Rating: 
Summary: Lomborg Officially Rebuked
Review: Here is an important report (from the NY Times) on the Danish Research Agency's rebuke of Lomborg's work:Environment and Science: Danes Rebuke a 'Skeptic'
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
January 8, 2003
(c) The New York Times 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."
Rating:
Summary: Scientific Dishonesty!
Review: Just recently, the Danish Research Agency's committee reviewed this book and concluded that the author was systematically dishonest, misstating facts and presenting half-truths. I don't expect that that will change the minds of any of the people who read this ... since their interest is in their political agenda, not the truth of the situation. Nonetheless, it's a good thing to know for you environmentalists out there next time some pencil-necked freeper mentions this piece of tripe.
Rating:
Summary: Verdict: Scientific dishonesty
Review: Just to let you know yesterday (7/1-2003) Mr. Lomborg (or rather his work) was sentenced by the highest authority on scientific practice in Denmark. Here is a brief snap from the verdict: "The work 'The Sceptical Environmentalist' does fall within the category of scientific dishonesty, the book is clearly in conflict with the norms for good scientific practice".
Mr. Lomborg does not participate in the tradtional scientific community by publishing primary articles, or attends conferences for that matter, ignoring the peer review proces. At the moment he is director for an independent institute for environmental evaluation newly created by the Danish government. This position was 'tailored' for Mr. Lomborg, but the problem is that the institute is supposed to do scientific research, and the researchers are employed through an evaluation of their former scientific research! This clearly brings Mr. Lomborg's employment as director in miscredit since the evaluation of him and his scientific work is primary based on 'The Sceptical Environmentalist' - which has now been labeled as a debate book and certainly not a scientic piece of work! P.S. the rating for the book is if it is supposed to be a scientic work - as a debate book it clearly works pretty well!
Rating: 
Summary: Critic, very Critic
Review: .
If you had a Flu, acne, and Cancer, Would you spend the same amount of mony/time/effort on each problem? Of course not! The same way the Earth has problems (ecological, sociological, economical, etc). This book helps you sort out the Flu, acne and cancer of Earth.
Rating:
Summary: VERY poor scholarship
Review: If I could selectively ignore data and debate from years of work and from various parts of the world, I too could write a book that claims to debunk just about anything. If this were a doctorate or masters' graduate thesis--if this were an undergraduate senior thesis--it would be returned to the student with a failing grade for not even maintaining internal logical consistency. Lomborg has done nothing more and produce a "Julian Simon-esc" tirade against the precautionary principle. (fyi, J Simon was a economist...) Lomborg has done nothing more than give the proponents of the status quo ammunition to keep on liquidating the natural capital of the planet (our children's and grandchildren's heritage) in favor of short-term gain and personal wealth. Lomborg has done nothing more than give big business and governments a bible to preach from anytime they are asked to demonstrate that they are causing no harm to the ecological world. Lomborg has done nothing more demonstrate that he has more interest in this generation and its wealth than he does in any future generation and their well-being. Lomborg has done nothing more than expose his ignorance for basic ecological principles and statistics. Don't waste your money or your time. ***Recent event: NY Times reported today (8 Jan 03, p A7) "The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty said Tuesday that the 350-page book ``is clearly in violation of the norms for good scientific behavior.''" ***
Rating:
Summary: Unsubstantiated Tripe!
Review: This man has never published anything in a refereed scientific jounal. Yes, we should beware of doom and gloom environmental prognostication, but beware of partisan rabbit punching also.
Rating:
Summary: Much-needed addition to the debate
Review: There is so much uncertainty involved with environmental issues that taking a definitive stance is dangerous. So far the media have been overwhelmed with input from only one side, doomsayers and extreme environmentalists, while big business generally dismisses the whole thing by casting is as jobs versus the environment.
The author here points out that a lot of data being used is just plain bad and therefore, the world isn't in such a bad shape after all. It ain't over, but his is a good contribution.
Rating:
Summary: Who benefits?
Review: Every few years, someone who's not a scientist announces that the state of the Earth is improving and that the future looks so bright you gotta wear shades. The easiest way to convince a person of an untruth is to make the lie one they already want to believe is true. Throw in the conspiracy theory that scientists, politicians, and environmental organizations have something to gain by scaring the public and you've got a bestseller! The scientific basis of this book is pure rubbish and scientists on both sides of the Atlantic have already trashed Lomborg's book. Among the most informative are a collection of reviews in Scientific American (January 2002). I will not waste my time reiterating what others have already done so well. However, I will point out that Lomborg's methods are those of a polemic rather than of someone that is honestly interested in "Measuring the Real State of the World." The book fails to cite the reams of relevant literature that would paint a picture not in the spirit of his deceit, is full of misleading quotes taken out of context, and outright misrepresentation of fact. It brings to mind the tactics of the creationists. Therefore, you have to ask yourself who actually has more to gain by the environmental 'controversy'? On one hand you have thousands of environmental and biological scientists that on average spent six grueling years after their undergraduate education working like a slave for virtually no money, in order to obtain a Ph.D. and very specialized knowledge. After taking a series of temporary postdoc positions for low pay, if they are bright and highly motivated, they will land a job at a university. They generally sacrifice the greater monetary gains of other fields (like medicine) because they are fascinated by how our Planet, and the living things on it, work. Funding is extremely limited in this field of research and the money that the government and NGOs provide are for research purposes, not private use. In other words they receive no personal gain, they all wish the news was better, and they hate having to take time off from their research to deal with Bozos like Lomborg. Do you actually believe that if their were no environmental problems that there would be nothing to keep scientists occupied? On the other hand we have a statistician, with no expertise on environmental issues and only one (not very prestigious) publication in statistics. He is a junior faculty member not highly regarded by his peers. He writes a book for the lay person, that is basically just an expanded and updated version of similiar books written in the recent past. If that book takes a popular but controversial stand, it might sell millions. The author would be rich and famous. Such an author might have already been considered a failure by academics and therefore would have nothing to lose by writing a book with no intellectual merit. Such a book would also have the advantage of not having to go though that pesky peer-review process that may have kept some of his other biased and unsubstantiated ideas from seeing the light of day. Think about it.
Rating:
Summary: He's been found out
Review: Bjorn Lomborg is an idiot, who's been thoroughly debunked on both sides of the Atlantic.
The only benefit of his book for the environment is a compost.
Rating:
Summary: Data-rich review of our environment
Review: Bjorn Lomborg and his students have done an excellent job of parsing the arguments and data surrounding the range of environmental issues facing today's policymakers. The book is chock-full of verifiable data and carefully reasoned discussions of implications. People may disagree with his conclusions but you can absolutely not question his data. In this age where school kids (like mine) are taught that breathing equals pollution (really!), this plethora of data is absolutely critical. This is a great book to keep to check up on media statements and advocates' PR efforts.
| 
