by non-expert contrarians, on a range of fields in environmental science. It should not be that hard to discern why Lomborg would use as a template a chapter on biodiversity by two business economists with no formal training whatsoever in the field of population ecology or environmental science. *Because they downplay the importance of biodiversity and the rate of its loss*. In my opinion this gels with Lomborg`s directed hypothesis that environmental problems are exaggerated, hence why is it his main source for the biodiversity chapter.

In the biodiversity chapter a number of articles that were in rigid journals - Nature and PNAS for instance - and had been published several years before the first edition of his book came out were curiously ignored. These papers were actual correctives of conclusions drawn by the likes of Simon and Wildavsky is estimating the efficacy of area-extinction models of exponential decay in predicting the relationship between habitat loss and extinction. What is more egregious is the fact that danish scientists apparently pointed out the correctives after the Danish edition of his book was published, but the same omissions and distortions are repeated in the English edition that was published three years later. I think it is not too hard to explain why Lomborg would not change much from one edition to the next, in spite of legitimate criticisms from experts in various fields. *Because I think that it would greatly dilute the directed conclusions he draws in his book*. In other words, were he to have included many of the important references he leaves out that draw very different conclusions from the ones he reaches in his book, then the message he wishes to promote would be profoundly weakened.

Bear in mind that Lomborg claimed to be motivated to write his book after seeing an article in Wired Magazine in 1997, and that the first edition of his book came out just under 2 years later. Many experts in each of the fields covered in The Skeptical Environmentalist spend years mastering their craft, and even after two decades realize that their grasp of the field is incomplete. Yet Lomborg writes a book covering a range of immensely complex and challenging fields in less than 2 years? Forget it. He could have been at his computer 24 hours a day for all I know but I believe that there is no way to develop anything but the most superficial understanding of such diverse fields in this time.

I have more-or-less moved on since the Lomborg saga, but it appears to me that every few years another contrarian comes forward, and one lacking any real expertise in their fields they tackle, claiming to buck conventional wisdom. These contrarians are promoted by the corporate MSM and many become household names. This strategy is certainly a way of bypassing the usually long slow road to academic prominence, and I think this may explain why many otherwise obscure writers and academics decide to enter these fields. This is what I think, anyway.

Shorter Jeff:

Dave Andrews is one of the Crusaders.

re: 53 Jeff
Regarding reasons for anti-science, I use a tentative catalog of such, evolved from an old post here, but currently:

R Attributes: Reasons for Anti-Science, and then that's condensed and combined in OBR Map.

Since you actually have had contact with him, maybe you'd comment on this analysis:

On that chart, he'd fit line B2 (technical/professional, which includes economists and other folks who at least usually know some statistics).

The plausible reasons might well be, in order that they occurred:

PSY7: Ambiguity-intolerant, all-or-none thinking. I've seen examples where people had strong beliefs at one extreme, had them punctured, and flipped all the way to the other extreme, and this seems to have fit him, if Kare Fog's description of background is correct.

PSY3: Contrarian gets attention, helps career. As far as I can tell, he wasn't exactly having a notable academic career. I speculate that this was the big one.

PSY5: High-bar, low-bar (as you describe).

and then added:
IDE2, or even IDE1: Ideology.

and of course, given that:

FIN3:financial

Certainly, as noted in Lomborg and Playing the Long Game, the usual thinktanks and political parties like him, so he works well with groups O6 and O7 on OBR Flow, with the organizations described in O Categories.

Does that fit? Any missing?

re: 33 TrueSkeptic
Done, thanks.

Meanwhile, all, this discussion highlights why I am thankful for Firefox+Greasemonkey+Killfile, even if they cannot be as effective as Netnews killfiles were.

Thank God the world has Mashey defending real science against interlopers and imposters. John is a national treasure and his mug shot ought to be plastered up there on Mt. Rushmore.

I'll get the chisels.

John Mashey is filling in today for my usual promo for Greasemonkey and killfile. Just do it! dont' browse blogs without killfile.

Dave Andrews.

Have you yourself checked Plimers ~2000 references to confirm their veracity?

If not, why do you presume to comment on the matter, in contradiction to those (expert in the field) who have pointed out that many of his references are falsehoods, fabrications, and misrepresentations of the actual content of the material to which he refers?

In science - yes, even in popular science - once a pattern of willful deception is established, the onus lies on the author to justify himself. Plimer's errors are far beyond simple typos and editorial guffs, and even beyond minor scientific fluffings.

Plimer's been called to justify himself, and he has run from the calling like a hare before the hounds.

It's gone way past how many of his references you believe are not tainted by his misrepresentation of the science. I'm curious to know though of your own assessment of each of his 'references', and how your assessment validates Plimer's position.

So, is anyone successfully using Killfile with OSX 10.5/ 10.6 and Firefox 3.5

Again I doubt anyone here has bothered to check them all. No what they do is cherry pick ones to criticise. But that's ok obviously.

I believe this joke goes:

Do they call me Bjorn the Bridge Builder? No. But one goat ...

I've found Dave fascinating. As I've alluded to earlier, while I'd find his "I saw Greenpeace coming out from the behind the bike shed with Biff..." style of gossip appropriate for a socially marginalised High School girl, I'm not sure what he thinks he's bringing here.

Hank, yes, on both leopard and snow leopard, and even with the god-awful Firefox 3.5. I installed greasemonkey, got killfile, done. It works just fine.

Mark Byrne@50

What evidence do you rely on to back you latest claim that Greenpeace do not accurately present the science?

Brent Spar: Greenpeace lied about the quantity of noxious material on it.

clausentum,

Is that the best that you can do? Given that governments, corporations, the mainstream media, and anti-environmental groups distort, lie, obfuscate and mangle the truth all of the time, then if this is your "shining example" of Greenpeace being caught fibbing, then they must be a pretty honest bunch, all things considered.

clausentum @ 63,

thank you for the evidence, it makes a change being able to judge for ourselves, rather than rely on claims alone.

In assessing this evidence couple of points are clear:

1) that Greenpeace accepted their error and corrected the record, as is proper process.

2) the error of fact in the Brent Spar campaign is 15 years old, so as Jeff indicates, if this is Greenpeace celebrated error, can we assume their record since does not compare with this corrected error in an otherwise [rightful campaign?
](http://www.greenpeace.org/international/about/history/the-brent-spar)

3) Count and contrast with the errors and ongoing deceit from Plimer and Lormborg, to name just two individuals.

Mark Byrne @ 75

You and Jeff Harvey characterise Greeenpeace's allegations about the contents as Brent Spar as "fibbing" or an "error". They got it wrong by two orders of magnitude (it turned out to be closer 50 tonnes) - to misquote Oscar Wilde, getting one order of magnitude wrong is a misfortune, to get two wrong looks like....... Had this been an oil-multi you'd have been straining your vocabulary for expletives stronger than "liar".

Not that I'm an AGW denier, but (and here I have the German greens in mind (I live in Germany), and and am not sure how much this applies to Greenpeace) is the enormous amount of lying and distortion when it comes to remedies.
First of all, population is always for PC reasons factored out.
Then, the "renewable" energies lies: apart from hydroelectric power, which was exhausted 100 yrs ago, the renewable nostrums are at best totally ineffective, and at worst negative for the environment.

Then the scaremongering about the only thing which could make a difference: nuclear energy.
And that seems to apply to this blog as well - all carping, no realism, priority to other political agendas.

59 Bernard,

We know that Plimer's book is a collection of just about every climate denial claim that's been made but does anyone need to follow up more than a few random references, as Marion suggests, or just the most important, as Chris Lawson suggests?

I'll make it even easier: anyone who makes 2 claims so obviously false that they were dropped from Martin Durkin's TGGWS really is beneath comtempt.

contempt doh!

big doh! from me as well: whole clause got left out
...what riles me is the enormous amount of...

69 clausentum,

You mean HEP...which was exhausted 100 years ago? Or what?

Jeff Harvey,

"Dave Andrews is just a time waster. Guys like him know nothing about the world."

That is breathtakingly arrogant of you. Perhaps it is why your taking of Lomborg to the DSCD resulted in zilch.

clausentum,

I've given the reference to Brent Spar to Mark Byrne and others on previous threads and, as it happens noted the problems with German greens in relation to nuclear waste.

Trouble is Mark B and his buddies don't actually pay attention to anything which doesn't support their point of view

Again, we must not feed the trolls directly, but the answer to the claim that Deltoid is a Green Party web log that is sloppy with facts and discourages nuclear-power-which-is-our-only-hope, etc. is that aside from the fact that Tim virtually never mentions the Greens, has a high reputation for factual accuracy at least in science blogging circles, and so on, that he also, a few DAYS ago, devoted an entire post and comment thread to nuclear power, and with a positive blurb in his first couple of paragraphs.

We ARE dealing with people who pay no attention to the semantic content of their utterances. Orwell's description of a Soviet commissar, "half gangster, half gramophone" applies even better, really, to this bunch.

clausentum @66,

I describe the error as what it was. The campaign to stop the dumping of toxic was was rightful. The error was a result of unequal access to information. I linked to Greenpeace's summary, which includes:

>*"Towards the end of the campaign, in the absence of official figures, Greenpeace released its own estimate of the amount of oil left on the Brent Spar. However, we quickly realised that our improvised measurements had been taken from the wrong part of the Spar, resulting in a significant overestimation of the amount of oil left in the storage tanks. As soon as it became aware of the error, Greenpeace proactively apologised. Although almost unreported at the time, the estimate subsequently became notorious and a persistent media myth was born - that Greenpeace had 'got it wrong' over the entire Brent Spar issue."*

>*"But the amount of oil left on the Brent Spar was never central to the campaign. The prime issue was, from the very beginning, the need for the offshore industry to take proper environmental responsibility for its obsolete platforms and other wastes, rather than using the oceans as a dumping ground."*

And I reiterate:

1) that Greenpeace accepted their error and corrected the record, as is proper process.

2) the error of fact in the Brent Spar campaign is 15 years old, so as Jeff indicates, if this is Greenpeace celebrated error, can we assume their record since does not compare with this corrected error in an otherwise rightful campaign?

3) Count and contrast with the errors and ongoing deceit from Plimer and Lormborg.

As to your last hand on the door run-away point:
>*And that seems to apply to this blog as well - all carping, no realism, priority to other political agendas.*

This is as yet an assertion with no evidence, care to reference the points you rely on so others might judge your argument?

Bernard J,

Look through my posts on the whole blog and I defy you to find anywhere that I said I'd validated Plimer's position.

I merely asked questions about the knee-jerk reaction to the publication of the book.

Lastly other than Monbiot,a journalist, who are the people lining up to call Plimer to account for himself?

Dave Andrews writes:
>*Trouble is Mark B and his buddies don't actually pay attention to anything which doesn't support their point of view.*

On the contrary Dave, I've acknowledged the error in the overwhelmingly rightful Brent Spar campaign. Itâs simply that this celebrated error does not support your claims of equivalence whenever a denierâs misrepresentation are exposed.

Dave given that we now know it is Brent Spar you rely on then your record is clear, you consistently make inappropriate smears when the wrongful behaviour of denialist are exposed.

The record's of Greenpeace, Monbiot, and Gavin Schmidt's are excellent compared to those of Plimer and Lomborg. Your attempt to assert equivalence is a misrepresentation.

Your attempt to claim you are not defending Plimer (or Lomborg) is contradicted by your record of smear against their critiques, and lame attempt to draw equivalence.

The problem with Dave Andrews and his buddies is they think both side, and thus all errors and misrepresentations are equal. They equate a corrected error from 15 years ago as equivalent to the systematic campaign put out by those for who doubt is their product.

Shorter Dave Andrews:

It's unfair of you to criticise Plimer on the basis of his flawed arguments.......and here's some outdated and false criticisms of Greenpeace.

Dave Andrews writes:

>*...other than Monbiot,a journalist, who are the people lining up to call Plimer to account for himself?*

The problems with Dave Andrews and his ilk, he ignores bulk of the evidence to nurture his closed minded view.

Dave open your eyes, the answer is everyone of the numerous critics that Monbiot cites, and bunch [here too](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/plimer/index.php?page=2), this is not an exhaustive list, just enough to show the type of rubbish argument Dave Andrews employs.

Dave Andrews, you have no credibility.

*That is breathtakingly arrogant of you. Perhaps it is why your taking of Lomborg to the DSCD resulted in zilch*

Andrews, I call it as I see it. Your comments on the open thread also reflect a jaded, narrow worldview. I do not think it is arrogant; it is a matter of fact in my opinion.

As for Lomborg, he didn`t come out smelling all like roses. Those who want to believe his nonsense will do so whatever happens. He and his superficial conclusions are promoted by western elites anxious to maintain a business-as-usual ethic. I debated the guy i 2002 and in my opinion he was a hollow vessel. We sat for an hour and he appeared to be scared to death of me - that he would say something that he knew I could demolish him with, so he wisely said nix, except for one claiming "It is a virus, ain`t it?" when I told him about global amphibian declines being a good indicator of the planet`s ecological state.

Janet sums up your street-cred in this debate. None.

Back to the original topic?

The book now has 1 5-star review and and 1 1-star review.

John, I just got my library hold copy of Heaven and Earth and I plan to do a good review of it. A lot like Anthony Watts work, it's exceptionally juvenile in tone, which surprises me. My review of Wishart's cretinous contribution was impactful in the sense that he felt obliged to respond with a half dozen angry ranting comments and a second review of his own book.

The raw numbers on a review are a kind of game, and I think that (a) we can almost never win that, because any idiot can hit refresh and do a throwaway email and (b) it's both degrading and gives undue dignity to amazon reviews as a system, since they're like unfiltered internet polls at this point. I don't read THAT many books compared to papers.

Marion:
I don't expect to "win" ratings; I just hope that a decent book gets at least a handful of decent reviews,so that thoughtful people have something useful to look at.

Also, an author may occasionally read reviews, and someone who writes something good deserves support from those of us who appreciate it, even if we couldn't write it ourselves.

Likewise, awful books should get at least a few awful reviews, although that can be harder, since one may have to buy something awful :-)

Of course, we all know that certain classes of books get bimodal reviews, mostly 5s and 1s...

Dave Andrews said:

Bernard J,
Look through my posts on the whole blog and I defy you to find anywhere that I said I'd validated Plimer's position.
I merely asked questions about the knee-jerk reaction to the publication of the book.

Apparently parsing other people's sentences is beyond him.

Andrews, read what [I said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/09/john_mashey_recommends_climate…) carefully:

I'm curious to know though of your own assessment of each of his 'references', and how your assessment validates Plimer's position.

I was requesting (present tense) your personal assessment of Plimer's referencess, and how your assessment validates (present tense) Plimer's position.

Look through my posts on the whole blog and I defy you to find anywhere where I said that you had said that you had already validated Plimer's position.

If you can show me where I claimed that you had already validated Plimer's position I'd be most interested...

Bernard J, they don't read these books. And who can blame them?

In the case of Heaven and Hell, there's no pleasure in it.

Once you strip away the loaded and insult language, the rhetorical questions and the snide remarks, you have about 2/3s of the text left with any semantic content whatsoever.

Most of it is literally irrelevant to the "questions" Plimer raises, and which he answers incorrectly every time.

After a while, you do start "cherry-picking" because you are NOT going to get anything that's new or relevant. So I began hunting for him pushing the iron sun in the sun chapter.

At any rate, it's about 33% sheer letter-to-the-editor ranting, 23% irrelevant discussion of whatever Plimer thinks will seem impressive, and 10% on topic and the on topic stuff is completely wrong across the board.

I would guess half the scientists who read it threw up their hands at the tone and format, the other half after they'd reached something they knew about. It's significant, as far as I can tell, that no scientist has recommended it so far. Has Tim "Archimedes Principle is what, again?" Ball done so?

Bernard J,

Semantics! But with over 2000 references its taking a little time for me to evaluate them all. How are you doing?

Marion Delgado,

"I would guess half the scientists who read it threw up their hands at the tone and format, the other half after they'd reached something they knew about"

Well that is just conjecture isn't it?

I meant to say it's about 56% irrelevant science, 33% invective, and 10% substance that's relevant, and the 10% is wrong

85 DA,

How about just the references for the 2 claims taken (with minor mods) from (the original) TGGWS: the faked "NASA" graph, and the "volcanoes cough out more CO2 than..."?

Should be a piece of cake, eh?

What are you up to? How much "falsification" does Plimer need? Is only 100% enough?

Look through my posts on the whole blog and I defy you to find anywhere that I said I'd validated Plimer's position.

Dave, whichever name he's posting under

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/09/04/arctic-non-analysis/#comment-350…

is pretending not to know about

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/31/pants-on-fire/

Hank,

As you know I read 'Open Mind' and have commented often there in the past. I have only ever posted under variants of my name on that one site (The DBA you link to that single time ) because my posts were not getting through. Even then I made no attempt to disguise my email address so it was always transparent to Tamino who I was. I also never posted using variants of my name at the same time.

There are people who post at Open Mind under pseudonyms and probably others who post under totally different names on the same threads.

I don't mind if you counter my posts through argument but Tamino seems to lurch between periods where he allows what he might call 'dissenting opinion' to continue for some time and then he just turns off the tap.

I said to him once there is no point in having a blog where everyone agrees with and congratulates you on what you post, and he concurred. But now it seems he is determined to stifle discussion.

BTW, where was I "pretending not to know about" your second link?

Note to all the trolls, Dave included.

Repeating known falsehoods is not 'dissenting opinion'.

Michael,

being an 'anti-troll' is a worthwhile occupation, but your obvious skills in this area are under utilized.

You really should get out more.

I don't mind if you counter my posts through argument but

there is no point in having a blog where everyone agrees with and congratulates you on what you post

being an 'anti-troll' is a worthwhile occupation

This is why you're called Dave "the strawman" Andrews.

Sorry, they both should be called strawmen.

> +/-0.36 deg C oscillation about every 30 years

Please show your arithmetic.
You're not just eyeballing pixels, are you?

> What about the crusade to propagate the myth of global warming?

I smell a sock.

> What about the crusade to propagate the myth of global warming?

> Posted by: Global warming=religion

Well we can all see THIS sockpuppet isn't biased, can't we.

Your momma know you're on teh internets, kid?

The Poor Man Institute once said,

> Sure, you can always excuse it with the undisproveable claim that "the Democrats" would have done the same/worse, but sometimes, after using this 10-12 times a day, it's got to start sounding like, well, an excuse.

Likewise, junior.

Well at least ONE thing is certain.

If the denialists are reduced to this level, they are crapping their pants in fear that they aren't being listened to any more.

My, I am a conscious worker who has worked on magnetic for many years and no one has offered me any money who has an environmental outcome to be won by my efforts.
I have met Iam Plimer and found him to be warm, compassionate and a listener to others who oppose him. His book has more truth to it than what is portrayed as questionable and I believe that he must be given the reason for portraying what he is putting to the public as questionable answers to where we have been promoted by over $7,000 Million to promote that carbon Dioxide is a man made gas ans has caused this Climate Change.
My book Climate Change Explained by Magnetism (ISBN 978-0-646-47722-0) supports his basic theory and I urge you to think beyond your pressured thoughts that there may be truth in what he is delivering and look carefully at what is around you and ask. Is the ocean really rising in my part of town/beach front? Your answer will be the same as mine. No. The tectonic plates may be moving down. tomw

"I have met Iam [sic] Plimer and found him to be warm, compassionate and a listener to others who oppose him"

How would you know what his views are on those who oppose him? Because of what he told you? You apparently agree with the man. Hence the courtesy. But as the drama with George Monbiot showed, those who seriously question the nonsense in his book are treated with contempt, probably because Plimer knows full well that much of it is gibberish.

Climate change explained by magnetism? Sounds like another flat earth theory to me.

Thomas TS Watson.

A quick check of Amazon did not return any recognition of your book, and a search of your name gave the response:

Check out our Thomas Wooden Railway products in Toys & Games.

An [ISBN](http://isbndb.com/search-all.html?kw=978-0-646-47722-0) search both with and without the hyphens did not recognise the number you provided, nor was your name recognised when the middle initials were included.

There is a [Thomas Watson](http://isbndb.com/d/person/watson_thomas.html), or several, but the principle output of this/these person/people is in Christian theology: there is nothing published on [Climate Change Explained by Magnetism](http://isbndb.com/search-all.html?kw=Climate+Change+Explained+by+Magnet…).

So, you are either a poe who didn't work very hard to conceal his poeness (but still a passable poe, nevertheless), or you are a troll with no imagination, or you are a completely deluded clown who lives in his own little la-la land.

I'd opt for one of the latter two explanations, because your command of language, of grammar, and of sentence structure is so patently reflective of an ignorant person as to increase the likelihood that one or the other of these options is actually true.

Of course, there is the possibility that your mangling of language is itself an example of poe-try, in which case your overall poe score increases appreciably!

Whatever the real explanation, Ian Plimer remains firmly ensconced in the nutjob pseudoscience corner, from whence there is no hope of reputational salvation.

How curious.

A simple Google for "Thomas T S Watson" returns [this 'publication'](http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/3918860) (reviewed by [Nexus magazine](http://www.nexusmagazine.eu/nx14_1.html), I note), [this 'paper'](http://tiny.cc/oPgFI) (ahhh...), and nothing entitled "Climate Change Explained by Magnetism", at least in the first 50 hits.

Even without any evidence of the book to which you refer, I feel safe in concluding that you are a shining example of Dunning-Kruger Effect, blended with Emeritus Syndrome, and probably throwing in some of the aforementioned vacations to metaphorical countries.

If you represent the company that Plimer keeps, it says quite a lot about the both of you.

Let me guess: you have no formal, nor even directed, education in either physics or in climatology?

Aw heck Thomas T. S. Watson, just in case modesty restrains your hand, I'll post your bio from the 'paper' [Nature's Contribution to Climate Change]("http://tiny.cc/oPgFI).

Tom Watson served as a Sergeant Draftsman Instructor in the RAAF. He began his
research into magnetism when he observed a UFO in 1981 in Ballarat, Australia. He
researches the harmonic relationship between the electron and the nucleus of all atoms.
He is now the author of physics books and formulates gravitational values

I'm still trying to understand the nature of your relationship to the [Australian Atomic Research Team](http://www.aart-jb.com/), and for that matter what Buttigieg is attempting when he says:

Defining the mind as a magnetic force that relates to atomic functions will allow us to learn more about the fundamental physical properties of our minds. Will we one day consciously use our minds to control the forces that govern disease?

There are some impressive and apparently orthodox conections within the AART group, but somehow I get the idea that the anchor is dragging in the sand...

Search on "Thomas Watson" here for a somewhat rambling missive and self-promotion.

Seems like it's a self-publication or vanity-type publication.

File under D-K and send him to the kill file.

Query for Thomas:

what IS "formulates gravitational values" when it's at home?

Or is that streamofconsciousnessbollocks?

Oh Thomaaasss...?

Hmmm. Perhaps he's been abducted.

re: 1 David on Lomborg's TSE & Amazon ratings
Thanks for the kind words. You aren't the first to wonder about that :-)

1) A unidimensional rating scheme is a blunt instrument.

A 1-star rating can clearly mean "don't bother".

But a 5-star rating can be ambiguous. If you compare the writing style of my 5-star TSE rating and that of Climate Cover-Up, see if you can tell which is which:

a) This is great, buy it and read it!

b) This will be widely-read and perhaps influential, even if it turns out to be junk, so read it *very* carefully, and you probably should, if only to understand the nature of the arguments.

I wrote that review having done one pass over TSE, but not yet having done the next month's excruciating process of chasing down references, comparing charts, etc, which actually drastically improved my knowledge of many topics, and of course, usually didn't really support Lomborg.

I did think that some of the quick responses to TSE were not as effective as they might have been, and unfortunately sometimes came off as kneejerk responses. Given that review, I can honestly say I gave TSE every possible chance, akin to following John Daly's "Waiting for Greenhouse". In both cases, I learned a lot about the specific cherry-picking examples in this turf.

2) As for reading TSE now, do so only if you really want to dig deep into Lomborgism, but if you do, first read Julian Simon's "Ultimate Resource 2", which after all seems the inspiration for TSE.

3) At this point, unless you're really a glutton for this, I'd:

a) Read Cool It! which is a lot shorter, and more typical of Lomborg's current approaches, as he's moved on. See what you think. Are any of his arguments effective?

b) Then, read my commentary at Things Break, Lomborg and Playing the Long Game (TB's title) or my title: "BJORN LOMBORG, Wizard of misdirection & Reincarnation of Julian Simon".
(Hoggan mentions this in the book).
I don't think I could have written that if I hadn't studied TSE earlier. But, I don't think you need to, now.

c) It can be instructive to compare someone's arguments at different points in time. So, here's a different recommendation, which relates to Climate Cover-UP. Read Fred Singer's old "Hot Talk, Cold Science" and then the later Avery/Signer "Unstoppable Global Warming" and do an A/B comparison to see what changes and what doesn't.

Oops, if I'd written the Climate Cover-Up review a day later, I might have added a comment on the combination of ideology/politics and financial interests described there, noting the narrowness thereof, and by contrast quoting Pacific Gas & Electric's CEO Peter Darbee from yesterday, explaining why PG&E has just quit the US Chamber of Congress:

(boldface mine).

"We find it dismaying that the Chamber neglects the indisputable fact that a decisive majority of experts have said the data on global warming are compelling and point to a threat that cannot be ignored. In our opinion, an intellectually honest argument over the best policy response to the challenges of climate change is one thing; disingenuous attempts to diminish or distort the reality of these challenges are quite another."

Now, that's a strong, succinct statement from a serious businessman who considers himself a conservative. But, he took the trouble to learn from experts, and is a relentless campaigner for efficiency.

re: 53 Jeff
Regarding reasons for anti-science, I use a tentative catalog of such, evolved from an old post here, but currently:

R Attributes: Reasons for Anti-Science, and then that's condensed and combined in OBR Map.

Since you actually have had contact with him, maybe you'd comment on this analysis:

On that chart, he'd fit line B2 (technical/professional, which includes economists and other folks who at least usually know some statistics).

The plausible reasons might well be, in order that they occurred:

PSY7: Ambiguity-intolerant, all-or-none thinking. I've seen examples where people had strong beliefs at one extreme, had them punctured, and flipped all the way to the other extreme, and this seems to have fit him, if Kare Fog's description of background is correct.

PSY3: Contrarian gets attention, helps career. As far as I can tell, he wasn't exactly having a notable academic career. I speculate that this was the big one.

PSY5: High-bar, low-bar (as you describe).

and then added:
IDE2, or even IDE1: Ideology.

and of course, given that:

FIN3:financial

Certainly, as noted in Lomborg and Playing the Long Game, the usual thinktanks and political parties like him, so he works well with groups O6 and O7 on OBR Flow, with the organizations described in O Categories.

Does that fit? Any missing?

Back to the original topic?

The book now has 1 5-star review and and 1 1-star review.

Marion:
I don't expect to "win" ratings; I just hope that a decent book gets at least a handful of decent reviews,so that thoughtful people have something useful to look at.

Also, an author may occasionally read reviews, and someone who writes something good deserves support from those of us who appreciate it, even if we couldn't write it ourselves.

Likewise, awful books should get at least a few awful reviews, although that can be harder, since one may have to buy something awful :-)

Of course, we all know that certain classes of books get bimodal reviews, mostly 5s and 1s...

Where is Thomas?

Is he under the bridge?

No! That's another troll!

Is he in the cave?

No! That's another troll!

Is he formulating "gravitational values"?

No! That's the Legislator of the Universe's job - and s/he did that the first day at work!

Is he "research[ing] the harmonic relationship between the electron and the nucleus of all atoms"?

Of course not, because that makes no scientific sense - unless one is completely ignorant of physics, or is one of the scam-merchants so ripe for the ridiculing by the Feedback editors of New Scientist.

Is he observing alien spacecraft or other UFOs?

Well, quite possibly, but this doesn't mean that what he thinks that he sees is actually what he is observing.

Is he hiding his sorry arse so that he doesn't have to justify [the garbage he posted](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/09/john_mashey_recommends_climate…) above.

Yes! Of course he is!

Hide, Tom, hide!

[With apologies to Spot, and to Dick and Jane.]

re: 1 David on Lomborg's TSE & Amazon ratings
Thanks for the kind words. You aren't the first to wonder about that :-)

1) A unidimensional rating scheme is a blunt instrument.

A 1-star rating can clearly mean "don't bother".

But a 5-star rating can be ambiguous. If you compare the writing style of my 5-star TSE rating and that of Climate Cover-Up, see if you can tell which is which:

a) This is great, buy it and read it!

b) This will be widely-read and perhaps influential, even if it turns out to be junk, so read it *very* carefully, and you probably should, if only to understand the nature of the arguments.

I wrote that review having done one pass over TSE, but not yet having done the next month's excruciating process of chasing down references, comparing charts, etc, which actually drastically improved my knowledge of many topics, and of course, usually didn't really support Lomborg.

I did think that some of the quick responses to TSE were not as effective as they might have been, and unfortunately sometimes came off as kneejerk responses. Given that review, I can honestly say I gave TSE every possible chance, akin to following John Daly's "Waiting for Greenhouse". In both cases, I learned a lot about the specific cherry-picking examples in this turf.

2) As for reading TSE now, do so only if you really want to dig deep into Lomborgism, but if you do, first read Julian Simon's "Ultimate Resource 2", which after all seems the inspiration for TSE.

3) At this point, unless you're really a glutton for this, I'd:

a) Read Cool It! which is a lot shorter, and more typical of Lomborg's current approaches, as he's moved on. See what you think. Are any of his arguments effective?

b) Then, read my commentary at Things Break, Lomborg and Playing the Long Game (TB's title) or my title: "BJORN LOMBORG, Wizard of misdirection & Reincarnation of Julian Simon".
(Hoggan mentions this in the book).
I don't think I could have written that if I hadn't studied TSE earlier. But, I don't think you need to, now.

c) It can be instructive to compare someone's arguments at different points in time. So, here's a different recommendation, which relates to Climate Cover-UP. Read Fred Singer's old "Hot Talk, Cold Science" and then the later Avery/Signer "Unstoppable Global Warming" and do an A/B comparison to see what changes and what doesn't.

Oops, if I'd written the Climate Cover-Up review a day later, I might have added a comment on the combination of ideology/politics and financial interests described there, noting the narrowness thereof, and by contrast quoting Pacific Gas & Electric's CEO Peter Darbee from yesterday, explaining why PG&E has just quit the US Chamber of Congress:

(boldface mine).

"We find it dismaying that the Chamber neglects the indisputable fact that a decisive majority of experts have said the data on global warming are compelling and point to a threat that cannot be ignored. In our opinion, an intellectually honest argument over the best policy response to the challenges of climate change is one thing; disingenuous attempts to diminish or distort the reality of these challenges are quite another."

Now, that's a strong, succinct statement from a serious businessman who considers himself a conservative. But, he took the trouble to learn from experts, and is a relentless campaigner for efficiency.

re: 53 Jeff
Regarding reasons for anti-science, I use a tentative catalog of such, evolved from an old post here, but currently:

R Attributes: Reasons for Anti-Science, and then that's condensed and combined in OBR Map.

Since you actually have had contact with him, maybe you'd comment on this analysis:

On that chart, he'd fit line B2 (technical/professional, which includes economists and other folks who at least usually know some statistics).

The plausible reasons might well be, in order that they occurred:

PSY7: Ambiguity-intolerant, all-or-none thinking. I've seen examples where people had strong beliefs at one extreme, had them punctured, and flipped all the way to the other extreme, and this seems to have fit him, if Kare Fog's description of background is correct.

PSY3: Contrarian gets attention, helps career. As far as I can tell, he wasn't exactly having a notable academic career. I speculate that this was the big one.

PSY5: High-bar, low-bar (as you describe).

and then added:
IDE2, or even IDE1: Ideology.

and of course, given that:

FIN3:financial

Certainly, as noted in Lomborg and Playing the Long Game, the usual thinktanks and political parties like him, so he works well with groups O6 and O7 on OBR Flow, with the organizations described in O Categories.

Does that fit? Any missing?

Back to the original topic?

The book now has 1 5-star review and and 1 1-star review.

Marion:
I don't expect to "win" ratings; I just hope that a decent book gets at least a handful of decent reviews,so that thoughtful people have something useful to look at.

Also, an author may occasionally read reviews, and someone who writes something good deserves support from those of us who appreciate it, even if we couldn't write it ourselves.

Likewise, awful books should get at least a few awful reviews, although that can be harder, since one may have to buy something awful :-)

Of course, we all know that certain classes of books get bimodal reviews, mostly 5s and 1s...

re: 1 David on Lomborg's TSE & Amazon ratings
Thanks for the kind words. You aren't the first to wonder about that :-)

1) A unidimensional rating scheme is a blunt instrument.

A 1-star rating can clearly mean "don't bother".

But a 5-star rating can be ambiguous. If you compare the writing style of my 5-star TSE rating and that of Climate Cover-Up, see if you can tell which is which:

a) This is great, buy it and read it!

b) This will be widely-read and perhaps influential, even if it turns out to be junk, so read it *very* carefully, and you probably should, if only to understand the nature of the arguments.

I wrote that review having done one pass over TSE, but not yet having done the next month's excruciating process of chasing down references, comparing charts, etc, which actually drastically improved my knowledge of many topics, and of course, usually didn't really support Lomborg.

I did think that some of the quick responses to TSE were not as effective as they might have been, and unfortunately sometimes came off as kneejerk responses. Given that review, I can honestly say I gave TSE every possible chance, akin to following John Daly's "Waiting for Greenhouse". In both cases, I learned a lot about the specific cherry-picking examples in this turf.

2) As for reading TSE now, do so only if you really want to dig deep into Lomborgism, but if you do, first read Julian Simon's "Ultimate Resource 2", which after all seems the inspiration for TSE.

3) At this point, unless you're really a glutton for this, I'd:

a) Read Cool It! which is a lot shorter, and more typical of Lomborg's current approaches, as he's moved on. See what you think. Are any of his arguments effective?

b) Then, read my commentary at Things Break, Lomborg and Playing the Long Game (TB's title) or my title: "BJORN LOMBORG, Wizard of misdirection & Reincarnation of Julian Simon".
(Hoggan mentions this in the book).
I don't think I could have written that if I hadn't studied TSE earlier. But, I don't think you need to, now.

c) It can be instructive to compare someone's arguments at different points in time. So, here's a different recommendation, which relates to Climate Cover-UP. Read Fred Singer's old "Hot Talk, Cold Science" and then the later Avery/Signer "Unstoppable Global Warming" and do an A/B comparison to see what changes and what doesn't.

Oops, if I'd written the Climate Cover-Up review a day later, I might have added a comment on the combination of ideology/politics and financial interests described there, noting the narrowness thereof, and by contrast quoting Pacific Gas & Electric's CEO Peter Darbee from yesterday, explaining why PG&E has just quit the US Chamber of Congress:

(boldface mine).

"We find it dismaying that the Chamber neglects the indisputable fact that a decisive majority of experts have said the data on global warming are compelling and point to a threat that cannot be ignored. In our opinion, an intellectually honest argument over the best policy response to the challenges of climate change is one thing; disingenuous attempts to diminish or distort the reality of these challenges are quite another."

Now, that's a strong, succinct statement from a serious businessman who considers himself a conservative. But, he took the trouble to learn from experts, and is a relentless campaigner for efficiency.

re: 53 Jeff
Regarding reasons for anti-science, I use a tentative catalog of such, evolved from an old post here, but currently:

R Attributes: Reasons for Anti-Science, and then that's condensed and combined in OBR Map.

Since you actually have had contact with him, maybe you'd comment on this analysis:

On that chart, he'd fit line B2 (technical/professional, which includes economists and other folks who at least usually know some statistics).

The plausible reasons might well be, in order that they occurred:

PSY7: Ambiguity-intolerant, all-or-none thinking. I've seen examples where people had strong beliefs at one extreme, had them punctured, and flipped all the way to the other extreme, and this seems to have fit him, if Kare Fog's description of background is correct.

PSY3: Contrarian gets attention, helps career. As far as I can tell, he wasn't exactly having a notable academic career. I speculate that this was the big one.

PSY5: High-bar, low-bar (as you describe).

and then added:
IDE2, or even IDE1: Ideology.

and of course, given that:

FIN3:financial

Certainly, as noted in Lomborg and Playing the Long Game, the usual thinktanks and political parties like him, so he works well with groups O6 and O7 on OBR Flow, with the organizations described in O Categories.

Does that fit? Any missing?

Back to the original topic?

The book now has 1 5-star review and and 1 1-star review.

Marion:
I don't expect to "win" ratings; I just hope that a decent book gets at least a handful of decent reviews,so that thoughtful people have something useful to look at.

Also, an author may occasionally read reviews, and someone who writes something good deserves support from those of us who appreciate it, even if we couldn't write it ourselves.

Likewise, awful books should get at least a few awful reviews, although that can be harder, since one may have to buy something awful :-)

Of course, we all know that certain classes of books get bimodal reviews, mostly 5s and 1s...

re: 1 David on Lomborg's TSE & Amazon ratings
Thanks for the kind words. You aren't the first to wonder about that :-)

1) A unidimensional rating scheme is a blunt instrument.

A 1-star rating can clearly mean "don't bother".

But a 5-star rating can be ambiguous. If you compare the writing style of my 5-star TSE rating and that of Climate Cover-Up, see if you can tell which is which:

a) This is great, buy it and read it!

b) This will be widely-read and perhaps influential, even if it turns out to be junk, so read it *very* carefully, and you probably should, if only to understand the nature of the arguments.

I wrote that review having done one pass over TSE, but not yet having done the next month's excruciating process of chasing down references, comparing charts, etc, which actually drastically improved my knowledge of many topics, and of course, usually didn't really support Lomborg.

I did think that some of the quick responses to TSE were not as effective as they might have been, and unfortunately sometimes came off as kneejerk responses. Given that review, I can honestly say I gave TSE every possible chance, akin to following John Daly's "Waiting for Greenhouse". In both cases, I learned a lot about the specific cherry-picking examples in this turf.

2) As for reading TSE now, do so only if you really want to dig deep into Lomborgism, but if you do, first read Julian Simon's "Ultimate Resource 2", which after all seems the inspiration for TSE.

3) At this point, unless you're really a glutton for this, I'd:

a) Read Cool It! which is a lot shorter, and more typical of Lomborg's current approaches, as he's moved on. See what you think. Are any of his arguments effective?

b) Then, read my commentary at Things Break, Lomborg and Playing the Long Game (TB's title) or my title: "BJORN LOMBORG, Wizard of misdirection & Reincarnation of Julian Simon".
(Hoggan mentions this in the book).
I don't think I could have written that if I hadn't studied TSE earlier. But, I don't think you need to, now.

c) It can be instructive to compare someone's arguments at different points in time. So, here's a different recommendation, which relates to Climate Cover-UP. Read Fred Singer's old "Hot Talk, Cold Science" and then the later Avery/Signer "Unstoppable Global Warming" and do an A/B comparison to see what changes and what doesn't.

Oops, if I'd written the Climate Cover-Up review a day later, I might have added a comment on the combination of ideology/politics and financial interests described there, noting the narrowness thereof, and by contrast quoting Pacific Gas & Electric's CEO Peter Darbee from yesterday, explaining why PG&E has just quit the US Chamber of Congress:

(boldface mine).

"We find it dismaying that the Chamber neglects the indisputable fact that a decisive majority of experts have said the data on global warming are compelling and point to a threat that cannot be ignored. In our opinion, an intellectually honest argument over the best policy response to the challenges of climate change is one thing; disingenuous attempts to diminish or distort the reality of these challenges are quite another."

Now, that's a strong, succinct statement from a serious businessman who considers himself a conservative. But, he took the trouble to learn from experts, and is a relentless campaigner for efficiency.

re: 53 Jeff
Regarding reasons for anti-science, I use a tentative catalog of such, evolved from an old post here, but currently:

R Attributes: Reasons for Anti-Science, and then that's condensed and combined in OBR Map.

Since you actually have had contact with him, maybe you'd comment on this analysis:

On that chart, he'd fit line B2 (technical/professional, which includes economists and other folks who at least usually know some statistics).

The plausible reasons might well be, in order that they occurred:

PSY7: Ambiguity-intolerant, all-or-none thinking. I've seen examples where people had strong beliefs at one extreme, had them punctured, and flipped all the way to the other extreme, and this seems to have fit him, if Kare Fog's description of background is correct.

PSY3: Contrarian gets attention, helps career. As far as I can tell, he wasn't exactly having a notable academic career. I speculate that this was the big one.

PSY5: High-bar, low-bar (as you describe).

and then added:
IDE2, or even IDE1: Ideology.

and of course, given that:

FIN3:financial

Certainly, as noted in Lomborg and Playing the Long Game, the usual thinktanks and political parties like him, so he works well with groups O6 and O7 on OBR Flow, with the organizations described in O Categories.

Does that fit? Any missing?

Back to the original topic?

The book now has 1 5-star review and and 1 1-star review.

Marion:
I don't expect to "win" ratings; I just hope that a decent book gets at least a handful of decent reviews,so that thoughtful people have something useful to look at.

Also, an author may occasionally read reviews, and someone who writes something good deserves support from those of us who appreciate it, even if we couldn't write it ourselves.

Likewise, awful books should get at least a few awful reviews, although that can be harder, since one may have to buy something awful :-)

Of course, we all know that certain classes of books get bimodal reviews, mostly 5s and 1s...

re: 1 David on Lomborg's TSE & Amazon ratings
Thanks for the kind words. You aren't the first to wonder about that :-)

1) A unidimensional rating scheme is a blunt instrument.

A 1-star rating can clearly mean "don't bother".

But a 5-star rating can be ambiguous. If you compare the writing style of my 5-star TSE rating and that of Climate Cover-Up, see if you can tell which is which:

a) This is great, buy it and read it!

b) This will be widely-read and perhaps influential, even if it turns out to be junk, so read it *very* carefully, and you probably should, if only to understand the nature of the arguments.

I wrote that review having done one pass over TSE, but not yet having done the next month's excruciating process of chasing down references, comparing charts, etc, which actually drastically improved my knowledge of many topics, and of course, usually didn't really support Lomborg.

I did think that some of the quick responses to TSE were not as effective as they might have been, and unfortunately sometimes came off as kneejerk responses. Given that review, I can honestly say I gave TSE every possible chance, akin to following John Daly's "Waiting for Greenhouse". In both cases, I learned a lot about the specific cherry-picking examples in this turf.

2) As for reading TSE now, do so only if you really want to dig deep into Lomborgism, but if you do, first read Julian Simon's "Ultimate Resource 2", which after all seems the inspiration for TSE.

3) At this point, unless you're really a glutton for this, I'd:

a) Read Cool It! which is a lot shorter, and more typical of Lomborg's current approaches, as he's moved on. See what you think. Are any of his arguments effective?

b) Then, read my commentary at Things Break, Lomborg and Playing the Long Game (TB's title) or my title: "BJORN LOMBORG, Wizard of misdirection & Reincarnation of Julian Simon".
(Hoggan mentions this in the book).
I don't think I could have written that if I hadn't studied TSE earlier. But, I don't think you need to, now.

c) It can be instructive to compare someone's arguments at different points in time. So, here's a different recommendation, which relates to Climate Cover-UP. Read Fred Singer's old "Hot Talk, Cold Science" and then the later Avery/Signer "Unstoppable Global Warming" and do an A/B comparison to see what changes and what doesn't.

Oops, if I'd written the Climate Cover-Up review a day later, I might have added a comment on the combination of ideology/politics and financial interests described there, noting the narrowness thereof, and by contrast quoting Pacific Gas & Electric's CEO Peter Darbee from yesterday, explaining why PG&E has just quit the US Chamber of Congress:

(boldface mine).

"We find it dismaying that the Chamber neglects the indisputable fact that a decisive majority of experts have said the data on global warming are compelling and point to a threat that cannot be ignored. In our opinion, an intellectually honest argument over the best policy response to the challenges of climate change is one thing; disingenuous attempts to diminish or distort the reality of these challenges are quite another."

Now, that's a strong, succinct statement from a serious businessman who considers himself a conservative. But, he took the trouble to learn from experts, and is a relentless campaigner for efficiency.

re: 53 Jeff
Regarding reasons for anti-science, I use a tentative catalog of such, evolved from an old post here, but currently:

R Attributes: Reasons for Anti-Science, and then that's condensed and combined in OBR Map.

Since you actually have had contact with him, maybe you'd comment on this analysis:

On that chart, he'd fit line B2 (technical/professional, which includes economists and other folks who at least usually know some statistics).

The plausible reasons might well be, in order that they occurred:

PSY7: Ambiguity-intolerant, all-or-none thinking. I've seen examples where people had strong beliefs at one extreme, had them punctured, and flipped all the way to the other extreme, and this seems to have fit him, if Kare Fog's description of background is correct.

PSY3: Contrarian gets attention, helps career. As far as I can tell, he wasn't exactly having a notable academic career. I speculate that this was the big one.

PSY5: High-bar, low-bar (as you describe).

and then added:
IDE2, or even IDE1: Ideology.

and of course, given that:

FIN3:financial

Certainly, as noted in Lomborg and Playing the Long Game, the usual thinktanks and political parties like him, so he works well with groups O6 and O7 on OBR Flow, with the organizations described in O Categories.

Does that fit? Any missing?

Back to the original topic?

The book now has 1 5-star review and and 1 1-star review.

Marion:
I don't expect to "win" ratings; I just hope that a decent book gets at least a handful of decent reviews,so that thoughtful people have something useful to look at.

Also, an author may occasionally read reviews, and someone who writes something good deserves support from those of us who appreciate it, even if we couldn't write it ourselves.

Likewise, awful books should get at least a few awful reviews, although that can be harder, since one may have to buy something awful :-)

Of course, we all know that certain classes of books get bimodal reviews, mostly 5s and 1s...

re: 1 David on Lomborg's TSE & Amazon ratings
Thanks for the kind words. You aren't the first to wonder about that :-)

1) A unidimensional rating scheme is a blunt instrument.

A 1-star rating can clearly mean "don't bother".

But a 5-star rating can be ambiguous. If you compare the writing style of my 5-star TSE rating and that of Climate Cover-Up, see if you can tell which is which:

a) This is great, buy it and read it!

b) This will be widely-read and perhaps influential, even if it turns out to be junk, so read it *very* carefully, and you probably should, if only to understand the nature of the arguments.

I wrote that review having done one pass over TSE, but not yet having done the next month's excruciating process of chasing down references, comparing charts, etc, which actually drastically improved my knowledge of many topics, and of course, usually didn't really support Lomborg.

I did think that some of the quick responses to TSE were not as effective as they might have been, and unfortunately sometimes came off as kneejerk responses. Given that review, I can honestly say I gave TSE every possible chance, akin to following John Daly's "Waiting for Greenhouse". In both cases, I learned a lot about the specific cherry-picking examples in this turf.

2) As for reading TSE now, do so only if you really want to dig deep into Lomborgism, but if you do, first read Julian Simon's "Ultimate Resource 2", which after all seems the inspiration for TSE.

3) At this point, unless you're really a glutton for this, I'd:

a) Read Cool It! which is a lot shorter, and more typical of Lomborg's current approaches, as he's moved on. See what you think. Are any of his arguments effective?

b) Then, read my commentary at Things Break, Lomborg and Playing the Long Game (TB's title) or my title: "BJORN LOMBORG, Wizard of misdirection & Reincarnation of Julian Simon".
(Hoggan mentions this in the book).
I don't think I could have written that if I hadn't studied TSE earlier. But, I don't think you need to, now.

c) It can be instructive to compare someone's arguments at different points in time. So, here's a different recommendation, which relates to Climate Cover-UP. Read Fred Singer's old "Hot Talk, Cold Science" and then the later Avery/Signer "Unstoppable Global Warming" and do an A/B comparison to see what changes and what doesn't.

Oops, if I'd written the Climate Cover-Up review a day later, I might have added a comment on the combination of ideology/politics and financial interests described there, noting the narrowness thereof, and by contrast quoting Pacific Gas & Electric's CEO Peter Darbee from yesterday, explaining why PG&E has just quit the US Chamber of Congress:

(boldface mine).

"We find it dismaying that the Chamber neglects the indisputable fact that a decisive majority of experts have said the data on global warming are compelling and point to a threat that cannot be ignored. In our opinion, an intellectually honest argument over the best policy response to the challenges of climate change is one thing; disingenuous attempts to diminish or distort the reality of these challenges are quite another."

Now, that's a strong, succinct statement from a serious businessman who considers himself a conservative. But, he took the trouble to learn from experts, and is a relentless campaigner for efficiency.

re: 53 Jeff
Regarding reasons for anti-science, I use a tentative catalog of such, evolved from an old post here, but currently:

R Attributes: Reasons for Anti-Science, and then that's condensed and combined in OBR Map.

Since you actually have had contact with him, maybe you'd comment on this analysis:

On that chart, he'd fit line B2 (technical/professional, which includes economists and other folks who at least usually know some statistics).

The plausible reasons might well be, in order that they occurred:

PSY7: Ambiguity-intolerant, all-or-none thinking. I've seen examples where people had strong beliefs at one extreme, had them punctured, and flipped all the way to the other extreme, and this seems to have fit him, if Kare Fog's description of background is correct.

PSY3: Contrarian gets attention, helps career. As far as I can tell, he wasn't exactly having a notable academic career. I speculate that this was the big one.

PSY5: High-bar, low-bar (as you describe).

and then added:
IDE2, or even IDE1: Ideology.

and of course, given that:

FIN3:financial

Certainly, as noted in Lomborg and Playing the Long Game, the usual thinktanks and political parties like him, so he works well with groups O6 and O7 on OBR Flow, with the organizations described in O Categories.

Does that fit? Any missing?

Back to the original topic?

The book now has 1 5-star review and and 1 1-star review.

Marion:
I don't expect to "win" ratings; I just hope that a decent book gets at least a handful of decent reviews,so that thoughtful people have something useful to look at.

Also, an author may occasionally read reviews, and someone who writes something good deserves support from those of us who appreciate it, even if we couldn't write it ourselves.

Likewise, awful books should get at least a few awful reviews, although that can be harder, since one may have to buy something awful :-)

Of course, we all know that certain classes of books get bimodal reviews, mostly 5s and 1s...

re: 1 David on Lomborg's TSE & Amazon ratings
Thanks for the kind words. You aren't the first to wonder about that :-)

1) A unidimensional rating scheme is a blunt instrument.

A 1-star rating can clearly mean "don't bother".

But a 5-star rating can be ambiguous. If you compare the writing style of my 5-star TSE rating and that of Climate Cover-Up, see if you can tell which is which:

a) This is great, buy it and read it!

b) This will be widely-read and perhaps influential, even if it turns out to be junk, so read it *very* carefully, and you probably should, if only to understand the nature of the arguments.

I wrote that review having done one pass over TSE, but not yet having done the next month's excruciating process of chasing down references, comparing charts, etc, which actually drastically improved my knowledge of many topics, and of course, usually didn't really support Lomborg.

I did think that some of the quick responses to TSE were not as effective as they might have been, and unfortunately sometimes came off as kneejerk responses. Given that review, I can honestly say I gave TSE every possible chance, akin to following John Daly's "Waiting for Greenhouse". In both cases, I learned a lot about the specific cherry-picking examples in this turf.

2) As for reading TSE now, do so only if you really want to dig deep into Lomborgism, but if you do, first read Julian Simon's "Ultimate Resource 2", which after all seems the inspiration for TSE.

3) At this point, unless you're really a glutton for this, I'd:

a) Read Cool It! which is a lot shorter, and more typical of Lomborg's current approaches, as he's moved on. See what you think. Are any of his arguments effective?

b) Then, read my commentary at Things Break, Lomborg and Playing the Long Game (TB's title) or my title: "BJORN LOMBORG, Wizard of misdirection & Reincarnation of Julian Simon".
(Hoggan mentions this in the book).
I don't think I could have written that if I hadn't studied TSE earlier. But, I don't think you need to, now.

c) It can be instructive to compare someone's arguments at different points in time. So, here's a different recommendation, which relates to Climate Cover-UP. Read Fred Singer's old "Hot Talk, Cold Science" and then the later Avery/Signer "Unstoppable Global Warming" and do an A/B comparison to see what changes and what doesn't.

Oops, if I'd written the Climate Cover-Up review a day later, I might have added a comment on the combination of ideology/politics and financial interests described there, noting the narrowness thereof, and by contrast quoting Pacific Gas & Electric's CEO Peter Darbee from yesterday, explaining why PG&E has just quit the US Chamber of Congress:

(boldface mine).

"We find it dismaying that the Chamber neglects the indisputable fact that a decisive majority of experts have said the data on global warming are compelling and point to a threat that cannot be ignored. In our opinion, an intellectually honest argument over the best policy response to the challenges of climate change is one thing; disingenuous attempts to diminish or distort the reality of these challenges are quite another."

Now, that's a strong, succinct statement from a serious businessman who considers himself a conservative. But, he took the trouble to learn from experts, and is a relentless campaigner for efficiency.

re: 53 Jeff
Regarding reasons for anti-science, I use a tentative catalog of such, evolved from an old post here, but currently:

R Attributes: Reasons for Anti-Science, and then that's condensed and combined in OBR Map.

Since you actually have had contact with him, maybe you'd comment on this analysis:

On that chart, he'd fit line B2 (technical/professional, which includes economists and other folks who at least usually know some statistics).

The plausible reasons might well be, in order that they occurred:

PSY7: Ambiguity-intolerant, all-or-none thinking. I've seen examples where people had strong beliefs at one extreme, had them punctured, and flipped all the way to the other extreme, and this seems to have fit him, if Kare Fog's description of background is correct.

PSY3: Contrarian gets attention, helps career. As far as I can tell, he wasn't exactly having a notable academic career. I speculate that this was the big one.

PSY5: High-bar, low-bar (as you describe).

and then added:
IDE2, or even IDE1: Ideology.

and of course, given that:

FIN3:financial

Certainly, as noted in Lomborg and Playing the Long Game, the usual thinktanks and political parties like him, so he works well with groups O6 and O7 on OBR Flow, with the organizations described in O Categories.

Does that fit? Any missing?

Back to the original topic?

The book now has 1 5-star review and and 1 1-star review.

Marion:
I don't expect to "win" ratings; I just hope that a decent book gets at least a handful of decent reviews,so that thoughtful people have something useful to look at.

Also, an author may occasionally read reviews, and someone who writes something good deserves support from those of us who appreciate it, even if we couldn't write it ourselves.

Likewise, awful books should get at least a few awful reviews, although that can be harder, since one may have to buy something awful :-)

Of course, we all know that certain classes of books get bimodal reviews, mostly 5s and 1s...

re: 1 David on Lomborg's TSE & Amazon ratings
Thanks for the kind words. You aren't the first to wonder about that :-)

1) A unidimensional rating scheme is a blunt instrument.

A 1-star rating can clearly mean "don't bother".

But a 5-star rating can be ambiguous. If you compare the writing style of my 5-star TSE rating and that of Climate Cover-Up, see if you can tell which is which:

a) This is great, buy it and read it!

b) This will be widely-read and perhaps influential, even if it turns out to be junk, so read it *very* carefully, and you probably should, if only to understand the nature of the arguments.

I wrote that review having done one pass over TSE, but not yet having done the next month's excruciating process of chasing down references, comparing charts, etc, which actually drastically improved my knowledge of many topics, and of course, usually didn't really support Lomborg.

I did think that some of the quick responses to TSE were not as effective as they might have been, and unfortunately sometimes came off as kneejerk responses. Given that review, I can honestly say I gave TSE every possible chance, akin to following John Daly's "Waiting for Greenhouse". In both cases, I learned a lot about the specific cherry-picking examples in this turf.

2) As for reading TSE now, do so only if you really want to dig deep into Lomborgism, but if you do, first read Julian Simon's "Ultimate Resource 2", which after all seems the inspiration for TSE.

3) At this point, unless you're really a glutton for this, I'd:

a) Read Cool It! which is a lot shorter, and more typical of Lomborg's current approaches, as he's moved on. See what you think. Are any of his arguments effective?

b) Then, read my commentary at Things Break, Lomborg and Playing the Long Game (TB's title) or my title: "BJORN LOMBORG, Wizard of misdirection & Reincarnation of Julian Simon".
(Hoggan mentions this in the book).
I don't think I could have written that if I hadn't studied TSE earlier. But, I don't think you need to, now.

c) It can be instructive to compare someone's arguments at different points in time. So, here's a different recommendation, which relates to Climate Cover-UP. Read Fred Singer's old "Hot Talk, Cold Science" and then the later Avery/Signer "Unstoppable Global Warming" and do an A/B comparison to see what changes and what doesn't.

Oops, if I'd written the Climate Cover-Up review a day later, I might have added a comment on the combination of ideology/politics and financial interests described there, noting the narrowness thereof, and by contrast quoting Pacific Gas & Electric's CEO Peter Darbee from yesterday, explaining why PG&E has just quit the US Chamber of Congress:

(boldface mine).

"We find it dismaying that the Chamber neglects the indisputable fact that a decisive majority of experts have said the data on global warming are compelling and point to a threat that cannot be ignored. In our opinion, an intellectually honest argument over the best policy response to the challenges of climate change is one thing; disingenuous attempts to diminish or distort the reality of these challenges are quite another."

Now, that's a strong, succinct statement from a serious businessman who considers himself a conservative. But, he took the trouble to learn from experts, and is a relentless campaigner for efficiency.

re: 53 Jeff
Regarding reasons for anti-science, I use a tentative catalog of such, evolved from an old post here, but currently:

R Attributes: Reasons for Anti-Science, and then that's condensed and combined in OBR Map.

Since you actually have had contact with him, maybe you'd comment on this analysis:

On that chart, he'd fit line B2 (technical/professional, which includes economists and other folks who at least usually know some statistics).

The plausible reasons might well be, in order that they occurred:

PSY7: Ambiguity-intolerant, all-or-none thinking. I've seen examples where people had strong beliefs at one extreme, had them punctured, and flipped all the way to the other extreme, and this seems to have fit him, if Kare Fog's description of background is correct.

PSY3: Contrarian gets attention, helps career. As far as I can tell, he wasn't exactly having a notable academic career. I speculate that this was the big one.

PSY5: High-bar, low-bar (as you describe).

and then added:
IDE2, or even IDE1: Ideology.

and of course, given that:

FIN3:financial

Certainly, as noted in Lomborg and Playing the Long Game, the usual thinktanks and political parties like him, so he works well with groups O6 and O7 on OBR Flow, with the organizations described in O Categories.

Does that fit? Any missing?

Back to the original topic?

The book now has 1 5-star review and and 1 1-star review.

Marion:
I don't expect to "win" ratings; I just hope that a decent book gets at least a handful of decent reviews,so that thoughtful people have something useful to look at.

Also, an author may occasionally read reviews, and someone who writes something good deserves support from those of us who appreciate it, even if we couldn't write it ourselves.

Likewise, awful books should get at least a few awful reviews, although that can be harder, since one may have to buy something awful :-)

Of course, we all know that certain classes of books get bimodal reviews, mostly 5s and 1s...

re: 1 David on Lomborg's TSE & Amazon ratings
Thanks for the kind words. You aren't the first to wonder about that :-)

1) A unidimensional rating scheme is a blunt instrument.

A 1-star rating can clearly mean "don't bother".

But a 5-star rating can be ambiguous. If you compare the writing style of my 5-star TSE rating and that of Climate Cover-Up, see if you can tell which is which:

a) This is great, buy it and read it!

b) This will be widely-read and perhaps influential, even if it turns out to be junk, so read it *very* carefully, and you probably should, if only to understand the nature of the arguments.

I wrote that review having done one pass over TSE, but not yet having done the next month's excruciating process of chasing down references, comparing charts, etc, which actually drastically improved my knowledge of many topics, and of course, usually didn't really support Lomborg.

I did think that some of the quick responses to TSE were not as effective as they might have been, and unfortunately sometimes came off as kneejerk responses. Given that review, I can honestly say I gave TSE every possible chance, akin to following John Daly's "Waiting for Greenhouse". In both cases, I learned a lot about the specific cherry-picking examples in this turf.

2) As for reading TSE now, do so only if you really want to dig deep into Lomborgism, but if you do, first read Julian Simon's "Ultimate Resource 2", which after all seems the inspiration for TSE.

3) At this point, unless you're really a glutton for this, I'd:

a) Read Cool It! which is a lot shorter, and more typical of Lomborg's current approaches, as he's moved on. See what you think. Are any of his arguments effective?

b) Then, read my commentary at Things Break, Lomborg and Playing the Long Game (TB's title) or my title: "BJORN LOMBORG, Wizard of misdirection & Reincarnation of Julian Simon".
(Hoggan mentions this in the book).
I don't think I could have written that if I hadn't studied TSE earlier. But, I don't think you need to, now.

c) It can be instructive to compare someone's arguments at different points in time. So, here's a different recommendation, which relates to Climate Cover-UP. Read Fred Singer's old "Hot Talk, Cold Science" and then the later Avery/Signer "Unstoppable Global Warming" and do an A/B comparison to see what changes and what doesn't.

Oops, if I'd written the Climate Cover-Up review a day later, I might have added a comment on the combination of ideology/politics and financial interests described there, noting the narrowness thereof, and by contrast quoting Pacific Gas & Electric's CEO Peter Darbee from yesterday, explaining why PG&E has just quit the US Chamber of Congress:

(boldface mine).

"We find it dismaying that the Chamber neglects the indisputable fact that a decisive majority of experts have said the data on global warming are compelling and point to a threat that cannot be ignored. In our opinion, an intellectually honest argument over the best policy response to the challenges of climate change is one thing; disingenuous attempts to diminish or distort the reality of these challenges are quite another."

Now, that's a strong, succinct statement from a serious businessman who considers himself a conservative. But, he took the trouble to learn from experts, and is a relentless campaigner for efficiency.

re: 53 Jeff
Regarding reasons for anti-science, I use a tentative catalog of such, evolved from an old post here, but currently:

R Attributes: Reasons for Anti-Science, and then that's condensed and combined in OBR Map.

Since you actually have had contact with him, maybe you'd comment on this analysis:

On that chart, he'd fit line B2 (technical/professional, which includes economists and other folks who at least usually know some statistics).

The plausible reasons might well be, in order that they occurred:

PSY7: Ambiguity-intolerant, all-or-none thinking. I've seen examples where people had strong beliefs at one extreme, had them punctured, and flipped all the way to the other extreme, and this seems to have fit him, if Kare Fog's description of background is correct.

PSY3: Contrarian gets attention, helps career. As far as I can tell, he wasn't exactly having a notable academic career. I speculate that this was the big one.

PSY5: High-bar, low-bar (as you describe).

and then added:
IDE2, or even IDE1: Ideology.

and of course, given that:

FIN3:financial

Certainly, as noted in Lomborg and Playing the Long Game, the usual thinktanks and political parties like him, so he works well with groups O6 and O7 on OBR Flow, with the organizations described in O Categories.

Does that fit? Any missing?

Back to the original topic?

The book now has 1 5-star review and and 1 1-star review.

Marion:
I don't expect to "win" ratings; I just hope that a decent book gets at least a handful of decent reviews,so that thoughtful people have something useful to look at.

Also, an author may occasionally read reviews, and someone who writes something good deserves support from those of us who appreciate it, even if we couldn't write it ourselves.

Likewise, awful books should get at least a few awful reviews, although that can be harder, since one may have to buy something awful :-)

Of course, we all know that certain classes of books get bimodal reviews, mostly 5s and 1s...

re: 1 David on Lomborg's TSE & Amazon ratings
Thanks for the kind words. You aren't the first to wonder about that :-)

1) A unidimensional rating scheme is a blunt instrument.

A 1-star rating can clearly mean "don't bother".

But a 5-star rating can be ambiguous. If you compare the writing style of my 5-star TSE rating and that of Climate Cover-Up, see if you can tell which is which:

a) This is great, buy it and read it!

b) This will be widely-read and perhaps influential, even if it turns out to be junk, so read it *very* carefully, and you probably should, if only to understand the nature of the arguments.

I wrote that review having done one pass over TSE, but not yet having done the next month's excruciating process of chasing down references, comparing charts, etc, which actually drastically improved my knowledge of many topics, and of course, usually didn't really support Lomborg.

I did think that some of the quick responses to TSE were not as effective as they might have been, and unfortunately sometimes came off as kneejerk responses. Given that review, I can honestly say I gave TSE every possible chance, akin to following John Daly's "Waiting for Greenhouse". In both cases, I learned a lot about the specific cherry-picking examples in this turf.

2) As for reading TSE now, do so only if you really want to dig deep into Lomborgism, but if you do, first read Julian Simon's "Ultimate Resource 2", which after all seems the inspiration for TSE.

3) At this point, unless you're really a glutton for this, I'd:

a) Read Cool It! which is a lot shorter, and more typical of Lomborg's current approaches, as he's moved on. See what you think. Are any of his arguments effective?

b) Then, read my commentary at Things Break, Lomborg and Playing the Long Game (TB's title) or my title: "BJORN LOMBORG, Wizard of misdirection & Reincarnation of Julian Simon".
(Hoggan mentions this in the book).
I don't think I could have written that if I hadn't studied TSE earlier. But, I don't think you need to, now.

c) It can be instructive to compare someone's arguments at different points in time. So, here's a different recommendation, which relates to Climate Cover-UP. Read Fred Singer's old "Hot Talk, Cold Science" and then the later Avery/Signer "Unstoppable Global Warming" and do an A/B comparison to see what changes and what doesn't.

Oops, if I'd written the Climate Cover-Up review a day later, I might have added a comment on the combination of ideology/politics and financial interests described there, noting the narrowness thereof, and by contrast quoting Pacific Gas & Electric's CEO Peter Darbee from yesterday, explaining why PG&E has just quit the US Chamber of Congress:

(boldface mine).

"We find it dismaying that the Chamber neglects the indisputable fact that a decisive majority of experts have said the data on global warming are compelling and point to a threat that cannot be ignored. In our opinion, an intellectually honest argument over the best policy response to the challenges of climate change is one thing; disingenuous attempts to diminish or distort the reality of these challenges are quite another."

Now, that's a strong, succinct statement from a serious businessman who considers himself a conservative. But, he took the trouble to learn from experts, and is a relentless campaigner for efficiency.

re: 53 Jeff
Regarding reasons for anti-science, I use a tentative catalog of such, evolved from an old post here, but currently:

R Attributes: Reasons for Anti-Science, and then that's condensed and combined in OBR Map.

Since you actually have had contact with him, maybe you'd comment on this analysis:

On that chart, he'd fit line B2 (technical/professional, which includes economists and other folks who at least usually know some statistics).

The plausible reasons might well be, in order that they occurred:

PSY7: Ambiguity-intolerant, all-or-none thinking. I've seen examples where people had strong beliefs at one extreme, had them punctured, and flipped all the way to the other extreme, and this seems to have fit him, if Kare Fog's description of background is correct.

PSY3: Contrarian gets attention, helps career. As far as I can tell, he wasn't exactly having a notable academic career. I speculate that this was the big one.

PSY5: High-bar, low-bar (as you describe).

and then added:
IDE2, or even IDE1: Ideology.

and of course, given that:

FIN3:financial

Certainly, as noted in Lomborg and Playing the Long Game, the usual thinktanks and political parties like him, so he works well with groups O6 and O7 on OBR Flow, with the organizations described in O Categories.

Does that fit? Any missing?

Back to the original topic?

The book now has 1 5-star review and and 1 1-star review.

Marion:
I don't expect to "win" ratings; I just hope that a decent book gets at least a handful of decent reviews,so that thoughtful people have something useful to look at.

Also, an author may occasionally read reviews, and someone who writes something good deserves support from those of us who appreciate it, even if we couldn't write it ourselves.

Likewise, awful books should get at least a few awful reviews, although that can be harder, since one may have to buy something awful :-)

Of course, we all know that certain classes of books get bimodal reviews, mostly 5s and 1s...

re: 1 David on Lomborg's TSE & Amazon ratings
Thanks for the kind words. You aren't the first to wonder about that :-)

1) A unidimensional rating scheme is a blunt instrument.

A 1-star rating can clearly mean "don't bother".

But a 5-star rating can be ambiguous. If you compare the writing style of my 5-star TSE rating and that of Climate Cover-Up, see if you can tell which is which:

a) This is great, buy it and read it!

b) This will be widely-read and perhaps influential, even if it turns out to be junk, so read it *very* carefully, and you probably should, if only to understand the nature of the arguments.

I wrote that review having done one pass over TSE, but not yet having done the next month's excruciating process of chasing down references, comparing charts, etc, which actually drastically improved my knowledge of many topics, and of course, usually didn't really support Lomborg.

I did think that some of the quick responses to TSE were not as effective as they might have been, and unfortunately sometimes came off as kneejerk responses. Given that review, I can honestly say I gave TSE every possible chance, akin to following John Daly's "Waiting for Greenhouse". In both cases, I learned a lot about the specific cherry-picking examples in this turf.

2) As for reading TSE now, do so only if you really want to dig deep into Lomborgism, but if you do, first read Julian Simon's "Ultimate Resource 2", which after all seems the inspiration for TSE.

3) At this point, unless you're really a glutton for this, I'd:

a) Read Cool It! which is a lot shorter, and more typical of Lomborg's current approaches, as he's moved on. See what you think. Are any of his arguments effective?

b) Then, read my commentary at Things Break, Lomborg and Playing the Long Game (TB's title) or my title: "BJORN LOMBORG, Wizard of misdirection & Reincarnation of Julian Simon".
(Hoggan mentions this in the book).
I don't think I could have written that if I hadn't studied TSE earlier. But, I don't think you need to, now.

c) It can be instructive to compare someone's arguments at different points in time. So, here's a different recommendation, which relates to Climate Cover-UP. Read Fred Singer's old "Hot Talk, Cold Science" and then the later Avery/Signer "Unstoppable Global Warming" and do an A/B comparison to see what changes and what doesn't.

Oops, if I'd written the Climate Cover-Up review a day later, I might have added a comment on the combination of ideology/politics and financial interests described there, noting the narrowness thereof, and by contrast quoting Pacific Gas & Electric's CEO Peter Darbee from yesterday, explaining why PG&E has just quit the US Chamber of Congress:

(boldface mine).

"We find it dismaying that the Chamber neglects the indisputable fact that a decisive majority of experts have said the data on global warming are compelling and point to a threat that cannot be ignored. In our opinion, an intellectually honest argument over the best policy response to the challenges of climate change is one thing; disingenuous attempts to diminish or distort the reality of these challenges are quite another."

Now, that's a strong, succinct statement from a serious businessman who considers himself a conservative. But, he took the trouble to learn from experts, and is a relentless campaigner for efficiency.

re: 53 Jeff
Regarding reasons for anti-science, I use a tentative catalog of such, evolved from an old post here, but currently:

R Attributes: Reasons for Anti-Science, and then that's condensed and combined in OBR Map.

Since you actually have had contact with him, maybe you'd comment on this analysis:

On that chart, he'd fit line B2 (technical/professional, which includes economists and other folks who at least usually know some statistics).

The plausible reasons might well be, in order that they occurred:

PSY7: Ambiguity-intolerant, all-or-none thinking. I've seen examples where people had strong beliefs at one extreme, had them punctured, and flipped all the way to the other extreme, and this seems to have fit him, if Kare Fog's description of background is correct.

PSY3: Contrarian gets attention, helps career. As far as I can tell, he wasn't exactly having a notable academic career. I speculate that this was the big one.

PSY5: High-bar, low-bar (as you describe).

and then added:
IDE2, or even IDE1: Ideology.

and of course, given that:

FIN3:financial

Certainly, as noted in Lomborg and Playing the Long Game, the usual thinktanks and political parties like him, so he works well with groups O6 and O7 on OBR Flow, with the organizations described in O Categories.

Does that fit? Any missing?

Back to the original topic?

The book now has 1 5-star review and and 1 1-star review.

Marion:
I don't expect to "win" ratings; I just hope that a decent book gets at least a handful of decent reviews,so that thoughtful people have something useful to look at.

Also, an author may occasionally read reviews, and someone who writes something good deserves support from those of us who appreciate it, even if we couldn't write it ourselves.

Likewise, awful books should get at least a few awful reviews, although that can be harder, since one may have to buy something awful :-)

Of course, we all know that certain classes of books get bimodal reviews, mostly 5s and 1s...

re: 1 David on Lomborg's TSE & Amazon ratings
Thanks for the kind words. You aren't the first to wonder about that :-)

1) A unidimensional rating scheme is a blunt instrument.

A 1-star rating can clearly mean "don't bother".

But a 5-star rating can be ambiguous. If you compare the writing style of my 5-star TSE rating and that of Climate Cover-Up, see if you can tell which is which:

a) This is great, buy it and read it!

b) This will be widely-read and perhaps influential, even if it turns out to be junk, so read it *very* carefully, and you probably should, if only to understand the nature of the arguments.

I wrote that review having done one pass over TSE, but not yet having done the next month's excruciating process of chasing down references, comparing charts, etc, which actually drastically improved my knowledge of many topics, and of course, usually didn't really support Lomborg.

I did think that some of the quick responses to TSE were not as effective as they might have been, and unfortunately sometimes came off as kneejerk responses. Given that review, I can honestly say I gave TSE every possible chance, akin to following John Daly's "Waiting for Greenhouse". In both cases, I learned a lot about the specific cherry-picking examples in this turf.

2) As for reading TSE now, do so only if you really want to dig deep into Lomborgism, but if you do, first read Julian Simon's "Ultimate Resource 2", which after all seems the inspiration for TSE.

3) At this point, unless you're really a glutton for this, I'd:

a) Read Cool It! which is a lot shorter, and more typical of Lomborg's current approaches, as he's moved on. See what you think. Are any of his arguments effective?

b) Then, read my commentary at Things Break, Lomborg and Playing the Long Game (TB's title) or my title: "BJORN LOMBORG, Wizard of misdirection & Reincarnation of Julian Simon".
(Hoggan mentions this in the book).
I don't think I could have written that if I hadn't studied TSE earlier. But, I don't think you need to, now.

c) It can be instructive to compare someone's arguments at different points in time. So, here's a different recommendation, which relates to Climate Cover-UP. Read Fred Singer's old "Hot Talk, Cold Science" and then the later Avery/Signer "Unstoppable Global Warming" and do an A/B comparison to see what changes and what doesn't.

Oops, if I'd written the Climate Cover-Up review a day later, I might have added a comment on the combination of ideology/politics and financial interests described there, noting the narrowness thereof, and by contrast quoting Pacific Gas & Electric's CEO Peter Darbee from yesterday, explaining why PG&E has just quit the US Chamber of Congress:

(boldface mine).

"We find it dismaying that the Chamber neglects the indisputable fact that a decisive majority of experts have said the data on global warming are compelling and point to a threat that cannot be ignored. In our opinion, an intellectually honest argument over the best policy response to the challenges of climate change is one thing; disingenuous attempts to diminish or distort the reality of these challenges are quite another."

Now, that's a strong, succinct statement from a serious businessman who considers himself a conservative. But, he took the trouble to learn from experts, and is a relentless campaigner for efficiency.

re: 53 Jeff
Regarding reasons for anti-science, I use a tentative catalog of such, evolved from an old post here, but currently:

R Attributes: Reasons for Anti-Science, and then that's condensed and combined in OBR Map.

Since you actually have had contact with him, maybe you'd comment on this analysis:

On that chart, he'd fit line B2 (technical/professional, which includes economists and other folks who at least usually know some statistics).

The plausible reasons might well be, in order that they occurred:

PSY7: Ambiguity-intolerant, all-or-none thinking. I've seen examples where people had strong beliefs at one extreme, had them punctured, and flipped all the way to the other extreme, and this seems to have fit him, if Kare Fog's description of background is correct.

PSY3: Contrarian gets attention, helps career. As far as I can tell, he wasn't exactly having a notable academic career. I speculate that this was the big one.

PSY5: High-bar, low-bar (as you describe).

and then added:
IDE2, or even IDE1: Ideology.

and of course, given that:

FIN3:financial

Certainly, as noted in Lomborg and Playing the Long Game, the usual thinktanks and political parties like him, so he works well with groups O6 and O7 on OBR Flow, with the organizations described in O Categories.

Does that fit? Any missing?

Back to the original topic?

The book now has 1 5-star review and and 1 1-star review.

Marion:
I don't expect to "win" ratings; I just hope that a decent book gets at least a handful of decent reviews,so that thoughtful people have something useful to look at.

Also, an author may occasionally read reviews, and someone who writes something good deserves support from those of us who appreciate it, even if we couldn't write it ourselves.

Likewise, awful books should get at least a few awful reviews, although that can be harder, since one may have to buy something awful :-)

Of course, we all know that certain classes of books get bimodal reviews, mostly 5s and 1s...

> [With apologies to Spot, and to Dick and Jane.]

And "Where's My Cow"...

[Wow](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/09/john_mashey_recommends_climate…).

Oops, what an oversight!

Yes, also apologies to "Where's my Cow". Mostly apologies to "Where's my Cow?" Only a year late!

No apologies though for bagging a fruit-loop. And speaking of fruitloops, why is this particular thread attracting advertisments for junk sites? Can they be delinked?

>why is this particular thread attracting advertisments for junk sites? Can they be delinked?

Just one that I could see. It's been marked as spam.

re: 1 David on Lomborg's TSE & Amazon ratings
Thanks for the kind words. You aren't the first to wonder about that :-)

1) A unidimensional rating scheme is a blunt instrument.

A 1-star rating can clearly mean "don't bother".

But a 5-star rating can be ambiguous. If you compare the writing style of my 5-star TSE rating and that of Climate Cover-Up, see if you can tell which is which:

a) This is great, buy it and read it!

b) This will be widely-read and perhaps influential, even if it turns out to be junk, so read it *very* carefully, and you probably should, if only to understand the nature of the arguments.

I wrote that review having done one pass over TSE, but not yet having done the next month's excruciating process of chasing down references, comparing charts, etc, which actually drastically improved my knowledge of many topics, and of course, usually didn't really support Lomborg.

I did think that some of the quick responses to TSE were not as effective as they might have been, and unfortunately sometimes came off as kneejerk responses. Given that review, I can honestly say I gave TSE every possible chance, akin to following John Daly's "Waiting for Greenhouse". In both cases, I learned a lot about the specific cherry-picking examples in this turf.

2) As for reading TSE now, do so only if you really want to dig deep into Lomborgism, but if you do, first read Julian Simon's "Ultimate Resource 2", which after all seems the inspiration for TSE.

3) At this point, unless you're really a glutton for this, I'd:

a) Read Cool It! which is a lot shorter, and more typical of Lomborg's current approaches, as he's moved on. See what you think. Are any of his arguments effective?

b) Then, read my commentary at Things Break, Lomborg and Playing the Long Game (TB's title) or my title: "BJORN LOMBORG, Wizard of misdirection & Reincarnation of Julian Simon".
(Hoggan mentions this in the book).
I don't think I could have written that if I hadn't studied TSE earlier. But, I don't think you need to, now.

c) It can be instructive to compare someone's arguments at different points in time. So, here's a different recommendation, which relates to Climate Cover-UP. Read Fred Singer's old "Hot Talk, Cold Science" and then the later Avery/Signer "Unstoppable Global Warming" and do an A/B comparison to see what changes and what doesn't.

Oops, if I'd written the Climate Cover-Up review a day later, I might have added a comment on the combination of ideology/politics and financial interests described there, noting the narrowness thereof, and by contrast quoting Pacific Gas & Electric's CEO Peter Darbee from yesterday, explaining why PG&E has just quit the US Chamber of Congress:

(boldface mine).

"We find it dismaying that the Chamber neglects the indisputable fact that a decisive majority of experts have said the data on global warming are compelling and point to a threat that cannot be ignored. In our opinion, an intellectually honest argument over the best policy response to the challenges of climate change is one thing; disingenuous attempts to diminish or distort the reality of these challenges are quite another."

Now, that's a strong, succinct statement from a serious businessman who considers himself a conservative. But, he took the trouble to learn from experts, and is a relentless campaigner for efficiency.

re: 53 Jeff
Regarding reasons for anti-science, I use a tentative catalog of such, evolved from an old post here, but currently:

R Attributes: Reasons for Anti-Science, and then that's condensed and combined in OBR Map.

Since you actually have had contact with him, maybe you'd comment on this analysis:

On that chart, he'd fit line B2 (technical/professional, which includes economists and other folks who at least usually know some statistics).

The plausible reasons might well be, in order that they occurred:

PSY7: Ambiguity-intolerant, all-or-none thinking. I've seen examples where people had strong beliefs at one extreme, had them punctured, and flipped all the way to the other extreme, and this seems to have fit him, if Kare Fog's description of background is correct.

PSY3: Contrarian gets attention, helps career. As far as I can tell, he wasn't exactly having a notable academic career. I speculate that this was the big one.

PSY5: High-bar, low-bar (as you describe).

and then added:
IDE2, or even IDE1: Ideology.

and of course, given that:

FIN3:financial

Certainly, as noted in Lomborg and Playing the Long Game, the usual thinktanks and political parties like him, so he works well with groups O6 and O7 on OBR Flow, with the organizations described in O Categories.

Does that fit? Any missing?

Back to the original topic?

The book now has 1 5-star review and and 1 1-star review.

Marion:
I don't expect to "win" ratings; I just hope that a decent book gets at least a handful of decent reviews,so that thoughtful people have something useful to look at.

Also, an author may occasionally read reviews, and someone who writes something good deserves support from those of us who appreciate it, even if we couldn't write it ourselves.

Likewise, awful books should get at least a few awful reviews, although that can be harder, since one may have to buy something awful :-)

Of course, we all know that certain classes of books get bimodal reviews, mostly 5s and 1s...

re: 1 David on Lomborg's TSE & Amazon ratings
Thanks for the kind words. You aren't the first to wonder about that :-)

1) A unidimensional rating scheme is a blunt instrument.

A 1-star rating can clearly mean "don't bother".

But a 5-star rating can be ambiguous. If you compare the writing style of my 5-star TSE rating and that of Climate Cover-Up, see if you can tell which is which:

a) This is great, buy it and read it!

b) This will be widely-read and perhaps influential, even if it turns out to be junk, so read it *very* carefully, and you probably should, if only to understand the nature of the arguments.

I wrote that review having done one pass over TSE, but not yet having done the next month's excruciating process of chasing down references, comparing charts, etc, which actually drastically improved my knowledge of many topics, and of course, usually didn't really support Lomborg.

I did think that some of the quick responses to TSE were not as effective as they might have been, and unfortunately sometimes came off as kneejerk responses. Given that review, I can honestly say I gave TSE every possible chance, akin to following John Daly's "Waiting for Greenhouse". In both cases, I learned a lot about the specific cherry-picking examples in this turf.

2) As for reading TSE now, do so only if you really want to dig deep into Lomborgism, but if you do, first read Julian Simon's "Ultimate Resource 2", which after all seems the inspiration for TSE.

3) At this point, unless you're really a glutton for this, I'd:

a) Read Cool It! which is a lot shorter, and more typical of Lomborg's current approaches, as he's moved on. See what you think. Are any of his arguments effective?

b) Then, read my commentary at Things Break, Lomborg and Playing the Long Game (TB's title) or my title: "BJORN LOMBORG, Wizard of misdirection & Reincarnation of Julian Simon".
(Hoggan mentions this in the book).
I don't think I could have written that if I hadn't studied TSE earlier. But, I don't think you need to, now.

c) It can be instructive to compare someone's arguments at different points in time. So, here's a different recommendation, which relates to Climate Cover-UP. Read Fred Singer's old "Hot Talk, Cold Science" and then the later Avery/Signer "Unstoppable Global Warming" and do an A/B comparison to see what changes and what doesn't.

Oops, if I'd written the Climate Cover-Up review a day later, I might have added a comment on the combination of ideology/politics and financial interests described there, noting the narrowness thereof, and by contrast quoting Pacific Gas & Electric's CEO Peter Darbee from yesterday, explaining why PG&E has just quit the US Chamber of Congress:

(boldface mine).

"We find it dismaying that the Chamber neglects the indisputable fact that a decisive majority of experts have said the data on global warming are compelling and point to a threat that cannot be ignored. In our opinion, an intellectually honest argument over the best policy response to the challenges of climate change is one thing; disingenuous attempts to diminish or distort the reality of these challenges are quite another."

Now, that's a strong, succinct statement from a serious businessman who considers himself a conservative. But, he took the trouble to learn from experts, and is a relentless campaigner for efficiency.

re: 53 Jeff
Regarding reasons for anti-science, I use a tentative catalog of such, evolved from an old post here, but currently:

R Attributes: Reasons for Anti-Science, and then that's condensed and combined in OBR Map.

Since you actually have had contact with him, maybe you'd comment on this analysis:

On that chart, he'd fit line B2 (technical/professional, which includes economists and other folks who at least usually know some statistics).

The plausible reasons might well be, in order that they occurred:

PSY7: Ambiguity-intolerant, all-or-none thinking. I've seen examples where people had strong beliefs at one extreme, had them punctured, and flipped all the way to the other extreme, and this seems to have fit him, if Kare Fog's description of background is correct.

PSY3: Contrarian gets attention, helps career. As far as I can tell, he wasn't exactly having a notable academic career. I speculate that this was the big one.

PSY5: High-bar, low-bar (as you describe).

and then added:
IDE2, or even IDE1: Ideology.

and of course, given that:

FIN3:financial

Certainly, as noted in Lomborg and Playing the Long Game, the usual thinktanks and political parties like him, so he works well with groups O6 and O7 on OBR Flow, with the organizations described in O Categories.

Does that fit? Any missing?

Back to the original topic?

The book now has 1 5-star review and and 1 1-star review.

Marion:
I don't expect to "win" ratings; I just hope that a decent book gets at least a handful of decent reviews,so that thoughtful people have something useful to look at.

Also, an author may occasionally read reviews, and someone who writes something good deserves support from those of us who appreciate it, even if we couldn't write it ourselves.

Likewise, awful books should get at least a few awful reviews, although that can be harder, since one may have to buy something awful :-)

Of course, we all know that certain classes of books get bimodal reviews, mostly 5s and 1s...

re: 1 David on Lomborg's TSE & Amazon ratings
Thanks for the kind words. You aren't the first to wonder about that :-)

1) A unidimensional rating scheme is a blunt instrument.

A 1-star rating can clearly mean "don't bother".

But a 5-star rating can be ambiguous. If you compare the writing style of my 5-star TSE rating and that of Climate Cover-Up, see if you can tell which is which:

a) This is great, buy it and read it!

b) This will be widely-read and perhaps influential, even if it turns out to be junk, so read it *very* carefully, and you probably should, if only to understand the nature of the arguments.

I wrote that review having done one pass over TSE, but not yet having done the next month's excruciating process of chasing down references, comparing charts, etc, which actually drastically improved my knowledge of many topics, and of course, usually didn't really support Lomborg.

I did think that some of the quick responses to TSE were not as effective as they might have been, and unfortunately sometimes came off as kneejerk responses. Given that review, I can honestly say I gave TSE every possible chance, akin to following John Daly's "Waiting for Greenhouse". In both cases, I learned a lot about the specific cherry-picking examples in this turf.

2) As for reading TSE now, do so only if you really want to dig deep into Lomborgism, but if you do, first read Julian Simon's "Ultimate Resource 2", which after all seems the inspiration for TSE.

3) At this point, unless you're really a glutton for this, I'd:

a) Read Cool It! which is a lot shorter, and more typical of Lomborg's current approaches, as he's moved on. See what you think. Are any of his arguments effective?

b) Then, read my commentary at Things Break, Lomborg and Playing the Long Game (TB's title) or my title: "BJORN LOMBORG, Wizard of misdirection & Reincarnation of Julian Simon".
(Hoggan mentions this in the book).
I don't think I could have written that if I hadn't studied TSE earlier. But, I don't think you need to, now.

c) It can be instructive to compare someone's arguments at different points in time. So, here's a different recommendation, which relates to Climate Cover-UP. Read Fred Singer's old "Hot Talk, Cold Science" and then the later Avery/Signer "Unstoppable Global Warming" and do an A/B comparison to see what changes and what doesn't.

Oops, if I'd written the Climate Cover-Up review a day later, I might have added a comment on the combination of ideology/politics and financial interests described there, noting the narrowness thereof, and by contrast quoting Pacific Gas & Electric's CEO Peter Darbee from yesterday, explaining why PG&E has just quit the US Chamber of Congress:

(boldface mine).

"We find it dismaying that the Chamber neglects the indisputable fact that a decisive majority of experts have said the data on global warming are compelling and point to a threat that cannot be ignored. In our opinion, an intellectually honest argument over the best policy response to the challenges of climate change is one thing; disingenuous attempts to diminish or distort the reality of these challenges are quite another."

Now, that's a strong, succinct statement from a serious businessman who considers himself a conservative. But, he took the trouble to learn from experts, and is a relentless campaigner for efficiency.

re: 53 Jeff
Regarding reasons for anti-science, I use a tentative catalog of such, evolved from an old post here, but currently:

R Attributes: Reasons for Anti-Science, and then that's condensed and combined in OBR Map.

Since you actually have had contact with him, maybe you'd comment on this analysis:

On that chart, he'd fit line B2 (technical/professional, which includes economists and other folks who at least usually know some statistics).

The plausible reasons might well be, in order that they occurred:

PSY7: Ambiguity-intolerant, all-or-none thinking. I've seen examples where people had strong beliefs at one extreme, had them punctured, and flipped all the way to the other extreme, and this seems to have fit him, if Kare Fog's description of background is correct.

PSY3: Contrarian gets attention, helps career. As far as I can tell, he wasn't exactly having a notable academic career. I speculate that this was the big one.

PSY5: High-bar, low-bar (as you describe).

and then added:
IDE2, or even IDE1: Ideology.

and of course, given that:

FIN3:financial

Certainly, as noted in Lomborg and Playing the Long Game, the usual thinktanks and political parties like him, so he works well with groups O6 and O7 on OBR Flow, with the organizations described in O Categories.

Does that fit? Any missing?

Back to the original topic?

The book now has 1 5-star review and and 1 1-star review.

Marion:
I don't expect to "win" ratings; I just hope that a decent book gets at least a handful of decent reviews,so that thoughtful people have something useful to look at.

Also, an author may occasionally read reviews, and someone who writes something good deserves support from those of us who appreciate it, even if we couldn't write it ourselves.

Likewise, awful books should get at least a few awful reviews, although that can be harder, since one may have to buy something awful :-)

Of course, we all know that certain classes of books get bimodal reviews, mostly 5s and 1s...

Sometimes we talk about this in our Christian service network. We deal a lot with natural disasters and clean up so, logically, we discuss the reasons behind them. We come up with the conclusion of God mostly, but there have been discussions of global warming.

re: 1 David on Lomborg's TSE & Amazon ratings
Thanks for the kind words. You aren't the first to wonder about that :-)

1) A unidimensional rating scheme is a blunt instrument.

A 1-star rating can clearly mean "don't bother".

But a 5-star rating can be ambiguous. If you compare the writing style of my 5-star TSE rating and that of Climate Cover-Up, see if you can tell which is which:

a) This is great, buy it and read it!

b) This will be widely-read and perhaps influential, even if it turns out to be junk, so read it *very* carefully, and you probably should, if only to understand the nature of the arguments.

I wrote that review having done one pass over TSE, but not yet having done the next month's excruciating process of chasing down references, comparing charts, etc, which actually drastically improved my knowledge of many topics, and of course, usually didn't really support Lomborg.

I did think that some of the quick responses to TSE were not as effective as they might have been, and unfortunately sometimes came off as kneejerk responses. Given that review, I can honestly say I gave TSE every possible chance, akin to following John Daly's "Waiting for Greenhouse". In both cases, I learned a lot about the specific cherry-picking examples in this turf.

2) As for reading TSE now, do so only if you really want to dig deep into Lomborgism, but if you do, first read Julian Simon's "Ultimate Resource 2", which after all seems the inspiration for TSE.

3) At this point, unless you're really a glutton for this, I'd:

a) Read Cool It! which is a lot shorter, and more typical of Lomborg's current approaches, as he's moved on. See what you think. Are any of his arguments effective?

b) Then, read my commentary at Things Break, Lomborg and Playing the Long Game (TB's title) or my title: "BJORN LOMBORG, Wizard of misdirection & Reincarnation of Julian Simon".
(Hoggan mentions this in the book).
I don't think I could have written that if I hadn't studied TSE earlier. But, I don't think you need to, now.

c) It can be instructive to compare someone's arguments at different points in time. So, here's a different recommendation, which relates to Climate Cover-UP. Read Fred Singer's old "Hot Talk, Cold Science" and then the later Avery/Signer "Unstoppable Global Warming" and do an A/B comparison to see what changes and what doesn't.

Oops, if I'd written the Climate Cover-Up review a day later, I might have added a comment on the combination of ideology/politics and financial interests described there, noting the narrowness thereof, and by contrast quoting Pacific Gas & Electric's CEO Peter Darbee from yesterday, explaining why PG&E has just quit the US Chamber of Congress:

(boldface mine).

"We find it dismaying that the Chamber neglects the indisputable fact that a decisive majority of experts have said the data on global warming are compelling and point to a threat that cannot be ignored. In our opinion, an intellectually honest argument over the best policy response to the challenges of climate change is one thing; disingenuous attempts to diminish or distort the reality of these challenges are quite another."

Now, that's a strong, succinct statement from a serious businessman who considers himself a conservative. But, he took the trouble to learn from experts, and is a relentless campaigner for efficiency.

re: 53 Jeff
Regarding reasons for anti-science, I use a tentative catalog of such, evolved from an old post here, but currently:

R Attributes: Reasons for Anti-Science, and then that's condensed and combined in OBR Map.

Since you actually have had contact with him, maybe you'd comment on this analysis:

On that chart, he'd fit line B2 (technical/professional, which includes economists and other folks who at least usually know some statistics).

The plausible reasons might well be, in order that they occurred:

PSY7: Ambiguity-intolerant, all-or-none thinking. I've seen examples where people had strong beliefs at one extreme, had them punctured, and flipped all the way to the other extreme, and this seems to have fit him, if Kare Fog's description of background is correct.

PSY3: Contrarian gets attention, helps career. As far as I can tell, he wasn't exactly having a notable academic career. I speculate that this was the big one.

PSY5: High-bar, low-bar (as you describe).

and then added:
IDE2, or even IDE1: Ideology.

and of course, given that:

FIN3:financial

Certainly, as noted in Lomborg and Playing the Long Game, the usual thinktanks and political parties like him, so he works well with groups O6 and O7 on OBR Flow, with the organizations described in O Categories.

Does that fit? Any missing?

Back to the original topic?

The book now has 1 5-star review and and 1 1-star review.

Marion:
I don't expect to "win" ratings; I just hope that a decent book gets at least a handful of decent reviews,so that thoughtful people have something useful to look at.

Also, an author may occasionally read reviews, and someone who writes something good deserves support from those of us who appreciate it, even if we couldn't write it ourselves.

Likewise, awful books should get at least a few awful reviews, although that can be harder, since one may have to buy something awful :-)

Of course, we all know that certain classes of books get bimodal reviews, mostly 5s and 1s...

re: 1 David on Lomborg's TSE & Amazon ratings
Thanks for the kind words. You aren't the first to wonder about that :-)

1) A unidimensional rating scheme is a blunt instrument.

A 1-star rating can clearly mean "don't bother".

But a 5-star rating can be ambiguous. If you compare the writing style of my 5-star TSE rating and that of Climate Cover-Up, see if you can tell which is which:

a) This is great, buy it and read it!

b) This will be widely-read and perhaps influential, even if it turns out to be junk, so read it *very* carefully, and you probably should, if only to understand the nature of the arguments.

I wrote that review having done one pass over TSE, but not yet having done the next month's excruciating process of chasing down references, comparing charts, etc, which actually drastically improved my knowledge of many topics, and of course, usually didn't really support Lomborg.

I did think that some of the quick responses to TSE were not as effective as they might have been, and unfortunately sometimes came off as kneejerk responses. Given that review, I can honestly say I gave TSE every possible chance, akin to following John Daly's "Waiting for Greenhouse". In both cases, I learned a lot about the specific cherry-picking examples in this turf.

2) As for reading TSE now, do so only if you really want to dig deep into Lomborgism, but if you do, first read Julian Simon's "Ultimate Resource 2", which after all seems the inspiration for TSE.

3) At this point, unless you're really a glutton for this, I'd:

a) Read Cool It! which is a lot shorter, and more typical of Lomborg's current approaches, as he's moved on. See what you think. Are any of his arguments effective?

b) Then, read my commentary at Things Break, Lomborg and Playing the Long Game (TB's title) or my title: "BJORN LOMBORG, Wizard of misdirection & Reincarnation of Julian Simon".
(Hoggan mentions this in the book).
I don't think I could have written that if I hadn't studied TSE earlier. But, I don't think you need to, now.

c) It can be instructive to compare someone's arguments at different points in time. So, here's a different recommendation, which relates to Climate Cover-UP. Read Fred Singer's old "Hot Talk, Cold Science" and then the later Avery/Signer "Unstoppable Global Warming" and do an A/B comparison to see what changes and what doesn't.

Oops, if I'd written the Climate Cover-Up review a day later, I might have added a comment on the combination of ideology/politics and financial interests described there, noting the narrowness thereof, and by contrast quoting Pacific Gas & Electric's CEO Peter Darbee from yesterday, explaining why PG&E has just quit the US Chamber of Congress:

(boldface mine).

"We find it dismaying that the Chamber neglects the indisputable fact that a decisive majority of experts have said the data on global warming are compelling and point to a threat that cannot be ignored. In our opinion, an intellectually honest argument over the best policy response to the challenges of climate change is one thing; disingenuous attempts to diminish or distort the reality of these challenges are quite another."

Now, that's a strong, succinct statement from a serious businessman who considers himself a conservative. But, he took the trouble to learn from experts, and is a relentless campaigner for efficiency.

re: 53 Jeff
Regarding reasons for anti-science, I use a tentative catalog of such, evolved from an old post here, but currently:

R Attributes: Reasons for Anti-Science, and then that's condensed and combined in OBR Map.

Since you actually have had contact with him, maybe you'd comment on this analysis:

On that chart, he'd fit line B2 (technical/professional, which includes economists and other folks who at least usually know some statistics).

The plausible reasons might well be, in order that they occurred:

PSY7: Ambiguity-intolerant, all-or-none thinking. I've seen examples where people had strong beliefs at one extreme, had them punctured, and flipped all the way to the other extreme, and this seems to have fit him, if Kare Fog's description of background is correct.

PSY3: Contrarian gets attention, helps career. As far as I can tell, he wasn't exactly having a notable academic career. I speculate that this was the big one.

PSY5: High-bar, low-bar (as you describe).

and then added:
IDE2, or even IDE1: Ideology.

and of course, given that:

FIN3:financial

Certainly, as noted in Lomborg and Playing the Long Game, the usual thinktanks and political parties like him, so he works well with groups O6 and O7 on OBR Flow, with the organizations described in O Categories.

Does that fit? Any missing?

Back to the original topic?

The book now has 1 5-star review and and 1 1-star review.

Marion:
I don't expect to "win" ratings; I just hope that a decent book gets at least a handful of decent reviews,so that thoughtful people have something useful to look at.

Also, an author may occasionally read reviews, and someone who writes something good deserves support from those of us who appreciate it, even if we couldn't write it ourselves.

Likewise, awful books should get at least a few awful reviews, although that can be harder, since one may have to buy something awful :-)

Of course, we all know that certain classes of books get bimodal reviews, mostly 5s and 1s...

re: 1 David on Lomborg's TSE & Amazon ratings
Thanks for the kind words. You aren't the first to wonder about that :-)

1) A unidimensional rating scheme is a blunt instrument.

A 1-star rating can clearly mean "don't bother".

But a 5-star rating can be ambiguous. If you compare the writing style of my 5-star TSE rating and that of Climate Cover-Up, see if you can tell which is which:

a) This is great, buy it and read it!

b) This will be widely-read and perhaps influential, even if it turns out to be junk, so read it *very* carefully, and you probably should, if only to understand the nature of the arguments.

I wrote that review having done one pass over TSE, but not yet having done the next month's excruciating process of chasing down references, comparing charts, etc, which actually drastically improved my knowledge of many topics, and of course, usually didn't really support Lomborg.

I did think that some of the quick responses to TSE were not as effective as they might have been, and unfortunately sometimes came off as kneejerk responses. Given that review, I can honestly say I gave TSE every possible chance, akin to following John Daly's "Waiting for Greenhouse". In both cases, I learned a lot about the specific cherry-picking examples in this turf.

2) As for reading TSE now, do so only if you really want to dig deep into Lomborgism, but if you do, first read Julian Simon's "Ultimate Resource 2", which after all seems the inspiration for TSE.

3) At this point, unless you're really a glutton for this, I'd:

a) Read Cool It! which is a lot shorter, and more typical of Lomborg's current approaches, as he's moved on. See what you think. Are any of his arguments effective?

b) Then, read my commentary at Things Break, Lomborg and Playing the Long Game (TB's title) or my title: "BJORN LOMBORG, Wizard of misdirection & Reincarnation of Julian Simon".
(Hoggan mentions this in the book).
I don't think I could have written that if I hadn't studied TSE earlier. But, I don't think you need to, now.

c) It can be instructive to compare someone's arguments at different points in time. So, here's a different recommendation, which relates to Climate Cover-UP. Read Fred Singer's old "Hot Talk, Cold Science" and then the later Avery/Signer "Unstoppable Global Warming" and do an A/B comparison to see what changes and what doesn't.

Oops, if I'd written the Climate Cover-Up review a day later, I might have added a comment on the combination of ideology/politics and financial interests described there, noting the narrowness thereof, and by contrast quoting Pacific Gas & Electric's CEO Peter Darbee from yesterday, explaining why PG&E has just quit the US Chamber of Congress:

(boldface mine).

"We find it dismaying that the Chamber neglects the indisputable fact that a decisive majority of experts have said the data on global warming are compelling and point to a threat that cannot be ignored. In our opinion, an intellectually honest argument over the best policy response to the challenges of climate change is one thing; disingenuous attempts to diminish or distort the reality of these challenges are quite another."

Now, that's a strong, succinct statement from a serious businessman who considers himself a conservative. But, he took the trouble to learn from experts, and is a relentless campaigner for efficiency.

re: 53 Jeff
Regarding reasons for anti-science, I use a tentative catalog of such, evolved from an old post here, but currently:

R Attributes: Reasons for Anti-Science, and then that's condensed and combined in OBR Map.

Since you actually have had contact with him, maybe you'd comment on this analysis:

On that chart, he'd fit line B2 (technical/professional, which includes economists and other folks who at least usually know some statistics).

The plausible reasons might well be, in order that they occurred:

PSY7: Ambiguity-intolerant, all-or-none thinking. I've seen examples where people had strong beliefs at one extreme, had them punctured, and flipped all the way to the other extreme, and this seems to have fit him, if Kare Fog's description of background is correct.

PSY3: Contrarian gets attention, helps career. As far as I can tell, he wasn't exactly having a notable academic career. I speculate that this was the big one.

PSY5: High-bar, low-bar (as you describe).

and then added:
IDE2, or even IDE1: Ideology.

and of course, given that:

FIN3:financial

Certainly, as noted in Lomborg and Playing the Long Game, the usual thinktanks and political parties like him, so he works well with groups O6 and O7 on OBR Flow, with the organizations described in O Categories.

Does that fit? Any missing?

Back to the original topic?

The book now has 1 5-star review and and 1 1-star review.

Marion:
I don't expect to "win" ratings; I just hope that a decent book gets at least a handful of decent reviews,so that thoughtful people have something useful to look at.

Also, an author may occasionally read reviews, and someone who writes something good deserves support from those of us who appreciate it, even if we couldn't write it ourselves.

Likewise, awful books should get at least a few awful reviews, although that can be harder, since one may have to buy something awful :-)

Of course, we all know that certain classes of books get bimodal reviews, mostly 5s and 1s...

re: 1 David on Lomborg's TSE & Amazon ratings
Thanks for the kind words. You aren't the first to wonder about that :-)

1) A unidimensional rating scheme is a blunt instrument.

A 1-star rating can clearly mean "don't bother".

But a 5-star rating can be ambiguous. If you compare the writing style of my 5-star TSE rating and that of Climate Cover-Up, see if you can tell which is which:

a) This is great, buy it and read it!

b) This will be widely-read and perhaps influential, even if it turns out to be junk, so read it *very* carefully, and you probably should, if only to understand the nature of the arguments.

I wrote that review having done one pass over TSE, but not yet having done the next month's excruciating process of chasing down references, comparing charts, etc, which actually drastically improved my knowledge of many topics, and of course, usually didn't really support Lomborg.

I did think that some of the quick responses to TSE were not as effective as they might have been, and unfortunately sometimes came off as kneejerk responses. Given that review, I can honestly say I gave TSE every possible chance, akin to following John Daly's "Waiting for Greenhouse". In both cases, I learned a lot about the specific cherry-picking examples in this turf.

2) As for reading TSE now, do so only if you really want to dig deep into Lomborgism, but if you do, first read Julian Simon's "Ultimate Resource 2", which after all seems the inspiration for TSE.

3) At this point, unless you're really a glutton for this, I'd:

a) Read Cool It! which is a lot shorter, and more typical of Lomborg's current approaches, as he's moved on. See what you think. Are any of his arguments effective?

b) Then, read my commentary at Things Break, Lomborg and Playing the Long Game (TB's title) or my title: "BJORN LOMBORG, Wizard of misdirection & Reincarnation of Julian Simon".
(Hoggan mentions this in the book).
I don't think I could have written that if I hadn't studied TSE earlier. But, I don't think you need to, now.

c) It can be instructive to compare someone's arguments at different points in time. So, here's a different recommendation, which relates to Climate Cover-UP. Read Fred Singer's old "Hot Talk, Cold Science" and then the later Avery/Signer "Unstoppable Global Warming" and do an A/B comparison to see what changes and what doesn't.

Oops, if I'd written the Climate Cover-Up review a day later, I might have added a comment on the combination of ideology/politics and financial interests described there, noting the narrowness thereof, and by contrast quoting Pacific Gas & Electric's CEO Peter Darbee from yesterday, explaining why PG&E has just quit the US Chamber of Congress:

(boldface mine).

"We find it dismaying that the Chamber neglects the indisputable fact that a decisive majority of experts have said the data on global warming are compelling and point to a threat that cannot be ignored. In our opinion, an intellectually honest argument over the best policy response to the challenges of climate change is one thing; disingenuous attempts to diminish or distort the reality of these challenges are quite another."

Now, that's a strong, succinct statement from a serious businessman who considers himself a conservative. But, he took the trouble to learn from experts, and is a relentless campaigner for efficiency.

re: 53 Jeff
Regarding reasons for anti-science, I use a tentative catalog of such, evolved from an old post here, but currently:

R Attributes: Reasons for Anti-Science, and then that's condensed and combined in OBR Map.

Since you actually have had contact with him, maybe you'd comment on this analysis:

On that chart, he'd fit line B2 (technical/professional, which includes economists and other folks who at least usually know some statistics).

The plausible reasons might well be, in order that they occurred:

PSY7: Ambiguity-intolerant, all-or-none thinking. I've seen examples where people had strong beliefs at one extreme, had them punctured, and flipped all the way to the other extreme, and this seems to have fit him, if Kare Fog's description of background is correct.

PSY3: Contrarian gets attention, helps career. As far as I can tell, he wasn't exactly having a notable academic career. I speculate that this was the big one.

PSY5: High-bar, low-bar (as you describe).

and then added:
IDE2, or even IDE1: Ideology.

and of course, given that:

FIN3:financial

Certainly, as noted in Lomborg and Playing the Long Game, the usual thinktanks and political parties like him, so he works well with groups O6 and O7 on OBR Flow, with the organizations described in O Categories.

Does that fit? Any missing?

Back to the original topic?

The book now has 1 5-star review and and 1 1-star review.

Marion:
I don't expect to "win" ratings; I just hope that a decent book gets at least a handful of decent reviews,so that thoughtful people have something useful to look at.

Also, an author may occasionally read reviews, and someone who writes something good deserves support from those of us who appreciate it, even if we couldn't write it ourselves.

Likewise, awful books should get at least a few awful reviews, although that can be harder, since one may have to buy something awful :-)

Of course, we all know that certain classes of books get bimodal reviews, mostly 5s and 1s...

re: 1 David on Lomborg's TSE & Amazon ratings
Thanks for the kind words. You aren't the first to wonder about that :-)

1) A unidimensional rating scheme is a blunt instrument.

A 1-star rating can clearly mean "don't bother".

But a 5-star rating can be ambiguous. If you compare the writing style of my 5-star TSE rating and that of Climate Cover-Up, see if you can tell which is which:

a) This is great, buy it and read it!

b) This will be widely-read and perhaps influential, even if it turns out to be junk, so read it *very* carefully, and you probably should, if only to understand the nature of the arguments.

I wrote that review having done one pass over TSE, but not yet having done the next month's excruciating process of chasing down references, comparing charts, etc, which actually drastically improved my knowledge of many topics, and of course, usually didn't really support Lomborg.

I did think that some of the quick responses to TSE were not as effective as they might have been, and unfortunately sometimes came off as kneejerk responses. Given that review, I can honestly say I gave TSE every possible chance, akin to following John Daly's "Waiting for Greenhouse". In both cases, I learned a lot about the specific cherry-picking examples in this turf.

2) As for reading TSE now, do so only if you really want to dig deep into Lomborgism, but if you do, first read Julian Simon's "Ultimate Resource 2", which after all seems the inspiration for TSE.

3) At this point, unless you're really a glutton for this, I'd:

a) Read Cool It! which is a lot shorter, and more typical of Lomborg's current approaches, as he's moved on. See what you think. Are any of his arguments effective?

b) Then, read my commentary at Things Break, Lomborg and Playing the Long Game (TB's title) or my title: "BJORN LOMBORG, Wizard of misdirection & Reincarnation of Julian Simon".
(Hoggan mentions this in the book).
I don't think I could have written that if I hadn't studied TSE earlier. But, I don't think you need to, now.

c) It can be instructive to compare someone's arguments at different points in time. So, here's a different recommendation, which relates to Climate Cover-UP. Read Fred Singer's old "Hot Talk, Cold Science" and then the later Avery/Signer "Unstoppable Global Warming" and do an A/B comparison to see what changes and what doesn't.

Oops, if I'd written the Climate Cover-Up review a day later, I might have added a comment on the combination of ideology/politics and financial interests described there, noting the narrowness thereof, and by contrast quoting Pacific Gas & Electric's CEO Peter Darbee from yesterday, explaining why PG&E has just quit the US Chamber of Congress:

(boldface mine).

"We find it dismaying that the Chamber neglects the indisputable fact that a decisive majority of experts have said the data on global warming are compelling and point to a threat that cannot be ignored. In our opinion, an intellectually honest argument over the best policy response to the challenges of climate change is one thing; disingenuous attempts to diminish or distort the reality of these challenges are quite another."

Now, that's a strong, succinct statement from a serious businessman who considers himself a conservative. But, he took the trouble to learn from experts, and is a relentless campaigner for efficiency.

re: 53 Jeff
Regarding reasons for anti-science, I use a tentative catalog of such, evolved from an old post here, but currently:

R Attributes: Reasons for Anti-Science, and then that's condensed and combined in OBR Map.

Since you actually have had contact with him, maybe you'd comment on this analysis:

On that chart, he'd fit line B2 (technical/professional, which includes economists and other folks who at least usually know some statistics).

The plausible reasons might well be, in order that they occurred:

PSY7: Ambiguity-intolerant, all-or-none thinking. I've seen examples where people had strong beliefs at one extreme, had them punctured, and flipped all the way to the other extreme, and this seems to have fit him, if Kare Fog's description of background is correct.

PSY3: Contrarian gets attention, helps career. As far as I can tell, he wasn't exactly having a notable academic career. I speculate that this was the big one.

PSY5: High-bar, low-bar (as you describe).

and then added:
IDE2, or even IDE1: Ideology.

and of course, given that:

FIN3:financial

Certainly, as noted in Lomborg and Playing the Long Game, the usual thinktanks and political parties like him, so he works well with groups O6 and O7 on OBR Flow, with the organizations described in O Categories.

Does that fit? Any missing?

Back to the original topic?

The book now has 1 5-star review and and 1 1-star review.

Marion:
I don't expect to "win" ratings; I just hope that a decent book gets at least a handful of decent reviews,so that thoughtful people have something useful to look at.

Also, an author may occasionally read reviews, and someone who writes something good deserves support from those of us who appreciate it, even if we couldn't write it ourselves.

Likewise, awful books should get at least a few awful reviews, although that can be harder, since one may have to buy something awful :-)

Of course, we all know that certain classes of books get bimodal reviews, mostly 5s and 1s...

re: 1 David on Lomborg's TSE & Amazon ratings
Thanks for the kind words. You aren't the first to wonder about that :-)

1) A unidimensional rating scheme is a blunt instrument.

A 1-star rating can clearly mean "don't bother".

But a 5-star rating can be ambiguous. If you compare the writing style of my 5-star TSE rating and that of Climate Cover-Up, see if you can tell which is which:

a) This is great, buy it and read it!

b) This will be widely-read and perhaps influential, even if it turns out to be junk, so read it *very* carefully, and you probably should, if only to understand the nature of the arguments.

I wrote that review having done one pass over TSE, but not yet having done the next month's excruciating process of chasing down references, comparing charts, etc, which actually drastically improved my knowledge of many topics, and of course, usually didn't really support Lomborg.

I did think that some of the quick responses to TSE were not as effective as they might have been, and unfortunately sometimes came off as kneejerk responses. Given that review, I can honestly say I gave TSE every possible chance, akin to following John Daly's "Waiting for Greenhouse". In both cases, I learned a lot about the specific cherry-picking examples in this turf.

2) As for reading TSE now, do so only if you really want to dig deep into Lomborgism, but if you do, first read Julian Simon's "Ultimate Resource 2", which after all seems the inspiration for TSE.

3) At this point, unless you're really a glutton for this, I'd:

a) Read Cool It! which is a lot shorter, and more typical of Lomborg's current approaches, as he's moved on. See what you think. Are any of his arguments effective?

b) Then, read my commentary at Things Break, Lomborg and Playing the Long Game (TB's title) or my title: "BJORN LOMBORG, Wizard of misdirection & Reincarnation of Julian Simon".
(Hoggan mentions this in the book).
I don't think I could have written that if I hadn't studied TSE earlier. But, I don't think you need to, now.

c) It can be instructive to compare someone's arguments at different points in time. So, here's a different recommendation, which relates to Climate Cover-UP. Read Fred Singer's old "Hot Talk, Cold Science" and then the later Avery/Signer "Unstoppable Global Warming" and do an A/B comparison to see what changes and what doesn't.

Oops, if I'd written the Climate Cover-Up review a day later, I might have added a comment on the combination of ideology/politics and financial interests described there, noting the narrowness thereof, and by contrast quoting Pacific Gas & Electric's CEO Peter Darbee from yesterday, explaining why PG&E has just quit the US Chamber of Congress:

(boldface mine).

"We find it dismaying that the Chamber neglects the indisputable fact that a decisive majority of experts have said the data on global warming are compelling and point to a threat that cannot be ignored. In our opinion, an intellectually honest argument over the best policy response to the challenges of climate change is one thing; disingenuous attempts to diminish or distort the reality of these challenges are quite another."

Now, that's a strong, succinct statement from a serious businessman who considers himself a conservative. But, he took the trouble to learn from experts, and is a relentless campaigner for efficiency.

re: 53 Jeff
Regarding reasons for anti-science, I use a tentative catalog of such, evolved from an old post here, but currently:

R Attributes: Reasons for Anti-Science, and then that's condensed and combined in OBR Map.

Since you actually have had contact with him, maybe you'd comment on this analysis:

On that chart, he'd fit line B2 (technical/professional, which includes economists and other folks who at least usually know some statistics).

The plausible reasons might well be, in order that they occurred:

PSY7: Ambiguity-intolerant, all-or-none thinking. I've seen examples where people had strong beliefs at one extreme, had them punctured, and flipped all the way to the other extreme, and this seems to have fit him, if Kare Fog's description of background is correct.

PSY3: Contrarian gets attention, helps career. As far as I can tell, he wasn't exactly having a notable academic career. I speculate that this was the big one.

PSY5: High-bar, low-bar (as you describe).

and then added:
IDE2, or even IDE1: Ideology.

and of course, given that:

FIN3:financial

Certainly, as noted in Lomborg and Playing the Long Game, the usual thinktanks and political parties like him, so he works well with groups O6 and O7 on OBR Flow, with the organizations described in O Categories.

Does that fit? Any missing?

Back to the original topic?

The book now has 1 5-star review and and 1 1-star review.

Marion:
I don't expect to "win" ratings; I just hope that a decent book gets at least a handful of decent reviews,so that thoughtful people have something useful to look at.

Also, an author may occasionally read reviews, and someone who writes something good deserves support from those of us who appreciate it, even if we couldn't write it ourselves.

Likewise, awful books should get at least a few awful reviews, although that can be harder, since one may have to buy something awful :-)

Of course, we all know that certain classes of books get bimodal reviews, mostly 5s and 1s...

re: 1 David on Lomborg's TSE & Amazon ratings
Thanks for the kind words. You aren't the first to wonder about that :-)

1) A unidimensional rating scheme is a blunt instrument.

A 1-star rating can clearly mean "don't bother".

But a 5-star rating can be ambiguous. If you compare the writing style of my 5-star TSE rating and that of Climate Cover-Up, see if you can tell which is which:

a) This is great, buy it and read it!

b) This will be widely-read and perhaps influential, even if it turns out to be junk, so read it *very* carefully, and you probably should, if only to understand the nature of the arguments.

I wrote that review having done one pass over TSE, but not yet having done the next month's excruciating process of chasing down references, comparing charts, etc, which actually drastically improved my knowledge of many topics, and of course, usually didn't really support Lomborg.

I did think that some of the quick responses to TSE were not as effective as they might have been, and unfortunately sometimes came off as kneejerk responses. Given that review, I can honestly say I gave TSE every possible chance, akin to following John Daly's "Waiting for Greenhouse". In both cases, I learned a lot about the specific cherry-picking examples in this turf.

2) As for reading TSE now, do so only if you really want to dig deep into Lomborgism, but if you do, first read Julian Simon's "Ultimate Resource 2", which after all seems the inspiration for TSE.

3) At this point, unless you're really a glutton for this, I'd:

a) Read Cool It! which is a lot shorter, and more typical of Lomborg's current approaches, as he's moved on. See what you think. Are any of his arguments effective?

b) Then, read my commentary at Things Break, Lomborg and Playing the Long Game (TB's title) or my title: "BJORN LOMBORG, Wizard of misdirection & Reincarnation of Julian Simon".
(Hoggan mentions this in the book).
I don't think I could have written that if I hadn't studied TSE earlier. But, I don't think you need to, now.

c) It can be instructive to compare someone's arguments at different points in time. So, here's a different recommendation, which relates to Climate Cover-UP. Read Fred Singer's old "Hot Talk, Cold Science" and then the later Avery/Signer "Unstoppable Global Warming" and do an A/B comparison to see what changes and what doesn't.

Oops, if I'd written the Climate Cover-Up review a day later, I might have added a comment on the combination of ideology/politics and financial interests described there, noting the narrowness thereof, and by contrast quoting Pacific Gas & Electric's CEO Peter Darbee from yesterday, explaining why PG&E has just quit the US Chamber of Congress:

(boldface mine).

"We find it dismaying that the Chamber neglects the indisputable fact that a decisive majority of experts have said the data on global warming are compelling and point to a threat that cannot be ignored. In our opinion, an intellectually honest argument over the best policy response to the challenges of climate change is one thing; disingenuous attempts to diminish or distort the reality of these challenges are quite another."

Now, that's a strong, succinct statement from a serious businessman who considers himself a conservative. But, he took the trouble to learn from experts, and is a relentless campaigner for efficiency.

re: 53 Jeff
Regarding reasons for anti-science, I use a tentative catalog of such, evolved from an old post here, but currently:

R Attributes: Reasons for Anti-Science, and then that's condensed and combined in OBR Map.

Since you actually have had contact with him, maybe you'd comment on this analysis:

On that chart, he'd fit line B2 (technical/professional, which includes economists and other folks who at least usually know some statistics).

The plausible reasons might well be, in order that they occurred:

PSY7: Ambiguity-intolerant, all-or-none thinking. I've seen examples where people had strong beliefs at one extreme, had them punctured, and flipped all the way to the other extreme, and this seems to have fit him, if Kare Fog's description of background is correct.

PSY3: Contrarian gets attention, helps career. As far as I can tell, he wasn't exactly having a notable academic career. I speculate that this was the big one.

PSY5: High-bar, low-bar (as you describe).

and then added:
IDE2, or even IDE1: Ideology.

and of course, given that:

FIN3:financial

Certainly, as noted in Lomborg and Playing the Long Game, the usual thinktanks and political parties like him, so he works well with groups O6 and O7 on OBR Flow, with the organizations described in O Categories.

Does that fit? Any missing?

Back to the original topic?

The book now has 1 5-star review and and 1 1-star review.

Marion:
I don't expect to "win" ratings; I just hope that a decent book gets at least a handful of decent reviews,so that thoughtful people have something useful to look at.

Also, an author may occasionally read reviews, and someone who writes something good deserves support from those of us who appreciate it, even if we couldn't write it ourselves.

Likewise, awful books should get at least a few awful reviews, although that can be harder, since one may have to buy something awful :-)

Of course, we all know that certain classes of books get bimodal reviews, mostly 5s and 1s...