"But it does move....."
Posted on 01/08/2003 9:06:38 AM PST by dead
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."
The committees, divisions of the Danish Research Agency, are composed of a variety of scientists and headed by a judge from the Danish High Court.
In a telephone interview, Professor Lomborg, 38, defended the book and challenged the committees to come up with specific examples of errors or bias.
"You can't say I'm scientifically dishonest or in breach of good scientific conduct unless you point the finger and say this is the smoking gun," he said. "It's like saying you committed murder but we won't tell you who you killed. It's impossible for me to defend myself."
He said the committees' conclusion could get him fired from his new position as director of the Danish Institute for Environmental Assessment, in which he reviews the effectiveness of government spending on environmental programs. Government officials, however, told Danish news organizations that the criticism of the book did not jeopardize Professor Lomborg's job.
Cambridge University Press has also been criticized by scientists for publishing the book. Officials at the publishing house declined to comment on the findings, saying they had not had a chance to read them.
The report did not cite specific examples, but asserted that the book — although presented in the style of a scientific treatise, with copious footnotes and diagrams — was actually "a provocative debate-generating paper."
It extensively cited a long critique of Professor Lomborg's book that was published in Scientific American last year. Professor Lomborg and his supporters said that critique was itself biased and written by scientists who have long portrayed the environment as dangerously degraded.
The book — a dense review of data on forests, climate change, food supplies, population growth and other issues — has not been a runaway best seller but has been widely cited by conservative groups, commentators and elected officials who oppose strict environmental regulations.
At the same time, the book posed a sharp challenge to environmental groups and many scientists who have long spoken of looming ecological and climatic catastrophes that have yet to materialize.
"The environment is a field where, when people do some light calculations like Lomborg did, it's easy to argue for a happy-times kind of conclusion," said Dr. Peter H. Raven, the director of the Missouri Botanical Garden and president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
But such findings should not be portrayed as science, he said, adding, "This is a just outcome that ought to bring his credibility to a halt except for those who desperately want to believe what he says."
The committee said it found no evidence that Professor Lomborg deliberately tried to mislead readers
Seven paragraphs into the story, we find the “meat.”
The report did not cite specific examples
More facts in paragraph thirteen.
So a bunch of charlatans who withered under his attack have countered with a lame, non-specific counterattack that basically consists of the “Am not!” to his “Are.”
And it is hereby declared “NEWS!” by the grand poohbahs of all that is newsworthy.
It used to. Now that scientists are celebrities, it is incumbent upon them to be "scientifically correct", which is a version of "politically correct", with the same unproven assumptions.
"But it does move....."
This is really scary. A board of scientific bureaucrats condemns science because it wasn't presented in the "proper format".
It’s only a little scary, since it’s just a little brainfart from the (never-before-heard-of, never-to-be-heard-of again) Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty.
Normally, such an undocumented, unsubstantiated, lightweight and completely worthless “report” wouldn’t even be considered newsworthy, but this one met the NY Time “All The News That Fits The Agenda” criteria.
Global Warming Hoax :
| To find all articles tagged or indexed using Global Warming Hoax , click below: | ||||
| click here >>> | Global Warming Hoax | <<< click here | ||
| (To view all FR Bump Lists, click here) | ||||
Ive read it twice it has great source of information [factual with research] for the times our nature is going through but if your not interested it will bore you to tears!
"All the News that Fits the Agenda"
Jan 9th 2003
From The Economist print edition
The scourge of the greens is accused of dishonesty
THE Bjorn Lomborg saga took a decidedly Orwellian turn this week. Readers will recall that Mr Lomborg, a statistician and director of Denmark's Environmental Assessment Institute, is the author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist”, which attacks the environmental lobby for systematically exaggerated pessimism. Environmentalists have risen as one in furious condemnation of Mr Lomborg's presumption in challenging their claims, partly no doubt because he did it so tellingly. This week, to the delight of greens everywhere, Denmark's Committees on Scientific Dishonesty ruled on the book as follows: “Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty.”
How odd. Why, in the first place, is a panel with a name such as this investigating complaints against a book which makes no claim to be a scientific treatise? “The Skeptical Environmentalist” is explicitly not concerned with conducting scientific research. Rather, it measures the “litany” of environmental alarm that is constantly fed to the public against a range of largely uncontested data about the state of the planet. The litany comes off very badly from the comparison. The environmental movement was right to find the book a severe embarrassment. But since the book was not conducting scientific research, what business is it of a panel concerned with scientific dishonesty?
One might expect to find the answer to this question in the arguments and data supporting the ruling—but there aren't any. The material assembled by the panel consists almost entirely of a synopsis of four articles published by Scientific American last year. (We criticised those articles and the editorial that ran with them in our issue of February 2nd 2002.) The panel seems to regard these pieces as disinterested science, rather than counter-advocacy from committed environmentalists. Incredibly, the complaints of these self-interested parties are blandly accepted at face value. Mr Lomborg's line-by-line replies to the criticisms (see www.lomborg.com) are not reported. On its own behalf, the panel offers not one instance of inaccuracy or distortion in Mr Lomborg's book: not its job, it says. On this basis it finds Mr Lomborg guilty of dishonesty.
The panel's ruling—objectively speaking—is incompetent and shameful.
From The Economist.
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.