Lomborg Decision Overturned by Danish Ministry of Science

[RichardR]

http://www.imv.dk/Default.asp?ID=233

Quote:

The Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation has today repudiated findings by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DSCD) that Bjørn Lomborg's book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" was "objectively dishonest" or "clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice".

The Ministry, which is responsible for the DSCD, has today released a critical assessment of the Committee's January 6 ruling. The Ministry finds that the DCSD judgment was not backed up by documentation, and was "completely void of argumentation" for the claims of dishonesty and lack of good scientific practice.

The Ministry characterises the DCSD's treatment of the case as "dissatisfactory", "deserving criticism" and "emotional" and points out a number of significant errors. The DSCD's verdict has consequently been remitted.

As the Economist commented this week, what's kind of "Scientific Dishonesty" panel has its own honesty (or lack thereof), pointed out?

[CFLarsen]

Don't you find it interesting that a political body wants to determine what good science is?

The same political body, which not only appointed Lomborg, but also created the government-sponsored organization which he heads today?

Why? Because his environmental views fitted those of the government.

There is something rotten in the state of Denmark...

[RichardR]

Quote:

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Don't you find it interesting that a political body wants to determine what good science is?

The same political body, which not only appointed Lomborg, but also created the government-sponsored organization which he heads today?

Why? Because his environmental views fitted those of the government.

There is something rotten in the state of Denmark...

So is there something wrong with The Ministry's assessment?

[pupdog]

I'd like to see some further details and comments from involved sources. I notice the contact in the article linked above is the (linked) institute's director, Bjorn Lomberg--making the link sort of like reading a critique of a critique of creationism written by the Institute for Creation Research. How does this decision affect the comments that led up to the committee taking on this case?

[RichardR]

Quote:

Originally posted by pupdog
I'd like to see some further details and comments from involved sources. I notice the contact in the article linked above is the (linked) institute's director, Bjorn Lomberg--making the link sort of like reading a critique of a critique of creationism written by the Institute for Creation Research. How does this decision affect the comments that led up to the committee taking on this case?

There is this link to the Ministry's actual comments

Or you could read "Something's (no longer) rotten in Denmark" (sorry Claus):

Quote:

The ministry was strongly critical, concluding that the committee provided "no documentation" and "lacks any arguments" that support the allegations of dishonesty and bad scientific practice on Mr. Lomborg's part. The ministry additionally lists a number of significant errors by the committee, several of which are considered so grave by its lawyers that each individual point is sufficient to make the committee's decision invalid.

The truth is that the committee's decision was a scandalous abuse of authority, and the environmentalists knew it all along. In Denmark, hundreds of university academics signed a petition denouncing the decision. But still environmentalists continued to cite the committee ruling to promote the argument that not only Mr. Lomborg -- but in fact his entire line of argument -- was unscientific.

In the environmental debate, this sort of tactic is constantly used to attempt to silence people who happen to disagree with "doom and gloom" scenarios. If one happens to be skeptical of the science of global warming, for instance, that person is accused of selling his soul to the oil industry. Rarely do environmentalists debate the actual issues; instead, they attack personal integrity or claim that one is not competent to take part in the debate.

[espritch]

According to a PDF link from the page, Lomborg started out to disprove a claim by an American economist that “the state of the world is getting better”. He ends up publishing results that support the contention and then prints “The Skeptical Environmentalist”. I have a couple of questions. What exactly is meant by “the state of world is getting better”? Better in what sense? I would assume based on the fact the American was an economist that this involved economics. But the name “The Skeptical Environmentalist” would seem to indicate environmental issues rather than economic ones. So which is it that they are referring to, and what criteria are used to evaluate whether it is getting better or worse? I’m a little confused here.

[RichardR]

Quote:

Originally posted by espritch
According to a PDF link from the page, Lomborg started out to disprove a claim by an American economist that “the state of the world is getting better”. He ends up publishing results that support the contention and then prints “The Skeptical Environmentalist”. I have a couple of questions. What exactly is meant by “the state of world is getting better”? Better in what sense? I would assume based on the fact the American was an economist that this involved economics. But the name “The Skeptical Environmentalist” would seem to indicate environmental issues rather than economic ones. So which is it that they are referring to, and what criteria are used to evaluate whether it is getting better or worse? I’m a little confused here.

Some of these reviews at Amazon.com might answer your questions.

[Quasi]

Quote:

Originally posted by espritch
According to a PDF link from the page, Lomborg started out to disprove a claim by an American economist that “the state of the world is getting better”. He ends up publishing results that support the contention and then prints “The Skeptical Environmentalist”. I have a couple of questions. What exactly is meant by “the state of world is getting better”? Better in what sense? I would assume based on the fact the American was an economist that this involved economics. But the name “The Skeptical Environmentalist” would seem to indicate environmental issues rather than economic ones. So which is it that they are referring to, and what criteria are used to evaluate whether it is getting better or worse? I’m a little confused here.

I read the book. It is essentially organized, by chapter, on each subject that environmentalists claim the environment is getting worse. Further, Dr. Lomborg had experts in each field supply the scientific arguments, and he merely commented on the political policies that should be made to improve or manage those environmental issues. However, he points out that things, across the board are getting better, not worse. We have more food, oil, longer lifespan, and cancer rates have been going down over the past thirty years (probably longer but the study by the CDC only lasted 30 years, except smokers of course.) So we see that our health today in general is directly linked to lifestyle, not environmnental chemical poisoning. It is rather interesting to know that a womans chance of dying from breast cancer before age 65 is only 5% for all causes of death. In other words, a womans chance of dying from BC is hundreds of times less likely than dying in a car accident. So should we as a society spend billions extra on organic foods? Not only is there no benefit whatsoever, but banning pesticides will actually cause millions of cancer deaths due to the high cost of fresh fruits and vegetables for the poor. So the homeopaths, naturopaths, and environmental extremists are totally wrong, and are scaring people for money. I call it passive extortion- give me your money or else X will harm you and your family. Kind of like the mafia but legal. Read the book, and read the scientific american article plus his response to the scientific american article. His critics only resort to the usual bag of logical fallacies that we see here at the JREF. I do not agree with all of Dr. Lomborgs conclusions, such as his belief in vegetarianism being healthier that a plant based diet with some meat, but I strongly agree with his overall message.

[pupdog]

But what has been said in this forum is, essentially, "Your argument is invalid; therefore my argument is correct." This is invalid logic--that is why I need to recheck the book, the criticisms, and the responses. I know that some things have gotten better in the past 100 years (e.g., water quality in the Potomac River basin) but I know that some other things have gotten worse (the number of days per year that construction or drilling crews can work in The Great White North has decreased). Furthermore, some of the improvements we've seen came about, not out of corporate kindness, but because of regulatory pressures.

Too often, "environmentalists" are lumped with homeopaths and other woos. This tactic foolishly lumps science-based concern for the environment with irrational, Luddite-like fear of technology. Reminds me of one of the questions on my ecology final exam, years ago: "What's the diffreence between an 'environmentalist' and an ecologist?"

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by espritch
According to a PDF link from the page, Lomborg started out to disprove a claim by an American economist that “the state of the world is getting better”. He ends up publishing results that support the contention and then prints “The Skeptical Environmentalist”. I have a couple of questions. What exactly is meant by “the state of world is getting better”? Better in what sense? I would assume based on the fact the American was an economist that this involved economics. But the name “The Skeptical Environmentalist” would seem to indicate environmental issues rather than economic ones. So which is it that they are referring to, and what criteria are used to evaluate whether it is getting better or worse? I’m a little confused here.

He is measuring complex questions with simple criteria. His main conclusion appears to be that because we are economically better off, the world is better off as a whole. You don't have to dig too deep into his arguments to realise there are massive holes in his approach.

[RichardR]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
He is measuring complex questions with simple criteria. His main conclusion appears to be that because we are economically better off, the world is better off as a whole. You don't have to dig too deep into his arguments to realise there are massive holes in his approach.

But the dishonesty accusation has now been quashed, yes?

[Quasi]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person


He is measuring complex questions with simple criteria. His main conclusion appears to be that because we are economically better off, the world is better off as a whole. You don't have to dig too deep into his arguments to realise there are massive holes in his approach.

And here you are using the same tactics as Scientific American and others. Essentially you are saying "Lomborg is obviously wrong, I can feel it." What are the holes? Have you read the book?
Further, the book is not a direct defutation of all environmental research, rather a rebuttal to Pop environmental scares which case a lot of people unnecessary grief. Breast cancer is not rampant, the forests are growing not declining, and pollution is much less today than 30 years ago. Further renewable energy will be more competitive than fosil feuls by 2035. What he states is true. Many european countries are shifting to solar and wind simply because the price is less than that for fossil fuels. Where I am in Europe, gasoline is 5.00 US per gallon. Also, electricity is many times as expensive. So the local businesses are selling efficient refrigerators, stoves, and light bulbs. Had little to do with policy, or choice but ecoonomics. In general people will chose the cheaper option, disregarding metaphysical baloney. The hype that the gov. is doing it for the environment is meant to please voters and to get the budget passed to build up renewable infrastructure.
Your final point, I take it you agree we are all better off financially. Then is it not true that we can afford to live much better? Is it then not true that we are living longer, and more satisfying lives? Further, only countries with strong economies can afford to protect the environment. So economic growth and stability are paramount to environmentalism. And directly linked to that is democracy, which is in turn mortally linked to science. What most environmental groups try to do is show a tiny portion of what is going on and generalize about the entire earth. Lomborg uses all of the data to show that they are wrong. I would like to know what your specific problem is.

[davefoc]

I've read some of the pro-Lomborg and anti-Lomborg articles and have not formed much of an opinion, but I read the comments in this thread and other similar threads with interest.

I did want to concur strongly with what Quasi said about economies successfully adopting to a rising price of fossil fuels. What he said seems exactly right to me. The free market will do just fine with the transition if it is not impeded by self serving politicians looking to gain political advantage thgough the use of populist tinkering with the economies.

[WonderfulWorld]

Quote:

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Don't you find it interesting that a political body wants to determine what good science is?

Isn't that exactly what's happening with the IPCC? I mean that the technical document, written by scientific consensus, says one thing, while the "Policymakers' Summary", written by political appointees, whitewashes the doubts and emphasizes the dangers, and therefore says quite another thing?

As for the Committee document, there was indeed a detestable absence of argumentation. Lomborg, for instance, challenged Dr. Stephen Schneider (of Stanford, I think) on several points. The Committee simply asked Schneider for comment, and took his word for it. What I saw of Schneider's comments didn't refute (and didn't really attempt to refute, in any scientific way) the points that Lomborg made. But speaking of scientific dishonesty:

Quote:

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 climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased 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. This 'double ethical bind' [sic] we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.
--Dr. Stephen Schneider, Discover Magazine, 1989

You "hope"? No, sir: As a scientist, you are bound to the scientific method and the truth. Nothing else is acceptable. If you want to be a commentator -- and admit that you are a commentator speaking your (not entirely scientific) opinion -- that is fine. Otherwise, stick to the facts.

It's a damned fine "Committee on Scientific Dishonesy" that takes Dr. Schneider's word for it!

[RichardR]

Quote:

Originally posted by RichardR
So is there something wrong with The Ministry's assessment?

Claus, I was wondering if you had an answer to this question?

[CFLarsen]

Quote:

Originally posted by RichardR
Claus, I was wondering if you had an answer to this question?

Sorry, been a little busy...on another forum.

Yes, there is something fundamentally wrong: We have a political body deciding what constitutes scientific evidence, and how science should be criticized. Now, the points are - somewhat - minor, and it will probably not make all that many political waves here. That doesn't, IMO, detract from the seriousness of the matter.

The ministry makes it clear on their website: They can only look into whether or not the case was handled legally correct. However, in its verdict, it points to how science should be interpreted. That is a mix of law and science that is highly criticizable.

Of course, it is also telling the way Lomborg's supporters have interpreted this. The Agerup article made the wrong conclusions: Lomborg has not been cleared of scientific dishonesty, although Lomborg himself has also declared this.

The Committee was told to "do it again, and better". The reasons were political, and the law was invoked to decide what science is.

Not good. Very rotten, in fact.

[WonderfulWorld]

If the Ministry has authority over the Committee, does this mean that the Committee is also a political body? What makes the Committee's scientists more objective than the Ministry's scientists? An additional level of separation? How are the Committee members appointed?

We must apply the same standard to this as we demand with everything else (God, the paranormal, criminal guilt, etc.): If the "evidence" for Mr. Lomborg's scientific dishonesty is itself disreputable (it is, as I pointed out), then it is must be rejected. He doesn't need to rehabilitate his reputation: the burden of proof is on the accuser, and on that they failed in a way that brings their own integrity into question.

[CFLarsen]

WonderfulWorld,

There's a list here (in Danish, but you can probably guess): http://www.forsk.dk/uvvu/medl.htm

Their annual report is here (in English): http://www.forsk.dk/uvvu/publ/uvvu2002.pdf

[CFLarsen]

RR,

Just a comment on your quote:

Quote:

"The truth is that the committee's decision was a scandalous abuse of authority, and the environmentalists knew it all along. In Denmark, hundreds of university academics signed a petition denouncing the decision. But still environmentalists continued to cite the committee ruling to promote the argument that not only Mr. Lomborg -- but in fact his entire line of argument -- was unscientific."

There were 287 people who signed the petition denouncing the decision.

There were 400 people who signed a petition that supported the decision.

What does this mean? That it pays to be (able to read) Danish...

[RichardR]

Quote:

Originally posted by CFLarsen
There were 287 people who signed the petition denouncing the decision.

There were 400 people who signed a petition that supported the decision.

What does this mean? That it pays to be (able to read) Danish...

No. It means that appeal to popularity is a fallacy.

[CFLarsen]

Quote:

Originally posted by RichardR
No. It means that appeal to popularity is a fallacy.

Well, that, too....

But I have to admit that what I see in the English-speaking press is very different from what I see "back home". Things to ponder...

[WonderfulWorld]

I just read an english translation of the Ministry's summary of its findings. I believe it has been mischaracterized, here. Here is the relevant section:

Quote:

Point 6.1 The principle of inquisitorial procedure

Here the Ministry must point out that the DCSD has not documented where the respondent (BL) has allegedly been biased in his choice of data and in his argumentation, and that the ruling is completely void of argumentation for why the DCSD find that the complainants are right in their criticisms of BL’s working methods. It is not sufficient that the criticisms of a researcher’s working methods exist; the DCSD must consider the criticisms and take a position on whether or not the criticisms are justified, and why.

These are precisely the tasks the DCSD has a fundamental duty to carry out and as this has not happened, the ruling must be remitted back to the DCSD, cf. the above quote from the administrative law on the consequences of neglecting the principle of inquisitorial procedure. This type of significant neglect in case processing by the DCSD deserves criticism in itself.

In brief, the DCSD found Lomborg guilty of "scientific dishonesty," but their ruling is (to quote the Ministry) “completely devoid of argumentation” regarding that charge, nor of any reference to any specific example of dishonesty in Lomborg's book. The Ministry isn't criticizing the the DCSD's science (contrary to some assertions on this forum), but rather the complete absence of scientific argumentation in the DCSD's ruling. The DCSD is required, for legal, ethical, and scientific reasons, to explain the scientific cause of its rulings. It didn't do so (one wonders why?), so the Ministry had to step in.


I would also note that there has been significant scientific discussion of Lomborg's book, but the Committee only chose to cite certain critics who are themselves eminently open to critical observation. A question: Wasn't "biased selection of sources" one of the charges the DCSD made against Lomborg? Surely, then, they should be careful to provide an objective analysis themselves!

[WonderfulWorld]

I was just reading (or attempting to read) the Danish-language link provided by by Mr. Larsen. It's amazing how much of that an english-speaker can figure out!

BTW, I refered to the "Committee" in my previous posts, in reference to the DCSD. It appears that all three committees within the DCSD ruled on the Lomborg case, but only one is relevant to the issue. The Ministry also pointed this out, but let it pass since the two irrelevant committees agreed with the relevant committee.

[Igopogo]

Quote:

Originally posted by Quasi


However, he points out that things, across the board are getting better, not worse. We have more food, oil, longer lifespan, and cancer rates have been going down over the past thirty years (probably longer but the study by the CDC only lasted 30 years, except smokers of course.) So we see that our health today in general is directly linked to lifestyle, not environmnental chemical poisoning. It is rather interesting to know that a womans chance of dying from breast cancer before age 65 is only 5% for all causes of death. In other words, a womans chance of dying from BC is hundreds of times less likely than dying in a car accident. So should we as a society spend billions extra on organic foods? Not only is there no benefit whatsoever, but banning pesticides will actually cause millions of cancer deaths due to the high cost of fresh fruits and vegetables for the poor. So the homeopaths, naturopaths, and environmental extremists are totally wrong, and are scaring people for money.

I haven't read the book, but can see gaping holes in the logic of the above statement. None of these findings, (excepting maybe advances in treating cancer), take into account longterm sustainability. They measure what can be argued as short-term gains and project them irrationally into the future.

Also, the comment about environmental extremists appears to be made to stifle criticism from anyone skeptical of claims that the state of the environment is improving.