View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006 Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
Post subject: Abbott: $4 million for scientific fraud and climate denier | |
|
A government that "can't afford" to fund domestic violence centres and cuts billions out of health and education can somehow still find $4 million to pay the notorious fraudster Bjorn Lomberg to set up in Western Australia now that he's been disgraced and defunded in his native country.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/17/abbott-government-gives-4m-to-help-climate-sceptic-set-up-australian-centre
Abbott's weirdness has gone beyond stupidity and into naked insanity.
For those who don't know Lomberg and his methodology of plausibe-sounding psudo-scientific fraud, start here: http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/deliberate.htm
A helpful Guardian commentator provides this summary:
Quote: | Bjørn Lomborg is a well-known personality in the environmental debate. He is the author of several books which, due to their copious lists of notes and references, appear very technical and scientific and therefore trustworthy. Unfortunately, those reading his books or listening to his lectures or seeing his film are rarely aware that the facts and statements presented by Lomborg are often not reliable.
When experts in the fields covered by Lomborg check his texts, they most often find that the evidence has been distorted. Danish biologist Kåre Fog has systematically over many years checked Lomborg´s texts against his sources and references and against other scientific literature. His conclusion is that Lomborg´s texts are systematically manipulated to fit a certain agenda. |
_________________ �Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
Post subject: | |
|
"A group of scientists published an article in 2005 in the Journal of Information Ethics, in which they concluded that most criticism against Lomborg was unjustified, and that the scientific community misused their authority to suppress Lomborg."
Wikipedia was as far as I had to go to find that there was a campaign to discredit Lomborg and that Lomborg was largely vindicated. Just another in the long list of dissenters that the Lefties tried to intimidate and silence. (I was going to say Greenies, but Lomborg is a greenie too, just not the 'right' kind).
Beyond that very brief look at the man, I'll look deeper into his work and what this 'centre' is all about before commenting further. For now it's time to head up Ballarat to check out the kid's new school. |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006 Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
Post subject: | |
|
Wokko, Lomberg's history of fraud and disinformation is both lengthy and appalling. He has managed to wriggle out of one or two charges (such as the one you linked to above) but that is only to be expected, given that he has been pulled up for speading disinformation and pretending it is science so many times.
And this from a government which has massively slashed spending on real science by actual Australians. What a disgrace. _________________ �Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
I don't know enough about Lomberg to be able to assess his credentials (I usually trust Tannin's judgement on this topic). But either way, it certainly is weird that the government is giving funding to what is obviously a pet project, and a niche one at that. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Dark Beanie
Joined: 06 Feb 2004 Location: A galaxy far, far away.
|
Post subject: | |
|
Doesn't matter which side if the fence he sits, WHY are we giving away $4 million dollars which could be better spent on health, education, low income housing? _________________ If you are foolish enough to be contented, don't show it, but just grumble with the rest. - Jerome K Jerome |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
Post subject: | |
|
^^^ I'd be wary of any argument that says we should only apply Government funding to obvious immediate, physical and social needs. There must always be some expenditure on medium- and long-term strategic issues (and the issues around climate change would have to be some of the most significant).
This is, however, a very dubious way to apply money which should, presumably, be going into scientific research. The significant problem I have is that a reasonably plausible client-change denier (if there were such a thing) doesn't need government funding because the fossil-fuel industry will rush to give them private funding. There's no need for "balance" in this area because the vested interests are flush with funds to throw at this sort of thing. |
|
|
|
|
|