| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Environment Forum » Lomborg Vindicated
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Dr. Convection |
 Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2003 7:59 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
From:
http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/#lomborg
Lomborg Vindicated (18 Dec 03)
One of the most shameful episodes in years perpetrated by environmental
politics - the demonisation of Bjorn Lomborg and his book The Skeptical
Environmentalist culminating in a `Star Chamber' denunciation of Lomborg by
the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DSCD) - has finally been
corrected after nearly a year.
The Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (which is
responsible for the DSCD) has just repudiated the DSCD `findings' that Bjørn
Lomborg's book was "objectively dishonest", "clearly contrary to the
standards of good scientific practice" etc. etc. The Ministry gave a
critical assessment of the Committee's January 6 ruling, finding 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. According to the Ministry statement, the DCSD's treatment of the
case was "unsatisfactory", "deserving of criticism" and "emotional" and
pointed out a number of significant errors of judgement and procedure. The
DSCD's verdict has therefore been repudiated and declared void.
But is that simple? Is thus just an isolated case of one incompetent
committee over-reacting to complaints by a few environmental activists and
jumping to a biased judgement with no natural justice extended to the
victim?
It goes much, much deeper, right to the roots of the way the environmental
sciences conduct themselves. In a nutshell, we are dealing with a level of
political corruption in these sciences which have abandoned the principles
of open debate within science - indeed abandoned scientific method itself -
and become more like a medieval religion, treating all critics as heretics
to be censored and vilified. The disgraceful treatment of dissenting views,
not just those of Lomborg, points to a serious disease of intolerance -
paranoia even - of legitimate criticism, even to the extent of using the
peer review system (which works passably well in other sciences) as an
instrument of outright censorship against any critics. It is an intolerable
situation in which the journals themselves are partly to blame.
There have been numerous examples of this practice this year, some well
known, others not. The shrill cries of indignation over the Soon & Baliunas
paper on paleo-climate and the similar hysterical reaction towards the
MacIntyre & MacKitrick paper on the IPCC's `Hockey Stick', all attest to
this new trend toward intolerance. By all means criticise these papers and
criticise Lomborg's work - that's what free speech is all about. But to
demonise them - to demand they be censored for no valid scientific reason -
is a clear sign that the environmental sciences have degenerated into
ideology and totalitarianism. What use is peer review in these sciences
when the peers themselves are either incompetent, or politically corrupt, or
both? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jim Norton |
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2003 10:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| jan vindheim |
| Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2003 4:49 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dr. Convection <Convection@convection.net> wrote:
Quote: Lomborg Vindicated (18 Dec 03)
One of the most shameful episodes in years perpetrated by environmental
politics - the demonisation of Bjorn Lomborg and his book The Skeptical
Environmentalist culminating in a `Star Chamber' denunciation of Lomborg by
the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DSCD) - has finally been
corrected after nearly a year.
The Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (which is
responsible for the DSCD) has just repudiated the DSCD `findings' that Bjørn
Lomborg's book was "objectively dishonest", "clearly contrary to the
standards of good scientific practice" etc. etc.
Except that the Ministry (run by rightwing politicians, not by
scientists) did specifically _not_ consider the scientific case against
Lomborg, only the procedures followed in the case againgst him. The
committee therefore stands corrected for being overzealous, Lomborg for
being unscientific. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Oct 07, 2008 10:50 pm
|
|