A favourite deceit of AGW sceptics is to present Bjorn Lomberg as a "scientist." He isn't. His PhD is in Political Science — a humanity.

There are different methodologies between those used in "hard" and social sciences. Social sciences don't really use the scientific method. This is clearly demonstrated through out a recent Salon.com interview with Bjorn, and was especially telling in the discussion of Bjorn's use of polar bears.

Here is a response to the writer quoting one expert's opinion (a front-line researcher in polar bears).

"OK. But I've talked to a different expert that's up in Greenland, who works for the Danish government, and he has looked over my chapter, and said that it's OK."

If only all experts were equal.

Bjorn's referencing of another expert is supposed to counter the point, but he never makes a commitment on which has the better data and the better hypothesis — a fundamental step in science.

We will be tested over the next twenty years, so we w

Your line about all experts being equal is what the confusion is about. I have chosen a qualified science scientist whom I trust. They made him Australian of the Year just before the global warming became an issue. They fear being contradicted by him. He has been quiet lately (I hope not gagged for being a threat during the election campaign)
All the writing I have seen points to polar bears (and whales and other species) starving.
The non-science scientists should be ashamed of themselves for cowing to political pressure or pressure from their polluting employers.

That would be Tim Flannery. I trust his work too.