Lomborg spent a year as an undergraduate at the University of Georgia, earned an M.A. degree in political science at the University of Aarhus in 1991, and a Ph.D. degree in political science at the University of Copenhagen in 1994.

He lectured in statistics in the Department of Political Science at the University of Aarhus as an assistant professor (1994–1996) and associate professor (1997–2005). He left the university in February 2005 and in May of that year became an Adjunct Professor at Copenhagen Business School.

Early in his career his professional areas of interest lay in the simulation of strategies in collective action dilemmas, simulation of party behavior in proportional voting systems, and the use of surveys in public administration. In 1996, Lomborg's paper, "Nucleus and Shield: Evolution of Social Structure in the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma", was published in the academic journal, American Sociological Review.[4]

Later Lomborg's interests shifted to the use of statistics in the environmental arena. His most famous book in this area is The Skeptical Environmentalist, whose English translation was published as a work in environmental economics by Cambridge University Press in 2001. He later edited Global Crises, Global Solutions, which presented the first conclusions of the Copenhagen Consensus, published in 2004 by the Cambridge University Press. In 2007, he authored a book entitled Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming.

...

DCSD investigation

On January 6, 2003 the DCSD reached a decision on the complaints. The ruling was a mixed message, deciding the book to be scientifically dishonest, but Lomborg himself not guilty because of lack of expertise in the fields in question:[6]

   Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty. ...In view of the subjective requirements made in terms of intent or gross negligence, however, Bjørn Lomborg's publication cannot fall within the bounds of this characterization. Conversely, the publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice.

The DCSD cited The Skeptical Environmentalist for:

  1. Fabrication of data;
  2. Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation);
  3. Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods;
  4. Distorted interpretation of conclusions;
  5. Plagiarism;
  6. Deliberate misinterpretation of others' results.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
A political professor, who is not a "climate scientist" and has no peer reviewed work on climate and one that an investigation resulted in saying that he isn't competent in the field ... has "changed his mind" about AGW .... and you expect it to prove ... what, exactly?  [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Bjorn Lumborg

Lomborg spent a year as an undergraduate at the University of Georgia, earned an M.A. degree in political science at the University of Aarhus in 1991, and a Ph.D. degree in political science at the University of Copenhagen in 1994.

He lectured in statistics in the Department of Political Science at the University of Aarhus as an assistant professor (1994–1996) and associate professor (1997–2005). He left the university in February 2005 and in May of that year became an Adjunct Professor at Copenhagen Business School.

Early in his career his professional areas of interest lay in the simulation of strategies in collective action dilemmas, simulation of party behavior in proportional voting systems, and the use of surveys in public administration. In 1996, Lomborg's paper, "Nucleus and Shield: Evolution of Social Structure in the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma", was published in the academic journal, American Sociological Review.[4]

Later Lomborg's interests shifted to the use of statistics in the environmental arena. His most famous book in this area is The Skeptical Environmentalist, whose English translation was published as a work in environmental economics by Cambridge University Press in 2001. He later edited Global Crises, Global Solutions, which presented the first conclusions of the Copenhagen Consensus, published in 2004 by the Cambridge University Press. In 2007, he authored a book entitled Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming.

...

DCSD investigation

On January 6, 2003 the DCSD reached a decision on the complaints. The ruling was a mixed message, deciding the book to be scientifically dishonest, but Lomborg himself not guilty because of lack of expertise in the fields in question:[6]

  Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty. ...In view of the subjective requirements made in terms of intent or gross negligence, however, Bjørn Lomborg's publication cannot fall within the bounds of this characterization. Conversely, the publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice.

The DCSD cited The Skeptical Environmentalist for:

1. Fabrication of data;
2. Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation);
3. Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods;
4. Distorted interpretation of conclusions;
5. Plagiarism;
6. Deliberate misinterpretation of others' results.

So ... let me get this straight ...

A political professor, who is not a "climate scientist" and has no peer reviewed work on climate and one that an investigation resulted in saying that he isn't competent in the field ... has "changed his mind" about AGW .... and you expect it to prove ... what, exactly?  [:D]

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

C'mon? Where are all the deniers? Those who claim Global Warming is a Socialist hoax funded by George Soros and Al Gore?

C'mon, boys, step up to the plate and tell us all how Bjorn is all of a sudden completely wrong, and a tool of Cap n Trade advocates to boot?

C'mon, kiddies, tell us once again how a few emails in England prove that AGC is a hoax!

Where are you? Waiting to get your next science lesson from Glen Blech?

C'mon, Truckin, Wilber, sanity, Servant, rule, realone, tell us how Bjorn got paid off/blackmailed/brainwashed by the Lizard People!

We are waiting!!! [sm=lalala.gif][sm=jerry.gif][sm=pigsfly.gif]

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

But alot of AGW people out here were quoting the shit outta him, even when Lam pointed out he wasn't shit a long long time ago. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

whats sick about it?  there are those who believe in it, those who don't, what should they be called?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

How about fuck-head non-believers or drooling shitheads for the other side, and you me to settle down? 

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I'm not a bit pissed, I don't know how you get that.........

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I'm not a bit pissed, I don't know how you get that.........

But Ron, "global warming" "believers" are like muslims, they're always pissed!
How many "non-believers" have you waterboarded?

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I'm not a bit pissed, I don't know how you get that.........

But Ron, "global warming" "believers" are like muslims, they're always pissed!
How many "non-believers" have you waterboarded?

The level of understanding you display with Climate Change is rather unimpressive. First, its not 'global warming', but 'Climate Change'. Second, one doesnt 'believe', one understands Climate Change. The word 'believe' is a religious term, not a scientific term. However, the word is used often, but means "based on the evidence gathered, tests taken, and data collected...". That's alot to say, when someone could shorten it to "I believe this...". But someone like you, I can understand, wouldn't know this.

Those who study the sciences (hard or soft), may or may not be of the Islamic faith. There are plenty of christians who believe Climate Change, why not slam them as well?

If your 'for' waterboarding, popeye1250, your Un-American in my book. No real American would be 'for' torture! I would expect someone, posting on a BDSM site, to understand 'fun pain' and 'un-fun pain'.