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

What would you call it?

[dcw3]

If he doesn't believe in warming, does that make him a cold danish?...

Article:

[Anonymous Coward]

8 Summary of the assessment of the Ministry
8.1 Regarding statutory authority

Point 5.1.1. Legal basis for the work of DCSD:

The opinion enclosed with the complaint of 13 February 2003 states the view that the legal basis for the DCSD making rulings regarding whether specific researchers have acted with scientific dishonesty is doubtful.

The Ministry considers that the establishment of the DCSD was clearly provided for in the remarks on section 4e(4) of the Danish Act on Research Advice, and that the duties of the DCSD can be included under the advisory function, which was located in the Board of the Danish Research Councils and its sub-committees.

With this background, the Ministry considers that the DCSD did have the necessary statutory authority for its general work.

Point 5.1.2. Basis for statutory authority in Order no. 933 of 15 December 1998 and use of the term 'good scientific practice'

The opinion enclosed with the complaint of 13 February 2003 argues that the authority of the DCSD is exclusively laid down in the Order concerning the DCSD. This means that the DCSD cannot take a position on whether the respondent has neglected standards for good scientific practice. The special aspect of this case is that the DCSD has included its position on breach of good scientific practice in the conclusion to their ruling.

Irrespective of whether or not the Ministry finds that the DCSD has grounds to take a position on the issue of good scientific practice, there is an independent point of criticism if, in its assessment, the DCSD has applied a standard for good scientific practice in the individual specialist area that is not true and fair.

The Ministry considers that the DCSD has not applied a completely true and fair standard for good scientific practice within social sciences in its examination, and that on the current basis it cannot be ruled out that this delusion could have led to an incorrect assessment of the work of the respondent. The seriousness of this situation is emphasised by the DCSD itself in that it makes this issue the pivot for the ruling in its conclusion.

Errors such as these, that can influence the result of a ruling, must lead to the case being remitted so that the situation can be rectified.

Point 5.1.3. The concept of 'objective scientific dishonesty'

The DCSD divides scientific dishonesty into objective and subjective parts. Thus, the Ministry understands that, as part of its working methodology, the DCSD use the concept 'objective dishonesty'. The Ministry considers this the usual legal working methodology.

However, the Ministry does not consider that the methodological division can be repeated in the conclusion, as this could present a misleading picture of the actual conclusion; namely that in the opinion of the DCSD there is no scientific dishonesty in terms of the Order.

In the opinion of the Ministry, it is a mistake that the DCSD allows the methodological division to appear in the conclusion, but not to the extent that the mistake results in the case being remitted.

Point 5.1.4. The ruling has not been made by one of the three committees under the DCSD

With the basis that the complaints were aimed at the specialist areas of all three committees, in the opinion of the Ministry the three committees are jointly competent to address the complaint on the grounds stated. At the same time the Ministry must emphasise that this is a scientific issue, outside the authority of the Ministry. However, the Ministry points out that the procedures chosen to decide whether or not a case should be addressed by the committees jointly was, in the opinion of the Ministry, not correct. According to the information in the DCSD statement of 5 May 2003, the ruling was made by the committees jointly following recommendations from the chairman.

The Ministry finds that the ruling must be made by the individual committee within whose area the respondent works, in that there is otherwise a r

That reminds me

[Henry V .009]

Jerry Pournelle posted a link to this on his site.

Aliens Cause Global Warming
By Michael Crichton

It is a very good read. Crichton claims that the public believes in things like Global Warming and Nuclear Winter for the same reasons that it believes in little green men. He says that science has failed to act as "a candle in the dark."

Re:That reminds me

[Fnkmaster]

Huh, that'd odd. While I agree that there are quite a few nutty American creationists out in the Midwest and the South, the majority of Americans don't consider their religious faith and their acceptance of modern science and the scientific method to be at odds with each other (where "faith" is used the way Kierkegaard defined it - belief in something which we lack proof or evidence for).

I also think most polls on religion fail to capture realistic world views. Think about it - the cost of professing belief in God is very low. The cost of leading a lifestyle strictly in accordance with biblical tenets is very high. If there is no God, your professed belief in life certainly won't make a hoot of a difference after you are dead and gone, but if there is, perhaps it will matter to him (in particular with the Christian conception of God). Thus many Americans will tell you they believe in God. Quite a few (though far, far fewer) might even tell you they believe the Bible is literally true. And yet these same people will almost without exception not lead very Godly devout lives. The real nutters, the evolution deniers, Bible thumping science-rejecters - those people constitute closer to 5% of the population than 90%. And most of those people are just too dumb to rectify the inconsistency of all the scientific and technological devices they use in their day-to-day lives with their religious rejection of modern science.

A scientist of course would tell you there's not much evidence to support the existence of "God" in the Judeo-Christian sense. But I've never met a scientist who would tell you that the lack of such proof constitutes a disproof. And any economist would probably give you the explanation I provided above. :)

Re:That reminds me

[miyoo]

There is lots of evidence for global warming and many studies have been done on it.

Sigh. This is exactly what Crighton is talking about. Did you RTFA? You cannot simply say, "well, a lot of smart people say it is true, so it must be true." Science is about making testable hypotheses and then demonstrating the truth or falsehood of those hypotheses.

In the case of global warming, it is scientifically impossible to assign any cause to a past trend in global temperature. In order to do so, you would need to have a controlled experiment, where you take two identical Earths, remove a hypothetical cause of global warming from one, and then observe the long-term climate change in each. At the end of the experiment, you could say whether or not the difference in initial conditions between the two Earths was the cause of global warming. That is science. The theory that human activity is causing global warming is an untestable hypothesis and is therefore outside the bounds of science and strictly a matter of faith.

You can also scientifically address the question of climate change by applying a model: a collection of emperical observations about the components of a system that predict the behavior of the system as a whole. But the uncertainties involved in modeling future climate change are huge. I can say, "It will rain in Los Angeles on February 15, 2051," and I might even be right! Even if my prediction were true, it would not be science. It is possible to predict future climate scientifically, but not with much precision. A good scientist should understand that, and many, probably most, of the scientists who study climate change do. Unfortunately fear, not good science, generates headlines (and sadly, research grants) and so the public has a skewed view of what the scientific evidence really is.

Crighton isn't saying that global warming or little green men don't exist. He's saying that a lot of people can make a some noise, use pseudoscience to back it up, and nobody speaks out to defend what true science is.

I'm not sure if your last comment about belief in God is sarcastic or not, but the existence or nonexsistence of God is also an untestable hypothesis and therefore outside the bounds of science. Science is not a rejection of belief in God or any other spiritual belief. Put another way, there is no scientific evidence to support the hypothesis that there is no God.

Shhhh!

[gordgekko]

The Committee had called for Dr. Lomborg's dismissal from the Danish government agency that examines environmental regulations.

That teaches him for questioning orthodoxy.

Lomborg's book has 2 930 footnotes which allows you to fact check every single assertion that he makes. I've never seen that level of detail from the environmentalist movement and I speak as someone who has read more than just their pamphlets.

It should be noted that the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation published its own response to the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty:

"[T]he DCSD has not documented where [Dr Lomborg] has allegedly been biased in his choice of data and in his argumentation, and...the ruling is completely void of argumentation for why the DCSD find that the complainants are right in their criticisms of [his] 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."

Oh, you mean the DCSD has done what they are accusing of Lomborg on? Right then...carry on!

Re:Shhhh!

[mesocyclone]

The book does not purport to be science, but rather to be a review of the science, the players in the environmental conflict and the claims that are made.

The book was a result of Lomborg attempting to REFUTE a series of claims counter to normal environmental doctrine. He was unable to do so, and in the process concluded, and documented, that a lot of the public statements are misleading. In doing so, he is talking to the public, not publishing in a peer reviewed journal, and he is taking on others who do the same thing.

His level of honesty is far ahead of that of his opponents. That there may be weaknesses in the book is hardly surprising, given the vast area it covers.

I do know that in the area of climatology, his conclusion are more consistent with what my climatologist researcher friends conclude than with what the environmental organizations are saying.

There is no doubt but what he is being attacked for going against the orthodoxy. Many others publish far less carefully researched books that support the orthodoxy, and they are not investigated by committees. Nor does Scientific American devote 14 pages of criticism to those books - 14 pages which attacked BL but were almost entirely full of ad hominem attacks and nit picking of trivial points, but had little to say about the important conclusions.

He is also probably being attacked for showing how the dynamics of the environmental movement work, how they lead to a crisis atmosphere, and how environmental organizations profit from made up or exaggerated crisis.

Environmentalism has become a religion to many. It is no wonder that they want to burn him at the stake.

Ideological victories are short-lived

[Anonymous Coward]

People trying to win ideological points will be disappointed to have to face the reality that science is not just another arm of politics... it actually a real discipline of proof and justification toward the evaluation of evidence. Whether you "think" there is global warming or not, higher degrees of scientific analysis should not be tossed aside on the basis of scatalogical arguments. Long live scientific inquiry and the scientific method (it's been on the ropes quite a bit these past years... starting with Cold Fusion... look at the junk reported in the mainstream press and it's nearly always slightly wrong, misguided, or flat-out incorrect).

Re:Skeptical smokers too

[Otter]

The mechanism by which cigarette carcinogens cause cancer is reasonably well understood, as it happens, but the more important point is this: smokers have an overwhelmingly higher rate of lung cancer than matched control patients and no other logical factor can explain that correlation. That may not be "proof" (although I'd call it that), but it's hardly a routine confusion of correlation with cause.

Anyway, back to Lomborg -- I call myself an environmentalist and I'm certainly concerned about the possibility of a human effect on climate change, but the more the issue gets turned into a matter of theology they may not be questioned, the more skeptical I get about the whole thing. This simply is not the way science is supposed to work.

what the cause of Global warming is

[the_2nd_coming]

Well the upper atmosphere is warming, but that can be easily explained by the weakening of the magnetic field which causes more radiation to hit the atmosphere in turn increasing the temperature in that region.

As for the ground data, Urban heat islands are the cause. The material used to build Urban areas retains the heat from the day, and radiates it at night. If you take the urban heat island data out of the ground temperature data, there is almost a zero increases in surface temperature.

No need for CO2 in the equation at all, though, Green house effect and what I outlined above both have an equally strong base of evidence (each is a hypothesis to climatology). I think that the hypothesis outlined above makes more sense personally.

We have the proof!

[orionware]

We've been keeping track of global climate for more than 140 years!

Surely this is enough to be able to accurately predict the warming and cooling cycles of the Earth!

You stupid people! Global temperature has risen almost 1 degree F in the past 140 years! (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhs hgl.gif) Surely this is the sign of evironmental armageddon!

Lemme see if I understand this ...

[pavon]

That first paragraph was confusing so lemme post my summary:

Bjorn Lomborg says evironmentalists are stupid.
Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty says Bjorn Lomborg is stupid.
Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation says Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty is stupid.
Cato Institute says Bjorn Lomborg is not stupid.
Scientific American says Bjorn Lomborg is stupid.

okay makes sense now.

The Book Doesn't Dispute Global Warming

[rbrander]

There seems to be a misapprehension in many posts that the book is skeptical of global warming itself. It isn't.

There are a *few* comments to the effect that the conclusions of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are not certain, or at any rate the *magnitude* of the warming is much disputed, but Lomborg's comments just mirror the ongoing debate in the meteorlogical community itself.

Then he gets on with it and says, basically, "but let's just take the final conclusions of the panel as the best estimate we have" - the rest of the chapter is about the 1.5C-5.8C (most likely number : 2.2C) of warming we will see by 2100, according to the IPCC.

What the global warming, ah, community(?) hates about Lomborg is that he takes a position against Kyoto, based on the models and figures in the IPCC report.

In brief: that Kyoto is unlikely to delay that 2.2C warming by more than a miserable six years, at a cost of hundreds of billions that could be better spent preparing the hardest-hit nations for the *effects* of the warming, not to mention on R&D for wind turbines, solar power, safer nuke plants, fuel cells, etc.

This, I found pretty convincing.

Re:Thank God for the Environmentalist Wackos

[DAldredge]

And those same idiots have blocked EVERY single nuclear powerstation in the USA in the past 20-30 years.

The don't care about the environment. They care about power.

Re:Sceintific American.

[gessel]

Really, SciAm's response was quite fair, and they rebutted the critiques of his rebuts by offering him as much space as he wanted on their web site.

I read the whole mess. I'm not an expert, but I am a physicist and competent to review the work at a high level. My personal opinion is what follows:

1) Lomborg's reasoning is specious and poorly connected. He extracts details out of context and puts them together to tell a rosy environmental picture that ends up being in diametric opposition to the best data. That is he builds up a lot of small anomalies in the data and ends up with an answer that a first order check against big picture data shows is false. He uses the specious conclusion to attack the first order results, which is anti-scientific.

2) The political argument is that "environmentalists" somehow benefit from being alarmist, and are therefore all suspect. I have yet to figure out the reward mechanism for tilting against big business. The contrary position, engaging in research the findings of which support the activities of the wealthiest corporations on earth, has a direct and well documented fiscal reward system.

3) The vast majority of environmental scientists have found data which supports the contrary argument, and present their data, both raw and refined, in support of those conclusions over many years, and to extensive review, both researchers in all fields.. Lombard has done no such research and merely picks and chooses among the data which supports his arguments and dismisses the majority that doesn't as false to support his alarmist argument that environmental regulations will be the ruination of us all.

He does make some good economic arguments though - as much as his environmental science is as weak as one would expect from a young and inexperienced economist with no background in science, his economic arguments are both sensible and deserving of consideration.

The argument of his that I find most persuasive, after the veil of poor science is brushed away, is that given finite resources, and given some calculation of risk*consequence (that is the statistically weighted risk of some particular outcome) it is not rational to squander finite resources on low risk outcomes. More precisely, the best answer is to carefully consider consequences and probabilities and rationally allocate resources to optimize future survivability.

SciAm did not attack that foundation or reasoning, though they did fail to give it proper credit in their response to Lombard's science. Indeed, SciAm supports such rationalist arguments as they did in suggesting that asteroid monitoring is under funded due to the relatively low cost of doing so, and the high risk*result value of a very low risk, but catastrophic cost of a potential impact.

Lombard's book got undeserved attention because it fits so well with the needs of polluting industries to refute the obvious damage done. It's really not his fault - he's got a limited education in science and he overstepped his expertise. This isn't new, and as pointed out over and over again in the response to this article, almost inescapable in popular science writing. Why he got unfairly crucified is because he was unreasonably lionized, and it all had little do with the content or lack thereof of his book. A more reasonable answer would have been a clear review of his scientific failings and a pat on the back for a nice first try, and an open hand from the scientific community offering to teach an obviously bright guy the basics of environmental and atmospheric science so he could give it a better go next time.

Oh well.