In the coverage of Abbott’s speech Jeremy Thompson of the ABC raises this slur.
However, it is the credibility of Mr Lomberg rather than Australian economists which may not stand up to scrutiny.
In 2003 the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty upheld a series of complaints laid about Lomberg’s book The Skepical Environmentalist.
They included scientific dishonesty, selective discarding of unwanted results, deliberately misleading statistical evidence, plagiarism and deliberate misinterpretation of others results.
The findings were later declared invalid on procedural grounds.
Let’s not even comment on the fact that he doesn’t seem to think it inappropriate that the Danish government would even have such an Orwellian committee. That statement is so misleading so as to constitute a lie. At the time even The Economist described the decision as ‘incompetent and shameful’. The Economist went on
On December 17th, Denmark’s Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation published its own response to the DCSD’s finding. It is more politely expressed than ours, but comes to much the same conclusion. The ruling is thrown back to the DCSD with instructions to think again. Among a long list of telling criticisms, the ministry says this: “the DCSD has not documented where [Dr Lomborg] has allegedly been biased in his choice of data and in his argumentation, and…the ruling is completely void of argumentation for why the DCSD find that the complainants are right in their criticisms of [his] working methods. It is not sufficient that the criticisms of a researcher’s working methods exist; the DCSD must consider the criticisms and take a position on whether or not the criticisms are justified, and why.”
Quite so. What kind of panel is it that purports to be concerned with scientific dishonesty, but needs somebody else to point this out?
I wonder if the ABC will retract this lie and apologise to Lomborg?
Wonder no longer, Sinkers. I reliably predict they wouldn’t give a fig about any correction.
Abu Chowdah
1 Jul 11 at 5:31 pm
That’s so blatant a lie they will need to retract it if someone lodges a complaint.
JC.
1 Jul 11 at 5:43 pm
“ABC lies about Lomborg”
“News at 11.”
Yawn. The surprise here is what, exactly…?
daddy dave
1 Jul 11 at 5:48 pm
Man I love this site.
It has he best bullshit meter in the country. It’s like a roach motel for bullshit. Nothing ever gets through.. either through the thread itself or the comments sections.
JC.
1 Jul 11 at 5:51 pm
“I wonder if the ABC will retract this lie and apologise to Lomborg?”
I’ll bet good money that they won’t.
Cranking up the bullshit – the stench of desperation is overpowering.
Dandy Warhol
1 Jul 11 at 6:33 pm
The ABC should start a new news channel called ABC Eleventy.
dover_beach
1 Jul 11 at 6:34 pm
Anyone want to write to Media Watch and complain?
TBH
1 Jul 11 at 6:42 pm
Wouldn’t that be a waste of time?
JC.
1 Jul 11 at 6:44 pm
Well yeah
TBH
1 Jul 11 at 6:55 pm
Lomborg as an environmental economist is undistinguished. So much of what he says is wrong and – often – derivative from the work of the much better economist Julian Simon.
I always liked the Lomborg/Simon claim that biodiversity has increased in the US because the number of introduced feral species exceeds the number of extinctions.
Its the sort of argument that you might expect from Andrew Bolt or one of the environmentally sensitive commentators at Catallaxy.
hc
1 Jul 11 at 7:04 pm
I wouldn’t hold your breath, based on Their ABC’s form:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/bias-at-the-netional-broadcaster-is-as-easy-as-abc/story-fn59niix-1226009060141
Ivan Denisovich
1 Jul 11 at 7:05 pm
The ABC should start a new news channel called ABC Eleventy.
I love it.
ABC Eleventy.
daddy dave
1 Jul 11 at 7:06 pm
This attack on Lomborg from the ABC doesn’t compute. Lomborg has always maintained his position AGW is a real concern. His sin, I guess, is that he doesn’t buy into the notion a carbon (dioxide)tax will save the planet. Or that it is the way to mitigate global warming.
Lomborg it not a climate alarmist, hence he must be punished.
Gabrielle
1 Jul 11 at 7:19 pm
Lomborg regards global warming as a technology problem and I have to say I agree with him. He is concerned about it, but doesn’t buy into the hysteria and rightly, IMHO, seeks to keep the level of economic growth high enough that new technology solutions will be found.
TBH
1 Jul 11 at 7:22 pm
Harry
The point of the thread is if The ABC has lied? Do you think it has?
Lomborg’s work has been excellent in that he brought the issue of trade offs in to the discussion. He ought to be commended.
Why is he inherently incorrect in his assertion. Unless one doesn’t take evolution seriously then that is a stand out observation.
I don’t quite see the importance if an animal arrived in Australian when there was a land bridge with Asia, with aboriginals (dingo) or introduced by Europeans by arriving on a boat.
It’s all part of the evolutionary process.
JC.
1 Jul 11 at 7:24 pm
Has the ABC lied, Harry? Choose wisely, olde foole.
Abu Chowdah
1 Jul 11 at 7:26 pm
The ABC are idiots. They even interviewed him this year!
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3153560.htm
TBH
1 Jul 11 at 7:29 pm
JC, You need to nuance these types of claims. In general it is incorrect because feral species often devastate local fauna and reduce biodiversity – the rabbit, the fox, the common rat and the cane toad have not enriched Australian biodiversity.
Its the simplistic character of the Lomborg/Simon stuff that gets to me. They are academic “shock jocks” with dangerously limited knowledge.
hc
1 Jul 11 at 7:29 pm
Yes JC,
The consensus of scientists at CSIRO were absolutely correct about cane toads.
jumpnmcar
1 Jul 11 at 7:32 pm
Come now, olde foole. Answer the question.
Abu Chowdah
1 Jul 11 at 7:32 pm
Take a trip down the Ganges on a pappodom, Abu. All of life’s great questions will be answered for you.
hc
1 Jul 11 at 7:37 pm
Abu.
It’s “ ye olde foole” i think
jumpnmcar
1 Jul 11 at 7:38 pm
Jump
I like cane toads. I think they’re a very interesting adaptable creature. Keep killing them and they still come back. I respect that.
If our useless indig fuckers can’t keep up, too bad.
I find it laughable that people think a dog arriving with the aboriginals is perfectly fine and are protected while we’re about to wipe out a million camels because Europeans imported them and they fart a lot.
The previous labor government went out killing brumbies in the Victorian high country because …. they don’t belong here..it’s disgusting.
Whether animals arrive by boat, land bridge or with an aboriginal the evolutionary process is pretty much the same.
JC.
1 Jul 11 at 7:45 pm
There wouldn’t be much to shoot without all these introduced species. Sure there are plenty of koalas, but there’s not much sport in that. We usually don’t blow holes in them until we’ve had 12 or more beers.
Infidel Tiger
1 Jul 11 at 7:47 pm
No worries JC.
Get rid of AQIS, we need more fire ants, the local ant are shit.
And carp,dont forget carp.
And agricultural pests, cant discriminate on size.
jumpnmcar
1 Jul 11 at 7:55 pm
Cane toads get a bum rap.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/movies/misunderstood-and-a-bit-jumpy-20110526-1f4u9.html#ixzz1QqWAxj2b
There’s probably some truth in that. A politician gets bored so s/he takes it out on the poor cane toad.
JC.
1 Jul 11 at 7:57 pm
Misleading by omission is NOT lying.
It’s worse than an out-and-out lie in a way (i.e. you can weasel out of having misled people by claiming they made an error of interpretation), but it’s not the same thing.
Bird has really fucked with Catallaxian’s depth of terminology in this area, to wit:
>Changing your mind = lying
>Selective quotation = lying.
>Subtly misleading by any means at all, deliberately or not = lying.
Why not reserve the term for, y’know… lies? There is plenty of negative terminology you could accurately deploy to describe the ABC failing to be entirely truthful here. You could make it as negative as you like – it’s pretty egregious.
But why not use words correctly while you do it?
FDB
1 Jul 11 at 7:58 pm
There’s nowt more fun than a pitching wedge and a cane toad.
Infidel Tiger
1 Jul 11 at 8:00 pm
Yes it is. Try telling that to a judge if you even tangentially involved in say a serious crime.
It’s dishonest, FDB. You wish to split hairs then go right ahead.
JC.
1 Jul 11 at 8:01 pm
Brown’s imploring us to ditch Australia in favor of a ‘world parliament’ is trult scary.
Peter Patton
1 Jul 11 at 8:11 pm
As I made VERY clear, I agree.
I don’t see using language correctly as the trivial thing you obviously do. When accusing someone of wrongdoing, it’s quite important to be precise, I think.
FDB
1 Jul 11 at 8:18 pm
HC,
HC,
Bjorn Lomberg is not an economist. His Ph.D. degree in political science at the University of Copenhagen.
Lomberg 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 to be an Adjunct Professor at Copenhagen Business School.
As for fraud, On December 17, 2003, the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MSTI) annulled the decision made by Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD).
MSTI cited several procedural errors, including:
• The DCSD did not provide specific statements on actual errors. On this point the MSTI stated “the DCSD has not documented where [Dr. Lomborg] has allegedly been biased in his choice of data and in his argumentation, and
• the ruling is completely void of argumentation for why the DCSD find that the complainants are right in their criticisms of [his] working methods;
• It is not sufficient that the criticisms of a researcher’s working methods exist; the DCSD must consider the criticisms and take a position on whether or not the criticisms are justified, and why.;
• The DCSD did not use a precise standard for deciding “good scientific practice” in the social sciences;
• The DCSD’s definition of “objective scientific dishonesty” was not clear about whether “distortion of statistical data” had to be deliberate or not;
• The DCSD had not properly documented that The Skeptical Environmentalist was a scientific publication on which they had the right to intervene in the first place!
HT: wikipedia
Jim Rose
1 Jul 11 at 8:24 pm
OT
FBD those ” Rouge de marmande” are fantastic!!
Sorry all, carry on.
jumpnmcar
1 Jul 11 at 8:26 pm
Pull your head in, FDB. It’s lying. Split hairs, but it’s lying.
JC.
1 Jul 11 at 8:51 pm
The irony here is spectacular.
Thompson lied:
lie /laɪ/ Show Spelled
noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
–noun
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
A lie intending to convey the wink-wink notion that the findings were actually true but that he got off on a tchnicality. Not so. The findings were thrown out because they were adjudged shoddy, dishonest and without foundation.
C.L.
1 Jul 11 at 8:59 pm
So who’s Jeremy Thompson ?
All I can see of him is that he is an “Online Journalist” for the ABC. He could have wiki’d that bit about the DCSD go at Lomborg – or someone sent him a cut-and-paste. My kids can do the same for homework if they want to.
Much more amusing is Saul Eslake taking the baseball bat again to Abbot and now Lomborg. He is the Program Director for Productivity Growth at the Grattan Institute – cheerleading for a government that seems hellbent on destroying the foundations of productivity.
Myrddin Seren
1 Jul 11 at 9:01 pm
Given that he isn’t actually an economist, hardly surprising. hc as an astrophysicist is undistinguished too.
Sinclair Davidson
1 Jul 11 at 9:01 pm
Eslake is also an advisor to the Liberal Party on economic policy.
Sinclair Davidson
1 Jul 11 at 9:02 pm
Saul once said on another blog site that if it wasn’t for high wages the 30′s depression would have been worse. Some claim.
JC.
1 Jul 11 at 9:02 pm
Jeremy is the new Emma Rodgers.
Craig
1 Jul 11 at 9:05 pm
I don’t comment on astrophysics.
Almost all of Lomborg’s work – the skeptical environmentalist, cool it – are comments on economics.
Sinclair is an undistinguished pedant.
hc
1 Jul 11 at 9:09 pm
Dear God,
Who in the Liberal Party is Eslake advising – Malcolm ?
Myrddin Seren
1 Jul 11 at 9:13 pm
Indeed.
Actually having read those books, I disagree. But then everything can be economics – but that is another argument.
Sinclair Davidson
1 Jul 11 at 9:15 pm
Tony and the Menzies Research Institute generally.
Sinclair Davidson
1 Jul 11 at 9:16 pm
Question for all of you – If you start with 10 species, make 4 extinct but introduce 6 new species, do you now have:
a) less biodiversity (because 10-4+6=ummm, 3 [when calculated by an Economist])
b) more biodiversity (because 10-4+6=12 when calculated by anyone else)
c) about the same biodiversity (because we don’t really know how many species are out there – only God could count the lot and give you a true answer – ie, we are fallible and we don’t know everything)
d) “purple”, because I’ve been out the back licking cane toads all night
I’m not falling into the trap of making a moral judgement about this species being better or more appropriate than that species. If you have more species, you have more diversity. You might not like the additional species, but that doesn’t negate the fact that there are more of them.
boy on a bike
1 Jul 11 at 9:20 pm
‘sactly
JC.
1 Jul 11 at 9:26 pm
Yeah, you have more biodiversity. If you really believe that the number of species is good, and then the total increases, you need to stick to your principle, even if the result is counterintuitive.
daddy dave
1 Jul 11 at 9:31 pm
You comment on geology you old twerp and wellhead production from sub crystalline oil formation proves you wrong.
Now when are you going to stop slurring Louis as a crank geologist?
.
1 Jul 11 at 9:31 pm
Boy
I agree 3 bananas plus 5 oranges are 8 pieces of fruit.
8 pieces of fruit plus two Catallaxy commentators plus 2 Sarah Palin lookalikes have more in common than might be first thought.
Now be a good lad. Stand on your head and fall through your ass.
hc
1 Jul 11 at 9:36 pm
Dot identifies geology as a part of astrophysics. A space cadet with a lunar vision.
hc
1 Jul 11 at 9:39 pm
That’s just diabolically pathetic. You can’t even support your own criticism. The facts don’t stand in the way of your pigeon holing of academics. Yet you think you should have free rein to criticise Lomborg and comment on climatology, and infer that Louis is an astrophysicist (WTF?) to further cover your shortcomings.
.
1 Jul 11 at 9:46 pm
I didn’t say he was a crank geologist. I said he was a ragbag and there is a world of difference in these perspectives. It’s about nuance dot.
hc
1 Jul 11 at 9:50 pm
You do comment a lot on camel burps, Harry. Was quadruped flatulence a part of the economics program back in the 60s?
C.L.
1 Jul 11 at 9:51 pm
You have said this previously but wouldn’t answer why. As you reckon don’t beleive it, I’ll let it pass. This is wise of you as physical production validates Louis’ geological theories.
…and narrative.
.
1 Jul 11 at 9:54 pm
Ah the book burning Muslim hater is back from Rome with his offerings of fresh insights into witch burning and fanatical hatreds. Thank you Jesus.
hc
1 Jul 11 at 9:55 pm
The ABC should be drawn and quartered. I think I might cheat on my tax just that little bit extra this year so Tony Jones has to keep wearing his blue tie for that little bit longer.
Sleetmute
1 Jul 11 at 10:05 pm
Ahahahahaha.
Questionable art is another subject for which you have no qualifications but about which you wax lyrical, Harry. Fart n’ Art. You’re a genuine Renaissance Man.
C.L.
1 Jul 11 at 10:19 pm
I have submitted a complaint to Media Watch. What the heck, it’s worth a try if only to annoy the warmists.
Generic Person
1 Jul 11 at 11:33 pm
The answer is e) considering biodiversity on a regional basis is pretty stupid, as it’s a global issue. If you have 10 discrete regions, each with 10 unique species, but you make 4 of the species extinct in each region and replace them with the same 6 species in each of the 10 regions, you have lowered biodiversity because you only have 46 species now instead of 100.
m0nty
2 Jul 11 at 3:49 am
hc, if you want to understand geology you need to start with astrophysics i.e. the formation of the solar system and the planets. In fact you need to go back a little further to the supernova that created the elements heavier than iron that make up the solar system.
Geology is the detailed subset of astrophysics which is a subset of physics which is about everything.(Sheldon is right!)
Eyrie
2 Jul 11 at 7:53 am
And physics is a subset of mathematics which is a subset of logic which is a subset of philosophy. Every step of the way it’s reducto ad absurdum.
wreckage
2 Jul 11 at 8:47 am
I hope you are referring to theoretical physics. You’ll thank me later.
.
2 Jul 11 at 9:12 am
I’ll try that harry. At least I know which way is up and which way is down – something that seems to have eluded you.
boy on a bike
2 Jul 11 at 11:32 am
mOnty Thats the silliest thing about biodiversity I’ve ever heard, you do realise that thwe moment you isolate a population of anything for more than about 2 generations it becomes it’s own species. The arctic fox is just the same as the European fox but it’s white and lives in the arctic. The animals that survive evolution tend to have generic traits or significant region specific mutations, the 2nd group are very prone to extinction the first groupo are designed to survive. Your trying to put evolution in mothballs mate, whats next, specifically breeding heritage species because you think they should belong there. Humanity is a force of nature too and thus applies evolutionary pressure to all things it comes into contact with, we are not alien to the planet.
Simon
2 Jul 11 at 12:13 pm
GP, hope you didn’t waste too much time on that complaint to MW.
bingbing
2 Jul 11 at 12:14 pm
What?
You start with 10 regions with 10 unique species each. OK, that’s 100 species.
You then make 4 extinct in each region. That leaves you with 6 unique species in each region, or 60 all up.
You then introduce the same 6 species into each region. That gives you 66 species.
Monty, did Harry teach you Maths?
boy on a bike
2 Jul 11 at 12:20 pm
Um, no, wreckage. Physics uses mathematics in its description of the universe. It seems to work largely and it is somewhat amazing that an invention of the human mind can describe the universe and its workings so well.
Eyrie
2 Jul 11 at 12:23 pm
Lomborg’s writing have stood up pretty well.
I disagree with his suggestions about large scale government funded research on AGW but his other conclusions are it seems to me pretty good.
And his is not and never has been a sceptic about AGW.
Ken n
2 Jul 11 at 12:48 pm
Lomborg makes a darn sight more sense than a lot of others out there sprouting an opinion, be they qualified in the field or not.
I’m kinda disappointed no one has opted to lick the toad. Scientific experimentation is so tame nowadays. Who knows what possibilities would present themselves under the influence of toad.
Note: Toad licking comes with a plain green wrapped health warning and is soon to be taxed.
Shelley
2 Jul 11 at 2:37 pm
Julian Simon, Bjorn Lomborg and (does anyone remember him ?) Petr Beckmann are/were all genuine environmentalists that saw through green BS and identified the green left as collectivist utopians. AGW is the last flying gasp of the green monster. When it dies, as the so-called “peace movement” died in the 90′s, we’ll see it rise, reinvented in another guise.
Ayrdale
2 Jul 11 at 4:01 pm
“Procedural grounds” was the wording of the official review of the DCSD’s original review.
To quote those words is not lying.
To quote them in the way they were quoted, without further detail, is still not lying.
It is, however, extremely dishonest and misleading.
It’s perfectly obvious that I’m right – the very word ‘lie’ has quasi-magical powers to befuddle Catallaxians, thanks to the legacy of G Montgomery Bird.
FDB
2 Jul 11 at 6:42 pm
Okay, so you agree with the overall point, but object to the word ‘lie’, preferring the more accurate word ‘misleading’… how exactly are we befuddled?
daddy dave
2 Jul 11 at 7:18 pm
Sorry FDB,
But the OP had
“”That statement is so misleading so as to constitute a lie.”"
And , well, it sort of does.
jumpnmcar
2 Jul 11 at 8:20 pm
Re Myrddin Serin at 9:01 on 1 July, I don’t ‘cheerlead’ for any Government. Although I supported the Rudd Government’s fiscal stimulus packages (in the broad, though not always in the detail or the execution), I’ve been critical of them in other areas – for example, the ‘flood levy’, the decision to compensate mining companies for increases in State Government royalties (a decision which I called ‘dopey’), for increasing the First Home Owners’ Grant for existing dwellings, and for not seriously cutting net spending in the most recent Budget.
Re the various coments by Serin and Sinclair on my ‘advising’ the Liberal Party, I have no formal role there (and haven’t had since I worked for Jeff Kennett as Victorian Opposition Leader in 1983-84, unless you count an 8-month stint as CEO of the Victorian Audit Commission in 1992-93 as ‘advising the Liberal Party’.
I have spoken at a couple of Menzies Research Institute functions (which is what I think Sinclair was referring to), and at some other events organized by Liberal Party affiliated entities in various parts of Australia. I have also spoken at a few Labor Party Branch functions over the years. I have had conversations, some of which could be construed as ‘offering advice’, with Shadow Treasurers of both major parties (and at Federal and State levels) over many years – in my experience, Shadow Treasurers of both political complexions are eager for conversations of that kind while they are in that role, but have fairly short memories for who helped them when they get into Government. But that’s life.
Saul Eslake
3 Jul 11 at 9:22 am
I have no idea what ‘JC’ is referring to (1 July at 9:01) when s/he says that I once claimed that if it hadn’t been for high wages the 1930s Depresession would have been even worse. If s/he can refer me to something specific, I’ll gladly clarify.
Saul Eslake
3 Jul 11 at 9:24 am
ah, yes.
Sinclair Davidson
3 Jul 11 at 9:28 am
Saul
It was at Troppo one time and you said if I recall correctly that lowering wage rates would have made the depression worse in the US.
If you don’t think that is is correct then fair enough. If I recall you posted that opinion in a comment there.
JC.
3 Jul 11 at 9:32 am
OK ‘JC’ I now recall that discussion, if not all of the detail of it. You were correct – my apologies. Wage rates were of course lowered in the depression, in nominal terms. And I think the problem was that wages and prices chased each other downwards in a deflationary spiral: and because prices fell by more than wages, REAL wages actually increased (further adversely affecting employment). And declining nominal incomes made servicing outstanding debts (fixed in nominal terms) even more difficult, for households, business and governments. Hence the basis for my assertion.
Saul Eslake
3 Jul 11 at 10:26 am
Okay, so from the headline “ABC lies about Lomborg”, we retreat via the slightly watered down “so misleading so [sic] as to constitute a lie”, we finally arrive at “it sort of does [constitute a lie]“.
I’m guessing that’s as plain an admission as I’m likely to see that it “sort of doesn’t”. And when something sort of doesn’t constitute a lie, it’s best not to call it one. That’s the only point I’ve been trying to make – now I wonder why anyone bothered disagreeing.
FDB
4 Jul 11 at 12:03 pm
Saul
I think if look carefully there were several attempts by both Hoover and FDR to hold up wages and even prices (by going to the extremes of slaughtering pigs in one mind boggling instance).
Holding up wages would have aggravated the situation further and made the depression worse as there was no support for those wage rates in the new economic reality.
My theory is that there was no such thing as the Great Depression as one event. It was a rolling set of downward spiraling economic reactions, as each new stupid government policy was unfolded.
JC.
4 Jul 11 at 12:14 pm
FDB
Stop being a moron. It was a lie by omission. It quacks like a lie and has feathers.
Stop being a pedantic twit. You realize that is your worst feature as a human being.
JC.
4 Jul 11 at 12:16 pm
Not ‘sort of’ a lie.
They lied.
C.L.
4 Jul 11 at 12:16 pm
He’s been injecting all morning, CL. Go easy on him.
JC.
4 Jul 11 at 12:18 pm
Misleading by omission falls within the ambit of lying for it is another way of lying; that is, by omission.
dover_beach
4 Jul 11 at 12:27 pm
Misleading by omission is NOT lying.
Bjørn Lomborg has copped a lt of irrational flak over The Skeptical Environmentalist. he got spat on and such like. Thing is this was ages ago and Thompson should’ve well known that the Danish ministry over-turned the DCSD’s findings on the book.
Adrien
4 Jul 11 at 1:02 pm
The article’s essentially a kick Abbott’s AGW policy. Thompson repeats the mantra that no Australian economist supports his R+D approach. Abbott’s retort is that Lomborg thinks that’s the way to go. So Thompson drags up The Skeptical Economist.
He seems to’ve stopped with the first Wikipedia paragraph on the ‘controversy’. He doesn’t address any of the claims. It’s just shitfight journalism. I don;t think Thompson knows what’s in the book, its history or anything else save he doesn’t like Abbott.
I don’t believe anything I read on AGW anymore.
Adrien
4 Jul 11 at 1:06 pm
AGW is a fairy story used by folk marxists to get big government to redistribute wealth to ‘right-on’ people and wankers like hc.
Rococo Liberal
4 Jul 11 at 1:30 pm
Jeremy Thompson misspells Lomborg’s name not once, but twice (“Lomberg”)
Lazy, sloppy.
AK
26 Jul 11 at 7:27 pm
Exactly. I felt the same way when Penny Wong decided to talk down to me with her BA in macrame or whatever she has and lie about sea level rises as Environment Minister.
Good comments by JC and Saul.
.
26 Jul 11 at 7:52 pm