Slashdot Mirror
"Skeptical Environmentalist" Rebuked
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?"
The Skeptical Environmentalist has been debated in Skeptic magazines and the author of the book was allowed to respond to the critiques. Simply put, the detractors of this book point out very few flaws and don't debate the majority of the content. We have to fight pseudo-science and outright lies in the name of science where they occur. The Skeptical Environmentalist does this. The author however, is not a scientist per se but a statistician and it seems that has ruffled some feathers. If you are wondering what all the hubbub is about, read the book and make up your mind for yourself.
Never overestimate the end user. -jeramy b. smith
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...
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.
Figure the odds.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Well, as I have read the book through, and found it to be entirely a presentation of statistics which no one is contesting, and a reasoned interpretation thereof, I would be very interested to hear any examples of where you believe it is `biased' and `a crock'.
Simply throwing around such charges without backing them up suggests that you are condemning the book merely for not agreeing with your politics -- in which case you are the one deserving rebuke for unscientific conduct...