Talk:Bjørn Lomborg

Various discussions

Should Lombergs 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.

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

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 hominen argument, not a scientific argument.

Its 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 qhere 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 alegations presented in the article would be: "I don't have to answer to ad hominen arguments" Joao

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

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

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

In March 2002, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Denmark’s newly elected center-right prime minister who is also an economist, appointed Lomborg to run the country’s new Institute for Environmental Assessment. Lomborg is charged with “watching state agencies to ensure that cash for cutting pollution goes where the return is greatest,” The Economist reported in its March 2 issue. “The government’s aim in setting up the new institute is to help it trim heavy public spending,” 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. [1]

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. [2]

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

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

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)

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)

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 about 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)

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)

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’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 DSCD, has released a highly critical assessment of the Committee’s January 7 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. [3]

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

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

Its 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 http://aragorn.imf.au.dk/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

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

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! [4]

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

HAN

I don't find any refenrence to the following web-site ([5]) which examined the book in detail. I don't find any refenrence to the many scientist who very worried by the sentence of the DCDS. This all make it a very one sided article.

(William M. Connolley 22:30, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)) You can add the han site to the refs. Just don't think its anythnig but one-sided. I'm not sure all that many scientists were worried by the dcds verdict (you can't call it a sentence, which would imply a specified punishment).

I have added the link to HAN. You shall find lots of scientist who where worried by that ruling of the DCDS on the link to HAN. The article suggests that the verdict still stands. This is not the case. Lomborg appealled and won. The DCDS was to give an argumentation for their verdict and follow their own procedures. The DCDS found itself not to be competend to judge "The sceptical enviromentalist". That is why lomborg can write on his site;

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

The links to the fisrt verdict are not working may be because the DCDS has removed the web-page with the orginal text.

Michael Sirks

(William M. Connolley 19:59, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)) This is not the case. The DSCD were instructed by the govt to reconsider their verdict. They declined to do so. That was the end of the matter .

I am afraid your wrong. First of all it was the ministery of science which remitted the verdict and not the goverment.

(William M. Connolley 09:40, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)) The ministry of science is an arm of the govt

The ministery of science is the high court of the DCDS. It repealed its verdict.

(William M. Connolley 09:40, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)) The min is *not* the high court of the DCDS. It has no juristiction over it. It did not repeal the "verdict" - because it couldn't.

Maybe we should have the original text of the announcement from the DCDS of march 12 2004(in English). Lomborg notes that it wasn't translated in english(to embarressing) If you were wright Lomborg shouldn't be allowed to claim on his web site that; The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DSCD) have finally ended their case March 12, 2004, rejecting the original complaints. They have decided that the original decision is invalid and has ended any further inquiry. http://www.lomborg.com/critique.htm Check it out.

(William M. Connolley 09:40, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)) Just possibly Lomborg has an interest in this matter and may not be reporting things totally objectively - have you considered that?

I have found "The final decision of the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty in the complaint against Bjørn Lomborg" in english on the web site of the DCDS.( http://www.forsk.dk/uvvu/nyt/presse/lomborg_press_uk.htm ) Let's analyse it; - The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (UVVU) have decided not to resume the investigation of Bjørn Lomborg’s book The Sceptical Environmentalist. -Such an investigation would be expected to take between 6 and 12 months, perhaps even longer. Since the UVVU did not find, during its first investigation, that Bjørn Lomborg acted with deliberate or gross negligence – and thus dishonesty – the UVVU does not find it reasonable at the present time to perform such a comprehensive investigation.(So they didn't find that he acted dishonetly) - 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. (they find it unlikely that they find Lomborg dishonest.) - The Ministry explained at a later date that the decision of the Ministry must be taken to mean that the UVVU’s decision of 6 January 2003 is invalid. (This is noted without an attemp to question it, so they don't question the authority of the ministery.)

(William M. Connolley 21:02, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)) This is exactly what I was saying: the DCSD never revoked their decision. BL's assertion on his website is incorrect and misrepresents their decision.

(Michael Sirks) This not what you were saying. They found him not guilty on the one thing the Danish Society for Dishonesty in Science could find him guilty on namely; deliberate or gross negligence – and thus dishonesty.

(William M. Connolley 23:57, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)) Stop and think what you are writing for just a moment. The govt was reviewing that DCSD's decision. They can't find him innocent of things the DCSD didn't find him guilty of.

(Michael Sirks)The point I am making is one of jurisdiction. DCDS found him not guilty of; "deliberate or gross negligence – and thus dishonesty" . Everything else is outside there jurisdiction.

They added a number of remarks which you refer to but this was done without the exmenation of the specific complaints and this is where Lomborg filed a complaint against. But if you think that the verdict of 6 january is still valid where on web-site of DCDS stands this verdict. They have removed it because it is no longer valid. So Lomborg is right when he says; The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DSCD) have finally ended their case March 12, 2004, rejecting the original complaints. They have decided that the original decision is invalid and has ended any further inquiry.

And weirdly enough, you seem to ahve omitted one para: this one: 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.

(Michael Sirks) Here they obviously mean; Since the UVVU did not find, during its first investigation, that Bjørn Lomborg acted with deliberate or gross negligence – and thus dishonesty.

(William M. Connolley 23:57, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)) They mean what they say: that they would have reached the same verdict: which amounts to telling the govt to f*ck off.

(Michael Sirks) I see that you didn't add a link to the verdict. According to you the verdict is still valid but the DCDS has removed it from its web-site.

I propose to change the text in the paragraphe;

"A brief outline of the events related to Bjørn Lomborg’s book

6 January 2003: The UVVU 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 UVVU’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 UVVU 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 UVVU 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 UVVU’s decision of 6 January 2003.

(William M. Connolley 21:02, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)) It is necessary to note that BL was appointed by the govt. The ministry is ont unbiased, as you seem to suppose: it is a partisan from BL. It would also be desirable to clarify the authority of the govt over the DCSD: it would appear to have none: in that it clearly instructed them to reconsider; they refused; and the govt did nothing to them.

(Michael Sirks) You assume that because the goverment appointed him to a certain job that the ministery of science could not be unbiased.

(William M. Connolley 23:57, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)) Yes.

(Michael Sirks) Have you any evidence that this is the case?

So the police is also not unbiased and all other goverment institutions.

(William M. Connolley 23:57, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)) No. The sci ministry decicision was essentially a political one.

(Michael Sirks) No evidence just a opinion.

One big conspiracy! Have your read the responds of the ministery of science? You will read of a number of procedural mistakes and of the fact that in the words of the ministery; Here the Ministry must point out that the DCSD has not documented where the respondent (BL) has allegedly been biased in his choice of data and in his argumentation, and that the ruling is completely void of argumentation for why the DCSD find that the complainants are right in their criticisms of BL’s working methods. It is not sufficient that the criticisms of a researcher’s working methods exist; the DCSD must consider the criticisms and take a position on whether or not the criticisms are justified, and why.

These are precisely the tasks the DCSD has a fundamental duty to carry out and as this has not happened, the ruling must be remitted back to the DCSD, cf. the above quote from the administrative law on the consequences of neglecting the principle of inquisitorial procedure. This type of significant neglect in case processing by the DCSD deserves criticism in itself. This was also why Dr. K. Fog(one of the persons who brought the complaints against Lomborg) was dissapointed with the original dicision; Lomborg and I, agree that the decision is unsatisfactory because there are no references to precise points of alleged dishonesty. If the DCDS wants to brand the sceptical enviromentalist "Dishonnest",

(William M. Connolley 23:57, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)) They didn't conviuct him of "scientific dishonesty". Read the text of the page.

(Michael Sirks) "If" is here the word. They can not make some off side remars without substantiating them. It reflects badly on you that you find Oke to make remarks without substantiating them. I am beginning to doubt that you have read; The sceptical enviromentalist

they must say where specificly he is dishonest. The ministery of science remitted the case back to the DCDS. It was up to the DCDS what to do with it.

(William M. Connolley 23:57, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)) Yes indeed. And what they decided to do was to stick by their original decision.

(Michael Sirks) Where on the web-site stands their original verdict? We can off course write a e-mail to the DCDS and aks them. And maybe we should CC it to Lomborg.

17 December 2003: The Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation makes a decision in the case. The Ministry finds that the UVVU has made a number of procedural errors. Here the Ministry must point out that the DCSD has not documented where the respondent (BL) has allegedly been biased in his choice of data and in his argumentation, and that the ruling is completely void of argumentation for why the DCSD find that the complainants are right in their criticisms of BL’s working methods. It is not sufficient that the criticisms of a researcher’s working methods exist; the DCSD must consider the criticisms and take a position on whether or not the criticisms are justified, and why. These are precisely the tasks the DCSD has a fundamental duty to carry out and as this has not happened, the ruling must be remitted back to the DCSD, cf. the above quote from the administrative law on the consequences of neglecting the principle of inquisitorial procedure. This type of significant neglect in case processing by the DCSD deserves criticism in itself. The Ministry therefore remits the case to the UVVU. Furthermore, the Ministry’s decision states that it is up to the UVVU 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 UVVU’s decision of 6 January 2003 is invalid.

12 March 2004: The UVVU makes is final decision in the complaint against Bjørn Lomborg’s book. The UVVU decides to close the case."

This would make text little less one sided.

Michael Sirks

(William M. Connolley 21:02, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)) Your text appears somewhat pro-L biased. A rather more succinct, and accurate, verision would be: "An arm of the mid-right-wing govt that appointed Lomborg disagreed with the verdict of the DCSD and instructed the DCSD to reconsider its decision; the DCSD refused."

(Michael Sirks) What your saying is that the DCDS is pro-L biased because it is almost entirely the text of the DCDS.(maybe also part of the goverment.) With the exception of the excerpt of the minstery of science; Here the Ministry must point out that the DCSD ..... by the DCSD deserves criticism in itself. Because I found that part of the final verdict of DCDS a little to vague. Where on the site of the DCDS stands the original verdict. I put it to you that they have removed because it is no longer valid.

(William M. Connolley 23:57, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)) Sorry - I didn't understand that.

(Michael Sirks) The proposed text is copied from the web-page of the DCDS "The final decision of the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty in the complaint against Bjørn Lomborg" under the heading; A brief outline of the events related to Bjørn Lomborg’s book. It isn't my own text. I only added the bit of the ministery of science. Or in your words; Read the text of the page. I get the distinct impression that you want rubbish Lomborg instead of getting a wel balanced article.

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)) Its 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)

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.