[cogitator]

I particularly like this statement:

"There remains a need for rigorous scrutiny of Lomborg's methods, given his prominence, his claims to serious analysis, and the polarized debate surrounding his book."

Very true.

[Support Free Republic]

Raise Your Hand If You Want To Donate To Free Republic!
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[Hans]

It am always suprised at the willingness of
scientists to whore it around politically. I supose it comes
from their years at University.

[Egregious Philbin]

Lomborg and his detractors are BOTH trying to spin science to favor their argument. The truth is somewhere in between.

[Welsh Rabbit]

What I would like to see is Paul Ehrlich called out to account for his scientific dishonesty and incompetence instead of getting prestigious awards.

[Bob]

...the committee's judgement characterizes Lomborg as "objectively dishonest" while at the same time stating that they have no evidence for what most people would call dishonesty: deliberate misrepresentation.

If Lomborg is truly "objectively dishonest", there should at least be a few of his misrepresentations to highlight. This is enough to make one wonder about the basic honesty (or political motivation) of the committee.