> much of what is being said has a huge element of alarmism.
Could you kindly provide any evidence for this sort of claim?
And could you provide any sort of evidence that we should even use effort to examine Lomborg's claims, much less try to use it as what we compare the USDA to? He has a history of being wrong, and ignoring that history in order to "stop alarmism" seems like an equal sin to any potential alarmism.
Outlier analyses that have a history of producing incorrect analyses should not be taken as a gold standard of anything.
Could you kindly provide any evidence for this sort of claim?
And could you provide any sort of evidence that we should even use effort to examine Lomborg's claims, much less try to use it as what we compare the USDA to? He has a history of being wrong, and ignoring that history in order to "stop alarmism" seems like an equal sin to any potential alarmism.
Outlier analyses that have a history of producing incorrect analyses should not be taken as a gold standard of anything.