No, I'm just saying the guy is controversial. But he can very well choose the data he interprets, which is one of the complaints about his book, that is apparently still being reviewed... I agree on the second part (and I never said anything to the contrary), but not the first one. The scientific community is pretty much in agreement that there is a global warming. Plus if the scientific community did not have a unique voice, why then would so many scientists be mad about that guy? And where are the scientists supporting him? I never denied we were making improvement, which is in no part due to an acknowledgment that yes, we have an impact on the environment. Have you checked any source other that the guy's own website? I think it was only fair to show the controversy surrounding that guy. But if you have no expertise in a given field, how can you be certain your interpretation is correct? As I said, I don't care if people get it wrong or are stupid. I care about what the scientists say. And I believe there is a great discrepancy between what the scientists say and what the media say, and my opinion is that this discrepancy is the cause of the current confusion, more than the minimal disagreement in the scientific community. Once again, I'm not saying Lomborg is wrong. I'm saying Lomborg is controversial because he goes against the scientifical consensus (which as I stated is a good thing for science), and that given that I have no expertise on the subject, I will rather trust the opinion of the scientific community than that of a lone maverick, or you (but nothing personal ). Should the scientific community acknowledge that Lomborg's right, then I will give the guy credit.