----- Original Message ----- From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 8:41 AM Subject: Re: [Listref] Environment
> > --- Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/01/10/denmark.environment.ap/ > > > > "In his 2001 book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist," > > Danish statistician Bjoern Lomborg said concerns > > about > > melting ice caps, deforestation, acid rain were > > exaggerated. He claimed that the global > > environmental > > situation was not deteriorating. > > This whole situation has been extremely troubling, and > greatly damages the credibility of the environmental > sciences community in my eyes, I'm very sorry to say. > First, Lomborg's defense of his work: > http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002949 > > Critics of the environmental movement often argue that > the science itself is biased because a combination of > political pressure, environmental fervor, and funding > pressures cause environmental scientists to > consistently come to "Green" conclusions. Until this > travesty I had enough faith in the scientific > community to reject those arguments as a bad joke. I > don't, anymore. Jonah Goldberg had an interesting > column in National Review on this subject: > http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg011303.asp > His point - that distortions in favor of so-called > environmental causes are welcomed by the community, > but that even a balanced argument - and Lomborg's book > strikes me as quite balanced - that contradicts the > accepted wisdom of environmental catastrophe will be > suppressed - seems to be borne out by these events. > The credibility of the scientific community is one of > the most valuable assets the world has - squandering > it in this way is a crime and a tragedy. > I read the rebuttal. This is a quote from it: The committee asserts that the book presents a "systematically biased representation." Yet its only examples stem from a faithful r�sum� of the four very negative reviews from Scientific American, to which the committee devotes more than a third of its 14 pages, and which it accepts unconditionally. I wrote a 34-page rebuttal, which the committee mentions in just one line. And the irony, sad to say, goes deeper than that. My book was also viewed as flawed because it was not initially subject to a peer review. (This is untrue: Cambridge did have the book peer-reviewed.) Yet, although many scholarly journals have weighed in on the matter, the only published material that the committee referred to in its report come from two popular (i.e. non-peer-reviewed) publications, the above-mentioned Scientific American article and--believe it or not--a half-page article in Time. ("Danish Darts. Reviled for sticking it to the ecological dogma. Bjorn Lomborg laughs all the way to the bank.") I also went to his website and read the commission report. Quoting a popular science magazine as one's primary source? Any physicist who would do that would be laughed out of the room. Andrew, is the report on Lomborg's website a fake? Is he lying about what they said? Or, do you think this is an example of a good scholarly review? What is really disturbing is that, as Gautam says, environmental science appears to be discrediting itself. Writing books and articles that uses available evidence to make a point is OK in my book. Carl Sagan should not have been reprimanded for writing "Nuclear Winter" even though his assumptions were later shown to be false. If Lomborg is wrong, he should be rebutted, not reprimanded for writing something that Scientific America objects to. Dan M. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
