Danish writer cleared of 'scientific dishonesty' (Enviroskeptic Bjorn Lomborg)

Financial Times ^ | 12/18/03 | Vanessa Houlder in London and Clare MacCarthy in Copenhagen

[jalisco555]

Bjorn Lomborg, the author of a controversial book attacking the environment movement, was cleared yesterday of "scientific dishonesty" by the Danish science ministry.

The ministry overturned a ruling in January by the Danish committee on scientific dishonesty (DCSD), part of the Danish Research Agency, that Mr Lomborg's book The Skeptical Environmentalist was "clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice".

Mr Lomborg hailed yesterday's decision as "brilliant". It provided confirmation that freedom of speech extended to the environmental debate, he said.

In its report, the ministry criticised the committee for failing to provide evidence either that Mr Lomborg had been biased in his selection of data or that his methodology had been dubious.

It also said the committee's judgment had used "condescending and emotional" language. And it was a "clear mistake" that the committee had failed to give Mr Lomborg an opportunity to defend himself before publishing its judgment.

This scathing assessment of the DCSD ruling meant that critics would have to find solid arguments to attack his work, rather than rely on mud-slinging, Mr Lomborg said. The ministry's report, which examined only the procedural aspects of Mr Lomborg's treatment by the DCSD, is unlikely to halt the controversy over Mr Lomborg's arguments.

The DCSD was widely criticised in January because it relied on published criticisms of Mr Lomborg's work instead of conducting an independent analysis. Nature, the scientific journal, said the episode "leaves everyone little wiser and the water surrounding Lomborg even muddier".

The DCSD's failure to undertake its own analysis of Mr Lomborg's work also disappointed some of his critics. Christian Ege, director of the Danish Ecological Council, which has published a detailed critique of Mr Lomborg's work, said he was not surprised that the DCSD ruling had been overturned.

Mr Lomborg accused his critics of being motivated by a desire to stop his appointment as director of the Environmental Assessment Institute, established by the centre-right government shortly after it came to power two years ago.

The institute, which has received heavy criticism in recycling-friendly Denmark for claiming it made more sense to incinerate waste aluminium cans than recycle them, has suffered a wave of defections from its supervisory board.

Five members of the seven-strong team have resigned, two for personal reasons and three in protest at Mr Lomborg's plans to host an international conference - Copenhagen Consensus - next spring.

The board members, mostly academics, say Mr Lomborg is overstretching his budget and exceeding his remit by inviting experts and submissions on subjects as varied as financial instability, corrupt governance and infectious diseases.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Danish premier who has defended Mr Lomborg, criticised the board defections earlier this month, while opposition politicians said this latest crisis was another example of Mr Lomborg's lack of credibility. See Editorial Comment

[jalisco555]

Here's the accompanying FT editorial:

How can they have been so stupid? In a nutshell, this was yesterday's official verdict on the Danish committees on scientific dishonesty.

With imperious hauteur the committees had ruled in January that Bjorn Lomborg's book The Skeptical Environmentalist was "objectively speaking . . . scientific dishonesty". Purely based on the evidence of articles in the magazine Scientific American, the Danish environmental optimist became the scientific equivalent of a flat-earther and the cause of an almighty dispute about the science behind global warming. "The publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice," the ruling added.

Yesterday it was damningly overturned by the Danish Ministry of Science, which found that the committees had not discovered any bias in Mr Lomborg's choice of data and that criticism of his working methods was "completely void of argumentation". The criticisms continue. The committees used sloppy and emotive language that - perhaps deliberately - obscured the fact that they had in fact cleared Mr Lomborg of gross negligence and an intent to deceive. They failed adequately to assess whether they had proper jurisdiction over the book. They used improper procedures. They failed to assess whether Mr Lomborg's work had been peer reviewed. They had not offered Mr Lomborg a chance to respond. And they allowed his accusers too much time to make their case.

That is enough about the Danish committees on scientific dishonesty; suffice it to say that the science ministry has at last restored Denmark's sinking scientific reputation. Now scientists, politicians and the media should attempt to learn two lessons from this ludicrous episode.

First, given a choice between alarmism and honesty science must always choose the latter. There is nothing to be gained by alarmism about an uncertain future in an attempt to influence the public and change policy. It merely creates opportunities for Mr Lomborg and others to knock down these and many other straw men. The truth is that the vast majority of scientists, whether they study environmental change or other fields, already adhere to this principle.

So the second lesson is for the media, politicians and the public. If we pay attention to important scientific issues such as global warning only when disaster or salvation is confidently predicted, bad policies are almost certain to be the result. Our appetite for a good story without caveats provides an incentive for some scientists to skip the qualifiers and for us to be fed a diet of distortions.

The future is uncertain. We should learn to accept that uncertainty. Scientists should explain what they can deduce about the future but should always sing loudly about the limits of that knowledge. That is the way to avoid hearing about the Danish committees on scientific dishonesty again.

[Colosis]

This is surprisingly good news - common sense prevails in europe (*gasp*). Now, any chance europe will scrap those kyoto carbon taxes?

[facedown]

Scientist bump.

[Sinner6]

As I recall wasn't the critism that "he was wrong" But they found no problems with his research methods or statistical analysis, just his conclusions were off.

[jalisco555]

Worse than that. Scientific American, which was the basis of the Danish charges against him, refused to allow Lomborg the opportunity to rebut their articles. They basically said "He's wrong because we say so."

[The Electrician]

Part of this travesty is that Lomborg's name as an individual was falsely tarnished by the Danish committee on scientific dishonesty, yet the dishonest, guilty parties on the committee who perpetrated that outrage have remained anonymous, at least in the press reports that have made it to this side of the Atlantic. If the members of the committee are that doctrinaire and dishonest in their approach towards scientific integrity, it should call into question their honesty in their own fields. I wonder whether their own papers are now being subjected to scrutiny, since their reckless disregard for fairness and honesty should cause people to examine whether their character flaws have expressed themselves in their own work.

[Doctor Stochastic]

...refused to allow Lomborg the opportunity...

False. Lomborg published a rebuttal in the May 2002 issue of Scientific American.

[walden]

He has a long, detailed rebuttal to the charges linked from his website, but as I read somewhere, he was allowed only a page or two in the magazine to respond to the lengthy original mag piece. Is that right?

[Doctor Stochastic]

Yes, he was allowed to respond. SA is not required to reprint his book to criticize it. The previous post claimed that he wasn't allowed to respond in the magazine; that claim was false.

[cookcounty]

" Worse than that. Scientific American, which was the basis of the Danish charges against him, refused to allow Lomborg the opportunity to rebut their articles. They basically said "He's wrong because we say so."

Oh no, couldn't be. SA is always completely professional (</sarc.)

[jalisco555]

False. Lomborg published a rebuttal in the May 2002 issue of Scientific American.

Didn't know that. I had read the opposite. I stand corrected.

[expatpat]

the Danish committee on scientific dishonesty was well-named.

[The Electrician]

How true... Sigh...

[Pearman]

I understand that his original condemnation by the committees made page 7 of the NY Times. Can any Freeper out there tell us on what page of the Times the recent announcement of his exoneration by the Ministry of Science appeared? Can't help but wonder if that will get the same exposure.

[jhofmann]

This is big news but has only been reported in either English newspapers like the Telegraph, FT and the Economist online and conservative American newspapers like the Washington Times.

Given that Bjorn was, in effect, defamed in some leading Science journals, I hope to see some crow being eaten, people fired, if not a lawsuit on Mr. Lomborg's part (and I'm not a pro-lawsuit kind of person but in this case where his character was attacked with malice, there are some lessons that ought to be given).

See: http://news.google.com/news?q=bjorn+lomborg&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&edition=us&scoring=d

For the latest reports. The National Post (Canada) story is among the best of them.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

But the scientists determine what is true science, and are highly political.

Anyone who comes up with a hypothesis and then proof, that shakes the Holy Grail of "scientific fact" are either ignored or intimidated by the "true academics". They don't want the boat to be rocked.

A cabal.

[jhofmann]

Eventually, the truth comes out.

Witness the Australian Doctor who came up with the theory that ulcers are caused by viruses. For years, he was ostracized and now that's considered the first thing to test for when you show symptoms.

We are slowly seeing the dietetic community come around to the low carb diet that Dr. Atkins could only empirically show worked (BTW: did you know George McGovern [D-SD] from a heavy wheat producing state was behind the current food pyramid way back when he was a Senator?).

Not all scientists are evil liberals... the truth comes out eventually.

[FreedomPoster]

Anti-enviralmentalist whacko bump.

[bobsatwork]

Yes, he was allowed to respond. SA is not required to reprint his book to criticize it. Oh, come off it. SA took the extraordinary step of publishing four seperate attacks on Lomborg, all authored by people known to be hostile to Lomborg, without any balancing view. Each one of the four was far longer than the response that Lomborg was "allowed" in SA. Lomborg was clearly entitled to respond in sufficient detail to answer the voluminous critisism SA published. This was refused. When he published his full response on his own website, including the SA articles he was responding to, SA threatened a copyright lawsuit. This had the effect of not letting Lomborg respond in SA, OR ANYWHERE ELSE (how do you respond to allegations you are not allowed to repeat?) SA's behaviour was disgusting.