The holes in the red sheet of the greens
A department of Denmark's research agency determined that Prof. Bjorn Lomborg, who wrote an optimistic study on environmental trends that was adopted by conservative parties, demonstrated "scientific dishonesty" in his popular book "The Skeptical Environmentalist."
Prof. Lomborg, who holds a doctorate in political science and teaches statistics at the Danish University of Aarhus, presented the book as an unbiased scientific study, refuting the dire predictions of environmental organizations. However, since it was published in English in 2001 by Cambridge University Press, the book has been sharply criticized by many scientists, who have argued that even if the environmental situation is not as bad as environmental protection organizations and some scientists claim, the picture Lumburg has painted is too rosy.
After a six-month investigation, initiated by complaints filed by scientists, last week the Danish Committee for Scientific Dishonesty published a 17-page report, in which it determined that the book exhibits "systematic one-sidedness." "Objectively," the committee stated, "we believe that the publication of the research amounts to scientific dishonesty," as defined by the Danish laws for scientific honesty. However, the report states that since Lomburg was not found responsible for gross negligence, it cannot be officially determined that he himself is suffering from scientific dishonesty.
The committee, which is made up of scientists from various fields and is headed by a Supreme Court judge, said that it found no evidence that Hamburg intentionally tried to mislead his readers - a more serious matter - and contented himself with a relatively mild reprimand: "The publication is clearly against the standards of proper scientific work."
Lomburg defended the book in an interview and called on the committee to show specific examples of errors or bias. "It is impossible to say that I suffer from scientific dishonesty or that I have violated the rules of proper scientific behavior and not point to a 'smoking pipe,'" said Lomburg. According to him, the committee's conclusion could result in his dismissal from his new position as director of the Danish Institute for Environmental Assessment.
Cambridge University Press was also criticized by scientists for publishing the book. Sources at the publishing house refused to comment on the report, claiming that they had not yet had time to review it.
The report does not indicate specific examples, but states that although the book was published in the form of a scientific study, accompanied by many footnotes and diagrams, it is in fact nothing more than a "provocative article". He quotes at length a long critique of Lomburg's book, published in the journal "Scientific" American last year. Lomburg and his supporters said the review itself was biased, written by scientists who have long argued that the environment is being severely damaged.
The book - a dense overview of data on forests, climate change, population growth and other issues - did not become a bestseller, but was widely cited by conservative organizations, commentators and elected officials, who oppose the enactment of strict environmental regulations.
"The environment is a field of research where by performing simple calculations as Lumburg made it easy to reach optimistic conclusions," said Dr. Peter Raven, director of the Missouri Botanical Garden and president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. But Riven says that findings of this type should not be presented as science, and adds: "This is a just decision, which should fundamentally undermine Lomburg's credibility, except among those who desperately want to believe his words."
