Location: Home » Discussion Forum
Discussions
 
  Name: TCS Daily
  Subject: A Conversation with Bjorn Lomborg
  Date/Time: 26 Nov 2006, 1:24 PM
Welcome to TCS Daily Discussions. As a Member of TCS Daily you may post a comment. If you are not a Member, you may become one by clicking the Register link above.
 
 
A Conversation with Bjorn Lomborg by TCS Daily
The Force be with you Bjorn, and your new book - - - - - - by DonVandervelde
The Fear Formula by robertbennett
Their GW gig failure back up plan [REVISED] by Zyndryl
Not as scary as the Patriot Act by roy_bean
Not as scary as class warfare or the state & church of enviro-paranoia combo by robertbennett
Something lost in translation by roy_bean
Come back 16 years ago and UBL's job is yours, rb by robertbennett
Lomborg has not realized: It's about religion by SmooveB
Oh, please by Lemuel
when you believe in something that the science has shown doesn't exist, then you're into religion by MarkTheGreat
And cigarettes are harmless by Lemuel
Not relevant by ColinH
the topic is belief in science by Lemuel
The state of science by ColinH
And for this we have your say-so by Lemuel
I'm glad you agree by ColinH
Oh, please by Lemuel
How many times does this have to be explained to you? by ColinH
Then you really don't understand science by Lemuel
That's why you have to lie about there being a consensus? And about there being any science? by MarkTheGreat
It's not me lying here by Lemuel
5 to 10% now makes up consensus in liberal enclaves? by MarkTheGreat
No .What's your reason to thnk so by Lemuel
That's what the surveys say. by MarkTheGreat
consensus by MarkTheGreat
The "small fraction of a degree" is pure fiction by Lemuel
It's simple, even enough for you by MarkTheGreat
Source it. by Lemuel
Come on! by Pauled
You've left a big one out of 1) by MarkTheGreat
You are right by Pauled
It's useless, Pauled by ColinH
It is useless, ColinH by Lemuel
you don't deny science, you just invent it by MarkTheGreat
No science??? by Lemuel
Not an ounce of science in models. Especially those that can't replicate reality. by MarkTheGreat
Email all the science and engineering departments & tell 'em to stop by Lemuel
eric continues to demonstrate his inability to read by MarkTheGreat
Again: experts in climate studies say one thing. Mark says they're wrong by Lemuel
some experts say yes, most experts say no. eric lies about everything. Who to believe? by MarkTheGreat
Who to believe? I suggest the NAS and AGU is a good place to start by Lemuel
I agree, but read the actual reports, not what people with an agenda have to say about the reports. by MarkTheGreat
You show no signs whatsoever of having done so. You just say you have by Lemuel
I know by Pauled
this is not science by Lemuel
models are not science by MarkTheGreat
No I do not ignore it, you are ignoring the first part by Pauled
The thing is, the worlds best specialists don't agree with you about M-O-D-E-L-S. by Lemuel
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA would you get real! by Pauled
Look. I've quoted the conclusion verbatim. You've quoted zip. by Lemuel
"The point in the quote is they in fact _do_ predict past climate" by neilcraig
That's not what the NAS found. by Lemuel
When its proven wrong & mathematical fraud it IS disproven by neilcraig
Read the NAS report on the Mann data instead of spouting about fraud by Lemuel
If you want to spend trillions you DO have to prove it by neilcraig
Again, please read what the NAS found instead of spouting by Lemuel
If you want to spend trillions you DO have to prove it by neilcraig
sorrry, but that's not science. by Lemuel
You don't know what science is. by neilcraig
But you know? And you know what the science is? by Lemuel
Lemuael says Lemuel's previous remark was a deliberate lie by neilcraig
Now you're completely confused by Lemuel
and even more scientists agree by MarkTheGreat
... that no-information, no-backup 'skeptics' like Mark are not worth addressing by Lemuel
eric now forms a consensus of one. by MarkTheGreat
No argument, no backup, pure Mark by Lemuel
Pure Lenuel by neilcraig
My saying so is nothing. The NAS saying so, however... by Lemuel
too bad there is no correlation between what the NAS says, and what eric says the NAS says. by MarkTheGreat
Too bad Mark can't back up what he says by Lemuel
The NAS has already done if for me. by MarkTheGreat
Except Mark can't say where or when, and can't quote language that backs him up by Lemuel
already done that, further up in this thread. by MarkTheGreat
Sure you did, Mark. You said the Easter Bunny told you by Lemuel
The science shows that CO2 is not dangerous by MarkTheGreat
the NAS says one thing. Mark says another. Who to believe? Tough call! by Lemuel
NAS says one thing, eric says the NAS says something else. Who to believe. by MarkTheGreat
Except you can't back up what you say. You don't. You never have. by Lemuel
Just look back in any of the previous discussions on global warming. by MarkTheGreat
Look back and find the same pattern: you don't have facts: you just claim to have them by Lemuel
So let the warming enthusiasts give facts by neilcraig
Been there, done that - let's go again by Lemuel
Evidence needed! by neilcraig
Evidence is in: The NAS has discussed this in detail by Lemuel
every time eric repeats this, the lie gets bigger by MarkTheGreat
As Mark fails to support his contentions, the truth gets more obvious by Lemuel
already done that, waiting for you to do same. by MarkTheGreat
And here is the totality of Mark's backup for his statement verbatim: "..." by Lemuel
The totality of Lemuel's combined statements "I'm a liar" by neilcraig
Look who's talking!!! Mr. No-backup himself by Lemuel
Lemuel you are a Troll by neilcraig
You mean, by quoting verbatim an NAS report I'm trolling?? by Lemuel
Yes, if you never go beyondthat PR fluff by neilcraig
PR fluff??? by Lemuel
No, cigarettes are harmFUL... by Tlaloc
And you'll believe anything, as long as someone on the radio tells you it isn't PC by Lemuel
What experts? by MarkTheGreat
Your favorite experts: the Easter Bunny and Puff the Magic Dragon by Lemuel
models are not studies by MarkTheGreat
models are based on studies, and checked against observations by Lemuel
eric loves showing his ignorance by MarkTheGreat
Namecallling alert: Mark's lost control again by Lemuel
first off, calling you ignorant is not name calling, second, having you complain about name calling by MarkTheGreat
Back up what you say about the models. by Lemuel
Here's a big one. The IPCC by MarkTheGreat
And you just spout off... by Tlaloc
Offer your own experts by Lemuel
I stunning display... by Tlaloc
obviously by MarkTheGreat
science is sure as hell not what you say it is. by Lemuel
there were no studies, just a bunch of defective models that don't even agree with each other, by MarkTheGreat
The models use decades of atmospheric observations, billions of data points by Lemuel
models do not use historic data, they couldn't and still be models by MarkTheGreat
You really don't get it: they aren't perfect, but they work. by Lemuel
They are getting better. They get about 10% of the earths surface right, they used to only get 5% by MarkTheGreat
You're getting worse: you have no backup by Lemuel
Hunh??? by Lemuel
I find it funny... by
I find it hilarious that you think the NAS is part of government by Lemuel
The science shows that cigarettes are dangerous, just as the science shows that CO2 isn't. by MarkTheGreat
Go ahead, prove your God does exist by Pauled
This isn't a religious issue by Lemuel
eric finally says something correct, and it's probably by accident. by MarkTheGreat
It was a typo, which I corrected by Lemuel
I did say that it was probably by accident. by MarkTheGreat
correction by Lemuel
Correct your correction... by Tlaloc
this is an utterly false dichotamy by Lemuel
accurate dichotomy by MarkTheGreat
Noise by Lemuel
If you need a source... by Tlaloc
You do need a source by Lemuel
Been there, done that... by Tlaloc
Again: the NAS and the AGU have extensive information online by Lemuel
To use your tactic... by Tlaloc
I've been specific. You're off in the ozone by Lemuel
More reading comprehension lessons for LeMule... by Tlaloc
When you say "unproven" you're begging the question. by Lemuel
Since when... by Tlaloc
Been there, done that by Lemuel
No, you avoided going there and never done that... by Tlaloc
By this standard, nothing is ever proven by Lemuel
nothing that relies on models for it's only proof, can ever be proven by MarkTheGreat
And as for the Saddam analogy by Lemuel
As usual... by Tlaloc
anyone who reads them, will know just how much you are lying about your "sources". by MarkTheGreat
Except you can't point out a single error I've made about them by Lemuel
already done that, hundreds of times. by MarkTheGreat
You've done the same thing: say I've made a mistake, not say how or where by Lemuel
The funny thing is by MarkTheGreat
The funny thing is the Mark has never been able to bring a single rebuttal argument by Lemuel
already done that, which is more than you have ever done. by MarkTheGreat
you've done the same thing: say I've made a mistake, not say how or where by Lemuel
I've given you hundreds of sources by MarkTheGreat
you have given zero sources; you just keep making unsourced claims by Lemuel
There are three more near the bottom of this page by MarkTheGreat
Actually dummy... by Tlaloc
There's no science for us to deny, just a handfull of broken models. by MarkTheGreat
Noise by Lemuel
just goes to show you that eric has never researched his claims by MarkTheGreat
more noise by Lemuel
Actually dummy... by Tlaloc
"Dummy" = I know I don't have a case, so I'm going to namecall by Lemuel
No Subject by RETLUOCC
No: I am repeating what scientific organizatons like the NAS and AGU are saying. by Lemuel
small problem, neither one of these, says what you claim they say. by MarkTheGreat
Oh really? They rule out global warming as a threat, do they? by Lemuel
The credible scientists do. by MarkTheGreat
If you're the best judge of scientific credibillity, O.J. Simpson is the best judge of law by Lemuel
eric the asshat complains about namecalling. Now that's funny. by MarkTheGreat
fictional "hundreds of thousands' of scientists by Lemuel
Actually "Dummy" = ... by Tlaloc
Poor baby!!! by Lemuel
Poor in the command of your infantile tactics... by Tlaloc
You're out of touch with the debate by RETLUOCC
I think you're referring to the completely discredited Oregon Petition by Lemuel
And "why" by RETLUOCC
The scientists say they know what: it's human activity. by Lemuel
Not according to these scientists by MarkTheGreat
Problem is... by Lemuel
I love the way eric lies when he finds anything he doesn't want to agree with. by MarkTheGreat
Except you're simply flat wrong by Lemuel
eric still can't read by MarkTheGreat
Noise by Lemuel
Politics + science is the problem by robertbennett
I have one thing to say to Lomborg... by Tlaloc
Lomberg's a statistician, not a climate scientist. by Lemuel
Your the only one who believes that there is any truth in the Stern report. by MarkTheGreat
British government doesn't seem to think so by Lemuel
Who cares? by ColinH
Again: tell the Brits this by Lemuel
That's because Lomburg has science on his side. Stern doesn't. by MarkTheGreat
You can't even spell Sterne, but you're sure he's wrong. by Lemuel
pathetic, but typical by MarkTheGreat
Does this mean you may someday learn to spell "Sterne" by Lemuel
I'm guessing eric gets his knowledge of spelling the same place he gets the rest of his lies. by MarkTheGreat
eric is so stupid, he doesn't know when to quit by MarkTheGreat
PS, calling eric stupid is not name calling, it's just being accurate. by MarkTheGreat
I was wrong on the spelling; i admit it. by Lemuel
Maybe you should look something up for once, before declaring other people stupid. by MarkTheGreat
Does this mean that eric will no longer listen to himself? by MarkTheGreat
you worship him, but don't know how to spell his name. That's rich. by MarkTheGreat
Glad you agree by ColinH
go for it. I criticism from an international intellectual celebrity like yourself would really sting by Lemuel
a bunch of politicians by MarkTheGreat
Greens don't want to do something by neilcraig
Who are you talking about? by Lemuel
Well, Greenpeace & Gore for starters by neilcraig
Why not exaggerate some more? by Lemuel
Both security and waste issues by ColinH
The Greens don't have any representatives in Congress by Lemuel
Since the leaders and founders of green movements by ColinH
Speaking of pretending... by Lemuel
Ah, but you're an expert by ColinH
Then prove I'm wrong. by Lemuel
We've discussed by ColinH
Running like a rabbit by Lemuel
been there, done that by MarkTheGreat
OK, you're claiming Tony Blair is an eco-fanatic religious nutcase because he's worried about warmin by Lemuel
Just read the newspapers by ColinH
Fine. You don't like Blair by Lemuel
no, he's a politician who's interested in anything that will increase his power and prestige by MarkTheGreat
Trusting to Bliar's beliefs by neilcraig
Sure, he's just the elected head of Great Britain, but he's just a flake by Lemuel
Interesting, elected heads of state are infallible. At least when they agree with eric. by MarkTheGreat
the question was whether these views are mainstream by Lemuel
since when are politicians the standard by which science is measured? by MarkTheGreat
Again: the issue was whether the views are mainstream. by Lemuel
ah yes, the old, if a lot of politicians say it, it must be true argument. by MarkTheGreat
No, it's the old "if a prime minister says it, it's silly to call the view 'non-mainstream'" by Lemuel
Just the majority of Democrats. by MarkTheGreat
Not quite by ColinH
Since theres no sound, scientific reason to oppose nuclear power by MarkTheGreat
As are all AGW alarmists by Tlaloc
By the way... by Tlaloc
LeMule? by Tlaloc
And this is significant why? by Lemuel
Actually... by Tlaloc
And your credentials on this are what?? by Lemuel
better than yours by MarkTheGreat
I'm not an expert. That's why I listen to the experts. You're the one who says he knows better by Lemuel
My experts can beat up your experts! by Tlaloc
If you have it, you dont share it. by Lemuel
I have it, you don't wish to understand it... by Tlaloc
Here is a good question! by Tlaloc
my expert can beat up your expert by MarkTheGreat
Intelligence. You wouldn't understand. by Tlaloc
The main point by dbt3481
Biased??? You mean, biased in favor of science by Lemuel
No, I mean biased in favor of politics. by Tlaloc
You "don't mind science?"" That's so big of you!!! by Lemuel
models by MarkTheGreat
Speaking of pathetic, claiming you know the field better than the experts in it is up there by Lemuel
I have shown you all of the places where the models fail to predict reality. by MarkTheGreat
All you have shown is how out of touch with reality you are. by Lemuel
didn't eric just say that resorting to name calling proves you have run out of arguments? by MarkTheGreat
"well document" in Mark talk = "I say so." by Lemuel
eric violates the standards he set just a few minutes ago, and his response to whine "shut up" by MarkTheGreat
bla bla bla bal by Lemuel
regarding spelling flames by MarkTheGreat
you have claimed lots of things by Lemuel
Your experts vs my experts. by dbt3481
Benefits of GW by danielmt
Read his first book by RETLUOCC
nutjob by LiberalGoodman
you are pretty rough on yourself, and deservedly so by MarkTheGreat
Re: nutjob.....Wow LG, are you ever wrong by prospector
You can't model it until you understand it. by MarkTheGreat
Oh Brother, what art thou? by prospector
Buncha hippies by roy_bean
Thanks for the compliments, by prospector
On worshipping nature by roy_bean
I can't disagree with your points about... by prospector
Two subjects by roy_bean
Environmental Geology says humans responsible for at most 0.01C of latest warming. by MarkTheGreat
It's two petroleum geologists (not atmospheric physicists) writing an op-ed... by Lemuel
it's not an op ed, and the journal is most emphatically peer reviewed. Do you have any more lies? by MarkTheGreat
Yes, the journal is peer reviewed, but the article is an opinion piece by Lemuel
and this proves that anything he says is a lie? by MarkTheGreat
that's assuming wikipedia is right for once. by MarkTheGreat
If you think it's not, show how its wrong by Lemuel
Here's a direct quote. Does this sound like science or opinion? by Lemuel
That sounds like an accurate summation of what the study proved. by MarkTheGreat
That's obviousl and clearly an opinion, not science by Lemuel
executive summaries always read this way. The facts are in the study itself by MarkTheGreat
Anyone can talk. Even someone as uninformed as Mark The question is, who to believe by Lemuel
I see eric still can't refute anything in the paper, so he attacks it for having the wrong "tone" by MarkTheGreat
since eric demands spelling perfection in others, would it be over the top to point out his latest m by MarkTheGreat
Here's another link, with summary by MarkTheGreat
 
  If you would like to modify your preferences to either receive email alerts of Discussion Forum postings, or to stop receiving email alerts, please go to MyTCS to modify your profile.
 
 
  ©2000-2009 TCS Daily | Home | Contact TCS | About TCS | Issues | Links | Submissions | Toolbox | Legal | Reprints | Advertise with TCS