Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

"Skeptical Environmentalist" Rebuked

Posted by timothy on from the what-venting-wrath-sounds-like dept.

mpsmps writes "The "Skeptical Environmentalist", reviewed in slashdot here has been rebuked by the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty for shoddy, politically motivated science. Are they being valuable watchdogs, or are both sides driven by politics rather than science?"

3 of 72 comments (clear)

  1. Some links by Otter · · Score: 5, Informative
    Are they being valuable watchdogs, or are both sides driven by politics rather than science?

    I'm not sure how those are the two alternatives. My impression is that the indictment of Lomborg contains no substantive scientific criticism, just an accusation of partisanship. Both sides are trying to argue a point of view; one is doing it with facts and one by issuing a fatwa and what one may or may not think. (I'm talking here about this specific ruling. I'm sure there are factually-based objections to Lomborg, although I haven't seen one that impressed me, and I'm a Sierra Club member.)

    Instapundit has a bunch of links, the most prominent being the Economist calling the ruling "incompetent and shameful".

    --
    What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
  2. The panel's ruling is incompetent and shameful. by Evan+Vetere · · Score: 5, Informative
    So says the Economist.

    Lomberg has responded, in initial brief, to the fraud charges. And, according to Glenn Reynolds, most of the panel's complaints seem to be directed at Lomberg's response to the initial SciAm critique (PDF).

    The sheer complexity of this issue makes soapboxing inappropriate. I'm an early poster, but it's already begun. Please try to refrain from making fools of yourselves.

  3. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion