![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
http://www.newsweek.com/id/233942
Climate danger "de-bunker" Lomborg de-bunked by Friel
This article also shows the problem with what I'd call too much granularity. The overall picture is clear: the danger-denier misrepresented many of his footnotes, therefore is not reliable.
But in a casual internet debate, deniers could quote from the bottom of the article which had some (small) criticisms of Friel. Back and forth, someone could appear to discredit Friel, implying that Lomborg is in the clear.
Climate danger "de-bunker" Lomborg de-bunked by Friel
This article also shows the problem with what I'd call too much granularity. The overall picture is clear: the danger-denier misrepresented many of his footnotes, therefore is not reliable.
But in a casual internet debate, deniers could quote from the bottom of the article which had some (small) criticisms of Friel. Back and forth, someone could appear to discredit Friel, implying that Lomborg is in the clear.
