Much more likely it would be seen as Lomborg endorsing the content of TOD as the fear is always that advertisers control the content of their media outlets not that the outlets endorse their advertisers.

If ExxonMobil wants to support TOD, by all means let's let them since it could be taken as an implicit endorsement of the view that global oil production has already peaked, espoused by so many of us here.

: )

Ken

I don't agree. Right now, The New York Times website is running an ad for the Infiniti G Coupe. Do people come away with the impression that the Times "endorses" the car?

If we reject ads based on their content, then the ads we do run can be seen as endorsements. But if we run every ad that's submitted to us, it is impossible to discern which products we endorse and which we don't.

People understand that newspapers sell ads to anyone as their funding mechanism. They don't necessarily understand that about websites like TOD. Indeed, I had assumed until now that TOD did have standards.

And what's wrong with endorsing quality stuff?

If, indeed, TOD runs every ad that is submitted, you have a valid point. So are there no standards whatsoever? And if there aren't, why is this string even posted? Certainly not for the majority of folks who will never read it.

That queasy feeling may be a bad burrito, or maybe there actually should be standards and TOD staff kinda realizes that.... I'm just guessing.

Credibility is a fragile thing.

Indeed, to make progress in the GW debate you absolutely need books like "Cool It" to debunk, and getting people to buy and read the book is not such a bad thing.

Personally, I never feel comfortable in a conclusion until I have thoroughly considered the best the opposing group has to say about the matter. Otherwise, I am quite liable to be just believing someone telling me what I already want to believe.

The thing that is so compelling about the view that Peak Oil has occurred or is imminent is the utter weakness of the best opposing arguements and their supporting data.

Question is -- business / press or not?

Yet, clearly, Lomborg's voice is a seriously counterproductive one in seeking to move toward a more sensible path.

What is frustrating is that the basic question: let us try to figure out real metrics for helping judge investment decisions is one that make sense. By definition, we have limited resources. Investing them soundly, supported by real evidence, is something that we should all support.

Sadly, though, Lomborg is invested in truthiness rather than truth.