From: Glenn Morton (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Jan 13 2003 - 01:12:19 EST
>I have placed on my website, page 6. links to an ongoing controversy
>between the Scientific American and one Bjorn Lomberg. The debate reminds
>me of the "15 points" debate Sci-AM took on a few weeks ago.
>Glenn -- do you have any input for us on this controversy?
Sci Am is making a big mistake in making them appear oppressive and Lomberg
apear to be the oppressed. Everyone sees the unfairness of doing a 15 page
hatchet job on a fellow and then allowing him only a 1 page response. I
didn't even know of Lomberg until Scientific American blasted him. I read
the article and thought immediately that there was no space given to Lomberg
in that same issue to reply. Sci Am's treatment of Lomberg and their claim
made me immediately feel sympathy for Lomberg.
I read the critique of Lomberg's energy in that Sci Am by John Holdren. Not
having read Lomberg (and I don't have much interest in getting into another
controversial area), the critiques seemed a bit pedantic to me. Holdren
criticizes Lomberg for excessive accuracy in the numbers he reports and for
using the word catalyzing water rather than electrolyzing water. good
grief! English is not Lomberg's first language and thus one can forgive him
a word or two. You should see some of the Amer. Assoc. Petroleum Geol.
Bulletin articles written by Chinese. They use wrong words all the time,
but they are still good scientists. Besides their english is better than my
mandarin as I strongly suspect Lomberg's English is better than Holden's
The critique made charges without giving examples. I hate that also.
Holden hits Lomberg for 'misreadings or misunderstandings of statistical
data" but gives not one example. How is Holden's reader to evaluate
Holden's claim? The entire thinks was an excersize in power by the editor
of Scientific American, a squirly-looking fellow who is a writer playing the
role of a scientist.
I might as well be controversial here (who would be surprised at that?) The
ASA does this to people, publishing critical letters without giving an
opportunity to reply in the same issue, and I don't like that. If one wishes
to respond, the letter comes out months later when no one knows what you are
talking about. It is not a matter of the present editor because the same
policy was in effect with the last. Even the Creation Research Soc.
Quarterly allows a brief response to a critical letter in the same issue.
That seems to afford basic fairness.
for lots of creation/evolution information
personal stories of struggle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jan 13 2003 - 21:24:30 EST