Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stryder2112 · 01-23-2003, 07:35 AM

I read a short blurb in this week's Science about the the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty formally rebuking Dr. Bjorn Lomborg for his book The Skeptical Environmentalist.

Since Science online by subscription, I found this article from the Washington Post and also from CNN.

Quotes from the Washington Post article:

Quote:

Once hailed as a brilliant iconoclast who challenged environmentalists' gloom-and-doom prognoses of global warming, overpopulation and worldwide hunger, Danish author Bjorn Lomborg yesterday was denounced by a panel of his country's top scientists for engaging in "scientific dishonesty."

...

Members of the Danish Research Agency -- Denmark's equivalent of the National Academy of Sciences -- said Lomborg had "clearly acted at variance with good scientific practice" in light of his "one-sidedness in the choice of data and line of argument." The panel, responsible for investigating allegations of scientific dishonesty, said Lomborg lacked "any special scientific expertise" in dealing with "the extraordinarily wide-ranging scientific topics" in his book.

One items from the Science article not mentioned in the above links was Lomborg appointment to the Danish Environmental Assessment Institute (EAS). The Danish Prime Minister said that some scrutinity would now be given to some of the "white papers" publish by the EAS, including one praising the benefits of burning aluminum cans instead of recycling them!!

Stryder

vixstile · 01-23-2003, 10:28 AM

From Lomborgs site

Quote:

The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) has found that I am "systematically one-sided" in a decision handed down 7 January 2003 . Here they exclusively rely on the critique from Scientific American 2002 without taking my rebuttal into account (read here) . You can also read my press release response.

http://www.lomborg.com/critique.htm

Friar Bellows · 01-23-2003, 02:07 PM

A Response to Lomborg's Rebuttal

cfgauss · 01-23-2003, 02:27 PM

Is there a rebuttal to the rebuttal's rebuttal?

fando · 01-23-2003, 06:25 PM

This spectacle is starting to get really silly and really boring. We should be discussing the science, not what he said and what she said.

cfgauss · 01-23-2003, 10:53 PM

I'm looking forward to the rebuttal of the rebuttal to the rebuttal's rebuttal. :banghead:

Friar Bellows · 01-23-2003, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fando
This spectacle is starting to get really silly and really boring. We should be discussing the science, not what he said and what she said.

Well, personally speaking, I don't feel knowledgeable enough to discuss the science without making an arse of myself.

Oolon Colluphid · 01-24-2003, 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Friar Bellows
Well, personally speaking, I don't feel knowledgeable enough to discuss the science without making an arse of myself.

You'd make a lousy creationist then...

DT

Corey Hammer · 01-24-2003, 05:20 AM

Scientific American had a nice debunking of the the Skeptical Environmentalist last year.

Mr. Sammi · 01-24-2003, 09:57 AM

cfgauss : what were the key points in the rebuttal?

Seeing you have so much time to list jargon, I am expecting an answer tout suite. (12:57 am Montreal time)

Sammi Na Boodie ()

01-24-2003, 09:57 AM	#10
Mr. Sammi Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Montr�al Posts: 367	key points cfgauss : what were the key points in the rebuttal? Seeing you have so much time to list jargon, I am expecting an answer tout suite. (12:57 am Montreal time) Sammi Na Boodie ()

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-23-2003, 02:07 PM	#3
Friar Bellows Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: arse-end of the world Posts: 2,305	A Response to Lomborg's Rebuttal

01-23-2003, 02:27 PM	#4
cfgauss Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: USA Posts: 108	Is there a rebuttal to the rebuttal's rebuttal?

01-23-2003, 06:25 PM	#5
fando Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Los Angeles Area Posts: 1,372	This spectacle is starting to get really silly and really boring. We should be discussing the science, not what he said and what she said.

01-23-2003, 10:53 PM	#6
cfgauss Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: USA Posts: 108	I'm looking forward to the rebuttal of the rebuttal to the rebuttal's rebuttal. :banghead:

01-24-2003, 05:20 AM	#9
Corey Hammer Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 368	Scientific American had a nice debunking of the the Skeptical Environmentalist last year.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.