Skeptical Environmentalist Vindicated!

Tech Central Station ^ | 12/17/2003 | James K. Glassman

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.

Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

[Southack]

[cavtrooper21]

Food for even more thought....

[Paleo Conservative]

Here's an interesting website to check out.

Hard Green

[neverdem]

Nice find. Bravo

[Guillermo]

"Environmentalism" is nothing more than Green Communism.

And if anyone gets in their way, they're gonna be attacked.

[BluSky]

Oh No, the horrors!

Things are going terribly wrong...what to do....oh, what to do(~panic,~panic).........Facts.....Repudiation.....since when has that made a difference to those that vote democrat.....

[farmfriend]

This one has solutions to the problems.

Natural Process

This book proposes a free-market environmental management system designed to deliver a product that is superior to government oversight, at lower cost. It provides examples illustrating how the system might work and proposes an implementing legal strategy. Though environmental in origin, the principles this book describes are applicable toward privatizing nearly any form of government regulation.

This book examines where we are going and what to do about it from the perspective of an amateur ecologist developing habitat restoration processes as a hobby. By profession, the author is a medical device engineer, representing neither of the polar opposites of the environmental debate. The combination of multinational regulatory, industrial, and "hands-on" experience is sadly lacking in policy development all too often dominated by lawyers, activists, or other interest groups. The goal is to introduce a system design, capable of reversing the growing reach of regulatory government and motivating the human and ecological benefits through the responsible expression of individual liberty.

[Tribune7]

bump

[Texas_Jarhead]

BUMP

[Bonaparte]

In January 2002, Scientific American magazine published a special section titled "Science Defends Itself Against 'The Skeptical Environmentalist.'" Articles by perfervid critics of Lomborg covered 11 pages.

Anybody who gets panned by SciAm is somebody I'm going to listen to. This is the same rag that published a similarly extensive article calling John Roebling a dangerous crank whose Brooklyn bridge would quickly collapse. They are the last ones I would consult for reliable scientific information.

[lepton]

Aliens Cause Global Warming

Despite the title, this is a serious discussion - by Michael Crichton.

[Carry_Okie]

Despite the title, this is a serious discussion - by Michael Crichton.

And a pathetically naive prescription.

[lepton]

And a pathetically naive prescription.

Could you be a bit less vague?

[farmfriend]

Could you be a bit less vague?

See post number 9.

[claudiustg]

---This is the same rag that published a similarly extensive article calling John Roebling a dangerous crank whose Brooklyn bridge would quickly collapse.---

That was a while ago. It's possible that the editorial staff has changed.

[Boot Hill]

From the article:   In January 2002, Scientific American magazine published a special section titled Science Defends Itself Against 'The Skeptical Environmentalist.'"

Kind of underscores our recent exchange of posts excoriating Scientific American, wouldn't you say?

--Boot Hill

[Carry_Okie]

Crichton proposes a centralized institute of environmental science, as if such an academy would be the sole arbiter of truth. Such places are hotbeds of political influence, personal interests, and opressive groupthink. He's crazy to think it would work from a motivational perspective, to say nothing of trying to manage that much data with a hierarchical system.

Try structural checks and balances in competing risks, data validated by repeated experiments, and the TRUE accountability of private property instead.

[Captain Beyond]

bump