Talk:Bjørn Lomborg/Archive 1

This archive page covers approximately the topics no longer being discussed as of about December 2005.

Times
Should Lomberg's nomination as one of the "100 most influential people in the world" by Time Magazine in 2004 be mentioned? After all, even though it might be a bit fleeting, it does underline the impact his work has created.

Misleading adjective
I think the word many is misleading in the following sentence. There were only four experts, after all.
 * many of the eminent physical and biological scientists who attacked it --Ed Poor

Pie on face
From the article:
 * Here is a picture of him with pie on his face, after have irritated and annoyed listeners at one of his talks.

What, and one of them just happened to have a pie, so that they could throw it in his face as a spontaneous expression of disgust? --The Anome


 * Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Pie guerilla was there, ready to smear him. Although I totally believe he annoyed his listeners, and that his science is wrong, the whole article could benefit from some more neutrality. --Guppie


 * This article and others about global warming clearly show that NPOV is much more than the presentation of sentences with atribution. For example, throwing a pie to someody is hardly a scientific argument, and scientists should be judge by their scientific arguments, not by people that do not understand what they are saying. Another example from the article: "Critics note that this background gives him little or no grounding in the physical and biological sciences". This is an ad hominem argument, not a scientific argument.


 * It's not an argument at all. Its an (accurate) statement.  People should be aware that he has no training in the subjects .  That doesn't devalue his arguments, but people should bear it in mind when reading about his disagreements with people who have studied the complexities of the issue in much greater detail.


 * Yes, it is an ad hominem argument. Saying that an advocate "has no training" or that others have "studied...the issue in much greater detail" are ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE MAN, rather than rebuttals of his specific points. --Uncle Ed 19:40, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * As to the scientific debunking of Lomborg, see 'Mismeasuring...' Make no mistake, this is not a disagreement between two groups of experts on the environment.'' --GWO


 * People say Lomborg is wrong, but where? about what? And what about his counter-arguments? Should't be easy to point where his scientific arguments are wrong? --Joao


 * See Scientific American, ad nauseum. (a further clue: if your book gets praised by the Washington Post and the Economist, and attacked in the pages of Sci. Am. and Nature, you've either written a good book about politics, or a lousy one about science.)


 * If there are good scientific arguments in Scientific American then we should put them in the article in oposition to with Lomborg's reply. But there are no scientific arguments in the article. Just ad hominen arguments. --Joao


 * How many would you like? Grist Magazine collected a great many respected scientist opinions (just read their bios here; the text of their critiques is there, too). Have any other scientists supported Lomborg? The not-exactly radical World Wildlife Fund take issue with his data, his selective quoting, and his analysis  here, or here.  To quote E. O. Wilson, double Pulitzer prize winner and Harvard professor
 * "My greatest regret about the Lomborg scam is the extraordinary amount of scientific talent that has to be expended to combat it in the media."

My point is: if there are scientific arguments against Lomborg, someone will need to write them in the article. And then, someone will need to add Lomborg's counter-arguments.


 * Yeah, someone should. But I've wasted enough of my copious free time on this kook.  In 12 months he'll be completely forgotten, and we can delete the article wholesale :) --GWO


 * And then, the counter-counter-arguments... As it is now, the article is just a collection of opinions with attributions. I also can say that Lomborg is a great human being, but that does not help the reader to understand his position on Environment. As it is now, the article does not make justice to Lomborg. His answer to the allegations presented in the article would be: "I don't have to answer to ad hominen arguments." --Joao

Fixing POV
Moderating a page I find reeks of smear campaign. --Anders Törlind


 * The article as amended is awful, implying the only criticisms of Lomborg are about his credentials. His methods are far shakier than his credentials.  See above references. --GWO


 * Axel: whilst "many" is subjective, Lomborg's critics (in the scientific community) certainly outnumber his defenders. And some of them were eminent.  See the Grist magazine referenced above. And Scientific American.  And Nature.  (two pretty eminent publication IMHO) --GWO


 * "Many eminent scientists" was used in connection to the Scientific American article. The writers of that article were neither eminent nor many. In any case, that stuff properly belongs on the page about his book, not about the page about him. --AxelBoldt

Homosexuality mention
Whilst Mr. Lomborg might be homosexual, it looks a little incongruous in the article as is as the only aspect of his private life that gets mentioned - you might even read it as a context in which to judge his environmental ideas (which is clearly nonsense - none of the scientific criticism of his work I've read has even bothered to mention his homosexuality). If we are to mention his homosexuality, shouldn't it be presented in the context of a more extensive discussion of his personal story? --Robert Merkel


 * Also, this is another not scientifically rigorously defined label that is being placed upon Mr. Lomborg. And shame on Lomborg if he defines himself without the same rigor he demands of the environmentalists. --T. Mc. 04:42, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Credentials
I've also removed the following


 * and opponents of his hypothesis point out that he lacks a degree in environmental sciences.

This seems like a stray argument from the controversy over his book, and putting it here looks like his critics are playing the man rather than the ball (so to speak) and does both Lomborg and his critics a disservice. --Robert Merkel


 * I think from seeing this in the media before, this was one of the major points of his opponents, though, that lay people can't contribute and that accredited scientists don't need to explain. In otherwords, a main point of his opponents is that he sites (or analyzes them with a different science, statistics) experts but is not one of them. --T. Mc. 04:42, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lomborg in politics
In March 2002, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Denmark&#8217;s newly elected center-right prime minister who is also an economist, appointed Lomborg to run the country&#8217;s new Institute for Environmental Assessment. Lomborg is charged with &#8220;watching state agencies to ensure that cash for cutting pollution goes where the return is greatest,&#8221; The Economist reported in its March 2 issue. &#8220;The government&#8217;s aim in setting up the new institute is to help it trim heavy public spending,&#8221; it added. The new Denmark government, elected in November, has already begun making some changes in environmental policy, including eliminating plans for three offshore wind-power parks and making plans to build houses in state forests. 

However, The Wall Street Journal reported that Professor Bjorn Lomborg, former Greenpeace activist, devoted environmentalist and author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist," says the scientific documentation supporting Kyoto says earth's temperature will rise 1.2 degrees Celsius by 2100 with the treaty or by 2094-a mere six years earlier-without. And that's if-as seems most unlikely-no alternative to fossil fuels emerges. 

More on homosexuality
This sentence sounded a little bizarre:


 * In November 2001, Lomborg, who is openly gay, was selected Global Leader for Tomorrow by the [World Economic Forum]?. 

As his sexuality has not much to do with his role in the World Economic forum.

Removed an anonymously posted addition with no reference cited. ''Over 100 scientists, both people for and against Lomborg, criticised DCSD for it's report. Now it is the DCSD that is under investigation.'' A Google News search on "Lomborg" and "DCSD" turns up zero evidence for this assertion.

Also, I'm about to remove the "Lomborg is gay" sentence. I'll put it back in when I see irrelevant statments of sexual orientation added to a significant number of other biographical entries, not before. --Tannin

Danish comittee thing
I think we should take out the whole Danish committee thing, unless and until someone points out a reason why that committee should be given any credence. I think we should just say that many people have tried to discredit Lomborg and perhaps give 2 or 3 examples of substantive criticisms along with Lomborg's rejoinders to each example. I see no point in repeating a blanket condemnation. It would be like saying, "Israel is racist. The UN passed a resolution saying, 'zionism = racism.'" --Uncle Ed

DCSD quote
Ruling:

Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty.

''In view of the subjective requirements made in terms of intent or gross negligence, however, Bjørn Lomborg's publication cannot fall within the bounds of this characterization. Conversely, the publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice.''

For and on behalf of the Committees

Hans Henrik Brydensholt

Chairman of DCSD

(source)

Homosexuality again
I put back the information that he is openly gay. I for one find it interesting that even people on the political right start coming out. This article is about the person Lomborg, not just about his book. His being openly gay is relevant to the description of his person. --AxelBoldt 05:21 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

Tannin, please explain how you think it helps our readers to suppress correct information. We include information about homosexuality of lots of prominent people; see for instance Leonardo da Vinci or Pim Fortuyn. Regarding your question in the subject line: I would not include the information that George W. Bush is openly straight in his article, but if he were openly gay, I would most definitely include that, because it is interesting and relevant information. --AxelBoldt 16:26 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)


 * Because it is gratuitous. It is not appropriate to mention someone's sexual preference only if he is gay: it is offensive and discriminatory to do so, just as it is offensive to say "lady doctor".


 * Saying Lomberg is openly gay in a para all by itself, devoid of context, (where you would not say "Lomberg is openly straight") is clearly offensive and should be removed from the entry. Putting it in a context of a more general discussion of Lomberg's life is a different matter entirely. Saying He was an associate professor of statistics in the Department of Political Science at the University of Aarhus. Lomborg is a former Greenpeace activist and is openly gay is much better, though it would be better again in a more detailed description of his life. Now we are talking about Lomberg the man, not simply throwing in a gratutious remark about his sexual prefference.


 * I agree with you that the sentence fits better where it is right now, but I take issue with the statement that the mentioning of his sexuality, all by itself, is offensive or discriminatory. Most people are not openly gay; therefore it is reportable information if they are. Most people don't have two noses; if Lombork had two noses, we would certainly report that fact, and that wouldn't discriminate against the two-nosers out there. Most supreme court justices are not white; therefore, we should certainly report the skin color of the one exception. We don't need to report the other judges' skin colors (or number of noses), because they are understood. I don't see how you can equate "openly straight" with "openly gay", (or "one-nosed" with "two-nosed"): the first has almost no informational value. --AxelBoldt 03:40 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)


 * Unrelated matter: was he a Greenpeace activist or simply a Greenpeace member? The distinction is important. --Tannin 18:26 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

DCSD history
How did the Danish committee become an "official" body? --Uncle Ed


 * In the usual way: the Danish Government passed a law and the DCSD was the result. You can read all about it on their web page - though you have to fiddle about a bit to find things. (Unless you are fluent in Danish!)


 * A few bits quoted:


 * Order Concerning the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty Pursuant to S 4e,Ss 4, in the Danish Act on Research Advice etc., cf. notice no. 676, dated 19 August 1997, the following provisions apply:


 * Section 1. The Board of the Danish Research Councils establishes three committees on scientific dishonesty within Danish research: A committee covering natural science, agricultural and veterinary science and technical science, a committee for health and medical science, and a committee for social science and the humanities. The committees will share a chairman, whose task among other things is to ensure uniformity in the statements made by the committees irrespective of the scientific issue in question. Ss 2. The title of the committees is the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty.


 * Section 2. It is the responsibility of the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty to handle cases concerning scientific dishonesty when the Committees receive complaints thereof. A plaintiff may ask the Committees to consider his/her case in order to clear his/her name of circulating rumours and allegations. Ss 2. The case must be of importance to Danish research. If it is unlikely that the Committees will find for the plaintiff, the complaint will be dismissed, before actually being considered by the Committees.


 * Section 3. Scientific dishonesty includes actions or omissions in research, such as falsification or distortion of the scientific message or grossly misleading information ...




 * Section 12. The committees' handling of cases falls within the jurisdiction of Danish Administrative Law.


 * And so on. --Tannin 14:30 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

Mr. Lomborg was not trained as statistician by profession
Mr. Lomborg was trained in political sciences. His Ph.D. paper was about simulation/game theory. According the circulumn, the statistics was taught together with methodology for about 30 hours on the first year of the education. He was hired as associate professor to teach statistics for students studying political science by his mentor, now president for the board of the institute that Mr. Lomborg is heading. The president was in turn appointed by the minister of environment in Denmark, whose declared goal is to cut environmental investments.


 * Mr. Einstein was a patent clerk and he became the greatest scientist of the 20th century. Well, Lomborg has been listed in the list of 100 most influential people of 2004. Was the comment about his training in political sciences meant as an insult? In that case I did not understand the logic. He is quite clearly a better scientist than 20 average catastrophic environmentalists altogether. --Lumidek 02:30, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Einstein published in peer-reviewed journals. Lomborg has not (the one paper he published has nothing to do with The Skeptical Environmentalist). --Orzetto 20:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * As Lomborg himself makes absolutely clear in the book, if his conclusions are correct then it does not matter who he is. Debate the conclusions and the methodology people, not the person! Batmanand 19:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * That's of course the focus of the problem. They are not. --Orzetto 14:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Ad hominem
Almost all attacks on Lomborg have been aimed at discrediting him as a person, rather than it exposing any specific errors in his work. This fits the ad hominem definition precisely.

It's typical of environmentalists, that when challenged they resort to personal attacks. --Uncle Ed 19:54, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't that be an ad hominem attack, Ed?


 * Nope, it's not quite an "ad hominem" attack because 1) the environmentalists are not a "person" and 2) the topic of the discussion in the 4 sentences above was the question how the arguments should be constructed, and Ed Poor therefore discussed the topic as opposed to some unrelated "ad hominem" attacks. --Lumidek 02:41, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Just to draw a point of distinction -- it is an ad hominem argument to enter into evidence against a proposition irrelevant aspects of its proponent(s). For instance, gratuitously mentioning Lomborg's sexual orientation as an argument against his beliefs would qualify.


 * However, addressing the pronouncements of an authority by discussing the basis of their authority is only invalid in deductive reasoning. (To put that in context -- in deductive logic, the fact that the sun has risen 1,000,000 mornings in a row is irrelevant to the question of whether it will rise tomorrow morning.)  In inductive reasoning, which most of us use, it is legitimate to attribute more probable truth to a premise if it is supported by an authority, someone whose training and knowledge would make them more likely to know whether the weight of the evidence supports that premise or not.  It is also perfectly legitimate to point out when an apparent authority is not the authority they might seem; when their training is not in the field where they are making their pronouncements, for example.  This applies whether the authority is Lomborg or Jeremy Rifkin.  --Antaeus Feldspar 16:13, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Feel free to call it by pompous cliches like "inductive reasoning", but you won't change anything about the fact that if such reasoning - that ignores the actual scientific questions - is done by a significant portion of a community XY, then it is a rather worthless reasoning and the conclusions made by the community XY are very unlikely to have any scientific value.


 * Moreover, if you talk about authority - which itself sounds little bit like in the Middle Ages - you should know that it is Bjorn Lomborg who is the real authority in these debates - for example he appeared in List of TIME Magazine's 100 most influential people of 2004 - while his opponents are usually lousy average unproductive "also" scientists, and kind of zeroes, not any authorities! Do I have to use the names I am temped to use, in order to prove that they're not any authorities? ;-) --Lumidek 02:41, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Feel free to call basic features of decision-making, such as strength of beliefs and quality of sources "pompous cliches".


 * Moreoever, simply being 'influential' has little correlation to authority- rebels and terrorists are influential as well. --maru 03:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Breaking News
DCSD's parent body just repudiated the attack on Lomborg:


 * The Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation has December 17 2003 repudiated findings by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DSCD) that Bjørn Lomborg&#8217;s book &#8220;The Skeptical Environmentalist&#8221; was &#8220;objectively dishonest&#8221; or &#8220;clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice&#8221;


 * The Ministry, which is responsible for the DSCD, has released a highly critical assessment of the Committee&#8217;s January 7 ruling. The Ministry finds that the DCSD judgment was not backed up by documentation, and was &#8220;completely void of argumentation&#8221; for the claims of dishonesty and lack of good scientific practice.


 * No problem, Vfp15. That's a fair way of putting it. --Tannin


 * Actually I'm not sure it's fair because I'm not sure the gov't appointed him to anything on the strength of the book or not. It's diplomatic anyway ;)


 * Also, if for instance I'm given a job because my CV falsely says I graduated this or that school and my employer finds out, they could legitimately fire me. If the DCSD's conclusions been supported by acceptable methods and by legitimate findings, then the Danish government could and should support the DCSD. --Vfp15

Homosexuality 2
BTW, I've noticed much talk about whether or not BL's sexual orientation is relevant, but nothing about whether the statement on wikipedia is accurate. Is it?

And why don't we put his food preference as well: he happens to be a vegetarian. Since he is famous through environmental debate, it seems more relevant than his being gay, or not. --Vfp15


 * His gastronomic orientation is much more relevant than his sexual orientation, as you say. --Tannin

It's more complex than you think
I've added a bit more text... Also, {Usenet post} refers (much of the thread, not just that post) it you care to wade through it.


 * It is true that he is gay. He's been on Danish TV several times talking about his sexuality.


 * I corrected the "statistician" to "political scientist" since that is his education. He did lecture students of political science in statistics, and that has been reflected in the article.  The University has a completely different dept. of Statistics where "statisticians" are educated.


 * I corrected "Greenpeace activist" to "Greenpeace member". Greenpeace has many members and few activists:  Lomborg wasn't one of them.


 * I added a link to the SciAm rebuttal he wrote, since the article gave the impression he had been prevented entirely from publishing it.


 * A major criticism of the DCSD decision is that they substantially accepted the criticism of Lomborg and rejected his rebuttals, but they didn't go through the criticisms point by point explaining how they came to this decision. This may be the result of a lack of resources, but it reduces the value of their decision substantially.  I didn't find a good way to put this in the article.  --Erik Corry. erik@arbat.com

Green peace relationship
Lomborg was never a member or a registered supporter of Greenpeace. He was challenged about this in a radio discussion with Tom Burke and said that he'd given money. --Simon Dresner

When did he ever clain to be a member? --Crid 20:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Complaints from a blogger
Jeff Harvey wrote:


 * 22/10/2004 10:49:56
 * I think that WIKIPEDIA comments on controversial people is often highly biased, depending upon the perspective of the reviewers. A case in point is the controversial anti-environmental writer Bjorn Lomborg. I have co-reviewed his book (which I still consider to be an atrocity) but the Wikipedia entry seemed to be stacked in his defense. For instance, in the introduction it had said (more-or-less) that Lomborg had upset scientists whose livlihoods depended on scaring the public to secure funding (seems more appropriate for the likes of Bush, Blair etc. who perpetually scare the public with phantom threats of terror to legitimize their economic wars). But seriously, this kind of smear is abominable. My research has nothing whatsoever to do with scaring the public (I study communities and ecosystems). Moreover, one can turn the tables quite easily and see that Lomborg has found a useful niche because his claim‚ that `everything is getting better` warms the hearts of those in the establishment who are eager to bolster the status quo.
 * Furthermore, the Wikipedia entry makes no mention of the serious allegations against Lomborg: 1. That he misunderstands basic concepts, 2. That he cherry picks studies that support his rosy views and dismisses studies that do not; 3. That he misquotes scientists, distorting the original meaning of their words; 4. That he attacks the integrity of many senior scientists with smears and outright distortions to legitimize his own position; 5. That he bases his conclusions not on the empirical data but on wishes or expectations; 6. That he refused to amend the more serious errors that plagued the first Danish edition.


 * Furthermore, I don`t think they`ll allow a passage to be added that I think is highly relevant: John Quiggin rightfully stated that the number of peer-reviewed papers by Lomborg on any of the areas covered in his book is ZERO (in fact, he has only one peer-reviewed paper in his 10 year academic career, and that is on games theory). For this reason, and because I have invested so much effort to debunk his nonsense, I prefer the DISINFOPEDIA pages. At least they peel away the veneer!

I wrote this guy a private e-mail asking him to edit the article and promising to prevent the sort of thing he claimed would or did happen. I doubt he'll respond, because environmentalists are basically a selfish and dishonest lot. ----user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 15:52, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * It's a good thing we have you around to keep the discourse free of ad hominem, Ed. =)  --Antaeus Feldspar 16:15, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Chuckle, I do seem to be in a feisty mood today. Must be something I ate. (I'm just teasing Dr. Connolley, y'know, all in a "climate" of good fun, eh? ;-) ----user:Ed Poor (deep or sour)


 * (William M. Connolley 16:23, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)): To avoid confusion, I should point out that JH was talking about the Skeptical environmentalist page, so this is all in the wrong place... you can rely on Ed :-)


 * Yes, once more this trusting soul was misled by an "individual with clear idealogical bias" as Jeff admits in a private e-mail to me. I read these words as applying to the Author article rather than the Book article (the book was not named, but the author was): controversial anti-environmental writer Bjorn Lomborg. I have co-reviewed his book (which I still consider to be an atrocity) but the Wikipedia entry... It was only after he told me he was talking about The Skeptical Envirmentalist (sic) that I realized which article he meant. How could I be so naive? ----user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 20:32, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 21:13, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)): I was confused, too. Read the deltoid link that you put above :-) But get down the bottom and you will find my helpful words of wisdon explaining all...


 * What's a deltoid? Sounds like a muscle. Anyway, you're like Gollum: "very good, always helps". ;-) --Uncle Ed


 * Interesting side note on the email form the enviro blogger, how many peer reviewed papers did Paul Ehrlich write on topics addressed in the Population Bomb.......... interesting, no? --TDC 17:36, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

TDC breaks the 3 reverts rule
(William M. Connolley 22:41, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)): TDC is a naughty and has broken the three-reverts-in-24-hours rule.


 * So have you ......... and your point is ............? 06:37, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 10:29, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)): You made 4 reverts on 21st December. I can't see any 24 hour period in which I made 4 reverts. Please point it out, if it exists.


 * (William M. Connolley 20:10, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)): Naughty TDC breaks the TRR *again* - three today and one from yesterday. Has he no respect for Law? Is he some leftwing pinko anarchist?


 * Are you talking to yourself again? There are medications available for problems such as these. --TDC 21:20, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 00:05, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)): Since you refuse to admit to breaking the 3RR, despite the evidence available to anyone prepared to check, I guess I'm not talking to you. But other people watch this page too... time for someone sane to weigh in.


 * I see, so you are fishing for an admin to come in and save you. --TDC 00:35, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 00:52, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)): It's obvious we're not going to agree, and that you won't respect the Law, or even admit to violating it. Third party intervention (why an admin?) is probably the best solution.


 * Agree on what exactly? All you did was revert my edits without discussion. --TDC 05:57, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 10:41, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)): Well we're in agreement to that extent, because you did exactly the same :-)

Umm, how do you figure? I added information that was reverted by you, not the other way around. Unless we talk about the changes, then this will go on forever.

but onto the question


 * show that his book was wrong vs discredit

po-tato po-ta-to, semantics really, but after reading some of Lomborg's critics, they not only set out show that his book was wrong, but make many attacks on his character, his professional credentials, his green credentials and various other criticism of Lomborg, not his book.


 * (William M. Connolley 18:11, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)): Discredit is POV: its saying that all his critics weren't really thinking. Show-wrong is better (perhaps "attempt to" might be better, since I don't want to imply they definitively succeeded - that too would be POV).


 * William, don't be silly. If you take someone to the Inquisition, more precisely Committees for Scientific Dishonesty, to prove that the person is scientific dishonest (what else can the committee do?), is not it an attempt to discredit the person? --Lumidek 18:22, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * And as I stated earlier, your version would be more appropriate if they had simply stuck to criticisms of his book. But discredit is more appropriate because they had attacked him personally in a number of areas both professionally and personally. --TDC 16:16, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

Note that this is attacking a strawman, since the DCSD did not accuse Lomborg of being guilty of scientific dishonesty in the first place.


 * William, this sentence about the strawman is clearly inconsistent with the DCSD ruling described a few sentences earlier, that claimed the "Objectively speaking... he was scientifically dishonest". Please don't call removals of this sentence "censorship" - it's really reverted vandalism and everyone who knows something about logic can easily determine that your sentence is incorrect. --Lumidek 18:22, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * This is perhaps the most unencyclopedic sentence I have ever read. Could you imagine finding a sentence like this in Britannica? Change it or it goes. --TDC 06:13, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 18:11, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)): And yet it is literally true - the attack is a strawman. If you don't like it, rephrase it, don't censor it.


 * Who exactly is saying that the attack is a strawman? --TDC 16:16, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * One more time. This is an encyclopedia, not a polemic. The statement is an unattributed opinion not a concrete fact. Either attribute it to someone notable and provide a source, or remove it completely. --TDC 04:05, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 11:24, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)): Read the words. The DCSD said: Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty... In view of the subjective requirements made in terms of intent or gross negligence, however, Bjørn Lomborg's publication 'cannot fall within the bounds of this characterization. '


 * Well, if thats what the DCSD said, then that is what should be in the article, not your own personal opinion of the strawman attack. --TDC 17:23, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 18:51, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)): It is in the article. Thats why, after The ministry concluded that the DCSD had not established that it had the authority to review the case, and that during the review they did not establish that scientific dishonesty had occurred  I added  (note that, as per the quote above, the DSCD did (not) find Lomborg guilty of this anyway). But you reverted that. Why, I don't know, since its supported by the text in the article. I suspect you didn't bother reading it before reverting, since there was a typo in it that reversed the sense.

Very good article
I've checked the article, and it is perfectly neutral. The user who decided to place the NPOV tag at the beginning of the article, without giving an actual reason, probably dislikes Bjorn Lomborg, but that's simply not enough to tolerate randomly placed NPOV tags, despite his "power" in the Wikipedia hierarchy. --Lumidek 15:24, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Danish sources
Some of the problems here might arise from the fact that many sources have not been translated from Danish.

Regarding the invalidation of DCSDs decision
Here is an approximate translation of DCSDs annual report 2003, page 23:
 * The defending scientist appealed the decision to the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. The Ministry of Science made its decision on December 17th 2003 and remitted the case to DCSD. At the same time the decision was published. The decision, which was an invalidation of DCSDs decision, was in several areas critical of DCSD, [...].

The DCSD is a committee under the Ministry of Science. As such there is precedent for the Ministry revoking decisions when it decides that the legal procedure has been incorrect.


 * The annual report has been moved to (english version) and their own translation of the passage above reads:
 * The defendant researcher appealed the decision to the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation.  The Ministry of Science delivered its ruling on 17 December 2003 and remitted the case to the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty. At the same time, the ruling was made public. The ruling, which implied a reversal of DCSD's decision, was critical of DCSD in a number of respects, [...]


 * Note the phrasing ''The ruling [...] implied a reversal of DCSD's decision" which is rather different to "which was an invalidation of DCSDs decision" in terms of the extent to which the UVVU accepted the criticism.
 * They also write (p. 27): "DCSD decided not to resume consideration of the case, however, shelving it on the following grounds:" --Erik Corry 19:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the 'strawman'
In the Ministry of Science's decision they listed several reasons as to why the DCSDs decision should be remitted. None of them were because the DCSD "did not establish that scientific dishonesty had occurred". Rather they were: It is obviously the last reason which has been misquoted. Perhaps a better wording would be "and that during the review they did not investigate whether the criticism of Lomborgs working methods was just." --Rasmus (talk) 11:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The DCSD did not use a proper standard for deciding "good scientific practice" in the social sciences.
 * The DCSD did not evaluate its authority to decide the case in regards to the order stipulating that "The case must be of importance to Danish research.".
 * that DCSD did not document, where the defendant (BL) was biased in his choice of data and his argumentation, and that the decision lacks any argumentation for, why DCSD finds that the complainants are right in their criticisms of BLs working methods. It is not enough, that criticism of a researchers scientific working methods exists; DCSD must adopt an attitude to the criticism and take a stand to whether or not the criticism is just, and why. It is exactly these tasks that are DCSDs primary duty to solve, and since this have not occured, the decision must be remitted to DCSD, cf. what has been quoted above from administrative law of the consequence of neglecting the investigative principle. Such an considerable breach in DCSDs consideration of the case is in itself to be critiqued.

Thanks, and further questions
(William M. Connolley 16:43, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)): Rasmus - thanks for the translations, and spotting the doubling, and fixing it. And my apologies for unfixing it, but I think its back to how you left it now.

I think a lot of this comes down to the meaning of the word "remit". To me, this means "return for reconsideration". Not "annul" or "invalidate". From the original Danish, can you tell exactly what sense they mean? I believe that the response of the DSCD supports the "return for reconsideration" version, because what they seem to have done is thought about reconsidering it, and decided not to (and in that sense, it seems to me that they have disobeyed the instructions of the ministry). If the ministry (acting, say, in the sense of a court of appeal) had simply quashed the original decision, then there would be no further role for the DSCD.

Continuing... can you tell if the ministry has authority to quash/annul the decisions of the DCSD?


 * Well, remit is a translation of the Danish word "hjemvise". Checking, it seems to have the same meaning as "remit": To send back for reconsideration. In (Danish) Administrative Law it should be taken to mean "reconsider using another set of procedures or assumptions". As for the response of the DCSD, I believe you are misreading it. As per the order governing the DSCD, Section 2, Ss 2 , the committee must summarily reject any complaints, if it is unlikely that they will find for the plaintiff. So the committee have reconsidered the prior decision and this time they have decided that the complaint should be dismissed without further consideration.


 * (William M. Connolley 23:01, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)): I don't understand you. The press release says: It is the opinion of the UVVU that such renewed scrutiny would, in all likelihood, result in the same conclusion that the UVVU reached in its decision of 6 January 2003. The rules for the UVVU (Danish Executive Order no. 933 of 15. Dec. 1998, Section 2(2)) state that the UVVU must dismiss a case if, in advance, it is considered unlikely that a complainant will succeed. Thus, the UVVU does not have any legal basis for resuming investigations related to the complaint against Bjørn Lomborg. To me, this is them saying, if we did it again, we'd get the same answer. The committee explicitly states that it hasn't reconsidered the decision.


 * Keep in mind, that according to the executive order governing the DCSD, the DCSDs can only decide whether a person is guilty of scientific dishonesty or not. Thus the decision of January 6th was: not guilty. Ordinarily, the public would not have heard anything else from the DCSD -- informing outsiders about its decision is explicitly part of the possible sanctions, if the DCSD convicts a person for scientific dishonesty. However several media received access to the actual report through a public scrutiny law, which is how we heard about "objectively scientific dishonesty" and "contrary to the standards of good scientific practice". So when the DCSD states they would reach the same conclusion, they mean that they would find Lomborg not guilty again.


 * (William M. Connolley 09:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)): OK, I hear what you are saying, but I would argue that what they say is open to both interpretations. All this information is very interesting though, and not generally available.


 * Perhaps they would also this time find that he had not been "objectively scientific dishonesty" etc., but that is not really important. The (remitted) case has been dismissed in this new decision, just as if the original three complaints had been dismissed. --Rasmus (talk) 08:37, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * As for the ministry's authority, it should follow from the Law concerning Scientific Councils §4m, that the ministry has authority to decide the legality of decisions from (certain) scientific councils, and as such remit decisions if proper procedures have not been followed. Until 2001 it was not entirely clear whether this authority also included DCSD, but an opinion from Folketingets Ombudsmand clarified this and the law was later (2003) made clear on this point. So short answer: yes, they can. Note, however, that the ministry did not have the authority to make decisions in factual questions, i.e. whether the book was "objectively scientific dishonest". They could only order DCSD to reconsider the case (following the proper procedures this time), they could not act entirely as a court of appeal and "quash" the decision.
 * I hope that answers your questions. --Rasmus (talk) 21:23, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 23:01, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Well, a bit, but it seems to confirm my POV. The ministry told them to reconsider the case. The DCSD said no we won't, because we'd get the same answer if we did it again.


 * Well, the DCSD has no legal ground to just refuse the ministry. And, I must admit, I do not find it very plausible that they would do so in a one page letter, without very firm legal argument. Also, in the DCSD's annual report (excerpt above), they repeat that the original decision has been invalidated. Just to be sure, I searched for any secondary sources and found this : It is an account of the case written by Kåre Fog who, having brought the first of the complaints to the DCSD, should be well-informed regarding the case and certainly should not be biased in favour of Lomborg. Quote:
 * The ministry has informed UVVU that UVVU´s decision of 7th Jan. 2003 is no longer valid, because of the formal errors made in the treatment of the case. And because UVVU has decided not to hear the case again, there will not appear any new decision to replace the one that has been cancelled. Even the decision that Lomborg is "objectively dishonest" and has acted at variance with "good scientific practice" is no longer valid. There simply does not any longer exist any decision. Perhaps the most unfortunate consequence of this is that people in general are confused, and there is no authority to lean on when you want to find out what is right and wrong in this case. 
 * --Rasmus (talk) 08:37, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

proposed revision of text
MichaelSirks 22:39, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC): Now that even William is convinced that the 6 of january 2003 was invalidated,


 * (William M. Connolley 23:02, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)): Since all the below is apparently based on that false premise, I've ignored it.


 * MichaelSirks 23:19, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC): So what would convice you that the 6 of january verdict is invalidated? They say it on their site without questioning it. They have removed the original version of the verdict. And now you have a person who speaks danish who also says that the verdict was invalidated by the ministery and that the ministery had the authority.


 * (William M. Connolley 23:39, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)): Are we talking about different things? If you want to say, "the ministry invalidated the decision", then fine (but you have to then explain how this is consistent with them remitting it to the dcsd). If you want to say "the dcsd invalidated their decision" then no.


 * MichaelSirks 08:10, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC): The ministery invalidated the DCDS´s decision. The DCDS accepts the authority of the ministery to do that. The DCDS looked at the complaints and saw that they would come to the same not guilty verdict(with or without the side remarks) and thus decided to stop the procedure.

we could move on to correcting the text where it is suggested that the verdict still stands. I propose to take the timeline described in the final version of the DCDS and add a more detailed explanation why the ministery remitted the case. This proposed change is for the entire sections; Complaint to the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD), The Complaint is Overturned

(begin of proposed text) 6 January 2003: The DCDS reaches its decision in the complaint against Bjørn Lomborg’s book The Sceptical Environmentalist. The book was published by the Cambridge University Press in 2001.

The main point of the DCDS’s decision of 6 January 2003 is that from an objective point of view, it was a question of scientific dishonesty on the part of Bjørn Lomborg, because, among other reasons, the book was based on a systematically biased choice of data.

Because of Bjørn Lomborg’s lack of scientific expertise in the themes treated in the book, however, the DCDS did not find that Bjørn Lomborg had shown intentional or gross negligence. Bjørn Lomborg was therefore acquitted of the accusations of having acted in a manner considered scientifically dishonest. But the DCDS stated, at the same time, that he had clearly acted contrary to good scientific practice.

13 February 2003: Bjørn Lomborg files a complaint with the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation against the DCDS’s decision of 6 January 2003.

17 December 2003: The Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation makes a decision in the case. The Ministry finds that the DCDS has made a number of procedural errors namely; The DCSD did not use a proper standard for deciding "good scientific practice" in the social sciences. The DCSD did not evaluate its authority to decide the case in regards to the order stipulating that "The case must be of importance to Danish research.". that DCSD did not document, where the defendant (BL) was biased in his choice of data and his argumentation, and that the decision lacks any argumentation for, why DCSD finds that the complainants are right in their criticisms of BLs working methods. It is not enough, that criticism of a researchers scientific working methods exists; DCSD must adopt an attitude to the criticism and take a stand to whether or not the criticism is just, and why. It is exactly these tasks that are DCSDs primary duty to solve, and since this have not occured, the decision must be remitted to DCSD, cf. what has been quoted above from administrative law of the consequence of neglecting the investigative principle. Such an considerable breach in DCSDs consideration of the case is in itself to be critiqued. The Ministry therefore remits the case to the DCDS. Furthermore, the Ministry’s decision states that it is up to the DCDS to determine whether it will re-examine the case. The Ministry explained at a later date that the decision of the Ministry must be taken to mean that the DCDS’s decision of 6 January 2003 is invalid.

12 March 2004: The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DSCD) have finally ended their case, rejecting the original complaints. They have decided that the original decision is invalid and has ended any further inquiry.

(end of proposed text)


 * (William M. Connolley 10:00, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)): Rasmus has found quite a bit of new stuff about the way the DCSD operates and the technical operation of the decision. I think this should go in somewhere, but not clutter up the BL page. It might, perhaps, go on the DCSD page, which is currently rather short. In which case the current stuff could be shortened on the BL page and perhaps made a bit less controversial.


 * So you accept that you were wrong in the matter that the verdict of 6 january doesn´t still stand. Now you don´t want correct the errors on Lomborg text, but place the correction on some less populair page. The Lomborg text contains factual errors and these must be corrected. And why not use the text of the DCDS and the ministery of science. --217.169.231.130 12:00, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 15:24, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)): I'm happy to have the text corrected, and it should be. Once we work out what is correct. But I'm suggesting that additional material (such as, Rasmus saying that the DCSD was *only allowed to rule on sci dis*, which is not at all a well known fact) might be better on the DcSD page. As for the text to be used, I would say its a good idea to use the actual text from the DCSD with minimal interpretation on our part.

Dispute Resolution RFC, William M. Connolley
I started an RFC regarding user William M. Connolley, located here: Requests for comment/William M. Connolley. If you are interested, please comment or sign as appropriate. --  &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 12:25, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This article is terrible
It is written more like a blog than an encylopaediac article. Shouldn't it carry a standards disclaimer tag or something?


 * Indeed. It really makes me wonder if wikipedia is all it's supposed to be cracked up to be. Why do people describe him as an anti-environmentalist? His complaint is the lack of cost/benefit analysis that is done (for example, if Kyoto only delays the enevitable by 7 years, for the same cost as giving everyone on the planet fresh drinking water, is that a good use of our money?). TSE makes it plain that global warming is a very big deal. Lomborg irritates precisely because he is hard to argue against - the facts and figures in SE aren't his own, theyre from respected sources (and the figures aren't under dispute). Some have argued against his conclusions, and he has replied to those criticisms on the book website. To just put 'many scientists disagree' and 'on this website' is, frankly, lame. Quote them. As it stands, it's totally biassed - we have a huge discussion about DCSD, but not the quote from L when it ended:- "More than two years have passed since the case against my book was started. In that time every possible stone has been turned over, yet DCSD has been unable to find a single point of criticism that withstands further investigation." Others choose to attack him are that they are uncomfortable with the idea that the world can be broken down that of opportunity cost. By all means disagree with the conclusions, or the way in which they are drawn, but at least do it in a transparent way! I would suggest splitting the page into something about the man himself (so people can go on forever discussing whether the fact that he is gay is relevant) and a separate one about the SE book. Which should, for NPOV, contain some kind of information about what is within, the responses and counter responses that have been generated. --nzm


 * (William M. Connolley 19:56, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)): TSE quibbles and wiggles over GW in a manner designed to make it as small a thing as possible. And I don't know if you've noticed, but there *is* a page about the SE.

Jon Gwynne edit 2005-05-03
I think this edit should be reverted. Since nothing new has happened in the case for several years he would have to argue for his changes. For me they don't make sense. The added sentence "The complaint was ultimately found to be without merit and dismissed." is not an accurate summary of what happened in this complex case at all. The qualification of the DSCD's findings with "the DCSD believes" even in sentences that start with "The main point of the DCDS’s decision [...] is" serves only to indicate the writer's disagreement with the findings. I don't see the point in reformulating the ministry point of view. --Erik Corry 10:54, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Why do you believe "The complaint was ultimately found to be without merit and dismissed" is "not an accurate summary of what happened in this complex case at all"? The complaint was made, the DCDS found against Lomborg.  Lomborg appealed the finding.  The DCSD's governing body found that the DCSD had acted improperly in coming to their original conclusion and that the evidence didn't support that conclusion; they further insisted that the DCSD reexamine the case but the DCSD decided there was no basis to sustain the complain and closed the case.


 * The DCDS didn't find against him, they aquitted him. The grounds for the aquittal were arguably a technicality: They found that he had "clearly acted contrary to good scientific practice", but since he lacked scientific expertise in the things he had chosen to write about they didn't find him guilty of deliberate dishonesty.  After they were asked to reexamine the case they refused on the grounds that their statutes require them to reject an appeal if a reappraisal is overwhelmingly likely to lead to the same conclusion.  In other words a reappraisal would again have lead to the conclusion that he had clearly acted contrary to good scientific practice, but that his lack of scientific expertise in the field meant he was innocent of deliberate dishonesty.  So they found in favour of Lomborg all along, but for a reason that he and the ministry didn't like. --80.162.192.114 21:56, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Care to document that conclusion. From what I've read on the subject, the Ministry of science forced them to reevaluate the Lomborg case because their conclusions were flawed.  From what I've seen, they refused to reexamine the case because there was no point because under the criteria imposed by the Ministry, a decision against Lomborg would have been impossible.  This issue of the "lack of scientific expertise" is a red-herring.  Lomborg wrote a book about statistics and his expertise in this field is unquestioned. --JonGwynne 23:37, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * has the official pronouncements from the ministry and the committee. "It is the opinion of the UVVU that such renewed scrutiny would, in all likelihood, result in the same conclusion that the UVVU reached in its decision of 6 January 2003."  Ie they would find him innocent on a technicality again.  Read the whole thing. They write: "The rules for the UVVU (Danish Executive Order no. 933 of 15. Dec. 1998, Section 2(2)) state that the UVVU must dismiss a case if, in advance, it is considered unlikely that a complainant will succeed.".  In this case since they found him innocent and they are sure they would find him innocent again there is no reason to take up the case again.  --User:Erik Corry (not logged in)


 * It seems pretty clear that the main reason was that the Ministry of Science found their original conclusion to be invalid and since the UVVU didn't see any reasonably likelihood that a re-examination of the case would produce a different conclusion, there was no point. I agree with them, if an investigation is likely to produce an invalid result, then it would be a waste of time to conduct it.  However, the fact remains that the process may accurately be summarized as:  The complaint was filed, the investigation took place, the verdict was rendered, the ministry rejected the verdict as invalid and the case was subsequently dropped.


 * I'm not sure what you mean by an invalid result. He was found innocent first time.  If they had taken up the case again they would have found him innocent again (overwhelmingly likely outcome).  So their statutes prohibit them from taking up the case (no point).  The problem was that Lomborg and the ministry didn't like the way they found him innocent so they wanted the case taken up again, and Lomborg to be found innocent in a new better way.   The DSCD pointed out that they can't do that (paragraph 2 part 2 of the directive that establishes them).  It's ironic that the ministry regard the original decision as invalid, since implicitly that means that Lomborg is guilty (inverse of innocent) - that is probably not what they intended to say.   As for the case being dropped, there was nothing to drop.  Lomborg was found innocent.  The case was over, not dropped.  He was a political scientist sounding off about geology, biology, economics, physics, meterology etc. about which he had no clue and no academic authority.  As such his status is the same as a mathematicican who writes a book about creationism - whatever the merits of his book the UVVU isn't interested. --Erik Corry 19:57, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The Danish Ministry of Science found the decision of the UVVU to be invalid because the latter had failed to follow their policy/mandate and sent the case back to them for reconsideration.


 * You seemed to imply that the UVVU themselves accepted the result was invalid: "I agree with them, if an investigation is likely to produce an invalid result, then it would be a waste of time to conduct it." Quoting the ministry's opinion of the result as invald doesn't back up that point of view


 * The UVVU declined to reconsider the case - presumably because they would have come to the same conclusion.


 * No need to presume, they explicitly stated that the reason they declined was that they would come to the same conclusion


 * So, to avoid and endless bureaucratic loop, they dropped it.


 * Not to avoid an endless bureaucratic loop, but because their statute forbids them to take up hopeless cases.


 * Because the Ministry considered the decision invalid, that doesn't mean Lomborg was guilty - it means the UVVU overstepped their authority and failed to follow proper procedure in handling the case.


 * This is of course true, I was merely commenting on the rather confusing wording of the ministry.


 * Also, your analysis of Lomborg as being unsuited to write the book is fundamentally flawed.


 * The main point is the UVVU's reason for finding him innocent, namely that he was writing outside his own area. A quick look at Lomborg's published papers should be enough to convince you that his academic authority does not lie in any of the fields mentioned.  Whether or not he was suited to write the book is a different matter.  The part about him having 'no clue' is my personal opinion, and not particularly relevant.  Sorry about that.


 * The book passed stringent peer-review; this means that the book and its conclusions were supported by experts in the field who were called to review the book to see if it was suitable for publication. According to Cambridge University, every single one of the reviewers recommended publication. --JonGwynne 02:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It wasn't Cambridge University, it was Cambridge University Press. Reviewers recommending publication doesn't prove that Lomborg was writing about his own field of academic expertise. --Erik Corry 21:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * No, but it does prove that people who are experts in this field found Dr. Lomborg's work accurate and worthy of publication. It should also be pointed out that despite the strident complaints about it by a wide variety of people who object to his conclusions, haven't something like nine errors been found?  --JonGwynne 09:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree that the peer review proves TSE was "accurate and worthy of publication". I think CUP's peer review simply meant it passed one of the internal checks that CUP used in determining whether to publish it. I'd be interested in what exactly the CUP peer review briefing was, what were they looking for and what was in their report? It is something that should be in the article (it it was, all of this peer-review back and forth -- JonGwynne -- would be disposed of). All I've found about the peer review so far is who the four reviewers were (and, criticisms that the choice of reviewers led to bias). Given the small size of the panel and the limited scope of their expertise relative to TSE, they couldn't have verified every detail. I'd guess it was more of an overall vetting, equivalent to running a potentially controversial news article past the lawyers and a couple of university proefessors or other recognized experts, to make sure there were no seriously actionable things or gross errors. It's one thing to say, "yeah, you could say that", and another to say, "yeah, you're probably right". Almost certainly, the CUP peer review wasn't at all like presenting each section of the book to a scientific review committee or journal in the main field it dealt with (i.e. as if TSE was a collection of peer-reviewed scientific papers in various fields). (In general, a lot of the Lomborg/TSE discussion here seems based on extremely superficial knowledge about the things being discussed, e.g. the details of the DCSD affair; who is HAN?; Lomborg's academic status and qualifications; how TSE should best be classified; how sound was the statistical work, measured by whatever "industry standards" for statistics exist?...) --Tsavage 18:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * An independent examination of the complaint found that 25 out of the 27 elements of the complaint were irrelevant or unsupported by evidence and the remaining two are potentially capable of being proven with additional evidence but ultimately of little significance. To me, the description "The complaint was ultimately found to be without merit and dismissed", seems a perfectly adequate summary of the events.


 * The opinion of a self-appointed review body can't be used to support the phrase "The complaint was ultimately found to be...". They have an opinion like everyone else on the matter, but they don't have a status that allows them to pronounce ultimate findings on the case. --80.162.192.114 21:56, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * As for the qualifications, why isn't it appropriate to characterize the findings of an organization as being the views of the members of that organization? If a man is found guilt of a crime in court, that isn't proof he committed the crime, it is just proof that the jury convicted him of it.  BTW, thank you for raising these questions in a civilized manner - I wish more wikipedians were as articulate and courteous as you.  --JonGwynne 14:07, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The findings of the organization are already their views, you don't have to qualify it again in the same sentence. You wouldn't write: "The judge ruled, that in his opinion the defendent was guilty.", you would just write "The judge found the defendent guilty". --80.162.192.114 21:56, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The views are ambiguously phrased. The judge wouldn't "find that the defendant had murdered the victim", he would "find that the defendant was guilty" or it could be reported that in the judge's view, the evidence presented met the burden of proof for a 'guilty' verdict. --JonGwynne 23:37, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * MichaelSirks 16:35, 10 May 2005 (UTC) It's a pity that Erik Corry doesn't read the previous discussion about the DCDS decision. The final verdict in the lomborg case. On the site of the DCDS(UVVU) you can read the final verdict which is also contains a timeline of the events. This timeline is almost identical to the text in the article. It is only proper that I revert this chance. --MichaelSirks 16:35, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem I have with the current version is that it makes it look like the UVVU changed its mind in this case. The original decision rejected the complaints, since it found Lomborg innocent.  Therefore the text: "have finally ended their case, rejecting the original complaints. They have decided that the original decision is invalid" makes no sense.  It's also not taken from the timeline you referred to.  I have read the discussion, esp. the paragraph beginning "Keep in mind". --Erik Corry 21:37, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * MichaelSirks 19:09, 11 May 2005 (UTC): First I would note that you not only changed the last paragraphe but also "..decision.." into "..statement..". Decision was in the DCDS text so this can't be in dispute.


 * Oops, yes.


 * Second under the heading "Reactions to the initial verdict of the DCSD" you changed "decision regarding Lomborg" into "criticism of the Sceptical Environmentalist". Then you should place this piece text under the heading criticism. So what is your reason for changing it and should we move that piece of text as a result.


 * I've looked into the Skou support issue more and will make a better change.


 * MichaelSirks 15:09, 26 May 2005 (UTC) You replaced with a piece where you suggest that Natural scientists back the DCDS and social scientist back Lomborg. I don´t think this is the case. Rather the first collection of signatures was in an enviroment of largely social scientists and the second in an enviroment of largely medical and natural scientists. Your information suggests that the exact sciences back DCDS and the social sciences back Lomborg. I don´t think you can conclude this on the basis of the collections of signatures.

I just reported on the two signature collections. I don't mean to imply that there is a clean line where the social scientists back him and the natural scientists are against him, but I agree that the makeup of the signatories to the two signature collections does suggest a correllation. I don't think there is much of a case to be made that the signatures were maed in some environments where the one or the other sort of scientist was predominant: Both collections were made via email and were well publicised at the time, so there can be no question of them being secret. There are lots of other things to suggest a correlation between the type of scientist and their opinion on Lomborg if you care to look, starting with the list of publications that support or oppose Lomborg. However I didn't write anything about the correlation since I feel a fact like that would require a more thorough survey before it would be suitable for inclusion in a Wiki. I think my new version is an improvement on the old one in that it clarifies the context in which Skou and the others got involved in the discussion. I didn't mention that the second signature collection required signatories to hold at least a PhD in order to be allowed to sign :-). Incidentally I can no longer find the list of signatories online for the second collection, although I can find numerous media references to the signature collection taking place, the makeup of the signatories and the identity of the famous ones.  I expect the list was published as an ad in some national paper at some point (that seems to be the 'standard procedure) --Erik Corry 19:13, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Third your point about the last paragraphe. This piece of text was not out of the DCDS text. The DCDS text says; The UVVU makes is final decision in the complaint against Bjørn Lomborg’s book. The UVVU decides to close the case.


 * So what does this mean. So lets examin the facts;
 * The DCDS accepts the authority of the ministery to invalidate the verdict.


 * I don't see how you reach that conclusion


 * MichaelSirks 15:09, 26 May 2005 (UTC): See the above discussion between WMC and Rasmus.


 * They don't want to reexamine the complaints because they think they would reach the same not guilty verdict. So they reject the complaints (as being relevant to the DCDS) and ended any further investigation.


 * I think this backs up my view that the DCDS didn't change their mind.


 * MichaelSirks 15:09, 26 May 2005 (UTC): See also the above discussion between WMC and Rasmus.


 * I am interested to know what you think about DCDS making all kinds of damagings side remarks whitout even haven investigated the complaints.


 * I think they read the complaints and found them justified. The remarks were not 'side remarks', they were pretty central to the case.Erik Corry 21:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * MichaelSirks 15:09, 26 May 2005 (UTC) They where side remarks because they can only find someone guilty or innocent of scientific dishonnesty. Secondly take the original verdict and one reads; ‘it is not DCSD's remit to decide who is right in a contentious professional issue’ Which is correct. What they should do is say where he has acted in way which is contrary to good scientific practice.

Union of Concerned Scientists: "specifically pro-environmentalist"
I removed the following section from the USC quote:


 * It should however be noted that while it is a non-profit organisation, the UCS is (though not apparent from its name) specifically pro-environmentalist, and therefore might be expected to oppose critics of the environmental movement.

It's basically saying that the USC statement should be viewed with skepticism, a strong and unsupported charge. The same argument holds for the "HAN academics" (from the other side), and can be applied to greater or lesser degrees to every quote here, everybody's on a side. I don't think this is a profitable avenue to go down, not likely to lead to a more readable or authoritative article.

In this case, the "specifically pro-environmental" aspect should at least FIRST be made clear in the Union of Concerned Scientists article, which it is not at present. This whole Lomborg article needs work, including the USC quote (which for one is questionably grouped with the Economist and Scientific American under "Discussions in the media"), but I don't find tacking on that para to be of any help. --Tsavage 19:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

My opinion on informing that Bjorn Lomborg being gay
Whether Bjorn Lomborg is gay or not should be relevant only if a detailed history of his life, bio, is given. Although, it is a pretty important piece of info, being presented in any other context, I do not see it as appropriate. I think that considering that he is such a good looking guy, many gay guys would like to know that he is gay, and probably they would like to get his phone number or email -I wonder who should we write to in order to get that info, any ideas anyone?- Going back to the point, and seriously this time, although some of his ideas are hard for me to accept in the order he presents them, I do not see him too far from a role in stirring up conversation and moving forces to really re-think how we are approaching the protection of the environment. It is not less important to notice that he makes some good points in terms of highlighting some important issues that need to be put in the forefront of the discussion and policies for the protection of the environment. My problem with his ideas is that all that we do, to protect the environment, is important, in my opinion, but more it is needed. I guess it would be nice to talk to him in person. I have seen him on TV a couple of times, but I have missed the chance to ask him a couple of questions myself. The topic is really serious, so is the way to approach it. As he presents things from a sided view, so do his detractors portray him.


 * Lomborg is very openly Gay, and i personally consider it very relevant in this article (whereas it would be very inappropriate on the page about The Sceptical Environmentalist). Lomborg is (actively) using his fame in promoting gay rights and gay understanding in Denmark - he has appeared in several general TV programs about homosexuality (in fact so often that i'd consider it strange if he didn't appear in one), he has actively entered debates in Denmark about subjects like gay marriage etc. He has appeared in TV spots warning about the AIDS risk etc. He has also never hidden this facts in TV programs about himself, quite the opposite in fact. Thus i feel that it would be very wrong not to mention this - since this page is about the public Lomborg, and being openly gay is very much part of his public image.--Kim D. Petersen 23:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Lomborg and statistics
Cut from article:


 * This is often cause of misunderstanding in that many perceive his to be a statistician, whereas he is actually a political scientist.

What's the difference between assistant professor ... lectured on statistics and is a statistician?

It sounds like a contributor is arguing that BL isn't qualified to discuss the statistics of the environment. If so, that POV should be attributed to a source outside Wikipedia - not simply stated as fact or insinuated. Uncle Ed 04:20, August 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think I wrote that part. My professor in history was not an historian, nor my professor in philosophy a philosopher. Lomborg taught a course in statistics, but is not qualified as a researcher in that field, i.e. a "statistician" proper. His field used to be political science, and that's why his peer-reviewed paper is about game theory, not statistics. This does not necessarily imply he is ignorant of statistics. I could probably lecture some freshmen in calculus, but that does not make me a mathematician. --Orzetto 14:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * To teach statistics on a university you must have good understanding of statistics. To write a paper about game theory you also need a good understanding statistics. In his book he doesn't complex statistical things so whats the problem.--MichaelSirks 22:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Game theory and statistics are unrelated fields, though both use mathematics and some game theorists use probability theory. I've read Lomborg's published paper in game theory and it contains no statistics. It's also incorrect to see that the book raises no complex statistical issues. The discussion of extinction rates is an example where issues of sampling theory arise. Lomborg is not a statistician, and the claim that he is one is a misconception that should be corrected. Equally, it should not be asserted that he is unqualified to discuss the issues - no-one is fully qualified to discuss all the issues raised in his book. John Quiggin 05:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Game theory uses a big amount of probility theory in certain games.(not some game theorists) Probability theory is the biggest part of statistics. The paper of Lomborg contains a big amount of statistics. What specificly are you refering to when you say Lomborg raises complex statistical issues in the section over extinction rates? (page nummber of TSE). --MichaelSirks 12:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Obviously, there's room for disagreement about what constitutes "statistics". I was referring to his paper on iterated prisoners dilemma, but the same point can be made here. This is not a paper that would even be considered by a statistics journal, or by an appointments committee in a stats department. If Lomborg is a statistician, so am I (more so, since I've actually published in econometrics). The pages of TSE to which I referred were the chapter on biodiversity. pp 249-57. John Quiggin 22:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that this paper wouldn't be published in a statistical journal. Maybe also because his paper doesn't do anything new in the field of statistics. But that's not the point. The point is has he got enough statistical knowledge to evaluate the statistics. I think we agree he does. I still don't know what specificly are you refering to when you say he raises complex statistical issues. What specificly in the chapter of biodiversity is your issue? you could also give a reference.--MichaelSirks 21:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I think we're getting to the point of diminishing returns. Lomborg is repeatedly, and wrongly, described in the media as a "statistician". for example

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/lazy-thinkers-still-defend-bad-ideas/2005/10/12/1128796586029.html The Wikipedia article gives a correct description of Lomborg's specialisation, but no longer includes an explicit correction of the erroneous claim that he's a statisticain. I don't really have a problem with this. As an example of difficult statistical issues, the obvious one (but not the only one) is how to determine that a species is extinct. John Quiggin 03:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with the current text. Just for the record I would note that I think he knows more than enough about statistics to write this book. On the specific issue you raise; "How to detemine that a species becomes extinct" I would note the following;
 * I don't see this as a statistical issue rather a biological one.(TSE page 252)
 * BL doesn't determine himself which species has become extinct, but use the figures of others. (and uses rather extincton rates.)


 * Also on extinction rate he uses the numbers of others
 * So I don't see what difficult statistical issues he adresses. --MichaelSirks 20:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

timeline text from the DCDS again
Mr. Orzetto has vandalized the text of the timeline of the DCDS case. If he had read the talk pages he would know that this text is from the DCDS herself. He should note that the initial verdict is no longer valid according to their own web-site and according to Kåre Fog who sad(see talk page); ''The ministry has informed UVVU that UVVU´s decision of 7th Jan. 2003 is no longer valid, because of the formal errors made in the treatment of the case. And because UVVU has decided not to hear the case again, there will not appear any new decision to replace the one that has been cancelled. Even the decision that Lomborg is "objectively dishonest" and has acted at variance with "good scientific practice" is no longer valid. There simply does not any longer exist any decision. Perhaps the most unfortunate consequence of this is that people in general are confused, and there is no authority to lean on when you want to find out what is right and wrong in this case.'' Expanding on the intial verdict by repeating the accusation is not interesting because the DCDS committee hasn't investigated and documented these accusations. This is according to the ministery of science and HAN. So what is your source that they did investigate the accusations. I have offered you the choice of investigating the accusation on wikipedia. I haven't got a response. So I reverted your initial change. Next came WMC reverts my revert without any comments why he reverts it. I thought he was on parole for reverting things without any comment.--MichaelSirks 18:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Michael, FYI, I did not "vandalize", I reordered to a more legible format and with less acronyms. And it is DCSD, not DCDS. Also, taking out quotations and substituting with links was discussed in this page, for legibility and copyright issues. --Orzetto 21:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

WMC changed the DCDS text from "a question of" to "found to be". Why did he changed it while the DCDS site says "a question of"? What is his reference for this? Is he suggesting that the DCDS doesn't know their own verdict? Please anwser else I have to revert.--MichaelSirks 19:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Horribly Biased Format
Compare the layout of this page to some other controversial figure, like Noam Chomsky. Criticisms against Chomsky are placed where they belong: after a thorough discussion of what the man has done and what he believes. Anyone coming to Lomborg's page gets a cursory coverage of what he's done, and then a lengthy diatribe on ethics charges against him. It never should have been written that way, and it is a shame that it persists.

Shame on those who can't see through their biases.

--Mark Nau

I agree with you. There are some people who want to discredite Lomborg, in order to dismiss the issues he raises. And this repeated throughout wikipedia with socalled sceptics. Lets look at the ethics charges; I first proposed to deal with the ethic charges in the TSE article because all the ethic charges are related to TSE. In my opinion this better because you first get the context of the book and then you get the ethic charges. But they refuse. Now they want expand on an invalidated verdict. That's the reason that I want to stay as close as possible to the original text of the DCDS. They want to rubbish Lomborg at every cost. --MichaelSirks 20:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This article is a mess. There are too many quotes, and entirely too much space devoted to the DCSD stuff. And it's poorly formatted, with unnecessary subheads, too much point-form, too little summary.
 * With the above I agree. --MichaelSirks 20:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The last version by Orzetto was fine, at the very least in that it balanced the depth (or lack thereof) of the bio, with relativley concise coverage of the DCSD controversy.
 * And here where we disagree the version of Orzetto was bias beyond believe. Let's go through DCDS section point by point.
 * ''On January 6, 2003 the Committees reach a decision in the complaint against Lomborg’s book. They state that, from an objective point of view, the book constitutes scientific dishonesty on the part of Lomborg. Specifically, they judged Lomborg guilty of
 * + #Fabrication of data;
 * + #Selective discarding of unwanted results (Selective citation);
 * + #Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods;
 * + #Distorted interpretation of conclusions;
 * + #Plagiarism;
 * + #Deliberate misinterpretation of others' results.
 * They didn't find him quilty. They stated that the book was objectively dishonnest. They didn't state on which counts he was dishonnest. They didn't state where he specificly was dishonnest. In fact they didn't investigated the allegations, but toke the allegations at face value. This is one of the reasons that the ministery of science invalidated the verdict. What is mentioned above are the accusations of the complainees out of the HAN document what Orzetto wasn't to keen on when it didn't suit him. Maybe he could give a other reference.
 *  + The Committees did not use a precise standard for deciding "good scientific practice" in the social sciences;
 * + The Committees' definition of "objective scientific dishonesty" was not clear about whether "distortion of statistical data" had to be deliberate or not;
 * + The Committees had not properly documented that The Skeptical Environmentalist was a scientific publication on which they had the right to intervene in the first place;
 * + The Committees did not provide specific statements on actual errors.
 * At point 2 he suggests that the ministery agrees that Lomborg was quilty of "distortion of statistical data", this is clearly not the case. This list is incomplete. It misses the strong language which the ministery of science used when discribing the work of the DCDS. "void of argumentation" and "The Ministry finds that there is a clear error in that the DCSD has not examined the issue of status as parties" etc. etc.
 * that the decision of the Ministry implied that the Committees' previous verdict was invalid They implied nothing, they said the verdict was invalidated.
 * The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty rested their case and decided not to start a new investigation, as they did not expect it to lead to different results. Here is implied they would find him not guilty with the same "objectively scientificly dishonnest" side remark. This is not the case.


 * All the above changes aren't backup by references.--MichaelSirks 20:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This article could contain more detail, but someone has to do that work.
 * MichaelSirks- You keep returning the same quoted material, and you repeatedly refer to other sources as justification, like Britannica, the HAN website, the DCSD website. I don't get what you're getting at. This isn't about gathering "evidence", it's about reasonable analysis and summary, with references so that readers can do further research if they wish.
 * The analysis must be based on the facts not your preconceived ideas. The references are excellent material to start your analysis, but you don't accept them as references.--MichaelSirks 20:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * What's the difference between a whole bunch of quotes, and a set of links pointing to the various sources? In all of the stuff you keep reverting, there is no original writing, no analysis, no synthesis, only chunks of what other people said. What's the point? Where's the value? The reader is left hardly more clearly informed than if everything after the bio was simply deleted.
 * The reader is at least not given disinformation as the piece Orzetto


 * (In the meantime, while pondering this stuff, you should make the DCSD/DCDS consistent in your timeline.) --Tsavage 23:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I have offered to go through accusation point by point. I have not had any response. Instead Orzetto wants to misquote the DCDS and wants to remove a qoute of HAN which is included in the article of Lomborg in the Brittanica. I doubt if you or Orzetto has read TSE.--MichaelSirks 20:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * FYI I did. Not all, but enough to judge it bad. I followed thoroughly this error claim by Kåre Fog (in which Lomborg nonchalantly multiplied by 5 peer-reviewed data to fit his conclusions), compared the library copy of TSE with the original references, and, seen that Fog is right, I came to the conclusion that Lomborg is a quack scientist. --Orzetto 14:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)