We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
I respect Lomborg as one of the few (only?) objectively thinking warmists. He is about the only one I've heard who is not making it into a political jihad.
But I wonder how he can assert that Global Warming is real and partially man made when the human activity that is supposed to contribute to AGW continues unabated (worldwide) and the climate has moderated or even cooled over the last fifteen years.
I agree about Lomborg. The guy may be a Warmist, but at least he's not political about it. The cool thing is that the article's been on the AGW-loving Washington Post for three days now -- as shocking as that may seem.
As for your query, I'll be addressing precisely that in an upcoming AGW post. Still dabbling with it, so maybe not until next week. The title? The Enemies Within
(5) Academia: The Black Hole of Bandwagon Research
Indeed, writing lots of papers of questionable value about a given popular topic seems to be a very good way to advance your academic career these days. The advantages are clear: there is no need to convince anyone that the topic is pertinent and you are very likely to be cited more since more people are likely to work on similar things. This will, in turn, raise your impact factor and will help to establish you as a credible researcher, regardless of whether your work is actually good/important or not.
Lomborg still has to eat and the first guy to break with the "consensus" is going to be kicked out of the club. So he'd better have a trade or at least a bit of his self-respect left.
"World's top climate scientists admit computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong"
Wait a minute. It's the computers' fault? Who are these "top climate scientists"? The Obamas of the climate research world?
How about the climate scientists got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong because their models were wrong because the scientists were wrong in what they programmed into those models. The computer is just an innocent worker in all this crunching the numbers in the way the were told by...wait for it, the climate scientists.