INFOTERRA: Lomborgs reaction
Dear Envetecsoc and Infoterra members,
Lomborg reacted on the verdict by sending a press release to the media:
"Press release, Copenhagen 2003-01-07
The ruling on the matter of scientific dishonesty from the DCSD – a
comment by Bjørn Lomborg
In the beginning of last year several complaints regarding my book `The
Sceptical Environmentalist' were handed in to the Danish Committee on
Scientific Dishonesty (the DCSD). Naturally, I have been looking forward to
being cleared of the charges of scientific dishonesty. Therefore I have
submitted my comments on many of the accusations to DCSD.
Unfortunately the DCSD has made their decision without taking a position to
the content of the complaints. The DCSD has ruled that "it is not DCSD's
remit to decide who is right in a contentious professional issue". I find
this ruling inexplicable and it means that there is still no ruling about
the numerous complaints put forth in public. So I maintain that the
complaints of the plaintiffs are unfounded.
The main conclusion by DCSD finds that my book is "clearly contrary to the
standards of good scientific practice" because of systematically biased
selection of data and arguments. But since the DCSD has neglected to take
their position on the technical scientific disputes their conclusions are
completely unfounded. The DCSD does not give a single example to
demonstrate their claim of a biased choice of data and arguments.
Consequently, I don't understand this ruling. It equals an accusation
without defining the crime.
The DCSD, however, refers to the criticism of my book put forth by 4
scientists in Scientific American. This is a one-year-old discussion, which
I participated in at that time, e.g. by writing a 34-page response <
http://www.greenspirit.com/lomborg/ScientificAmericanBjørnLomborgAnswer.pdf
>. But in spite of the fact that the DCSD received a copy of my response,
they refer to none of my arguments. In fact the only thing that the DCSD
does is to repeat the Scientific American arguments over 6 pages, while
only allowing my arguments one line. This seems to reflect an extremely
biased procedure. On top of that the DCSD has failed to evaluate the
scientific points in dispute outlined in Scientific American article.
My initial response when I read the conclusion of the DCSD was one of
surprise and discomfort. But when reading through the complete ruling I
found it to be:
• Inexplicable in its negligence to take a position on the complaints of
the plaintiffs
• Undocumented by ruling the book to be systematically biased without
documenting this with a single example
• Biased by its reference to only one side of the comprehensive discussion
concerning my book (the plaintiffs side)"
------
See also the comment of John Daly at: http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/#denmark
An his comment on Stephen Schneider, one of the authors of the Scientific
American article: http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/schneidr.htm
Sincerely,
Ferdinand Engelbeen
-------------------------------
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).
----