Weird Science III

01/24/03: The senior scientist replies to my rebuttal.

Dear Dr. Harvey- First off, let me say thanks for writing and expressing your opinion. It's nice to know that we've got a few fans on the other side of the pond. I hope that even though you might not always agree with what you read at Fraters Libertas you'll continue to visit our site. 

THAT IS FOR SURE; MANY OF YOUR ARGUMENTS SEEM MORE AT HOME IN THE CONFERENCE HALLS OF THINK TANKS OR IN COPORATE BOARD ROOMS

 In regard to your long winded missive, dripping with condescension and arrogance, 

GLAD THAT YOU LIKED IT. AND LOMBORG'S LONG WINDED REPLIES ARE NOT FULL OF ARROGANCE? HE HASN'T LEVIED AD HOMINEM ATTACKS ON SOME OF THE MOST ESTEEMED SCIENTISTS IN ORDER TO LEGITIMISE HIMSELF? COME ON, DON'T COME TO ME WITH THAT HYPOCRISY.

 I'm going to respond with a few quick points. Unlike Danish scientists, who apparently have a great deal of time on their hands (I found it amusing that while you claim to be "too busy with my own research" to write a book exposing Lomborg. you have plenty of time to author a 4500 word e-mail to me), my hours are precious and so I'll be brief: 1. I will not attempt to answer your assertions by offering scientific evidence to dispute them. I am not a scientist and have never claimed to be one and you know that. It is incredibly disingenuous of you to challenge me to respond in that manner knowing full well that it beyond my scope of knowledge.

 WELL THEN, WHY NOT TAKE THE SCIENTIST'S CRITICISMS AT FACE VALUE? I AM FED UP WITH THE THINK TANKS, NEWS MEDIA ON THE POLITICAL RIGHT, AND PUNDITS ALL DEFENDING THEIR PIN-UP BOY WITH THE ARGUMENT THAT HIS OPPENENTS ARE ALL "IDEALOGICALLY MOTIVATED". IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE SCIENCE, WHY NOT BACK THOSE WHO DO THE WORK FOR A CHANGE, INSTEAD OF SOMEONE LIKE LOMBORG WHO HAS NO PEDIGREE IN ANY OF THE AREAS ABOUT WHICH HE WRITES. THE MANY CRITIQUES OF LOMBORG'S BOOK, AS WELL AS THE DOSSIER WE PRESENTED TO THE DSCD, WERE SUBSTANTIVE AND DAMNING, EXPOSING LOMBORGS DISTROTIONS' IN FULL. YET HE CONTINUES TO BE CHAMPIONED BY THE ECONOMIST, WALL STREET JOURNAL ETC.

 "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 don't know why you find it so amusing that I enjoyed the book but you must feel very proud of yourself to challenge me in a subject that you are a professional in and that I have only a passing knowledge of. You are quite the big man. 

 READ MY LAST RESPONSE TO YOU AND YOU WILL SEE WHERE I AM COMING FROM.

  2. Most of the charges that you level against Lomborg are related to his failures to use what you consider the proper scientific methods in his work such as peer review,  inclusion of all studies, use of empirical data, etc. So you hold Lomborg and his book to a rather strict scientific standard. Yet you also point out that Lomborg is not a scientist but rather a statistician so what does he really know about these matters anyway?

  IF HE IS WRITING A BOOK THAT CLAIMS TO BE SCIENTIFIC, WELL THEN YES, HE SHOULD. HIS BOOK COVERS MANY SCIENTIFIC AREAS VERY SUPERFICIALLY. AS SCIENTISTS WITH EXPERTISE IN VARIOUS FIELDS HAVE SHOWN, ITS JUST PLAIN WRONG IN MANY PLACES.

Like Julian Simon and other non-scientists, Lomborg dismisses these. To me this approach smacks of hypocrisy. On the one hand you expect Lomborg to meet the same standards as a scientist but on the other you knock him for not being a scientist and so unable to judge these matters objectively. Please pick one and go with it.

 CUNNING, BUT WRONG. LOMBORG'S BOOK WAS PUBLISHED BY A SCIENTIFIC PUBLISHER, WHO SHOULD HAVE SENT THE BOOK OUT TO EXPERTS IN THE DIFFERENT FIELDS. LOMBORG CLAIMS IT WAS PEER-REVIEWED, BUT WE KNOW IT WASN'T BY POPULATION ECOLOGISTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS, BUT BY SOCIAL SCIENTISTS AND ECONOMISTS WHO CAN'T TELL A MOLE CRICKET FROM A GIRAFFE. ECONMISTS DO GREAT WORK, BUT THEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND CLIMATE SCIENCE OR ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING ANY MORE THAN WE UNDERSTAND THE NUANCES OF THE STOCK MARKET. THUS, LOMBORG'S BOOK SHOULD NEVER, IN A MILLION YEARS, HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED BY AN ACADEMIC PRESS (CUP) BECAUSE THE WORK IS NOT UP TO SCRATCH. I WOULD BE DELIGHTED IF A SMALL, INDEPENDENT PUBLISHER HAD TAKEN IT ON, BUT OF COURSE IF THIS HAD HAPPENED LOMBORG WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN GIVEN ANY ATTENTION BY A GULLIBLE MEDIA, NOBODY WOULD HAVE HEARD OF HIM, I WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO FOCUS ON MY RESEARCH AND WE HAVE BEEN SPARED A BOOK AS THICK AS A BRICK AND HALF AS INTELLIGENT.

 3. I don't have much of a  problem with Lomborg's "selective use of studies" as you call it. I would challenge you to name one book intended for the wider market on environmental, sociological, or health and safety issues in the last thirty years that included all the published studies on a particular subject.

 THIS ISN'T THE POINT, AND YOU KNOW IT. I NEVER INTENDED FOR LOMBORG TO CITE ALL STUDIES, BUT TO GIVE A BALANCED REPRESENTATION OF THE RELEVANT PEER-REVIEWED LITERATURE IN EACH FIELD. HE HASN'T DONE THAT. IN SOME AREAS, AS WE SHOWED TO THE COMMITTEE, HE CITED ONE OR TWO STUDIES - SOME VERY BAD ONES LIKE THE KULP CITATION ON ACID RAIN - THAT DOWNPLAY A PROBLEM, WHILE IGNORING DOZENS OR EVEN HUNDREDS OF STUDIES THAT DERIVE OPPOSITE CONCLUSIONS. HE DOES THIS SO OFTEN IN HIS BOOK AND IN DIFFERENT AREAS THAT ITS EASY FOR PEOPLE WITH EXPERTISE IN THEM TO SAY, "HEY! WHAT'S UP HERE?"  THIS IS INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST, ESPECIALLY WHEN LOMBORG REFUSES TO MAKE THE ALTERATIONS THAT ANY GOOD SCIENTIST OR ACADEMIC WOULD WHEN CONFRONTED WITH SUCH EVIDENCE.

Were you equally voracious in your criticism of Lester Brown or Paul Ehrlich and the books that they wrote predicting widespread environmental disasters which certainly used "selective" (and it turns out largely erroneous) studies on their subjects?

 AGAIN, YOU WILL ACCUSE ME OF PATRONIZING YOU, BUT YOU (AND JUST ABOUT ALL OF THE HUNDREDS OF LOMBORG DEFENDERS THAT I HAVE HAD TO ANSWER DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW SCIENCE WORKS). WHEN EHRLICH WROTE HIS BOOK, "THE POPULATION BOMB", HE DID MAKE FUTURE PROJECTIONS BASE DON THE VERY LIMITED EMPIRICAL DATA THAT WAS AVILABLE AT THE TIME. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE WAS IN ITS INFANCY. THERE WERE VERY FEW STUDIES AVAILABLE ON ACID RAIN (HECK, WE DIDN'T EVEN KNOW ABOUT IT THEN), AND NOBODY KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT EXTINCTION RATES OR BIODIVERSITY LOSS. EHRLICH BASED HIS ARGUMENTS - WHICH WE KNOW WERE 9BUT NOT ALL) FLAWED, ON THE FRAGMENTED LITERATURE AVABILABLE AT THE TIME. NOWADYS, WE DO KNOW MUCH MORE. LOMBORG HAS NO EXCUSE 9OTHER THAN HIS BIAS) FOR EXCLUDING STUDIES HE APPARENTLY DOESN'T LIKE OR ARE CONTRARY TO HIS CONCLUSIONS.

 What about works by the WWF, the WRI, the Worldwatch Institute, or Friends of the Earth? While you try to distance yourself from these groups and claim the mantle of objective scientist you must acknowledge that all of these groups have used selective scientific studies to push their causes in the past. So now Lomborg had written a book using scientific studies to present a different viewpoint. He might not be correct on every point but for the last thirty years all the public has heard has been the doom and gloom views. As Lomborg has said, let the debate begin. 4. I found this comment from you most interesting:  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. Maybe I read the book differently than you did, after all I'm not a senior scientist, but I didn't get the impression that Lomborg was claiming that he was the sole arbiter of truth.

 BUT HE STATES IN HIS BOOK THAT "THIS IS THE TRUE STATE OF THE WORLD", WHICH IS NONSENSE, ITS AN ILLUSION. IF HE HAD SAID, "THIS IS THE WAY I PERSONALLY SEE IT" THEN THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTABLE. BUT HE SELF-RIGHTEOUSLY PREACHES ABOUT HIS "FACTS" AND "ARGUMENTS" BEING THE CORRECT ONES, WHICH IS WRONG. 

Rather he was presenting his interpretation of the statistics available and drawing conclusions from them.

 NO, WHAT HE DID WAS TO MANIPULATE HIS STATISTICAL ANALYSES IN MANY INSTANCES TO SUPPORT A PRE-DETERMINED WORLDVIEW. HE ALSO DERIVES HIS STATISTICS FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES, SOME OF WHICH HAVE BEEN OPENLY SHOWN TO BE UNRELIABLE, 

The book was not called "The Skeptical Environmental Scientist" and Lomborg made no such claim to being one. He is an environmentalist in his perspective

 THIS IS NONSENSE. HE IS AN ANTI-ENVIRONMENTALIST, THROUGH AND THROUGH. NOWHERE IN HIS BOOK DO I SEE A HINT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE. HE MOSTLY EXCLUDES THE MOST IMPORTANT AREA OF ALL -  THE NATURAL ECONOMY - AND HE SEES THE VALUE OF BIODIVERSITY MOSTLY WITHIN THE REALM OF WHAT IS IN NATIONAL ACCOUNTS - FOREGONE INCOME. THIS TELLS ME EVERYTHING I NEED TO KNOW ABOUT HIM.

and, although you would probably scoff at the notion since you seem to believe that I've been bought off by corporate interests (I only wish!), I consider myself an environmentalist too.

 IF THIS IS SO, HOW ABOUT LISTENING TO US FOR A CHANGE?

  5. Your conclusion on the damage that Lomborg is doing and why his message is wrong is a good example of the problem that many of us have with the environmental movement and the scientists who have supported it. 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 existence 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. Are you honestly going to claim that this is objective scientific analysis? "Further assault on these systems"? That's a bit of loaded rhetoric don't you think? And the use of the word "may" is also troubling. Should we halt the march of progress which has benefited much of civilization because we MAY alter natural systems or we MAY compromise the welfare of future generations?

  WHAT ON EARTH DO YOU SEE AS "THE MARCH OF PROGRESS"?  THIS STATEMENT MAKES ME HANG MY HEAD IN SHAME. NOT AT YOU, BUT AT THE POOR JOB THAT THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY HAVE DONE IN DETAILING THE MYRIAD OF WAYS IN WHICH NATURE, AND THE FREE SUBSIDIES IT PROVIDES, UTTERLY SUSTAINS US. THERE ARE NO TECHNOLOGICAL SUBSTITUTES TO THE WIDE RANGE OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES THAT PROVIDE THE ESSENTIAL LOW-LEVEL INFRASTRUCTURE UPON WHICH THE WEALTH OF SOCIETY DEPENDS. THIS IS ALSO PURELY SCIENTIFIC: I SUGGEST YOU READ "NATURE'S SERVICES (ED. BY GRETCHEN DAILY, ISLAND PRESS, 1997) OR THE FIRST CHAPTER OF SIMON LEVIN'S "FRAGILE DOMINION" (PERSEUS BOOK,S 1999) TO GAIN SOME BASIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROCESSES INVOLVED. LIKE LOMBORG, YOU SEE HUMANITY AND NATURE AS SEPARATE ENTITIES. BUT ITS BECOME APPARENTLY CLEAR THAT ECONOMICS HAS A BIOLOGICAL COMPONENT, AND THAT THE ECONOMY IS A SUBSET OF THE ENVIRONMENT, NOT VICE VERSA. WHEN I SAY "MAY", I AM INTENTIONALLY BEING VAGUE BECAUSE THE STUDY OF SPATIAL ECOLOGY IS INITS INFANCY. I CANNOT SAY WITH ANY DEGREE OF CERTAINTY HOW MUCH HUMANITY CAN CONTINUE TO SIMPLIFY NATURE BEFORE THESE SYSTEMS BREAK DOWN, TAKING WITH THEM THE SERVICES THAT WE DEPEND UPON. BUT WE ARE HEADED IN THAT DIRECTION. IF YOU THINK ITS PRUDENT TO TINKER ENDLESSLY WITH AN ARRAY OF COMPLEX ADAPTIVE SYSTEMS WHOSE FUNCTIONING WE BARELY UNDERSTAND BUT WHICH WE KNOW THAT WE ARE DEPENDENT UPON, THEN I SAY, "GO FOR IT! AFTER ALL,WE MAY PERSIST FOR ANOTHER HUNDRED YEARS BEFORE THINGS START TO GO BADLY WRONG! AND EVEN THEN, I WON'T BE AROUND ANYMORE!" ALL I CAN SAY - SPEAKING FROM A CONSENSUS AMONGST MY PEERS - IS THAT ITS FOLLY TO THINK THAT WE CAN MANAGE SYSTEMS OF STAGGERING COMPLEXITY THAT ACT AS 'LIFE-SUPPORT" WHILE REALIZING THAT WE HAVE YEARS TO GO BEFORE WE FULLY UNDERSTAND HOW THEY WORK. AND MY ADVICE TO YOU: GET THE DAILY BOOK. READ IT!

One of the things that Lomborg calls for in his book is a realistic look at the cost and benefits of our actions that impact the environment rather than a blanket condemnation of anything that harms the environment in even the slightest way in spite of the huge gains that could be achieved from it. 

HE IS WRONG BECAUSE HE FALLS INTO THE SAME TRAP AS YOU - EXPUNGE THE EFFECTS OF HUMANITY ON THE NATURAL CAPITAL BECAUSE HE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND IT, SO THUS IT MUST NOT BE IMPORTANT IN THE WAY HE FACTORS COSTS AND BENEFITS.

  6. Lastly you label Lomborg as a "classic con man" and a "dishonest fraud" , call him "dishonest" several times other times, and finally accuse him of being "the most disingenuous person to enter the scientific arena for years". If these accusations even remotely resembled the truth than surely the esteemed Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty should have had no problem issuing a finding consistent with those charges. While the DCSD did find him guilty of "scientific dishonesty" for not following accepted scientific practices (while acknowledging he was not a scientist) it also said: In view of the subjective requirements made in terms of intent or gross negligence, however, Bjørn  Lomborg's publication cannot fall within the bounds of this characterization. Conversely, the publication is  deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice.  In other words the DCSD's criticism of Lomborg rests with his methods not his intentions which you spent an inordinate amount of time on in your e-mail. You seem to have a personal problem with Lomborg that goes far beyond merely a disagreement on these issues. Jealousy perhaps?

 JEALOUSY? THANKS TO THIS MORON, I AM BETTER KNOWN AROUND THE WORLD THAN I COULD EVER HAVE ACHIEVED STRICTLY THROUGH MY RESEARCH PROGRAMME (LINKING COMMUNITIES TO ECOSYSTEMS AND THE EVOLUTION OF LIFE-HISTORIES). THE ONLY REASON THAT THE DCSD EXONNERATED LOMBORG FROM THE CHARGE OF "INTENT" WAS THAT HIS SCIENTIFIC GROUNDING IS SO POOR THAT THEY FELT HE MAY NOT HAVE FULLY UNDERSTOOD THAT HE WAS MAKING SUCH EGREGIOUS DISTORTIONS. OUCH. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY SUGGEST THAT HE IS INCOMPETENT - WHAT I HAVE SAID ALL ALONG. 

 Anyway as I said earlier I hope that you continue to visit Fraters Libertas and if you find the need to please feel free to drop us an e-mail anytime. Regards,  SAME TO YOU, JEFF The Elder P.S. In case you missed it Lomborg has a piece it today's Wall Street Journal. Check it out.

 I READ IT. AGAIN, IT SUPPORTS WHAT I HAVE SAID TO YOU - THAT HE IS A DISHONEST FRAUD.