Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

"Skeptical Environmentalist" Rebuked 72

Posted by timothy from the what-venting-wrath-sounds-like dept.
mpsmps writes "The "Skeptical Environmentalist", reviewed in slashdot here has been rebuked by the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty for shoddy, politically motivated science. Are they being valuable watchdogs, or are both sides driven by politics rather than science?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

"Skeptical Environmentalist" Rebuked More

"Skeptical Environmentalist" Rebuked

Comments Filter:
  • This kind of conversation never goes anywhere it seems. Anyone challenging the status quo is part of the anti-establisment conspiracy, pushing their agenda. Anyone upholding the status quo is part of the nebulous "they" who don't want anyone to know the truth.

    My bet is they are both politically motivated groups using science to furthertheir cause. Who is right? I leave that to the philosophers.

  • The best way (Score:2, Informative)

    by Mordant ( 138460 )
    to determine this is to actually read Lomborg's book, and then read what his critics say, no?

    Here's a link to some relevant stories:

    http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/indexwrap pe r.jsp?PID=1051-157

  • Pot Calling the Kettle...... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jeramybsmith ( 608791 ) on Friday January 10, 2003 @03:53PM (#5058139)
    The Skeptical Environmentalist has been debated in Skeptic magazines and the author of the book was allowed to respond to the critiques. Simply put, the detractors of this book point out very few flaws and don't debate the majority of the content. We have to fight pseudo-science and outright lies in the name of science where they occur. The Skeptical Environmentalist does this. The author however, is not a scientist per se but a statistician and it seems that has ruffled some feathers. If you are wondering what all the hubbub is about, read the book and make up your mind for yourself.

    • Re:Pot Calling the Kettle...... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by bcboy ( 4794 ) on Friday January 10, 2003 @06:10PM (#5059358) Homepage
      > If you are wondering what all the hubbub is about, read the book and make up your mind for yourself.

      Uh, NO. Read the book, AND read the critics, and read their sources if there is dispute about them, and then make up your mind for yourself.

      Unfortunately, your technique (read authors that affirm your political position, and then decide that you're done) seems to be quite popular.

      • Re:Pot Calling the Kettle...... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by jeramybsmith ( 608791 ) on Saturday January 11, 2003 @12:03AM (#5060915)
        The book is pretty much self explanatory. The majoroity of the content is _not_ in dispute. The critics of the book that I found most provocative were is a skeptic magazine. I read them and Lomborg's response. Most critics can only find a few cases in the book where they challenge Lomborg's methods. In other words, just read the fricken book. If someone does faulty research, and someone else points it out, then someone else points out that person who pointed out said errors didnt consider another study, doesn't make the study in question any less faulty.
    • Indeed. There seems to sufficient grounds for claiming that the work of the DCSD itself is shoddy and politically motivated. Heh, I wonder if their charter allows for complaints about their scientific honesty?

  • Rebuking the rebukers (Score:2, Informative)

    by VersedM ( 323660 )
    For a well written opposing view on the issue, check out this [economist.com] editorial over at the Economist.
    • The Economist editorial is also content-free, providing no factual basis for the criticism of the Danish committee.

      If you want to know why Lomborg's book is such a crock, you have to go through it. I admit that I have not read the entire thing, but unless the book is a great deal more comprehensive and balanced than the extremely shallow and biased excerpts I've had the time to read, I think that the Danes are spot-on with their rebuke.

      Not that every knee-jerk response to Lomborg is necessarily any better, but you can't give either side a free pass in these matters.

      • Re:Rebuking the rebuker's rebukers (Score:5, Insightful)

        by neocon ( 580579 ) on Saturday January 11, 2003 @02:10AM (#5061308) Homepage Journal

        Well, as I have read the book through, and found it to be entirely a presentation of statistics which no one is contesting, and a reasoned interpretation thereof, I would be very interested to hear any examples of where you believe it is `biased' and `a crock'.

        Simply throwing around such charges without backing them up suggests that you are condemning the book merely for not agreeing with your politics -- in which case you are the one deserving rebuke for unscientific conduct...

        • Well, as I have read the book through, and found it to be entirely a presentation of statistics which no one is contesting...
          Not quite true. I have seen others contest the statistics as biased, selected to support Lomborg's desired conclusion. As IANAstatistician, I am not in a position to say one way or the other.
          I would be very interested to hear any examples of where you believe it is `biased' and `a crock'.
          I've been through parts of the book since I wrote the above, and the entire chapter on forests is nearly content-free. Lomborg reproduces one graph (or is it two?) and gives a lot of assertions with a pile of footnotes, but does not actually bring in any hard data which puts force behind his conclusions. Furthermore, he mentions one caveat which calls his entire thesis into question (that it is difficult to characterize forest cover well using the means we have ready to hand, thus we could be losing a huge amount of value without being able to measure it using metrics such as multispectral satellite scans), and blows off phenomena with extensive deleterous effects such as the recurrent forest/peat bog fires in Indonesia.

          In the chapter on energy, he says that it is imperative to ensure peace in the Persian Gulf region... and then dismisses the issue, as if the consequences of either doing so (Pax Americana) or failing to do so are acceptable; the idea that we might have no tenable alternative to severely reducing dependence on Persian Gulf energy supplies is too problematic for him to dwell on it, so he ignores it.

          I've only had time to read a few pages of excerpts which appear to be from the intro, the full chapter on forests and the beginning of the chapter on energy. This book has got to have dozens more serious howlers like the above.

          • You're trolling right? Far from being `content-free', the chapter you choose to cite (on Forestation) has eighty-six footnotes citing a very wide range of sources. This in a chapter which runs only eight pages.

            Quite seriously, are we really supposed to take your complaint seriously, when the only thing you find to say is that one particular eight-page chapter in the midst of a five-hundred page large-format trade paperback does not have more graphs? Really?

            Incidentally, if you'll actually read those footnotes (on pages 375-378 of the paperback edition) you'll find that in addition to citing a range of sources, they add considerable discussion of the subject at hand.

            And your next complaint is what? That he doesn't interrupt a chapter on oil supplies for a disquisition on mideast politics? I thought you were alleging that his book was political -- in truth it seems that it is your criticism which is politically motivated, through and through.

            Again, provide us any evidence either that his data is wrong (something which even his critics have not suggested), or that his conclusions are unwarranted (something his critics have suggested without providing examples or counter-arguments). Otherwise you're just blowing hot air.

            • You're trolling right?
              On the contrary. I'm as serious as a heart attack.
              Far from being `content-free', the chapter you choose to cite (on Forestation) has eighty-six footnotes citing a very wide range of sources.
              Eighty-seven. But most of those are repeats, and rather than starting with full cites for the first footnote in each chapter Lomborg uses very abbreviated back-references. In such a huge volume of footnotes it is very difficult to find the exact reference - which appears to be Lomborg's intent; not to inform but to obfuscate. He doesn't want the sources checked.
              Quite seriously, are we really supposed to take your complaint seriously, when the only thing you find to say is that one particular eight-page chapter in the midst of a five-hundred page large-format trade paperback does not have more graphs? Really?
              It should contain the data from which the conclusions are drawn, no? This it does not do.
              if you'll actually read those footnotes (on pages 375-378 of the paperback edition) you'll find that in addition to citing a range of sources, they add considerable discussion of the subject at hand.
              Some of them do. The place where I started when I began looking through them (p. 376) has next to no discussion or additional information.

              Lomborg also throws around a lot of estimates without providing any empirical support for them. For instance, in footnote 816 he mentions that the figure of 15% edge effect is drawn from a 1 km range of influence, while a smaller range (such as 100 meters) leads to lower figures (6%). He cites no research to justify his preference for the lower figure. This is true everywhere I've looked; Lomborg always argues that effects are likely to be better than the estimate, never worse.

              And your next complaint is what? That he doesn't interrupt a chapter on oil supplies for a disquisition on mideast politics? I thought you were alleging that his book was political...
              No, the problem is that the book alleges to be a scholarly and unbiased treatment, while in actuality it is a hatchet-job. It dismisses difficult and contentious issues with a wave of the hand. Take the offending section (page 121):
              Oil can be found all around the world, but the largest resources by far are to be found in the Middle East - it is estimated that somewhere between 50 and 65 percent of the global reserves are found there.[fn 867] Consequently, it is also imperative for our future energy supply that this region remains reasonably peaceful. [fn 868]
              Never once does Lomborg entertain the possibility that politics is inevitably tied up with energy in that part of the world more than any other, and that the very phenomenon of taking so much of the world's energy supply from that region (and giving huge amounts of money and power to fundamentalist theocrats and despots) could make it impossible to carry out the imperative for peace - unless it is a peace of the Western conqueror, a possibility I find abhorrent.

              There are many such implications, but not of them are examined. This would be a serious flaw in any such work, but Lomborg happens to be the topic of discussion today.

              • On the contrary, as is common in such works (you don't read much, do you?), Mr. Lomborg's footnotes reference his extensive (seventy-one page) bibliography, where full cites for each work are provided. But now we see that your accusation has already changed drastically -- two posts ago, you were alleging that Mr. Lomborg was not providing enough references, and now you have changed course 180% and are alleging that he has provided too many sources, and that this is `because he doesn't want his sources checked'.

                Is it possible that you say these things without feeling ridiculous?

                Then, you continue your practice of making broad accusations (now that he introduces estimates which do not come from data he has presented) which you will no doubt back away from, sheepishly in your next post (just as you backed down from claiming to have read the whole book to now claiming to have read two eight-page chapters, and backed down from accusing Mr. Lomborg of providing false data)).

                Absurd, through and through -- and your last complaint, in faulting Mr. Lomborg for not moving from statistics (his field) into a discourse on Mideast peace strategies (neither his field, nor, apparently, yours) moves from the absurd into the surreal.

                Face it. Your objections to Lomborg are dogmatic, not scientific, or you would be producing examples to back up your claims.

                • two posts ago, you were alleging that Mr. Lomborg was not providing enough references, and now you have changed course 180% and are alleging that he has provided too many sources, and that this is `because he doesn't want his sources checked'.
                  On the contrary. In this post [slashdot.org], I said "Lomborg reproduces one graph (or is it two?) and gives a lot of assertions with a pile of footnotes, but does not actually bring in any hard data which puts force behind his conclusions." (Note the complaint about volume of footnotes versus actual information content in the original.) And in this comment [slashdot.org], I said "it is very difficult to find the exact reference - which appears to be Lomborg's intent; not to inform but to obfuscate."

                  There is no contradiction, no matter how much you might want to find one. "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit" appears to be Lomborg's credo.

                  (just as you backed down from claiming to have read the whole book to now claiming to have read two eight-page chapters...
                  Again with the comprehension problem. First link above: "unless the book is a great deal more comprehensive and balanced than the extremely shallow and biased excerpts I've had the time to read..."

                  The full record of this exchange is on-line and can be read by anyone. Don't you feel ridiculous now?

                  Face it. Your objections to Lomborg are dogmatic, not scientific, or you would be producing examples to back up your claims.
                  What part of "and blows off phenomena with extensive deleterous effects such as the recurrent forest/peat bog fires in Indonesia" didn't you understand?

                  I'd rip Lomborg apart more comprehensively if I'd had time to finish the chapter on energy (I haven't yet seen if he's projected the production peak of the Persian Gulf) and go through the section on global warming. My research in those areas is much broader than forestry. Unfortunately for you, I'm not going to bother to do this on a rush-rush basis for a lousy Slashdot thread; I have other things to do with my life.

                  • So let's get this straight -- you didn't actually `have time to finish' the chapter on energy, so in fact you've read one eight page chapter of Mr. Lomborg's book, and it is on those eight pages that you base your criticisms? Forgive me if I'm not very impressed (and I doubt the other readers of this thread are either).

                    Now, on to your specific claims:

                    As to whether you have even read Mr. Lomborg's work, you began here [slashdot.org] by saying `I admit that I have not read the entire thing', which you then downgraded here [slashdot.org] and here [slashdot.org] to your having read `parts of the book'. Now you admit that you read one eight-page chapter, and skimmed another one.

                    Likewise, here [slashdot.org] you assert that Mr. Lomborg has (in the eight-page chapter which you have read) not `brought in any hard data', when in fact he cites just about every publicly available long-term forestation survey ever done in the eighty-seven footnotes to that chapter, including the FAO series on which the claims he is contesting are almost uniformly based. Likewise, you claim that his cites are not `full' cites because in your very limited reading of the book, you missed the fact that they reference the bibliography included on pages 375-378 of the paperback edition.

                    And now you attempt to excuse your shoddiness how? By pointing us to the fact that you haven't read any of Mr. Lomborg's book but a random sample, and thus admittedly have no knowledge on the book as a whole, and by claiming that you haven't `time' to do a better job.

                    Spare us. If you have no time to read Mr. Lomborg's work before smearing it, or to provide actual criticisms (show us what data you claim would change Mr. Lomborg's projections and that it does so, don't simply assert that such data exist, for example) why should you be taken seriously?

        • I have only read small parts of Lomborg's book, but from the little that I have read, I wouldn't call it a scientific work (as none of it has been published in scientific journals), but I would be interested to know if a single well known scientist has called Lomborgs work represatative of their field. I've seen lots of scientists attack it for being biased in their particular field, but none support it. Do you know of any?

          • Actually, Lomborg's work is firmly seated in his own field -- he's a statistician, not an earth scientist, so he takes for granted the numbers already being used in the field, and applies statistical analysis to them. For this reason, no one is questioning the data he is working from, and no one has yet shown that his statistical methods (and that is his field, remember) are flawed either.

            As for scientific backing, you can start with Cambridge Press reviewing the work and choosing to publish it (they're not exactly lightweights in the academic world, you know, and Lomborg has published plenty before, including a semi-well-known analysis of the Prisoner's Dilemma. You should also read some of the responses various figures have made to the SciAm smear job (though atypically, SciAm was too cowardly to accept letters to the editor on this one, perhaps because they knew their piece was weak).

            I wouldn't necessarily call those questioning him the height of the field either -- as the Economist was quick to point out, those objecting to his work are mostly the same crowd of doubtful prognosticians who brought us global cooling theory right up through the mid-eighties, before jumping on the global warming bandwagon.

            Instead, we get attacks like this one and the SciAm one, which are long on outrage that someone would dare question the conventional wisdom, and short on real objections to his work. That's not science -- that's dogma.

            • I've got to disagree with your post.

              While it is true that it was published by Cambridge Press, you missed out that it was published by their Social Sciences division. This is a big problem if one wants to treat it as a scientific work. If you wanted to find out about physics, which would be a more authoritive work, a physics book out of the CP science division, or a book of feminist intrepetations of physics out of the CP social sciences division? If your going with the first option, why not apply the same rules to Lomborgs work?

              As for stating "he's a statistician, not an earth scientist, so he takes for granted the numbers already being used in the field, and applies statistical analysis to them", the problem that I'm trying to point out is that by biased selection of "the numbers already being used in the field", he can get whatever result that he likes. For example, on his section of global warming he uses the modelling of William Nordhaus, while ignoring many of the well documented theoretical shortcomings of his models. (Source [uq.edu.au]). This isn't science.

              An interesting review of Lomborg's work on enviromental economics, can be found here [mcc.ac.uk]. The author's make my above point a little bit more aggressively; "Statistician Lomborg blatantly distorts the evidence by systematically selecting statistics to support his claims that global welfare is generally improving and environmental policy is unnecessary, while denying catastrophic risks such as prolonged drought in major food growing areas (though such events cannot be ruled out by climate models). "

              I wouldn't necessarily call those questioning him the height of the field either -- as the Economist was quick to point out, those objecting to his work are mostly the same crowd of doubtful prognosticians who brought us global cooling theory right up through the mid-eighties, before jumping on the global warming bandwagon.

              That's a very broad brush your using. Can you find any link between global cooling and any of the three author's I've cited in this post (Felix FitzRoy, Ian Smith and John Quiggin)?

              Anyway, all of the reviewers who you have tarred (Schnider (sp?) and co) have far more peer reviewed papers than Lomborg (who I just checked on the Current Contents database, and has the grand total of 1 (published almost 7 years ago - and in a non related field).

              • Again, you're making two very broad accusations here -- first suggesting that Lomborg ignores sources which disagree with his conclusions, and second suggesting that he ignores weaknesses of the statistical model he is using. You haven't even come close to backing up either of these claims -- indeed, you haven't even started to.

                If Mr. Lomborg is ignoring sources which would contradict his claims, what are those sources? If weaknesses of the models he uses would change his results, what are those weaknesses, and what changes would they cause in his results?

                You haven't answered these questions, and no one you point to has. Instead, they go on with your third (and real) complaint -- that Mr. Lomborg is disagreeing with what others in the field have claimed. And here is where your true colors show. Faulting someone because he reaches a new conclusion is not science, it's dogma, and it does you no credit to do so.

                • Unfortunally you have made some assertions, without a shred of evidence to back them up. Perhaps you didn't pay much attention to the references I have provided, because you have ignored the claims made in them.

                  For example, John Quiggin claims that Lomborg ignored his critisisms of the William Nordhaus model, of which Lomborg relies heavily on. Rather than state "You haven't even come close to backing up either of these claims -- indeed, you haven't even started to", perhaps you could point me to where Lomborg discusses the Quiggin criticisms.

                  In order to help you out, here's a formal citation of the Quiggin article; The Impact of Global Warming on Agriculture: A Ricardian Analysis: CommentJohn Quiggin and John K. Horowitz The American Economic Review, Vol. 89, No. 4. (Sep., 1999), pp. 1044-1045.

                  The second reference which I provided is literally chock full of examples, you should pick and chose your own one.

                  • Again, you're the one making accusations here, so start backing them up.

                    So Quiggin has doubts about Nordhaus/Boyer. And? How does this get you closer to your attacks on Lomborg? Is Mr. Lomborg misrepresenting what Nordhaus/Boyer is? No. Is he deriving conclusions from it incorrectly? No. What he says is (to paraphrase)`here is one widely used model, which is broadly consistent with estimates from the UNEP and the IPCC. These estimates are often used (as per Schneider) to make wild claims about global warming. But here's the actual scope and context of these estimates.'

                    All of this is discussed at length in Lomborg's rebuttal of the SciAm smear job, which can be read here [greenspirit.com]. This rebuttal has not been discussed or answered by SciAm, and indeed they have threatened lawsuits in an attempt to have it removed from the web. Now that's scientific dishonesty -- don't you agree?

                    • So that would be a no, Lomborg doesn't mention criticisms of models of which his analysis of global warming depend on. Thank you, it took a while but we got there.

                      It's this sort of beheviour by Lomborg which got accusations of scientific dishonesty made in the first place. Selective use of evidence.

                    • Umm, no, you didn't read what I posted (and your argument is specious as well -- more on that later).

                      Lomborg specifically addresses his choice of Nordhaus/Boyer both in TSE itself and at greater length in his rebuttal to the SciAm smear piece. If you had read either, you would be aware of this. While it is, perhaps, understandable that you have not read the latter, as SciAm went to great lengths to silence it (something you mysteriously consider acceptable, showing just how elastic your idea of `scientific dishonesty' really is), you should do so before making false statements about its content -- it can be found here [greenspirit.com].

                      In any case, your accusation is what exactly? That you don't like the model Lomborg chose, a model he chose because it conforms to the studies released by the UNEP and the IPCC which are the basis for much discussion of global warming? This, you would have called `scientific dishonesty', while you excuse Schneider's open admission that he exaggerates his findings and hides doubts about his data for political ends simply because Schneider is on the `right' side?

                      As I've said elsewhere in this debate, I expect that readers of this thread will take your attacks on Lomborg in the context of this consistent dogmatism and application of double standards on your part. Good day.

              • Here's Schneider, in an interview with Discover magazine:

                On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people, we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

                Obviously, these are not the words of someone with any scientific integrity, nor of someone who can possibly be trusted to critique Lomborg's book. And to think that these people are accusing Lomborg of misrepresentation in the name of politics...

                • Wow, this is incredible. By missing out the last sentence in the Schneider quote, you have totally misrepresented him. For those who are interested, the last line runs like this

                  "I hope that means being both."

                  Look, I know that you've got an ideology to defend, but come on, this is either ignorance (not knowing the full context of the quote) or just dishonest.

                  • On the contrary, this in no way changes Mr. Schneider's meaning -- he is saying outright that his science serves a political goal, and in that interest he is exaggerating scary scenarios, over-simplifying things to induce fright, and sweeping doubts he has about the accuracy of his work under the carpet.

                    And you're trying to tell us that these things are OK because Mr. Schneider feels that they he can do them while still being honest? That the `right balance' between lying and honesty involves some of each?

                    Face it. With or without your added sentence, Mr. Schneider is owning up to exactly the type of politically-motivated misrepresentation of science that you (and he) accuse Mr. Lomborg of, and is admitting that his ends are pre-ordained when he sets out to do research.

                    Why the double standard? How are we to believe that you accuse Lomborg of such things (without backing up your claims) but excuse them in Schneider (when he himself admits them), unless you do so because Schneider's politics are closer to your own?

                    And you claim that I'm the ideological one here? That merits a +5 Funny...

                    • If the extra line doesn't change the meaning why did you miss it out?

                      It can't be because of the extra length of the quote, because its long enough as it is, and you threw it into two posts, after you couldn't find any dirt on the authors of the links I provided.

                      My theory is that your just flailing around, and that both of us know damm well that it totally changes the meaning.

                    • Including an extra sentence, or an extra paragraph, or the entire interview does not change what Schneider is admitting to -- that his science serves a political, as well as scientific end, and that in the interest of this political end, he has exaggerated his findings, swept doubts about his data under the rug, and generally misrepresented his work in a quest for media attention.

                      So what if he `tries to do both'? Are we to take it as scientific honesty that Mr. Schneider's idea of the right balance of lying for media attention and being scientifically objective includes a little of each? Come now, that's hardly the standard you are applying to Mr. Lomborg, whose work you declare `dishonest' because you don't like his choice of climate model, even though he discusses that choice at length, and even though he chose it for its conformance to the UNEP and IPCC estimates which are the basis for most of the ongoing discussion of global warming.

                      Face it -- your consistent defense of Schneider in the face of his open admissions of gaming the media by misrepresenting his data, and your refusal to call SciAm's attempts to use the courts to silence rebuttals to their smear campaign against Lomborg dishonest, despite being given three opportunities to do so, coupled with your bizarre charges against Lomborg, unbacked by any data, show that you are applying a purely dogmatic standard of `scientific honesty' here.

                      I trust that the readers of this thread are taking your attacks on Lomborg in that context. Good day.

          • I'll give you some more in the morning (or you could follow the link others have posted to Glen Reynolds' list of links on the subject), but here are a few from the bn.com page for Mr. Lomborg's book:

            Bjorn Lomborg is an outstanding representative of the new breed of political scientists-mathematically-skilled and computer-adept. In this book he shows himself also to be a hard-headed, empirically-oriented analyst. Surveying a vast amount of data and taking account of a wide range of more and less informed opinion about environmental threats facing the planet, he comes to a balanced assessment of which ones are real and which over-hyped.
            -- Professor Jack Hirshleifer, Department of Economics, University of California, Los Angeles

            At last a book that gives the environment the scientific analysis it deserves, and provides understanding of the problem, the risks and the solutions. Essential reading.
            -- Professor Lewis Wolpert, Department of Anatomy and Biology, University College London

            When Lomborg concludes that'...the loss of the world's rainforests, of fertile agricultural land, the ozone layer and of the climate balance are terrible..'I agree. But we also need debate, and this book provides us with that in generous amounts, including 2,428 footnotes. If you, like I do, belong to the people who dare to think the world is making some progress, but always with mistakes to be corrected, this book makes important reading.
            -- Professor Lars Kristoferson, Secretary Genral, WWF Sweden

            • I'm looking forward to your other links tomorrow, as none of the above citations meet my request for an example of a known scientist who has called Lomborgs work representative of their field.

              The first two has next to no experience in enviromental science (Hirshleifer published a little bit on water supplies in the 60's - but that's all that I can find), and the third review is far from glowing.

              • Just perusing the TechCentralStation link posted above and to Mr. Lomborg's page of links to critiques of his work on his site provides some more:

                In the meantime, you bring us critiques from `scientists' such as Steven Schneider, who famously told an interviewer from Discover magazine:

                On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people, we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

                Now that's dishonesty and unscientific behavior. And to think that a man like that is accusing Lomborg...

                • Your list is wholly unimpressive. The last two links don't even come close to what I wanted (a single well respected scientist who is willing to say that Lomborgs work is representative of his or her field). Instead they attack Scientific American or Steven Schneider.

                  The last two are both well known activists. Stott has no scientific papers related to the Skeptical Environmentalist's litany.

                  Lindzen, is the only one who would fit what I asked for, and if your serious about putting him forward, then your case is far weaker than I thought. Whereas you can try and slander Schneider for giving up honesty for effectiveness, Lindzen was happy to give up honesty a long time ago (he misrepresented a Gallup poll in his famous essay "Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus".

                  In the meantime, you bring us critiques from`scientists' such as Steven Schneider,

                  Rubbish, I didn't link to any critique from Schneider. I guess this means that you couldn't find any dirt to slur the people who I did link to, and so are just taking shots at random.

                  who famously told an interviewer from Discover magazine:

                  [quote snipped]

                  Now that's dishonesty and unscientific behavior. And to think that a man like that is accusing Lomborg...

                  No, it's only dishonest when you don't include the full quote, and thus ruin the context.

                  • Your idea of `science' is even more elastic than I had imagined. So now, if Schneider admits to misrepresenting his own work to the media, and brushing doubts and counter-evidence under the rug in order to create scares, this is not scientific dishonesty, but if I quote him saying so, I'm committing `dishonesty and unscientific behavior'.

                    This is very important in the context at hand. You have just demonstrated handily what I've been saying all along -- that in your vocabulary `unscientific behavior' means presenting inconvenient facts or taking unpopular positions, while even direct dishonesty such Mr. Schneider's does not count as such in your book because he is on the `right side'. Likewise, you seek a `serious' scientist's opinion, where `serious' means agreeing with you, and even the most highly respected figures are `activists' or `dishonest' if they do not.

                    I would invite the readers of this thread to view your criticisms of Lomborg in this context. Good day.

                    • Once again, your flailing around. Your dishonest is to misrepresent Schneider. Removing sentences which would give the quote it's true meaning, is dishonest.

                    • We've been over this before -- I'm hardly going to reprint the entire interview here, and adding a sentence, or a paragraph, or a page on either side of the quote doesn't change what Schneider is discussing. He is openly owning up to misrepresenting his findings and to sweeping doubts about his data under the rug in an attempt to make his stories seem more frightening, something he admits he is doing for political ends.

                      Now that's scientific dishonesty, and a man like that is no scientist, and has no place attacking Lomborg. As I said, your insistence on a double standard by which Schneider's admittance of dishonesty is acceptable because he is on the `right' side while any baseless claim against Lomborg is to be taken as justified because he is not shows that you are no scientist either, and likewise have no credibility in attacking Mr. Lomborg's work.

                      Come out and admit that Schneider is dishonest, and that SciAm's attempts to use the courts to silence Mr. Lomborg's rebuttal of their smear campaign was likewise dishonest and unscientific, and then maybe we have a discussion here. Otherwise, you are transparently dogmatic.

  • No Big Surprise (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Inexile2002 ( 540368 )
    It really shouldn't surprise anyone that The Skeptical Environmentalist was rebuked and most of what the guy had to say was bogus.

    Even the right neo-liberal economy worshippers who view anything that could cut into profits as inherently evil have stopped arguing that human activity is causing wide-spread climate change. (I love how the ignorant media loves to call these people 'conservative'. Look the word up in a damn dictionary, a conservative - someone who hopes to conserve the status quo and is suspicious of the mechanisms and out comes of change - would be AGAINST climate change.... Sorry.)

    The official Wallstreet / Whitehouse message is now, "There's nothing we can do about it and it would be too expensive to try. It'll hurt the economy so we'll just have to adapt. So go about your business and, oh, hey look, a Cadillac Escalade!" When these guys admit that the argument against climate change can be dismissed as a canard...

    The issue is not, is there accelerated climate change as a result of man's activities? This issue is how bad are things going to get, how much will we loose and what can and should we be doing to stop or slow it down. Oh course, the people who are most directly responsible are the same people who will be the least affected.

    Sigh.
    • The official Wallstreet / Whitehouse message is now, "There's nothing we can do about it and it would be too expensive to try. It'll hurt the economy so we'll just have to adapt. So go about your business and, oh, hey look, a Cadillac Escalade!" When these guys admit that the argument against climate change can be dismissed as a canard...

      This is the defense of the status quo. The only way this can change is if there is widespread, grassroots support for reducing greenhouse emissions (promised by Candidate Bush, promise broken), high-fuel efficiency vehicles (Clinton-era program killed by the Bush Administration before it could complete the new engine technology), international carbon credit trading (zealously opposed by the Bush Admin), etc.

      This is the most anti-environmental White House in the history of the nation. They read polls, and so far, a sufficient number of Americans just don't care, and want to keep driving SUVs everywhere. Price of gas too high? Invade Iraq, and fill 'er up.

      Books like this are created and touted by conservatives to give themselves intellectual cover for their indefensible policies; the truth is, climate change, and humanity's role in it, is no longer disputed by any reputable scientific authority, including the Bush/Whitman EPA.

    • You've missed the boat. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by JMZero ( 449047 ) on Friday January 10, 2003 @07:07PM (#5059694) Homepage
      It really shouldn't surprise anyone that The Skeptical Environmentalist was rebuked and most of what the guy had to say was bogus.

      No, it wasn't "rebuked". I've seen very little in the way of substantive criticism, and what little there is has been responded to in a responsible way. I'd be happy to see actual debate about this.

      This issue is how bad are things going to get, how much will we loose and what can and should we be doing to stop or slow it down

      This is exactly what Lomborg is talking about. He simply gives an overview of accepted work, and puts forth the idea that "it's not as bad as some people have said". That's really about it. Have you read the book? Do you know of any of his facts that are wrong? Of course you didn't, and I'm guessing you don't. You're as bad as the idiots who made the ruling - basically on the basis of "He's going against the dogma, must be wrong".

      The question "How bad are things?" is a valid one to ask. The person who does the research and comes back with "Not as bad as some people say" doesn't need to get shot. Engaged and debated with? Of course. But in a reasonable way.

      But the "scientists" who are most mad at him are the ones that are embarrassed - the one's who he quotes making wacky predictions in the 80's that didn't come true.
    • I love how the ignorant media loves to call these people 'conservative'. Look the word up in a damn dictionary, a conservative - someone who hopes to conserve the status quo and is suspicious of the mechanisms and out comes of change...

      That's certainly a definition, but not the only definition [reference.com] (note that I'm referencing conservatism, which is listed in the definition [reference.com] of conservative).

  • Some links (Score:5, Informative)

    by Otter ( 3800 ) on Friday January 10, 2003 @04:03PM (#5058231) Journal
    Are they being valuable watchdogs, or are both sides driven by politics rather than science?

    I'm not sure how those are the two alternatives. My impression is that the indictment of Lomborg contains no substantive scientific criticism, just an accusation of partisanship. Both sides are trying to argue a point of view; one is doing it with facts and one by issuing a fatwa and what one may or may not think. (I'm talking here about this specific ruling. I'm sure there are factually-based objections to Lomborg, although I haven't seen one that impressed me, and I'm a Sierra Club member.)

    Instapundit has a bunch of links [instapundit.com], the most prominent being the Economist [economist.com] calling the ruling "incompetent and shameful".

  • The panel's ruling is incompetent and shameful. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Evan Vetere ( 9154 ) on Friday January 10, 2003 @04:04PM (#5058239)
    So says the Economist [economist.com].

    Lomberg has responded [yahoo.com], in initial brief, to the fraud charges. And, according to Glenn Reynolds, most of the panel's complaints seem to be directed at Lomberg's response to the initial SciAm critique [sciam.com] (PDF).

    The sheer complexity of this issue makes soapboxing inappropriate. I'm an early poster, but it's already begun. Please try to refrain from making fools of yourselves.

    • Whatever the faults of the SciAm critique (which I have not read, because SciAm has long since been dumbed down below the point where it carries anything worthwhile), I have read parts of Lomborg's thesis (excerpted in Skeptic). My informed appraisal: Lomborg did exactly what the committee claims that he did (select his sources to support his thesis), which is the antithesis of science.

      Lomborg's opponents come across as a bunch of fundamentalist ranters (you could probably run the response in Skeptic through a sed script and make it into a pretty good approximation of an anti-abortion screed), but that does not excuse Lomborg's faults. The Skeptical Environmentalist should stand on its own merits; from all unbiased accounts including my own, it fails miserably.

      • Actually, just above, you finally admitted that you have only read about two chapters of Lomborg's book (in this post of yours) [slashdot.org], and as you don't provide a single example of Lomborg doing what you claim, how seriously should we take this accusation.

        You are making a very serious claim (that Lomborg ignores sources which contradict him) without providing any evidence (such as an example of a source which he ignored). In other words, you're just blowing hot air.

    • The sheer complexity of this issue makes soapboxing inappropriate. I'm an early poster, but it's already begun. Please try to refrain from making fools of yourselves.

      Well, climate change and other environmental issues are certainly complex, and you're right to discourage people from holding forth without knowing much about the different views.

      On the other hand, whether or not the prime minister of Denmark should be threatening investigation of an institute that employs an author who departs from prevailing scientific opinion is a much simpler question. Even if I disagreed with Bjorn Lomborg's conclusions (and I'm not qualified to take a position either way), as a scientist, I'm appalled by the way the Danish bureaucracy is trying to muzzle him.

  • Are they? (Score:5, Funny)

    by elmegil ( 12001 ) on Friday January 10, 2003 @04:10PM (#5058315) Homepage Journal
    or are both sides driven by politics rather than science?

    Figure the odds.

    • Re:Are they? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by DaveOnNet ( 636006 )
      A fool sometimes has a good idea and a wise man sometimes has a foolish one. Do you eat poison because the fool tells you not to?

      If it is politically motivated, it's worth less, is that the idea? Certainly, a little less, but politics does a great job of making people talk about important issues. It is a shame when we interrupt the discussion of those issues to discuss the fact that people are not always motivated purely by a search for the truth.

      • Re:Are they? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by elmegil ( 12001 )
        In this particular case, truth is really all that matters, and the truth is obscured by all the gorilla dust being thrown by both sides, motivated by politics.

  • DCSD's ruling (Score:4, Informative)

    by Col. Klink (retired) ( 11632 ) on Friday January 10, 2003 @04:20PM (#5058433)
    Their full ruling is here [forsk.dk]. As other articles have pointed out, the only evidence they used against him was from the Scientific American articles. Even then, the working group never bothered to consider his responses because, in their own words, "...his rebuttals are not accepted by the complainants."

    Apparently, if you make file a complaint with the DCSD, they don't have to listen to rebuttals unless the rebuttals have already convinced those filing the complaint...

    • "the working group never bothered to consider his responses because, in their own words, '...his rebuttals are not accepted by the complainants.'

      That simply isn't true, and I find it difficult to believe that you aren't deliberately misstating the case while knowing better.

      The working group was faced with several decisions:

      1. Was Lomborg's book intended as a scientific work (hence, subject to scientific review) or a topical debate-generating book? If it isn't science, the DCSD has no cause to deal with it.
      2. If it was a scientific work, did it meet the accepted standards for scientific works?
      3. If it did not, was there convincing proof that this failure was deliberate on Lomborg's part (i.e., was he deliberately deceptive, or simply inadequate to the task)?

      On the first count, they decided that Lomborg's book was, in fact, intended as science, not debate. Among their reasons was the fact that Lomborg himself lists the book among his scientific publications.

      On the second count, they addressed themselves (naturally) to the specific complaints made against Lomborg and his work, and to Lomborg's rebuttals. It is in this context that the "his rebuttals are not accepted by the complainants" quotation appears in the report, as a simple statement of fact. Nowhere is it suggested that the non-acceptance of Lomborg's rebuttals by his opponents forms the basis of the working group's decision. It is, however, a factor - just as it is a factor that Lomborg does not accept his opponent's arguments (a detail I notice you fail to remark upon). In effect, the working group is merely saying that both parties are irreconcilably opposed.

      Having evaluated the available arguments, pro et con, the working group concludes that Lomborg's book does not, in fact, meet scientific standards - largely because it is indisputably true that Lomborg has used data selectively, and failed to include necessary counterarguments. The bottom line is that Lomborg,

      "in light of his systematic onesidedness in the choice of data and line of argument, has clearly acted at variance with good scientific practice".
      Note that the report does not address the issue of who is right or wrong, because:
      "...it is not DCSD's remit to decide who is right in a contentious professional issue, but merely whether a complaint about scientific dishonesty is justified."

      On the final count, the DCSD considers the case for a deliberate intent to mislead to be insufficient:

      "In view of the subjective requirements made in terms of intent or gross negligence, however, Bjørn Lomborg's publication cannot fall within the bounds of this characterization."

      In other words, according to the DCSD, Lomborg's book should be evaluated as a scientific work; does fail to meet standards of scientific honesty; but is not provably a the result of deliberate or grossly negligent scientific falsification of facts.

      The wording of the findings as regards the final count is very cautious - the working group does not exonerate Lomborg of deliberate intent to deceive, it simply notes that it is not provable that Lomborg is not merely a shoddy scientist, rather than a deliberate liar.

      Side remark: The Danish term "arbejdsgruppe", appearing as "Working Party" in the text of the English version of the DCSD's findings, and in this thread as "working group", would be better translated as "panel" or "committee".

      • "The working group was faced with several decisions... On the first count, they decided that Lomborg's book was, in fact, intended as science, not debate."

        To be accurate, the working group did NOT make that decision. The article clearly states: "No consensus on the Working Party was forthcoming in its reply to this question..."

        Rather, the DCSD as a whole decided that it was a scientific work, despite the lack of direction from the Working Party.

        On the second question, they quoted the complainants in great detail, yet if it weren't for their dismissal of the rebuttals, you wouldn't even know that BL had responded. The report never quotes his rebuttals, and they certainly don't try and refute them.

        • I stand corrected - you are right, the working group's opinion was divided, and the press release represents the majority opinion of the DCSD.

          However, as to your point with regard to the DCSD not quoting Lomborg's rebuttals, it must be said that the DCSD statement as a whole does not go very deep into the arguments made on either side.

          The DCSD statement seems to be more of a summing up of the "bottom line" of the decision of the DCSD than an in-depth analysis of the details of the decision-making process. As such, it is hardly fair (to either party) to let the brief press release be the basis of an evaluation of the process whereby the decision was reached.

          • > it must be said that the DCSD statement as a whole does not go very deep into the arguments made on either side. ...

            > [I]t is hardly fair ... to let the brief press release be the basis of an evaluation

            I would disagree. First, the article I linked to is not a "press release" but the DCSD's final ruling. It's over 12 pages. Of that, nearly half of it is detailed quotes from the original Scientific American article. There is not so much as a single sentence quoted from BL's rebuttals to those articles.

            If one can not infer the reasoning of the ruling from the ruling itself, then the ruling is meaningless. But the fact is that they DO explain their reasoning in this ruling. It is, however, their reasoning that is flawed in that their ruling does not take the defenses own words into consideration, dismissing them outright because the complainants never accepted them.

  • Science and politics (Score:4, Insightful)

    by n1ywb ( 555767 ) on Friday January 10, 2003 @07:29PM (#5059837) Homepage Journal
    Is science ever NOT driven by politics? Lets face it, politics is about power and money, and power and money are given to scientists so they can produce more power and money. If the research won't produce power or money, it's unlikely to get a lot of funding or attention.

    The best example I have is nuclear energy. There are only TWO good applications for nuclear energy, one is powering vehicles in extreme environments (submarines and spacecraft), and the other is BLOWING YOU THE FUCK UP (I was told that by a retired nuclear engineer, BTW.) But in the 1950's everyone thought they'd be getting nuclear cars and nuclear home heating and hell they even tried to build a nuclear airplane which was a complete debocle (Uranium, lead, concrete, all pretty heavy materials.) Why did so much money get dumped into a stupid technology? It produced a lot of POWER, and I don't just mean electricity.

    Bottom line, science is a power struggle. It sucks, but it's true.

  • I thought that S.E. was a funny mix of two things. For many of the chapters (Measuring human welfare, Life expectancy and health, Food and hunger, Prosperity... basically all of Part II, and parts of Part III and IV) he makes good arguments. But they're not new, and he's setting up straw men to knock them down--no scientists, for example, are out there arguing that we're running out of space to store our garbage. So he picks on groups like WorldWatch Institute. Fair enough, in my opinion--there's no question that many environmental groups, like any dependent on direct mail and memberships contribubtions, tend to benefit from a sense of crisis. But this argument has been made before, and much more eloquently, by Greg Easterbrook in his book "The Skeptical Environmentalist." If you haven't read it, do; it's much more readable than Mr. Lomborg's tome and its 3000 footnotes.

    However, in a number of the chapters, S.E. is totally different. It has to be: while issues like biodiversity and global warming are tricky and complex, there *is* a scientific consensus here that is at odds with Mr. Lomborg's thesis (the Julian Simon most-people-are-getting-better-most-of-the-time one, extended to these topics). So he changes tactics, and the book becomes much more deceptive, in my opinion. Given that there is a broad scientific consensus (e.g., IPCC 2001 for global climate change), Lomborg has to become much more highly selective in his sources and assumptions; it's this selectivity that was noted most frequently by those critics in Scientific American.

    One final note: the Economist is an excellent magazine, but it's not unbiased. I was surprised to read their claim that no evidence has been adduced against the book. Well, no, no one that I've read has found that S.E. said 1 when in reallity it's 2; but again, selectivity of sources and presentation is everything.
  • One might as well ask "Is the weather good?" and the answer would depend one's point of view.

    It is well that such people exist to question established beliefs or to see the extent of a notion's validity. Whether you agree with Lomborg's book or not, the discourse is nothing but healthy.

    Frankly, given the way that money is raised for scientific research, I'm not surprised that a lot of present day research is slanted toward a sensational outcome. Research that confirms the mundane simply isn't attractive enough to attract the kind of funding and publicity that many in the environmentalist movement seek.

    On the other hand, it's not wise to dismiss these discoveries simply because we suspect the motives of those who found them. We need verification. And books like this give public officials adequate cause to fund more research to verify these claims.

    Yes, it's political. So are the sensational claims made by so many who think that global warming will become a major disaster. The truth is that there simply isn't enough information to determine who is right yet. By forcing a debate, maybe we will finally be able to put the parameters of this debate in to focus.

    • (and I reply, 5 days later, I wonder if this will ever get read)

      "there simply isn't enough information to determine who is right yet."

      This is the argument the conservative crowd (esp. the Bush administration) has been using to put off any new environmental regulation. But this is easily refuted by a simple cost/benefit analysis: Cost of doing nothing if the greens are right: environmental disaster. Cost if they are wrong: zero. Benefit if they are right or wrong: slightly stronger economy

      Cost of new international regulation to reduce green house emissions if they are right: a smallish amount of economic productivity. (provided all nations don't sign on, thus giving the cheaters and advantage). Benefit: no disaster, or smaller disaster. Cost if they are wrong: same. Benefit: cleaner air.

      Its a value call. A trade off. I would gladly sacrifice a little bit of economic mobility for some cleaner air...
      • Cost of doing nothing if the greens are right: environmental disaster. Cost if they are wrong: zero.


        It's a value call, true. It's a trade off. But what you call a zero cost is not. There is a strong financial inertia toward investment in areas that don't contribute to the bottom line mission of a company. Why else would an administration which caters to big business work against it?

        Not only is this cost substantial; it could, and historically it has, bankrupt domestic industries. Look at steel production for an example. Asian countries have fewer environmental controls on such industry and they are able to sustain profits where North American industries could not. Refineries are moving to other countries. Logging is moving to other countries.

        In the end, what happened? These industries were pushed offshore to places where they can continue raping the land even more than they would have had they stayed in North America.

        That's not ecologically sound, it's just another cry of NIMBY in disguise. It also costs jobs for the econonomies who try stunts like this.

        One fact should be abundantly clear: Those who attempt to model the weather for long term forecasting are reluctant to make prognostications because they know how fraught with error their models can be.

        We know the earth's Carbon Dioxide level has been climbing for years. We also know that there have been ice ages and tropical periods all throughout geological history. What we can't say for certain is just how much of the Carbon Dioxide we measure is the result of world wide industry and how much is natural. Further, we aren't sure what the effect of the increased Carbon Dioxide will be. The question is not that simple (for example, what will the carbon dioxide distribution be across the earth) and the answers are even more difficult.

        The issue is whether we know enough to make a decision or not. Personally, I don't think we do. To me, this is not so much an issue of profit or loss. It's a question of "do we know enough to act effectively?"

        Another perspective: The Kyoto accord is widely seen as a joke. It's too little to have any effect one way or the other on the environment. Yet, that very accord could easily run the US economy in to the ground.

        There must be a better way to solve this problem. We haven't found it yet. The reason is because there are so many chicken little characters seeking the limelight that honest researchers with honest questions are often left on the sidelines.

        A healthy argument is a step in the right direction toward pushing the doom sayers aside and searching for real, workable answers.

Slashdot Top Deals

Whoever dies with the most toys wins.

Close