| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Environment Forum » Science wins
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| David Naugler |
 Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2003 12:59 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
From:
http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=c97efa83-5f7a-48f5-a1b4-b6b966fa9c26
Science wins
Terence Corcoran
Financial Post
Friday, December 19, 2003
It's been a rough year for environmental extremists. As the Kyoto
Accord slips into a coma, 2003 could even mark the beginning of the
end of the greatest world experiment, the attempt to push science and
politics into a big centrifuge to create a system for global
governance.
The collapse of Kyoto is a world-scale event. A microcosm of the
shifting links between politics and science is the much smaller
breaking story of Bjrn Lomborg. Earlier this year, when a Danish
government agency declared Mr. Lomborg, author of The Skeptical
Environmentalist, a "dishonest" scientist, the Big Green Left
rejoiced. For two years, environmental activists had sought to
discredit Mr. Lomborg, whose brilliant book valiantly demolished much
of the junk science and fabricated alarmism that drives the global
environmental movement. Mr. Lomborg was especially effective in
dismissing Kyoto as an over-costly attempt to fix a climate issue that
he considered "not anywhere near the most important problem facing the
world."
The attacks on Mr. Lomborg were vicious, personal and extreme, and
appeared in some of the most respected science publications: Nature,
Science and Scientific American. The final blow came when a
bureaucratic sub-agency within the Danish Ministry of Science,
Technology and Innovation -- bearing the Orwellian name Danish
Committees on Scientific Dishonesty -- issued a report last January.
It said Mr. Lomborg had committed acts of "scientific dishonesty" in
The Skeptical Environmentalist.
The enthusiasm for this conclusion was widespread. A former editor of
Nature said Mr. Lomborg had "veered well across the line that divides
controversial -- if competent -- science from unrepentant
incompetence." The president of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science said "this is a just outcome that ought to
bring his credibility to a halt."
Well, it hasn't. What came to a halt this week, in fact, is the Danish
committees finding against Mr. Lomborg In a new report, the Danish
Ministry of Science repudiated the findings. All the dishonesty,
apparently, is inside the committees. Among other things, the
government said that in attacking Mr. Lomborg the committee "had not
documented where [Mr. Lomborg] has allegedly been biased in his choice
of date and in his argumentation." It said that the committees actual
conclusion was that "there was no scientific dishonesty" found, but
the conclusion was distorted. It accused the committees of using
emotive language. (See below. Readers interested in the details can go
to www.imv.dk/Default.asp?ID=233.)
The real issue here is the politicization of the process to discredit
Mr. Lomborg, who is also head of the Danish Institute for
Environmental Assessment. Rather than answer Mr. Lomborg's findings
and conclusions through argument, debate and fact, his scientific and
political opponents went for the political jugular. They smeared and
criticized his work, aiming to discredit him rather than engage him.
Perhaps they knew too well that the deliberate alarmism that is the
official strategy in the political arena cannot, in the end, stand up
to the scientific reality that Mr. Lomborg defended so brilliantly in
his book.
- - -
WHY THE LOMBORG DECISION WAS OVERTURNED:
Excerpts from the Institute for Miljvurdering Web site.
The Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation has today
repudiated findings by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty
(DCSD) that Bjrn 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 DCSD, has today released a
critical assessment of the committees' Jan. 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 characterizes the DCSD's treatment of the case as
"dissatisfactory", "deserving criticism" and "emotional" and points
out a number of significant errors. The DCSD's verdict has
consequently been remitted.
Bjrn Lomborg, director of the Denmark's Environmental Assessment
Institute (EAI), today expressed his satisfaction with the ruling. "It
has been almost two years since the beginning of the DCSD case against
my book," Mr. Lomborg said.
"It has been hard, but I am happy that we now have confirmation that
freedom of speech extends to environmental debate. Now that this
distraction is behind us, we can concentrate our efforts on matters of
importance - namely, how to prioritize our efforts for the
environment.
"The DCSD judgment lacked substance and, even in January, 2003, it was
clear that it could not withstand scrutiny. The case was infected from
the beginning. This was pointed out by commentators from leading
Danish and international media. Almost 300 scientists signed a protest
against the ruling.
"The DCSD ruling came at a convenient time for many people who wanted
to criticize my work, and that of the EAI. The complaints about my
book were not based on science, but on a desire to stop me being
appointed Director of the EAI. The DCSD case has had a great impact on
the working environment at the EAI.
"With today's scathing assessment of the DCSD ruling, it has now been
established that if someone wants to criticize the Institute or my
book - and anyone is welcome to do so - mudslinging is not enough. You
have to use solid arguments," Mr. Lomborg said. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Vendicar Decarian |
| Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2003 9:20 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"David Naugler" <dnaugler@sfu.ca> wrote in message
news:c6bcfffa.0312190959.67c30f2@posting.google.com...
fa83-5f7a-48f5-a1b4-b6b966fa9c26
Quote:
Science wins
Terence Corcoran
Financial Post
The National post wouldn't know a science story if it read one in a real
newspaper.
The National Post is a third rate Canadian Newspaper set up by Embezzler
Libertarian Conrad Black as a means of injecting his own form of political
hate speech into the Canadian newspaper market. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| James |
| Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2003 10:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Vendicar Decarian" <VD@Pyro.net> wrote in message
news:wPYEb.36979$8Y4.425098@read2.cgocable.net...
Quote:
"David Naugler" <dnaugler@sfu.ca> wrote in message
news:c6bcfffa.0312190959.67c30f2@posting.google.com...
From:
http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=c97e
fa83-5f7a-48f5-a1b4-b6b966fa9c26
Science wins
Terence Corcoran
Financial Post
The National post wouldn't know a science story if it read one in a real
newspaper.
The National Post is a third rate Canadian Newspaper set up by Embezzler
Libertarian Conrad Black as a means of injecting his own form of political
hate speech into the Canadian newspaper market.
You thought that piece was hate speech? LOL |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Vendicar Decarian |
| Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2003 8:45 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote:
"Vendicar Decarian" <VD@Pyro.net> wrote in message
news:wPYEb.36979$8Y4.425098@read2.cgocable.net...
The National post wouldn't know a science story if it read one in a real
newspaper.
The National Post is a third rate Canadian Newspaper set up by Embezzler
Libertarian Conrad Black as a means of injecting his own form of
political
hate speech into the Canadian newspaper market.
"James" <jrapier@dcr.net> wrote in message news:hi_Eb.129$Jr1.78@fe10...
Quote: You thought that piece was hate speech? LOL
Ultimately lies like the ones printed in National Post Propaganda Rag are
either a result of a coward, a fool, or a sicophant. Each of which are
engaged in hate speech. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Jan 09, 2009 7:43 am
|
|