Reading Jonah Goldberg's column today at National Review Online put me in a bit of quandry. He writes of the on-going effort to smear the work of Bjorn Lomborg author of The Skeptical Environmentalist (which I have read and enjoyed) in particular the latest report from the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty which criticized the book:
The latest assault on Lomborg takes the form of a condemnation from something called the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty. Citing articles in the popular press — including that famed journal of climatology, Time magazine — and work by aggrieved critics, the Danes concluded: "Objectively speaking, the [The Skeptical Environmentalist] ...is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty."
Predictably, the Western media immediately seized on the indictment in order to discredit Lomborg further. The whole thing appears to be an outrageously deceitful and nigh-upon Orwellian attempt to vilify an honest academic for publishing inconvenient facts. Reading Lomborg's response to the Danish denunciation only confirms that. Lomborg is being sacrificed as a heretic by a scientific community more interested in preserving the consensus and conventional wisdom (and research funding) than debating the truth.
Goldberg also relates some interesting background on Galileo and his relationship with the Church and other scientists of his day and how Lomborg's situation today is similiar. And he references this piece on the matter by Nick Schulz at Tech Central Station which defends Lomborg and finds the charges against him to be baseless.
But a gloating editorial in today's Minneapolis Star Tribune titled Biased science / Chiding an environmental skeptic trumpeted the findings of the Danish committee insinuating that Lomborg has been discredited and now stands alone.
Hmmmm....Golderg et al versus the Star Tribune Editorial Board? Who do you go with on this one?