http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=4195&method=full
Lomborg Deemed
"Scientifically Dishonest"
Environment and Science: Danes Rebuke a 'Skeptic'
The New York Times,
Andrew C. Revkin, Jan. 8, 2003
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 committee's
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."
