Is this a good thing? (That is not a rhetorical question!)
As far as I can tell from the essay, he used to claim to hold a Lomborg position, but he doesn’t indicate knowing what that position is. I think he switched positions for majoritarian reasons (which he mentions, along with data). That would seem to lose him the “skeptic” label! That might be good if he were explicit about it, but he simultaneously claims to be data-driven, while not presenting any data that Lomborg disagrees with.
I’m not impressed by someone who changes their position because everyone else in their tribe has done the same. I am impressed by someone who changes their position for majoritarian reasons and says so explicitly.
This is a good question.
Michael Shermer changed his mind about anthropogenic global warming.
Is this a good thing? (That is not a rhetorical question!)
As far as I can tell from the essay, he used to claim to hold a Lomborg position, but he doesn’t indicate knowing what that position is. I think he switched positions for majoritarian reasons (which he mentions, along with data). That would seem to lose him the “skeptic” label! That might be good if he were explicit about it, but he simultaneously claims to be data-driven, while not presenting any data that Lomborg disagrees with.
I’m not impressed by someone who changes their position because everyone else in their tribe has done the same. I am impressed by someone who changes their position for majoritarian reasons and says so explicitly.
...and is, in fact, correct. Otherwise that could lead you to being impressed by those impressed by majoritarianism enough to become theists.