Bjorn Lomborg’s 2001 book The Skeptical Environmentalist was condemned in 2002 by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) as being “objectively dishonest” and “clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice.” On December 17th, 2003, the Danish Ministry of Science evaluated the DCSD’s report as “dissatisfactory,” “deserving criticism,” “emotional,” and “completely void of argumentation.” Why? Because the DCSD based their report not on the book, but on two reviews of the book: one in Scientific American magazine, and one in Time magazine.
Leaving aside the journalistic integrity of Time for the moment, let’s look at how objective Scientific American was. They devoted eleven pages to discount the book and gave Lomborg one in reply. When he posted his full reply online [pdf], they threatened to sue him. When the co-founder of Greenpeace posted Lomborg’s reply (with Lomborg’s permission), Scientific American threatened to sue him too.
Unlike the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty, I read the book. A one sentence review might read as follows: “Yes there are problems, no they aren’t as bad as some say they are, here are the facts that even the doom-sayers are using (but misrepresenting).”
I hope that all the press agencies that reported Lomborg’s book was discredited will admit they were deceived.
