Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Case Against Scientifically Honest Bjorn Lomborg Dismissed
The Reason ^ | 12 March 2004

Posted on 03/13/2004 10:00:24 AM PST by 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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bjornlomborg; environment; globalwarminghoax; reason
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-44 next last
Good!
1 posted on 03/13/2004 10:00:25 AM PST by optimistically_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: optimistically_conservative
"Scientific Dishonesty Committee?" Has anybody in that country heard of freedom of speech?
2 posted on 03/13/2004 10:03:41 AM PST by Tax Government
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: optimistically_conservative
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!

3 posted on 03/13/2004 10:12:03 AM PST by PeaceBeWithYou (De Oppresso Liber!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tax Government
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.
4 posted on 03/13/2004 10:13:43 AM PST by optimistically_conservative (If consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, John F. Kerry’s mind must be freaking enormous. T.B.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: optimistically_conservative
The Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) certainly knows how to be scientifically dishonest. I hope they are hanging their heads in shame.
5 posted on 03/13/2004 10:18:10 AM PST by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: optimistically_conservative
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.
6 posted on 03/13/2004 10:19:53 AM PST by WhiteyAppleseed (John Kerry was narrowly edged out by Leonard Zelig in Woody Allen's film "Zelig".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: optimistically_conservative
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.
7 posted on 03/13/2004 10:22:51 AM PST by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
ping
8 posted on 03/13/2004 10:29:06 AM PST by Libertarianize the GOP (Ideas have consequences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: optimistically_conservative
nice
9 posted on 03/13/2004 10:31:40 AM PST by satchmodog9 (it's coming and if you don't get off the tracks it will run you down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar
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!?

10 posted on 03/13/2004 10:38:08 AM PST by aquila48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: optimistically_conservative
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!
11 posted on 03/13/2004 10:38:32 AM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PeaceBeWithYou
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.

12 posted on 03/13/2004 10:39:54 AM PST by KC_for_Freedom (Sailing the highways of America, and loving it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: optimistically_conservative
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.
13 posted on 03/13/2004 10:42:59 AM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: expatpat
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.
14 posted on 03/13/2004 10:45:00 AM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: aquila48
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".
15 posted on 03/13/2004 10:47:01 AM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: sauropod; Carry_Okie; Jeff Head
ping!
16 posted on 03/13/2004 10:50:11 AM PST by countrydummy (http://chat.agitator.dynip.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: expatpat
I hope they are hanging their heads in shame.

More likely they are seething and planning their revenge.

17 posted on 03/13/2004 11:08:10 AM PST by optimistically_conservative (If consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, John F. Kerry’s mind must be freaking enormous. T.B.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: optimistically_conservative
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.
18 posted on 03/13/2004 11:14:53 AM PST by sergeantdave (Gen. Custer wore an Arrowsmith shirt to his last property owner convention.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aquila48
This IS as scary committee. Basically it PROSECUTES any scientist who dares to come to a non-PC conclusion.
19 posted on 03/13/2004 11:20:43 AM PST by boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: KC_for_Freedom
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.
20 posted on 03/13/2004 11:22:14 AM PST by optimistically_conservative (If consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, John F. Kerry’s mind must be freaking enormous. T.B.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-44 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson