Sketicblog posting.

I think I am a skeptic, therefore I am. 

I never understood why Descartes gets the credit for something so basic as 'Cogito ergo sum'. I speculate that the idea has been around for some time. To me, it is like any particular faith taking credit for the golden rule. I would argue that cogito ergo sum is an endless sequence anyways. I think I am, I think? Therefore I think I am, I think so, yes I think that I do think that I am thinking I think, which presumes that I was thinking I think therefore yes I certainly am that which is thinking it is thinking that it is thought... I think.  Not to say there is no purpose in the exercise. Like calculating Pi, it is worth doing for the exercise. Speaking of pi, have you heard this one? The formula for calculating the volume of  dinner is pi times the radius of 'z' twice, times the depth of 'a' equals...

 Pi*z*z*a.

That is one of only math jokes I know.
Which brings me to the point of this post. I have been following a thread on Skepticblog (find link below) that is basically tearing a new one for the author Michael Shermer. In this blog, one finds a well known professional skeptic apparently coming to the defence of Bjorn Lomborg and his work.

Lomborg is likely to enter the pop culture for obvious reasons. He is youngish, good looking and charismatic, and is talking about climate and polar bears and stuff in a nice sciency way. It all looks good on the surface, and that is the issue. Lomborg is superficial and lacks any credibility. It takes very little effort to find evidence that confirms that assertion. Bjorn Lomborg is a straw man. Presented as somebody worth listening to, his type of obfuscation is very effective.

For the benefit of those who do not do their own research (or google shit like me), in a nutshell here is the problem;

Guys like Lomborg and Shermer think that economics has some magic formulas that when applied properly, solve all of our problems. Then people who use economics to rationalise environmental destruction pay them, and they state, "see, proves my point!".  I know that doesn't make sense, and that is the point.

The fact that Bjorn is getting paid does prove something, but it has nothing to do with climate science or rational thought and skepticism at all. Just like saying I think therefore I am proves nothing except that you are thinking. What you are thinking is a whole other matter. Regardless, please keep thinking, and  whatever Bjorn Lomborg has to say, please be critical.

Make your own decision; here's the link.
http://skepticblog.org/2010/11/16/throwing-cold-water-on-a-hot-topic/#comment-31585