Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alastair McIntosh who wrote (2319)	1/9/2003 12:38:36 PM
From: Alastair McIntosh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

Prof Bjorn Lomborg's formal response to the accusations of the DCSD - "Press release, Copenhagen 2003-01-07 The ruling on the matter of scientific dishonesty from the DCSD – a comment by Bjørn Lomborg In the beginning of last year several complaints regarding my book `The Sceptical Environmentalist' were handed in to the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty (the DCSD). Naturally, I have been looking forward to being cleared of the charges of scientific dishonesty. Therefore I have submitted my comments on many of the accusations to DCSD. Unfortunately the DCSD has made their decision without taking a position to the content of the complaints. The DCSD has ruled that "it is not DCSD's remit to decide who is right in a contentious professional issue". I find this ruling inexplicable and it means that there is still no ruling about the numerous complaints put forth in public. So I maintain that the complaints of the plaintiffs are unfounded. The main conclusion by DCSD finds that my book is "clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice" because of systematically biased selection of data and arguments. But since the DCSD has neglected to take their position on the technical scientific disputes their conclusions are completely unfounded. The DCSD does not give a single example to demonstrate their claim of a biased choice of data and arguments. Consequently, I don't understand this ruling. It equals an accusation without defining the crime. The DCSD, however, refers to the criticism of my book put forth by 4 scientists in Scientific American. This is a one-year-old discussion, which I participated in at that time, e.g. by writing a 34-page response < greenspirit.com >. But in spite of the fact that the DCSD received a copy of my response, they refer to none of my arguments. In fact the only thing that the DCSD does is to repeat the Scientific American arguments over 6 pages, while only allowing my arguments one line. This seems to reflect an extremely biased procedure. On top of that the DCSD has failed to evaluate the scientific points in dispute outlined in Scientific American article. My initial response when I read the conclusion of the DCSD was one of surprise and discomfort. But when reading through the complete ruling I found it to be: • Inexplicable in its negligence to take a position on the complaints of the plaintiffs • Undocumented by ruling the book to be systematically biased without documenting this with a single example • Biased by its reference to only one side of the comprehensive discussion concerning my book (the plaintiffs side)" john-daly.com Also, from the above article: The DCSD did not bother to evaluate the book for themselves, instead settling to accept the Scientific American feature articles as sufficient proof that the book was `contrary to the standards of good scientific practice'. For example, Lomborg's sections on climate were reviewed in Scientific American by Stephen Schneider, noted for his remark in Discover Magazine in 1989 - "To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest." Schneider is also remembered for his dire warnings in the 1970s about global cooling. In effect, the DCSD is accepting the opinion of one man, well known for his partisan views and gross exaggerations, and accepting that opinion as final and scientifically authoritative.