Skeptical Environmentalist Saga Continues

belmolis writes "In the latest episode of the The Skeptical Environmentalist affair, The New York Times reports (December 23, p. F2) that the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation has issued a critique (five-page English summary [warning: MSWord document]) of the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty's condemnation of Bjorn Lomborg's book The Skeptical Environmentalist, which argued that many of the concerns of environmentalists, particularly global warming, were based on poor science. The Committee had called for Dr. Lomborg's dismissal from the Danish government agency that examines environmental regulations." (Read on below.)

"The Ministry critique holds that the Committee's procedure was unfair. It does not address the scientific issues. Lomborg's book caused outrage among many environmentalists and scientists, while right-wing organizations such as the Cato Institute have defended Lomborg. Scientific American devoted eleven pages of its January 2002 issue to a critique of Lomborg. Lomborg was only allowed to publish a one-page rebuttal, to which Scientific American replied here. When Lomborg defended himself by posting the Scientific American critique on his web site and that of Greenspirit with his commentary [PDF file] interspersed, Scientific American threatened to sue and both sites took it down. It is, however, still available at the iGreens web site."

(Slashdot ran a review of Lomborg's book early last year.)

Comments

environmentalism is a religion

[b17bmbr]

mod me down, but environmentalism is a religion. do not confuse with conservationalism. i am a hunter and fisherman. nobody appreciates a clean environment more than i do. but the extreme measures, like those at kyoto, are based on faith as much as fact. furthermore, the assumptions and value judgements one must make are also religious. so what if species die off, or they are cleared for man. if trees and people are equal, that is YOUR RELIGION. fine. but please do not push your religion on me. the environmental movement is a cover for the global communists and socialist, one world governmentalists. (no, i don't need a tin foil hat.) everything that we need to do to "save" the environment is lower our standard of living. i don't think so. and lastly, why is the environmental movement headed by wealthy white people? you'd think there'd be a little more "color" if you will. perhaps they can see through the elitism?

Re:Shhhh!

[dublin]

It's worth noting that substituting "evolution" for environmental results in a set of statements that is just as true. Like environmentalism, it is also a religion in its own right, and absolutely intolerant of anything that might question its own primacy.

This month's Disclosure puts this in great perspective...