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 similar. 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?

Dear Mr. (extreme) right winger,

I have just read your brief snippet defending Bjorn Lomborg (citing a
vacuous piece by Goldberg in National Review as definitive proof of the
phantom "smear" on Lomborg). I was one of the five original scientists to
lodge a complaint of scientific dishonesty against him. Of course, I was
expecting his defenders on the political right to defend him with all of
their powers. Thus, your comments and those cropping up in
corporate-sponsored think tanks and other right-wing sources were to be
expected.

First of all, you do exactly what many contrarians do: lump in the views of
scientists with those of environmentalists and environmental NGO's. I am
employed as a senior scientist, and I take umbrage with the notion that my
existence is in any way predicated on banging the drum for any lobby. I
might as well claim that you are banging the drum for the corporations that
you support with your libertarian views. What's the difference? It may be
convenient for you and the other defenders of Mr. Lomborg to try and paint
the scientific community with the same, tired old green brush, but this is
not how science works. By association, you must be also accusing the Danish
Committee of being "greens", in spite of the fact that not a single one of
them works in environmental science. I entered into this process because Mr.
Lomborg and his book are full of distortions, in many case very serious
ones, that have not been corrected in spite of the comments made by many
experts in various fields of research. A good scientist changes their
opinions as new data come in, or when they are clearly wrong. But Lomborg is
not honest; he has distorted the scientific process time and time again by
exhibiting highly selective bias for a narrow range of studies that support
his conclusions, misquoting scientists to make points, bolstering his
conclusions with suppositions, expectations and desires rather than
empirical data, studiously avoiding peer-review, and by refusing to
acknowledge egregious errors (some examples below) that plague his work. And
you think that this is perfectly acceptable behaviour? I find it amusing
that you like the book, so i expect you to use all of your scientific skills
to counter the criticisms I levy against it. This should be interesting.....


I want to stress that the Danish Committee for Scientific Dishonesty
Committee acted fully within their powers, and considering they are the
British equivalent of the Royal Society, or the American equivalent of the
National Academy of Sciences, their decision carries immense weight. One of
the things that I find most amusing is that Lomborg has been claiming in the
media that he has not been allowed to respond to specific charges, because
the committee did not present them in its report (what he refers to as the
"smoking gun"). But all this does is to highlight Lomborg's dishonesty,
because it is proof that he is still not telling the truth. Having
participated in the process, what Lomborg does not say is that there were
fully two exchanges of information and material between the complainants,
the committee, and Lomborg. Because the dossiers submitted by the
complainants (including mine and Stuart Pimm's) contained a large number of
examples of his dishonesty, Lomborg was fully given two chances to respond
to them. The examples I personally presented were based on Lomborg's
selective bias with respect to forests, acid rain, and on extinction models.
Lomborg's replies to us in each case were insubstantial and unsatisfactory -
for example, he made no attempt to explain why he had left out many
important studies that, if included, must lead to different conclusions from
those he continues to promote. 

Below, I give you just two uncontested examples (and there are hundreds
more) of his dishonesty. Lomborg has been able to get away with ignoring
these and other examples for several years because he realizes that he knows
just a littlew more than the public (including you) on most of these issues,
and because the public has a short memory. He works on these truths. I
debated him in Holland last June and I presented three examples (given only
25 minutes, I could have presented many more) where Lomborg exhibits clear
selective bias in studies that he includes in his book. Given 15 minutes to
rebut me, I was startled that he didn't even try. But why should he? He has
three options in dealing with substantial critiques: 

	(1) He could claim that he alone knows more than his critics, thus
Lomborg would have to 	pit his own thin credentials against scientists who
have spent years studying such diverse 	areas as climate change, acid rain,
biodiversity. This wouldn't work. 
	(2) He could acknowledge the bigger distortions and amend them (see
below). But this would 	destroy his credibility. If he were to incorporate
piles of peer-reviewed studies examining 	a range of areas covered in
his book he might, or would have to change his conclusions, but 	this
would undermine much of what he says. As I show (below) on acid rain and on
extinctions (but this is true in just about every chapter), Lomborg
cheery-picks studies 	he likes. It is as if he drew his conclusions first
and set about proving them by picking 	out the studies (in many cases what
few there are) that support his views. 
	(3) He could ignore the critics. Gloss over their criticisms, attack
their integrity, but 	for heaven's sake don't ever admit that they are
correct in their arguments. Its important 	that, no matter how solid
the evidence they provide, Lomborg must somehow weather the 	brief storm
and move on.

Lomborg has chosen option (3), since in (1) he would have to admit that he
knows more than people like Ed Wilson and Tom Lovejoy, which even he knows
is impossible, and in (2) he would lose all of the credibility the political
right have given him if he were to amend any of his story. Since Lomborg is
a classic con-man and excellent orater, he's been able to slip and slide his
way out of accountability for several years - until last week that is. He
has been able to dispense with the clear-cut evidence (below) showing that
he omits important studies that, were he to be honest, he would include in
his book, and derive conclusions based on them. And to repeat: he has done
this by using the tactic of smiling or appearing at ease at all times, no
matter if he is cornered or not, and avoiding the questioner directly,
allowing him to get out of the tough parts.       
				
	Example 1. On page 181, Lomborg downplays the effects of acid rain,
and states:
		Likewise, the Danish daily Politiken recently wrote, briefly
and to the point: "Sulfur in the atmosphere produces acid rain. And acid
rain kills forests". Simple. But not borne out by the evidence. 
But which evidence is Lomborg citing? He bases this exclusively on a single
graph extracted from a chapter in Simon's "The State of Humanity", and on
the 1990 findings of the heavily criticized National Acid Precipitation
Assessment Program (created during the Reagan administration which was
notoriously hostile to the phenomenon). But even here, Lomborg selectively
omits piles of studies that contradict his conclusions (for example, the
Hubbard Brook Research Foundation states that):
		"Recent research shows that acid deposition has contributed
to the decline of red spruce trees throughout the eastern United States and
sugar maple trees in central and western Pennsylvania". 
Dr. Robert Bruck of North Carolina State University has examined acid rain's
effects on forest health and concludes that: 
		"Acid rain and cloud deposition are the primary culprits in
the loss of spruce and fir forests". 
The US Environmental Protection Agency, along with Environment Canada,
report that acid rain remains a potent threat to the health of North
American forests.
	EPA: "Researchers now know that acid rain causes slower growth,
injury or death of 	forests".  
		Canadian Acid Rain Assessment, 1997: "Acid deposition
exceeds critical loads across large portions of eastern Canada.... As a
result, acidification of these areas will continue, the biodiversity of
aquatic ecosystems will remain under threat, and more damage to forest
health and productivity will occur unless further deep cuts in sulfur
dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions in Canada and the US are implemented". 
Lomborg also failed to cite an updated 1998 report from NAPAP, which reads:
		"Sulfur and nitrogen deposition have caused adverse impacts
on certain highly sensitive forest ecosystems in the United States.
High-elevation spruce-fir forests in the eastern United States are the most
sensitive. Most forest ecosystems in the East, South, and West are not
currently known to be adversely impacted by sulfur and nitrogen deposition.
However, if deposition levels are not reduced in areas where they are
presently high, adverse effects may develop in more forests due to chronic,
multiple decade exposure".
		 
An even more up-to-date reference that comments on sugar maple declines in
the northeast is "Acidic deposition in the northeastern United States:
Sources and inputs, ecosystems effects, and management strategies," by C. T.
Driscoll et al., Bioscience, vol. 51, pages 180-198. 

Please tell me: considering that Mr. Lomborg states that he "is not an
expert as regards environmental problems" and has "tried to present all the
facts", I would appreciate how he seems to know good research from bad? Why
aren't these more critical studies included in his book, if he is trying to
be objective? This is only one example where Mr. Lomborg keeps his mouth
shut. Since he cannot refute such weighty evidence, he just ignores it. This
allows the storm to pass. 

Example 2:

	Lomborg states (pg. 254) that: 
		"In the US, the eastern forests were reduced over two
centuries to fragments totaling just 1-2 percent of their original area, but
nonetheless this resulted in the extinction of only one forest bird".
Lomborg's aim was to discredit the area-extinction models devised by
Professor Edward O. Wilson that have been used for many years to estimate
extinction rates. Lomborg's chapter and this example are more-or-less lifted
straight and uncritically out of Simon/Wildavsky chapter in "The State of
Humanity" (1994). A year after the Simon/Wildavsky piece was published,
Stuart Pimm and Robert Askins published an article in the pretigious
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS 92, 9343-9347, 1995)
which criticized the erroneous Simon/Wildavsky piece (the authors, both
eminent conservation biologists, wrote their piece explicitly as a
corrective). PNAS is hardly an obscure source. In examining the data, Pimm
and Askins found that at any one time, a maximum of 52% of forest was lost
(in about 1872) and 4 species of endemic birds became extinct as a
consequence, not 1 (with two more seriously wounded and barely hanging on at
present). These results support, rather than refute, the area-extinction
models Lomborg disparages. 
Lomborg has studiously refused to change this story, or to acknowledge the
corrective study. A good scientist changes their story as new evidence comes
in. But as I said above, Lomborg is not honest (nor is he a good scientist).
They very publication of the Pimm and Askins paper in such a prestigious
source as PNAS itself is a corrective of Lomborg's source and must be cited
to at least strike a "balance". To be honest, this study completely refutes
the earlier piece, and thus Lomborg should favour it. But he not only avoids
"balance", he leaves the study out altogether. I would like you to also note
that Lomborg first published the incorrect story of avian extinctions in
North American birds in the 1998 Danish edition of TSE, and that he was
subsequently corrected by Professor Jon Fjeldsa, Zoological Museum,
University of Copenhagen. However, without acknowledging his error, he
repeats exactly the same story in the English edition. I raised this point
to him in our summer debate and he never even answered me, instead going on
to another point.  
In another example of selective bias, Lomborg argues that extinction rates
in Atlantic coastal rainforests of Brazil are much lower than predicted by
area-extinction models. He bases this on a chapter by Brown and Brown in a
book edited by Sayer and Whitmore that was published in 1990. This book was
one of the primary sources for Julian Simon in his book "The State of
Humanity". However, in 1997 Thomas Brooks and Andrew Balmford published a
scientific correspondence in Nature which challenged the Brown and Brown
article and provided evidence that the number of critically endangered
species supports the levels predicted by the species-area analyses (Nature
380: 115, 1996). But again, Lomborg has failed to cite this corrective, and
repeats the same discredited argument to this day. And, once again, I raised
this example in our debate, and he ignored it. His other example on
extinctions in Puerto Rican birds has been similarly shown to be wrong by
Storrs Olsen.   
I would like to hear how you defend Lomborg knowing that he is selective.
Perhaps you think that selective bias is perfectly acceptable in science.
After all, the tobacco companies and asbestos manufactuers did this for
years and got away with it. Why not Lomborg? Since many of these criticisms
were levied at Lomborg several years ago, and he hasn't changed a word
since, one can only conclude, that, in spite of not doing any research into
the areas, Lomborg must be either (a) a world class authority on the causes
and consequences of acid rain, and on the applicability of area-extinction
models, or else (b) he is a dishonest fraud, and realizes that his only
defense is to play on the public's willingness to forget quickly. And bear
in mind that Lomborg hasn't even attempted to correct these errors - he just
repeats them ad libitum and damn the "truth" (which he happens to make a big
deal about). I can assure you that the day after I chastised Lomborg for
these (and other) omissions that plague his book, he was off at some other
venue, saying, "area extinction models are inaccurate and over-estimate
extinction rates" and "acid rain is not known to harm forests". Please tell
me why you think it is OK for Lomborg to dispense with studies he doesn't
like. I for one, would like to know why you think this is perfectly
acceptable behavior.

In many cases Lomborg's take on many of the topics he discusses in his book
are so utterly poor that it belies belief that he has managed to get away
with some of these distortions; again, had his book been competently
peer-reviewed, then he would have had to have amended these errors, taking
into account the enormous number of published studies that produce very
different conclusions. But Lomborg employs the tactic of saying "I conclude
A based on studies B to D". This is perfectly OK if studies E-Z say
primarily the same thing. He could even leave out D, bearing in mind the
overall evidence supports his arguments. But in very many instances they
don't. On area-extinction analyses, and acid rain, as I have pointed out,
many of the studies in the D-Z range say something completely different to
Lomborg. On climate change, on the applicability of climate change models,
on water, on forests, on human prosperity (as many reviewers have noted)
there are a myriad of studies that have very different conclusions from
those Lomborg makes in his book. Most incredulously, these points were
raised in Denmark 5 years ago - and yet the same distortions and omissions
crop up repeatedly in his English version. Why is this so? How would an
admitted non-expert be able to separate "the wheat from the chaff"?

Lomborg even admitted to Pimm and I of his dishonesty - when, in response to
our initial complaint dossier, he stated that "I don't see why blanket
references to Nature and Science are necessarily better than UN data". This
was his reply to Pimm who provided 15 studies in these journals on forest
loss that contradict Lomborg's conclusions on the seriousness of this
process. Pimm was stunned by Lomborg's brazen dismissal of studies "he
doesn't like". He replied that there is nothing wrong with using UN data if
other studies in important journals say the same thing. But these 15
studies, published since 1998, argue that forest loss is a serious problem,
particularly in the tropics, and that old FAO data (that Lomborg uses,
discontinued by the way in 1994 because of its inaccuracies, according to
the UN) does not tell anything close to the real story with regards to
forest loss. Yet Lomborg dispenses with these studies - and many more - that
must be included as part of a balanced overview of the problem. Why? It
should be obvious, that, were he to incorporate these and many other studies
that contradict his glib optimism, then the entire thrust of his book would
have to be changed. And of course this would lead to public discreditation
of Lomborg. He knows it. So he plays the "victim" card, the "I cannot defend
myself card" ad libitum. 

As I told the media recently, Lomborg ignores his critics by looking
interested in their arguments, as he did when I spoke opposite him in June,
then responding with an "Hmm, that is interesting, I will have to look into
it". But he never does, because he knows that the audience have a very short
memory. So long as he looks like he is interested in these points, he will
come out on top. Who in the audience where I spoke would now remember the
examples I gave of Lomborg's dishonesty? Probably no one. Yet Lomborg
repeats the same, tired story at each venue. He refuses to change the bigger
distortions that plague his book. He refuses to include studies that must be
there to at least strike a balance (or, in sheer number, would undermine his
arguments). He is a non-rewritable CD rom that says the same thing at each
place he speaks. What he does do is to claim to listen to his critics by
"tweaking" minor points - he used to have a section on his web site called
"errors and revisions", which was a cunning smokescreen designed to make it
look like he was listening to his critics while making them look like a
bunch of idiots for focussing on pedantic points, that amount to no real
changes at all. For example, he would write, "doubled in ten years" is
corrected to "doubled in 12 years, thanks to the WWF for this information",
or else, "18 instead of 15%, thanks to the WWI for this information".
Clearly, these "revisions" are not real revisions at all, so long as they
don't result in an alteration of the conclusions. But the bigger distortions
- like the omission of studies on acid rain, extinctions, climate change
models (where he relies on studies by Bill Nordhaus) water (where Peter
Gleick unravels his omissions) forests etc. remain unaltered.

The reason that educated people like yourself have been duped by this master
con artist (other than the vested interests you downplay in Lomborg's
message) is that Lomborg has all of the attributes to pull of this stunt. He
is handsome, personable, gives the impression of profound interest in those
who speak to him, he never looks flustered (even when things get tough), he
is an excellent speaker and he knows just a little bit more than the vast
majority of his audience. He is a classic example of the genre. I could
write a book (but I am too busy with my own research) in which I explain
that those who have not been duped are those who know more (in each field)
than Lomborg - meaning scientists - but there are many more people out there
who cannot evaluate the credibility of his arguments. You are obviously one
of these people. Some lay people have told me how Lomborg makes mincemeat
out of his critics, using his response to the Scientific American critiques
as an example. I beg to differ - his responses are scientifically vacuous
and shallow in each case. For example, in dismissing Steve Schneider's
argument that the IPCC did not make an estimate of the costs of inaction on
climate change (something Lomborg claims was politically motivated),
Schneider rightfully says that this is because many of the costs will be
borne out on natural ecosystems and the species that make them up,
exacerbating the extinction spasm that is already underway (two outstanding
pieces appeared in the last issue of Nature that address this point - of
course Lomborg will ignore them). Since ecosystem services are presentely
excluded in economic analyses (in spite of their profound importance), its
virtually impossible to apply a price tag to their damage or loss. In his
book, Lomborg, like Nordhaus, excludes natural ecosystems for the most part
because they do not interact (in their ignorant opinions) with human society
in any meaningful way. Thus, Lomborg replies to Schneider that he thinks it
is entirely justified to focus on agriculture rather than on ecology, as
their are more studies in this area that can be evaluated. To a lay
audience, this is an excellent argument that puts Schneider firmly in his
place. But to a scientist in ecology, it is a nonsensical argument, that
expunges humanity from the effects of climate change on "unmanaged"
ecosystems. I have made this point a number of times, that human society and
nature are inextricably interwoven, and that ecosystems and the species they
contain sustain and fulfil human life in a number of ways (outlined in
detail in perhaps the most improtant volume published during the 1990's,
"Nature's Services" ed. by Gretchen Daily). Throughout his book, Lomborg
focusses on the material economy, mostly dispensing with the natural economy
in his evaluation of the world. This is wholly flawed and dangerous, since
we now know that the former is dependent on the latter. There is nothing in
Lomborg's book on fraying food webs, wetland loss and eutrophication, coral
reef bleaching and a general transformation of marine ecosystems around the
world, the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, and
related areas that must be discussed in any meaningful overview of planetary
health. Like Julian Simon and other non-scientists, Lomborg dismisses these.
It undermines the entire thrust of his book. 

I won't make the case for outrageous statements made by NGO's and some
scientists over the years, but the truth is that humanity is now living off
a one-time inheritance of natural capital in the form of freshwater,
forests, rich soils and biodiversity. Because we understand so little about
how the complex biosphere works, further assault on these systems may alter
their functioning in ways that we cannot adapt to, and that may compromise
the welfare of future generations. There are many thousands of studies that
detail human impacts on various parts of the biosphere, and Lomborg chooses
to ignore them. But we are not exempt from the laws that govern the
eixistence of other life forms, a point I have made many, many times. In
essence we are heading in the wrong direction, and it doesn't take me all of
my scientific abilities to see this. This is why I have been so disgusted at
Lomborg's irresponsible behaviour, which is evident in the way he has
appointed himself as the "sage of wisdom". Lomborg also claims that he wrote
his book to stimulate debate, which is commenadable. If he had called his
book, "The Skeptical Statistician" and would have written that the contents
are his opinions, then I would not have cared less. But he packages his
nonsense as fact, as "the truth". He makes long rants about "this is the
real state of the world" which is palpable nonsense, given his shallow
treatment of each topic and his clear dismissal of qualitative aspects of
the natural economy. 

I want to assure you that in no way do I take this matter lightly. It took a
lot of thought for me to agree in the process of charging Lomborg with
dishonesty. But I entered into the process knowing in my mind that he is
guilty, having read his book several times and facing off against him. I
would even go further than the committee, and say that he entered the entire
environmental arena out of the desire to attain academic prominence through
the back door. All of the soundbite rhetoric used to legitimize him was a
part of the package - the "I was an old left wing kind of guy" and "a member
of Greenpeace" are nothing more then a desperate attempt to make him
plausible in a way that Julian Simon wasn't. And yes, knowing the man and
his motives as I do, he is dishonest. Completely and utterly. It is
important to point out that he has avoided me on four occasions (and our
debate in Holland occurred without him knowing I was going to speak until
the last minute). He knows I am on to him completely, and this explains why
I have had to invest so much of my time to debunk him.
   
Since you and the political right apparently think Lomborg is the new
Galileo, I challenge you to scientifically refute just these two examples
(and there are hundreds more in his book we can examine that Lomborg glosses
over). But you probably won't even reply (most of his defenders never do, or
make hollow accusations of my political motivations, without addressing the
underlying science). But I am not surprised because they cannot defend him
with scientific data. Its easy to huff and puff about how the Danish
committee - made up of senior academics in a range of fields including
political science and law - are indoctrinated environmentalists, but they
took a year to deliberate on this case and they evaluated all of the
evidence, including Lomborg's two responses (please note that Lomborg,
playing the innocent victim, never made it clear that his two rebuttals were
part of the process of evaluation). The fact is that in a scientific debate
you and your ilk are out to sea. I wrote a similar letter to a frothing CATO
fellow a few days ago and I was surprised to receive a humble reply from
him. I certainly don't expect you to reply, but you ought to know that you
are defending a dishonest individual, perhaps the most disingenuous person
to enter the scientific arena for many years.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Jeffrey A. Harvey,
Senior Scientist,
Netherlands Institute of Ecology,
Heteren,
The Netherlands