Search The Oil Drum with Google
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Home Buyers Demand Short Commutes, Efficient Homes (with Backyards, Parking, lots of Square Feet)
- Streets: Utilitarian Corridors or Livable Public Space
- Summer Streets a Success!
TOD:Europe
- IEA WEO 2008 - Fossil Fuel Ultimates and CO2 Emissions Scenarios
- The IEA WEO 2008: Will coal usage be phased out?
- Oilwatch Monthly - November 2008
TOD:Canada
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
TOD:ANZ
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
“The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.”
—James Madison, FEDERALIST #57 (1787)
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Heading Out, Stuart Staniford, Nate Hagens
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Gail the Actuary, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
I hope you keep debating. Most will take the ad as a tacit endorsement of the book's content by TOD.
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.
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
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.
There's nothing wrong with endorsing quality stuff. You can find our endorsements of good ideas and products in the center column of the page—not the left column.
I posted the editor's note to clarify our policy on advertisements.
I can see why this is a hot potato, but as long as the ad gives a fair summary of what it is advertising - the 2 review quotes give me that summary OK - then I say keep it. If the ad said "this contains the truth about GW" then I would object. I welcome any skeptical environmentalists, and their guide. I wont buy it or read it.
If he is saying that there is lot of hype, hand-wringing and political rhetoric that will mean we do nothing useful in the end to affect the outcome, then I don't need to read it because I think that already.
And one of the two review quotes is from none other than the National Review. I think that suffices to give (hopefully) most people an idea of what a political piece of cr*p the book is; little to do with science, or indeed honest research.
When asked, I said that Lomborg was too tendentious and we should not run the ad. However, taking his money and using it to run negative reviews of his book isn't bad.
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.