Lomborg-errors
|
|
Lomborg´s reaction to Lomborg-errors |
|
Home
Lomborg´s
response to criticism
|
Apparently, Lomborg has never in
public debate commented on the
Lomborg-errors web site or on the allegations made here. However, on
his own web site, www.Lomborg.com, he has a FAQ page with the following
text:Q: Hasn't Kaare Fog produced a copious list of how wrong Lomborg is?A: It is
true that Fog has been very productive in his claims (http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/),
and
has
been
so since the publication of Lomborg's book in 1998 in
Danish. However, Lomborg has answered Fog many times in publications,
most clearly when Fog edited a book with arguments against Lomborg in
1999. Lomborg published a web-book of 180 pages painstakingly going
through each argument in Fog's book, pointing out its unproductive
errors and misunderstandings, Lomborg likewise replied to each and
every of the first batch of claims from Fog to the DCSD, pointing out
how they were incorrect and/or misleading. However, with limited time,
Lomborg cannot reply to every new claim from Fog. Moreover, it would
seem reasonable that Fog would have used his best counterarguments
first, and clearly these have not stood up. Web book: Godhedens pris
Comment: Example from the reply book
by
Lomborg and Larsen (1999): In my original text, I criticize Lomborg´s postulate
that only
about 20 % of the original global forest area has been cleared, because
data from WRI and FAO indicate that somewhere about 50 % has
disappeared. Lomborg then postulates that the data from WRI are
unreliable, indicating a much too large loss (67%), and that these
unreliable data have been taken from the World Conservation Monitoring
Center (WCMC). This is all nonsense. The data have not been taken from
the WCMC and do not indicate 67 % (see my second letter to the UVVU,
subject: forests, "breach 3", here).
Lomborg
postulates
that
the figures cited by me (which were the correct
figures) should have
been some other figures, which do not actually exist anywhere, and he
then criticizes me for having not cited those non-exisitng figures, and
further says that if I had cited them, they would have been wrong. So,
in essence, my "misunderstanding" is that I do not cite the wrong
figures which he would have liked me to have cited. In this way, the
whole text is so mad that it cannot been taken seriously, and it has
not been. It must have been written in a very late hour . |