Post a response to this discussion thread
Well, since grundle-James' newest hero, Bjorn Lomborg, doesn't have any academic credentials in environmental studies, you might wonder why he's been given a free ride in the world press reviewing his book. Maybe because he says what the corporate masters of the media want to hear?
http://www.tompaine.com/news/2001/12/07/
The column is by Colin Woodard, someone who has actually studied the environment. A few choice quotes about grundle- James' bestest bud, Mr. Lomborg and his book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist":
"The Skeptical Environmentalist presents itself as a work of impartial scholarship, an attempt to test the validity of various environmental concerns through a careful analysis of the evidence. In fact, it's a polemic, an intellectually dishonest tract filled with glaring omissions, appalling errors of fact and analysis, and inaccurate characterizations of contrary arguments."
Wow! No wonder grundle-James loves him so much: "dishonest . . . glaring omissions . . . appalling errors of fact . . . inaccurate characterizations of contrary arguments." Talk about a soul brother!
"The [favorable, fawning, unquestioning media] coverage quickly generated a maelstrom of criticism from leading scientists -- including Lomborg's own colleagues at the University of Aarhus. Many of his claims were publicly discredited, but you'd never know that from reading the subsequent coverage in this country."
Well, now we know that grundle-James' family name must be Lomborg! With "many of his claims . . . publicly discredited," you'd think there'd be a media follow-up of concomitant intensity. You would, of course, be wrong.
"Lomborg isn't an environmental scientist and has never published a scientific paper on climate change, ecology, atmospheric pollution, or any other topic he takes on in his book. That's because he's not even a natural scientist, but rather a political scientist with a background in statistics and game theory."
Not only will you search the New York Times or the British papers in vain for this little tidbit, it's never mentioned in grundle-James' adoring posts either -- I wonder why?
"'He asserts with no analysis that only the mildest [climate change] impacts will happen and that the dangerous ones won't happen,' says Stanford University's Stephen H. Schneider, lead author of several chapters of the International Panel on Climate Change's reports. 'That the media sucked it up is really incredible.'"
Well, perhaps not so incredible when you consider that major media outlets have to answer to the likes of General Electric and other polluting behemoths.
"Part of the problem is the media's propensity to treat scientific disagreements as they might a political one: quote both sides and let the reader decide on their own. But, as most science writers know, such an approach is entirely inadequate for reporting on science and technology issues."
Or as Huxley famously said, just because you ignore a fact doesn't make it go away. Likewise, when independent researchers reach similar conclusions, refuted only by researchers on the payroll of a large corporation with a vested interest, folks might want to consider the source, rather than giving equal time in a misguided stab at "objective reporting."
Post a response to this discussion thread