Re: INFOTERRA: FW: Lomborg Rebuke
About the verdict of the committee:
8. DCSD's position
On the basis of the material adduced by the complainants, and particularly
the assessment in Scientific American, DCSD deems it to have been adequately
substantiated that the defendant, who has himself insisted on presenting his
publication in scientific form and not allowing the book to assume the
appearance of a provocative debate-generating paper, based on customary
scientific standards and in light of his systematic onesidedness in the
choice of data and line of argument, has clearly acted at variance with good
scientific practice.
See further: http://www.forsk.dk/uvvu/nyt/udtaldebat/bl_decision.htm
From the Copenhagen Post:
The committees considered only the scientific aspects of Lomborg's book,
not the environmental issues it raised, after receiving formal complaints
about the work.
See further: http://cphpost.periskop.dk/
Thus the committee condemned his work, because of its form, not for its
content. While his work may be biased (who is not?), the refusals in
Scientific American had a complete lack of any evidence that what Lomborg
tried to prove was wrong. I even had discussions with Ann Ehrlich (wife of
Paul Ehrlich) about feed/food production rates in The Netherlands, which is
completely self-supporting and exports more food (concentrated as meat and
milk products) than they import as feed. She was as wrong as her husband,
who lost a bet with Julian Simon about the price of 10 metals. Which were
cheaper at constant dollars after ten years, as Simon predicted.
One of the rebuttals in Scientific American was by Stephen Schneider.
Schneider attacked Lomborg for quoting Prof. Lindzen about the "iris
effect", that is the clearing of the sky in the tropic, providing an
effective negative feedback mechanism when there is more heath influx. That
was proven right, and Schneider was wrong.
Typical for Scientific American was that they first refused to publish any
reaction from Lomborg. Even treated to sue him, because he published the
original comments together with a rebuttal on his web site. Only months
later, he might publish a one-page rebuttal (against twelve pages of
comment)… See the discussion on Lomborg's web site:
http://www.lomborg.com/critique.htm
And about the verdict of the Danish Committee, I should wish that they
would look at the scientific integrity of the works by the Danish EPA...
Highly politisized and biased.
And there are other "scientific" works, where the author should be screened
for scientific dishonesty by some committee, like the work of Joe Thornton
about chlorine ("Pandora's Poison"). Shame on the MIT, which published that
work…
Sincerely,
Ferdinand Engelbeen
At 11:13 1/8/03 -0600, Mike Spears wrote:
>Environment and Science: Danes Rebuke a 'Skeptic'
>By ANDREW C. REVKIN
>
>A branch of the Danish Research Agency has concluded that Prof. Bjorn
>Lomborg, an author whose upbeat analysis of environmental trends has
>been embraced by conservatives, displayed "scientific dishonesty" in his
>popular book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist."
>
>Professor Lomborg, who has a doctorate in political science and teaches
>statistics at the University of Aarhus, has portrayed the book as an
>unbiased scientific refutation of dire pronouncements by environmental
>groups. But it has been attacked as deeply flawed by many environmental
>scientists since its publication in English in 2001 by Cambridge
>University Press.
>
>Many experts have said that environmental conditions, in most cases, are
>not nearly as good as Professor Lomborg portrays them, but also not
>nearly as bad as some environmental groups and scientists have said.
>
>The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty, after a six-month review
>following several complaints filed by scientists, issued a 17-page
>report yesterday concluding that the book displayed "systematic
>one-sidedness."
>
>"Objectively speaking," the committees found, "the publication of the
>work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of
>scientific dishonesty," as defined by Danish rules for scientific integrity.
>
>But because Dr. Lomborg was not found grossly negligent, he could not be
>found formally to have been scientifically dishonest, the report said.
>
>The committee said it found no evidence that Professor Lomborg
>deliberately tried to mislead readers, which would have been a graver
>issue, and settled on a relatively mild rebuke, concluding, "The
>publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good
>scientific practice."
>
>more at: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/08/international/europe/08SKEP.html
>
>----
>This message was sent by INFOTERRA@CEDAR.AT
>To signoff from the list, send an email to majordomo@cedar.at
>the message body should read "unsubscribe infoterra" (without quotes).
>Visit http://www.cedar.at/unep/infoterra/index.html
>for more info, list commands, and mail archives (searchable).
>----
-------------------------------
Ferdinand Engelbeen
Oude Ertbrandstraat 12
B-2940 Stabroek
Belgium
Tel. +32-3-605.38.14
Fax +32-3-605.43.96
----
This message was sent by INFOTERRA@CEDAR.AT
To signoff from the list, send an email to majordomo@cedar.at
the message body should read "unsubscribe infoterra" (without quotes).
Visit http://www.cedar.at/unep/infoterra/index.html
for more info, list commands, and mail archives (searchable).
----