Bjørn Lomborg

Bjørn Lomborg (born January 6, 1965) is a Danish political scientist and former director of the Institute for Environmental Assessment in Copenhagen. In 2001, he attained significant attention by penning The Skeptical Environmentalist, a controversial book whose main thesis is that many of the claims and dire predictions of environmentalists are exaggerated.

Controversies

Accusations of scientific dishonesty

Complaint to the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD)

Several environmental scientists brought a complaint to the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD), because they felt that The skeptical environmentalist was a book containing deliberately misleading data and flawed conclusions.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

6 January 2003: The DCDS reaches its decision in the complaint against Bjørn Lomborg?s book The Sceptical Environmentalist. The book was published by the Cambridge University Press in 2001.

Related Topics:
6 January - 2003

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The main point of the DCDS?s decision of 6 January 2003 is that from an objective point of view, it was a question of scientific dishonesty on the part of Bjørn Lomborg, because, among other reasons, the book was based on a systematically biased choice of data.

Related Topics:
6 January - 2003 - Systematically biased

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Because of Bjørn Lomborg?s lack of scientific expertise in the themes treated in the book, however, the DCDS did not find that Bjørn Lomborg had shown intentional or gross negligence. Lomborg was therefore acquitted of the accusations of having acted in a manner considered scientifically dishonest. But the DCDS stated, at the same time, that he had clearly acted contrary to good scientific practice.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

13 February 2003: Bjørn Lomborg files a complaint with the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation against the DCSD?s decision of 6 January 2003.

Related Topics:
13 February - 2003 - 6 January

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

17 December 2003: The Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation makes a decision in the case. The Ministry finds that the DCSD has made a number of procedural errors namely:

Related Topics:
17 December - 2003

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

• The DCSD did not use a proper standard for deciding "good scientific practice" in the social sciences.
• The DCSD did not evaluate its authority to decide the case in regards to the order stipulating that "The case must be of importance to Danish research.".
• The DCSD did not document, where the defendant (BL) was biased in his choice of data and his argumentation, and that the decision lacks any argumentation for, why DCSD finds that the complainants are right in their criticisms of BL's working methods. It is not enough, that criticism of a researcher's scientific working methods exists; DCSD must adopt an attitude to the criticism and take a stand to whether or not the criticism is just, and why. It is exactly these tasks that are DCSD's primary duty to solve, and since this has not occurred, the decision must be remitted to DCSD, cf. what has been quoted above from administrative law of the consequence of neglecting the investigative principle. Such an considerable breach in DCSDs consideration of the case is in itself to be critiqued.

The Ministry therefore remits the case to the DCSD. Furthermore, the Ministry?s decision states that it is up to the DCDS to determine whether it will re-examine the case.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Ministry explained at a later date that the decision of the Ministry must be taken to mean that the DCSD?s decision of 6 January 2003 is invalid.

Related Topics:
6 January - 2003

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

12 March 2004: The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) have finally ended their case, rejecting the original complaints. They have decided that the original decision is invalid and has ended any further inquiry. However, Kåre Fog lodged another complaint two days later, the current (2005) status of which is unclear.

Related Topics:
12 March - 2004 - Kåre Fog

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Reactions to the initial verdict of the DCSD

The DCSD's decision regarding Lomborg provoked a signature collection http://www.math.ku.dk/~dlando/indsamling.htm amongst Danish academics. 308 scientists, many of whom were from the social sciences, criticised the DCSD's methods in the case.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

As a reaction to this, a new group of Danish scientists collected signatures in support of the DCSD. The 640 signatures in this second collection came almost exclusively from the medical and natural sciences, and included the Nobel Prize-winning chemist Jens Christian Skou, former University rector Kjeld Møllgård, and professor Poul Harremoës from the Technical University of Denmark.http://www.ulnits.dk/biologi/frame298.htm

Related Topics:
Nobel Prize - Jens Christian Skou - Technical University of Denmark

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Among the critics of the DCSD's decision are The Economist news magazine, Patrick Moore, a founder and former director of Greenpeace Canada, and the think-tank Heidelberg Appeal Netherlands, that published a collection of reactions to DCSD's decision http://www.stichting-han.nl/Commentaren/algemeen/6.%20Result%20survey1.doc. Favorable comments have also appeared in Wired and other periodicals.

Related Topics:
The Economist - Patrick Moore - Greenpeace - Heidelberg Appeal - Netherlands - Wired

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Discussions in the media

From the release of The Skeptical Environmentalist in 2001, Lomborg was subjected to intense scrutiny and criticism in the media, where his scientific qualifications and integrity were attacked and defended. The DCDS episode served as fuel and a focus for this debate, as played out in major news and scientific media.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Economist

The Economist defended Lomborg in this way:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

: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 2 February 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. http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=1522706

Related Topics:
2 February - 2002

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Showtime Channel

On Showtime's "Penn and Teller's BS", episode entitled "Environmental Hysteria" http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/topics.do?topic=eh, Lomborg had this to say:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

:A lot of environmentalists will tell us "you know, if this is a good cause, we should do it. It shouldn't matter how much it costs". It somehow puts a price tag on life or a price tag on birds singing, and that seems immoral. I can certainly understand that emotional response because I feel exactly the same emotional response. But my argument is to say the danger of "the Doomsday is waiting around the corner" is that we end up prioritizing incorrectly.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Later in the show he went on to say:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

:We need to get the debate back to a level where we say: "Oh, this is a good idea; this might be a little better; this is certainly not worthwhile doing right now; this is a very important issue". That we can discuss this in a fairly level-headed manner, that's the only way that we ensure that we get a correct or a good prioritization into democratic debate.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Scientific American

An issue of Scientific American featured strong criticism of his book, which Lomborg rebutted on his website, quoting the Scientific American article at length. Lomborg removed his rebuttal from his website following Scientific American's threat of bringing a lawsuit over copyright infringement. The rebuttal has since been published in PDF format on Scientific American's website http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00000B96-9517-1CDA-B4A8809EC588EEDF. The magazine also printed a response to the rebuttal http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00040A72-A95C-1CDA-B4A8809EC588EEDF&sc=I100322.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Union of Concerned Scientists

UCS Union of Concerned Scientists examines The Skeptical Environmentalist:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

:These separately written expert reviews unequivocally demonstrate that on closer inspection, Lomborg?s book is seriously flawed and fails to meet basic standards of credible scientific analysis. The authors note how Lomborg consistently misuses, misrepresents or misinterprets data to greatly underestimate rates of species extinction, ignore evidence that billions of people lack access to clean water and sanitation, and minimize the extent and impacts of global warming due to the burning of fossil fuels and other human-caused emissions of heat-trapping gases. Time and again, these experts find that Lomborg?s assertions and analyses are marred by flawed logic, inappropriate use of statistics and hidden value judgments. He uncritically and selectively cites literature -- often not peer-reviewed -- that supports his assertions, while ignoring or misinterpreting scientific evidence that does not. His consistently flawed use of scientific data is, in Peter Gleick?s words "unexpected and disturbing in a statistician". http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/archive/page.cfm?pageID=533

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

It is perhaps worth noting that some of the scientists involved in the UCS report were also named and criticised in The Skeptical Environmentalist. Thus some of them had a vested interest in discrediting The Skeptical Environmentalist and its author. Lomborg's response can be found on his site:http://www.lomborg.com/files/BudianskySciAmerLomborg2.pdf

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~