[jdlshore]

I wasn’t familiar with those names, so I looked them up. Neither is a climate scientist. According to Wikipedia, “ Shellenberger's positions have been called "bad science" and "inaccurate" by environmental scientists and academics.” Lomborg’s book was found to be “scientifically dishonest through misrepresentation of scientific facts.”

I'll let you have the last word.

[misslibby]

The "environmental scientists and academics" in question have probably also been accused of bad science by their opponents. And who gets to decide who is the scientist in that debate?

Shellenberger and Lomborg have presumable studied the issue for decades, so at what point does one cross into "being a scientist" territory? Years of study apparently doesn't do it, so what does? Obama's seal of approval?

You are confusing science and specific systems of doing science, like say a countries university system. A specific system of doing science does not automatically produce good science.

[jacquesm]

It requires continued adherence to the scientific method. As soon as you stop doing that you stop being a scientist, whether your name is Shellenberger, Lomborg or Watson for that matter isn't relevant. Science is what you do not who you are.

[misslibby]

Sure - but then how do you verify that some alleged scientist has been doing that, if you are not allowed/worthy of checking their work?

[jacquesm]

Of course you are allowed. And whether you are worthy or not is up to you but just gathering a bunch of questionable data, throwing it in the blender, ignoring all evidence to the contrary and using that to spread FUD is definitely not science.

[misslibby]

How is it not science? Of course that is also science. Can you point out something where he broke your rule of using scientific methods?

All he did so far was provide some data points. The "real" scientists should be able to explain them easily.

Btw, since I was just talking about her elsewhere, would you say Greta Thunberg qualifies as a scientist?