Copenhagen - Jan 09, 2003
In the beginning of last year several complaints regarding my book 'The Sceptical Environmentalist' were handed in to the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty (the DCSD). Naturally, I have been looking forward to being cleared of the charges of scientific dishonesty. Therefore I have submitted my comments on many of the accusations to DCSD.
Unfortunately the DCSD has made their decision without taking a position to the content of the complaints. The DCSD has ruled that "it is not DCSD's remit to decide who is right in a contentious professional issue".
I find this ruling inexplicable and it means that there is still no ruling about the numerous complaints put forth in public. So I maintain that the complaints of the plaintiffs are unfounded.
The main conclusion by DCSD finds that my book is "clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice" because of systematically biased selection of data and arguments. But since the DCSD has neglected to take their position on the technical scientific disputes their conclusions are completely unfounded.
The DCSD does not give a single example to demonstrate their claim of a biased choice of data and arguments. Consequently, I don't understand this ruling. It equals an accusation without defining the crime.
The DCSD, however, refers to the criticism of my book put forth by 4 scientists in Scientific American. This is a one-year-old discussion, which I participated in at that time, e.g. by writing a 34-page response.
But in spite of the fact that the DCSD received a copy of my response, they refer to none of my arguments.
In fact the only thing that the DCSD does is to repeat the Scientific American arguments over 6 pages, while only allowing my arguments one line.
This seems to reflect an extremely biased procedure. On top of that the DCSD has failed to evaluate the scientific points in dispute outlined in Scientific American article.
My initial response when I read the conclusion of the DCSD was one of surprise and discomfort. But when reading through the complete ruling I found it to be:
This document was written and released by Bjorn Lomborg and in it's original form was entitled "The Ruling On The Matter Of Scientific Dishonesty From The DCSD - a comment"
The Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty's Judgement
Subscribe To SpaceDaily Express
Danish Committee Cites Lomborg For Scientific Dishonesty
Copenhagen - Jan 07, 2003
Bjørn Lomborg, author of the controversial anti-green critique 'The Skeptical Environmentalist', has been found guilty of scientific dishonesty by a well-respected committee in his home country Denmark.
|The content herein, unless otherwise known to be public domain, are Copyright 1995-2016 - Space Media Network. All websites are published in Australia and are solely subject to Australian law and governed by Fair Use principals for news reporting and research purposes. AFP, UPI and IANS news wire stories are copyright Agence France-Presse, United Press International and Indo-Asia News Service. ESA news reports are copyright European Space Agency. All NASA sourced material is public domain. Additional copyrights may apply in whole or part to other bona fide parties. Advertising does not imply endorsement, agreement or approval of any opinions, statements or information provided by Space Media Network on any Web page published or hosted by Space Media Network. Privacy Statement All images and articles appearing on Space Media Network have been edited or digitally altered in some way. Any requests to remove copyright material will be acted upon in a timely and appropriate manner. Any attempt to extort money from Space Media Network will be ignored and reported to Australian Law Enforcement Agencies as a potential case of financial fraud involving the use of a telephonic carriage device or postal service.|