Dear Jim Baen,
Ever since he published "The Skeptical Environmentalist" two years
ago, Bjorn Lomborg (http://www.lomborg.com/) is being attacked in the
environmentalist circles as a heretical figure, who broke what Thomas
Kuhn have called "a scientific dogma". That was especially evident
since the "Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty" found him guilty
of academic dishonesty
(http://www.forsk.dk/uvvu/nyt/udtaldebat/bl_decision.htm) last month
(8 Jan 2003), and the "Scientific American" has published a series of
articles against his thesis (January 2002). Last year, before hell
broke lose, the Danish government appointed him as head of a new
Environmental Assessment Institute (IMV) - much to the dismay of his
opponents.
However, and that is also your question, is it really a scientific
revolution, a new Gallileo, a break of the old paradigm in order to
find new scientific path (Kuhn's theory, which is by the way
recommended reading, is that every "generation" or so, there's a
process of a breaching of the contemporary paradigm, in favour of new
developments. It happens as a process, with new evidences adding up,
until the old theories just don't fit). Is it what happens now?
Last week or so I read a very interesting analysis of the whole
Lomborg affair in "The Economist" Science section ("Thought control"
Jan 9th 2003 http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=1522706)
- basically, they claim two things. First of all, the academic
committee that inspected Lomborg's book, claimed it was not
scientific. However, it was not meant to be a scientific book. It also
did not support its condemnation with data.
To add to the confusion, Lomborg is not an environmental scientist, he
is a statistican, working in the Department of Political Science, in
the University of Aarhus. Lomborg *does not* present himself as a
natural scientist, and his book, as mentioned before, is not peer
reviewed - it is only his own observations.
Biologists and environmental scientists attack Lomborg (but at the
same time they tell political scientists to mind their own business
and to pose no opinions on environmental issues, they seem to state
their own analyses on the need for a firmer environmental policy). The
main claim: not only that it is not "controversial" science, it is not
science, but "unrepentant incompetence" (See the controversy in the
Scientific American,
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00000B96-9517-1CDA-B4A8809EC588EEDF
). As "The Washington Post" put it "They said Lomborg had been highly
selective in his use of research data and secondary source material to
attack the work of dozens of respected and prize-winning scientists
and broad-based, peer-reviewed scientific panels." (Source: Eric
Pianin, "Danish Professor Denounced for 'Scientific Dishonesty'", The
Washington Post, January 8, 2003; Page A20,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A24584-2003Jan7¬Found=true).
The Scientific American published an issue full of critique on the
man, with no articles defending him. To cite from an article on the
discussion "As Philip Stott, a distinguished emeritus professor of
biogeography at the University of London, put it, "I have been
involved in the editing of scientific journals for over 15 years, and
I could never conceive of treating an author in the manner that the
Scientific American has dealt with Dr. Lomborg…" (Source: James K.
Glassman "Denmark's Ministry of Truth", TCS, 10/01/2003
http://www.techcentralstation.be/2051/wrapper.jsp?PID=2051-100&CID=2051-011003N).
Glassman's article is interesting, because Glassman has met Lomborg
and because Glassman - who opposes the Kyoto Protocol and the current
environmental findings, really wanted to hear from Lomborg a critique
on the current scientific mainstream stand. Glassman writes, that
Lomborg refused to give assumptions on natural scientific issues - he
is not a natural scientist, and would not argue with the current
scientific mainstream. Glassman writes:
"I asked Lomborg some questions about the science behind global
warming claims, including the discrepancy between surface-temperature
records, which show warming of about 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past
century, and more extensive satellite records, which show no warming
over the past 25 years. I'll paraphrase Lomborg's response because I
remember it distinctly. He said that he was not a natural scientist,
and thus he did not question the assumptions of the global warming
crowd. That was not his job. His argument was simply that, if the
assumptions about a warming planet are true, the facts show the best
method of mitigation is certainly not the regime specified in the
Kyoto Protocol.
I was disappointed with this answer and probed further. Lomborg would
not budge. He would not challenge the accepted science." (ibid).
In other words, and in responce to your question, Lomborg is a
professor of Political Science and statistics, and does not assume to
be anything else. Therefore, he does not mean to break natural science
dogmas on the subject, and his book is mainly policy analysis and
critique, not a "scientific book". Therefore, he doesn't want to
become a "new Gallileo", he doesn't view himself as one, and the
saddest thing about it all - he wrote a policy analysis book, which is
what political scientists are ought to do, but got "borked" for trying
to bridge between the disciplines.
Who stands up for Lomborg? Not many in the biology and environmental
science realm. Kenneth Green, an environmental scientist with Canada's
Fraser Institute was an expert reviewer of the most recent report of
the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on the science of climate
change, wrote an article on his defence ("KENNETH GREEN: A skeptic
irks ivory-tower environmentalists"
http://www.modbee.com/24hour/opinions/story/733269p-5347953c.html).
Please note, that Green does not support (at least not in this
article) Lomborg assesments, but on his right to claim them.
Except for that, and not suprisingly, most of Lomborg's supporters are
people like Glassman - Libertarian or Conservative Neo-Liberal
thinkers, who dismay "Green" ideology anyway, and portray this
controversy as the fight of the little "Gallileo" against the big bad
Green Church, while our Gallileo, a former "Greenpeace" member,
doesn't view himself as one. One example for that is another scientist
in support of Lomborg, Patrick J. Michaels, a Senior Fellow in
Environmental Studies for the Cato Institut (a
Libertarian-CXonservative think tank): "Had the Danish Research Agency
been current with the scientific literature, they would have found
that the lead article in the prestigious journal Climate Research came
to conclusions very similar to Lomborg: When climate projections are
tempered with reality, the amount of expected warming in the next
century falls to the low end of projections made by the United
Nations. The Danish Research Agency makes no specific allegations of
factual error. Yet they have gravely harmed the reputation of
Lomborg." (Cato Institute,
http://www.cato.org/dispatch/01-08-03d.html).
A third defender of Lomborg is Jack Hollander, a emeritus professor at
Berkeley, is publishing this April a new book "The Real Environmental
Crisis: How Poverty, Not Affluence, Is the Environment's Number One
Enemy." The conservative TCS writes, that "An early draft of the book
shows it deepens our understanding of many of the same themes Lomborg
discussed in The Skeptical Environmentalist and denounces in
convincing fashion the extreme pessimism of the environmental movement
typified by Schneider and others who have attacked Lomborg." (Nick
Schulz, "A Smear Continues" TCS
http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/envirowrapper.jsp?PID=1051-450&CID=1051-010803F)
I hope that answered your question. The best way to search for the
issue is in Google News search engine (http://news.google.com), since
it provides the most latest news, as you have asked. If you need any
clarifications on the answer, please let me know. I'd be pleased to
clarify my answer before you rate it. |
