Case Against Scientifically Honest Bjorn Lomborg Dismissed

The Reason ^ | 12 March 2004

[optimistically_conservative]

Press Release March 12, 2004

Scientific Dishonesty Committee Withdraws Lomborg Case

The Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) today announced it would not reopen the case concerning Bjørn Lomborg's book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist".

In December 2003 The Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation completely rejected the DCSD finding that "The Skeptical Environmentalist" was "objectively dishonest" or "clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice".

The Ministry, which is responsible for the DCSD, found that the committee's judgment was not backed up by documentation and was "completely void of argumentation" for the claims of dishonesty and lack of good scientific practice.

The Ministry invalidated the original finding and sent the case back to DCSD, where it was up to the committee to decide whether to reopen the case for a new trial.

"The committee decision is as one would expect," Environmental Assessment Institute director Bjørn Lomborg said today. "More than two years have passed since the case against my book was started. In that time every possible stone has been turned over, yet DCSD has been unable to find a single point of criticism that withstands further investigation."

"DCSD have reached the only logical conclusion. The committee has acknowledged that the former verdict of my book was invalid. I am happy that this will spell an end to what has been a very distasteful course of events," Bjørn Lomborg said.

The DCSD translated their first judgment into English. Today's announcement is only available in Danish.

[optimistically_conservative]

Good!

[Tax Government]

"Scientific Dishonesty Committee?" Has anybody in that country heard of freedom of speech?

[PeaceBeWithYou]

So the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty acted dishonestly?

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you! /sarcasm off

Bjørn Lomborg wrote an excellent book, full of documented fact. If you haven't read it obtain it and do so!

[optimistically_conservative]

What's great about this is it has now exposed these overseers as hypocrites. Any other decision is now suspect.

Scientific controversy has been squashed by the liberal elite in the "soft sciences". Environmentalism is just one aspect.

[expatpat]

The Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) certainly knows how to be scientifically dishonest. I hope they are hanging their heads in shame.

[WhiteyAppleseed]

Doesn't matter. Everyone know the globe is getting warm. In fact, we only had 20' of snowfall this year, far from the snowfall record. In fact, we only have about 24" of snow left on the ground and it is showing serious sign of a warm planet as it is disappearing at a pleasing pace. In fact, I can't wait to hit the trout streams.

[SpaceBar]

It doesn't matter whether the book was found to be accurate, intellectually honest, scientifically rigorous or whatever. The very fact that Denmark has an an organisation called the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty, and that that organisation has any legal power whatsoever is pure, unadulterated facist thought control of the lowest order. Heads up Danes: Root this organisation out of your midst or welcome yourselves to Orwell's 1984. You have been warned.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

ping

[satchmodog9]

nice

[aquila48]

The very fact that Denmark has an an organisation called the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty, and that that organisation has any legal power whatsoever is pure, unadulterated facist thought control of the lowest order.

Scary! And they call us fascists!?

[VOA]

The DCSD translated their first judgment into English.
Today's announcement is only available in Danish.

With the presentation of that one piece of evidence, I find the committee guilty of
INTENTIONAL persecution and slander of Lomborg with malice aforethought.
The Committee is hereby sentenced to being publically exposed as a bunch of
lying weasels!

Bailiff, next case!

[KC_for_Freedom]

Bjørn Lomborg wrote an excellent book, full of documented fact.

His critics are in fact the very "scientists" criticized in Bjorn's work. His use of valid science (and math) to show global warming and other pet science concerns of the left to be unsubstantiated. With respect to global warming, the models used assume global warming and then attempt to pinpoint what will happen. True scientific models hypothesize what may be happening and try to show measurable events that can be used to validate the model. It will take many years to validate global warming. In the meantime, Bjorn shows that it won't be as big a deal as the critics make out.

[VOA]

The Ministry, which is responsible for the DCSD, found that the committee's judgment
was not backed up by documentation and was "completely void of argumentation" for
the claims of dishonesty and lack of good scientific practice.

Translation: that's polite language for what would be called a "b-tch-slap" in
the language of the street.

[VOA]

The Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) certainly knows how to be
scientifically dishonest. I hope they are hanging their heads in shame.

Better yet, the names and roles of each member of the committee should be
made public.
And if possible, Lomborg should sue, even just to use "discovery" to get
as much of the committee's notes and compell swearing out of affidavits from the weasels.

[VOA]

Scary! And they call us fascists!?

Not to worry. Their facists have plenty of fellow-traverlers in
American academia and media.

I can't wait to see if this even gets any sort of mention (let alone fair reportage)
in an American publication like "Science".

[countrydummy]

ping!

[optimistically_conservative]

I hope they are hanging their heads in shame.

More likely they are seething and planning their revenge.

[sergeantdave]

This is a sustainable development. The DCSD is not biodiverse. I hope your existence is endangered. You have little hope for smart growth. Your extinction will be cheered.

[boop]

This IS as scary committee. Basically it PROSECUTES any scientist who dares to come to a non-PC conclusion.

[optimistically_conservative]

With respect to global warming, the models used assume global warming and then attempt to pinpoint what will happen. True scientific models hypothesize what may be happening and try to show measurable events that can be used to validate the model. It will take many years to validate global warming.

Yep. They are already trying

"I think the scientific world has tried to step up to do the studies that are necessary to nail down this issue of global warming," said Warren Washington, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. "There are a lot of people intensely working on it."

The editors of the journal Science this month lauded researchers who trotted out study after study, including documentation of the impacts of climate change, as producing one of the top 10 scientific achievements of 2003. Ten of the warmest years logged since 1880 have occurred since 1991.

"The stream of studies suggesting global warming's impact on Earth and its inhabitants surged to a flood in 2003 with reports on melting ice, droughts, decreased plant productivity, and altered plant and animal behavior," the journal's editors noted.

For the past 50 years, humans have had the most dominant detectable influence on climate change, according to a Science paper co-written by Boulder researcher Kevin Trenberth. "There is no doubt that the composition of the atmosphere is changing because of human activities, and today greenhouse gases are the largest human influence on global climate," wrote Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

"Clearly, whatever is happening is human-induced," said Susan Solomon, a senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Aeronomy Laboratory in Boulder and co-author of a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The research team speculated that aerosols, tiny pollutants that change cloud physics and affect temperature, might be responsible.

"I honestly have to say the actual mechanism remains unknown," Solomon said.

Maybe I should send this on to Jay Bookman for his Cold hearts deny global warming column.

[aquila48]

Their facists have plenty of fellow-traverlers in American academia and media.

How true!! My biggest concern is not the islamists, the Eurinals, nor the Chinese - it is the "enemy within" that WE have allowed to take over our major institutions.

[VOA]

Talk about your classic press embargo...
I went to the News section of Google and ran a search for "Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty"

It returned a link for ONE article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3486894.stm

No three-inch headlines for Lomborg...when he wins a round!
And the mainstream media wonders why they are perceived widely as lying leftist weasels.

[TheDon]

This is Europe we are talking about. They have fallen behind the civilized world in recent years. A touch backwards they are.

[Carry_Okie]

Allow me to edit the first two paragraphs slightly to make a point:In December 2003 The Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation completely rejected the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) finding that "The Skeptical Environmentalist" was "objectively dishonest" or "clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice".

The DCSD today announced it would not reopen the case concerning Bjørn Lomborg's book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist".

Michael Crichton, please note: A centralized committee on scientific standards was incapable of precluding political influence on technical findings, indded, it wrongly persecuted an individual for deviating from the dominant orthodoxy.

[TheDon]

Book Description
Bjørn Lomborg, a former member of Greenpeace, challenges widely held beliefs that the world environmental situation is getting worse and worse in his new book, The Skeptical Environmentalist. Using statistical information from internationally recognized research institutes, Lomborg systematically examines a range of major environmental issues that feature prominently in headline news around the world, including pollution, biodiversity, fear of chemicals, and the greenhouse effect, and documents that the world has actually improved. He supports his arguments with over 2500 footnotes, allowing readers to check his sources. Lomborg criticizes the way many environmental organizations make selective and misleading use of scientific evidence and argues that we are making decisions about the use of our limited resources based on inaccurate or incomplete information. Concluding that there are more reasons for optimism than pessimism, he stresses the need for clear-headed prioritization of resources to tackle real, not imagined, problems. The Skeptical Environmentalist offers readers a non-partisan evaluation that serves as a useful corrective to the more alarmist accounts favored by campaign groups and the media. Bjørn Lomborg is an associate professor of statistics in the Department of Political Science at the University of Aarhus. When he started to investigate the statistics behind the current gloomy view of the environment, he was genuinely surprised. He published four lengthy articles in the leading Danish newspaper, including statistics documenting an ever-improving world, and unleashed the biggest post-war debate with more than 400 articles in all the major papers. Since then, Lomborg has been a frequent participant in the European debate on environmentalism on television, radio, and in newspapers.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521010683/qid=1079210334/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-5674854-1125740?v=glance&s=books

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

[optimistically_conservative]

Bjørn Lomborg, a former member of Greenpeace ...

Funny the BBC column doesn't mention that.

[ValerieUSA]

hmmmm.... should we clear it with a committee before we ping friends to this thread?

[VOA]

What I noticed that was missing was the term "completely void of argumentation"
about the committee's judgement.
But then the Brits, not just the BBC, are fairly polite in expressing disapproval.
(that's why you have to listen for the "damning with faint praise" sort of verbiage, etc.)

[VOA]

The Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) certainly knows how to
be scientifically dishonest.

The "on" in the committee's title should be replaced with "for".

[JoeFromSidney]

The very fact that Denmark has an an organisation called the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty, and that that organisation has any legal power whatsoever is pure, unadulterated facist thought control of the lowest order.

You should be aware that the US govrnment has a Office of Research Integrity, whose function is to check into the integrity of researchers receiving government funds. The Office has actually done a good job of rooting out scientific fraud and other dishonesty by grant recipients.

One of the most flagrant cases involved a researcher who published an elaborate report on "endocrine disruptors." It turned out that his extensive data tables were complete frauds. He had gathered no data whatsoever, but had made the whole thing up. His punishment? To be barred from receiving any more government grants for five years. He decided to give up science and go to law school, where his talents might be better appreciated.

[E.G.C.]

BTT!!!!!!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks!

[jennyp]

Talk about your classic press embargo...
I went to the News section of Google and ran a search for "Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty"

It returned a link for ONE article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3486894.stm

Well, that article had a link to the original news item from back in December. IIRC the news of his vindication did get some play in the press, but not a lot. I'd forgotten about it myself.

[SunkenCiv]

Yeah, the Amazon review page on the book had a post the very day the "findings" (meaning, the axe-grinding bias mongers' hatchet job; ooh, not a bad mixed metaphor) were given the boot. The so-called committee is just another jackbooted fascist Thought Police force.

Naturally, their "findings" were saddled on by the grossly misnamed "Skeptic" magazine.

[SunkenCiv]

In addition, the stability of the climate is assumed, a ridiculous assumption that has to be indicative of a deliberate campaign of lying. The inconstancy of solar output -- the Sun being the Earth's sole source of heat -- has been known for a very long time.

During the medieval warming period sealevel rose such that some currently inland towns in England were ports via fiords. During the "Little Ice Age" which followed, the northern Atlantic froze to such an extent that polar bears crossed to Iceland from Greenland.

By comparison, the sealevel hasn't risen measurably since 1850. The global warming demagogues used to claim that the seas would rise many feet by 2100 AD. Now they claim a mere 7 inches (.07 inches per year on average), with most of the rise happening nearer the end of the period.

That ought to keep the gov't grants flowing for at least a generation.

And global warming is also gonna cause global cooling. Oh no!

IOW, heads they win, tails we lose.

Hanging's too good for 'em.

[SunkenCiv]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1074142/posts#6

[KC_for_Freedom]

Hanging's too good for 'em.

We would have so many sharp kids who could see through all this if we had any reasonable system of public education, making me believe that bringing down the school system is part of the conspiracy too.

[VOA]

Well, that article had a link to the original news item from back in December.

That is true. But as I've grown accustomed to using the Google News search function,
in my own idiosyncratic "book", just one hit is as we say in science...insignificant.
At least compared to the volcanic worldwide reaction from academia when
Lomborg's book appeared.
I remember using that search function to find info. to ferret out info. on an
article on genetics (for a professor in genetics) even before the peer-reviewed
article had been published.

IIRC the news of his vindication did get some play in the press, but not a lot.
I'd forgotten about it myself.

At least you heard about it. I listen (too much!) to talk radio here in Los Angeles
and didn't hear a peep. Well, until today. At freerepublic.com.
And I did hear Lomborg interviewed by Dennis Prager when the book was a hot topic.
But the vindication phase has certainly gotten short shrift.

But, as one old government official (Ray Donovan?) said after being found not
guilty on politically-trumped-up charges..."Where do I go now to get back my reputation".

That little bit about the committee not issuing the vindication in English...
that sort of silence speaks volumes.

[ApplegateRanch]

In fact, I can't wait to hit the trout streams.

LOL

That is one postive aspect.

Another, that should make evirofreaks very happy is that it's setting the stage for replacing some of those "irreplacable" (read, so don't use them) non-renewable natural resources they are always trying to "protect".

Without a good, healthy, high-CO2/warm climate, you just can't get the growth necessary for the matterial to lay down new coal beds.

[jennyp]

I remember using that search function to find info. to ferret out info. on an article on genetics (for a professor in genetics) even before the peer-reviewed article had been published.

Ah, well then may I suggest this other pretty good source for genetics/evolution/some biology news? (My site)

[VOA]

Ah, well then may I suggest this other pretty good source for
genetics/evolution/some biology news? (My site)

Looks like an interesting site. I'll swing by now and then.
By the way, do you listen to Charles Colson's BreakPoint Commentaries?
He often covers scientific topics impacting society.

[jennyp]

By the way, do you listen to Charles Colson's BreakPoint Commentaries? He often covers scientific topics impacting society.

Sorry, I really only catch them when they show up on a crevo thread.

[editor-surveyor]

"Has anybody in that country heard of freedom of speech?"

Not lately.

I have a client that owns restaurants all over Europe and California, and chooses to live in Copenhagen "because the girl watching is better there" (Lots of big blonds). Whenever we meet to discuss a project, he spends a long time unloading about the situation in Europe. You either agree, or keep your mouth shut.