Last week, "The Skeptical Environmentalist" BjÃ¸rn Lomborg announced that he was skeptical no more. Timed with the release of his new book "Smart Solutions to Climate Change: Comparing Costs and Benefits" Lomborg now says that the world needs an investment of $100 Billion a year to fight global warming. Lomborg denies this is a total reversal of his position, considering he never denied the reality of climate change, just the severity of its impacts and cost-effectiveness of attempts to mitigate it. Nevertheless, Lomborg's switching sides has made headlines, though Class M's James Hrynyshyn wonders if someone who has gotten the science of climate change spectacularly wrong in the past will be a useful ally. To get a sense of Lomborg's original position, check out these two posts from 2009 that appeared on the earlier incarnation of James' blog: The Island of Doubt.
Class MAugust 31, 2010
"Much is being and will be written about Bjorn Lomborg's volte face on climate change. After a decade of denial -- not of the reality of anthropogenic warming, but of the threat it poses to civiliation -- the Skeptical Environmentalist now says: 'If we care about the environment and about leaving this planet and its inhabitants with the best possible future, we actually have only one option: we all need to start seriously focusing, right now, on the most effective ways to fix global warming.'"
The Island of DoubtNovember 4, 2009
"(Pseudo)-Skeptical Environmental Bjorn Lomborg advises in the Wall Street Journal that spending money on anti-malarial campaigns makes more sense than, and by implication is morally superior to, spending money on cutting carbon emissions"
The Island of DoubtMarch 11, 2009
"There's a good reason why of all the consequences of anthropogenic global warming, nothing garners as much attention as sea level rise -- with the possible exception of those darn charismatic polar bears, that is."
Thanks for this post, Isis. I really appreciate the criticisms. It only makes the site better! I also didn't mean for it to sound like there wasn't already a community at Scientopia or Science blogs. I meant that these places don't have a venue to further the interactions and discussions beyond commenting on blogs. That's why I don't think what you have is a true community. It really depends on your definition, but I think communities should have multiple areas for interaction and discussion. Is everyone going to sign up for an account so they can post in the forum or create their own group? Probably not, but I think we can add value to the user experience if we can increase the number of ways that people interact socially on the site.
The blogging side of things at LabSpaces is no different than it is here. So please don't misrepresent the "registration" system at LabSpaces. You've commented on a few blog articles over there already so you know that comments aren't moderated, and anyone can post by completing a simple captcha. However, the forum and social aspects of the site are another layer, and you have to register to use them. There's nothing wrong with that, and that was the point of the post.
Further, I never said that what LabSpaces was doing was revolutionary or novel. Nature Network does something very similar except they actually fit the bill of the complaints you wrongly ascribed to LabSpaces. NN is truly a walled garden, LabSpaces isn't. Maybe that makes it novel?
THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION!
the WORLD TRADE CENTER PROPHECY - THE DANCE OF DEATH
the ungrateful bastards full of hubris...
a bullet for your head, traitor
And finally, the *only* man in Minnesota who says there is no God has suddenly become an arbiter on mental health...
COME SEE A PHOTO OF MABUS AND AN EXPLANATION OF IT!
Evan I have read any books by lomborg yet, but i think you got me on this one. I will check it out soon.