GREENS are cock-a-hoop. A blizzard of I-told-you-so emails has been doing the rounds claiming victory in their campaign to discredit Danish scientist Bj酶rn Lomborg and his controversial book The Skeptical Environmentalist.
An ethics panel called the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty says Lomborg has 鈥減erverted the scientific message鈥� through 鈥渟ystematically biased representation鈥� (see 鈥淏ook ruling puts Danish institute in the spotlight鈥�). Not surprisingly, sceptics of environmentalism have cried foul. But what should independent-minded observers conclude? Is Lomborg a fraud who has got his comeuppance, a misguided maverick, or a victim of green McCarthyism?
Lomborg鈥檚 book was little noticed when published in Danish in 1998. But the 2001 English edition caused a storm. It claimed, using a mass of data on everything from demographics to toxicology, that environmentalists often exaggerate wildly and have no sense of priorities: 鈥淭hey forget that while pesticides may carry risks they also save lives by providing more and cheaper healthy food.鈥�
Advertisement
An associate professor of statistics, Lomborg was cast into the political arena last year when Denmark鈥檚 new conservative government made him chairman of its Environmental Assessment Institute, which has since attacked old policies from wind power to recycling.
Much of the case against Lomborg derives from a series of articles by prominent environmental scientists in Scientific American a year ago. The panel drew heavily on these in concluding that 鈥渋n the light of systematic one-sidedness in the choice of data and line of argument, [Lomborg] has clearly acted at variance with good scientific practice鈥�. These articles were reasoned critiques, but harsh and polemical in tone 鈥� rather like Lomborg鈥檚 own writing. One accused him of making 鈥渆gregious distortions鈥� and indulging in 鈥渨ishful thinking鈥�. Another said: 鈥淟omborg is giving scepticism 鈥� and statisticians 鈥� a bad name鈥�.
It was good knockabout stuff, and sometimes accurate. But Lomborg also got it in the neck for being unkind enough to declare the truth. For instance, his questioning of Norman Myers鈥檚 widely quoted claim that the planet loses 40,000 species every year was criticised not for being unjustified but for 鈥渇ailing to acknowledge that Myers deserves credit for being the first to point out that the number was large鈥�. Who is upholding good scientific practice here, exactly?
One complainant to the panel accused Lomborg of 鈥渦nrepentant incompetence鈥� and 鈥渄ishonesty鈥� that 鈥渉as seriously undermined the public鈥檚 understanding of important contemporary scientific issues鈥�. But read the judgement carefully and you will discover that the panel cleared Lomborg of 鈥渄eliberately misleading readers or gross negligence鈥�. That only deepens the mystery of what exactly his felony was. Can 鈥渟ystematic bias鈥� be introduced without it being either deliberate or the result of negligence?
Whatever the answer, mud sticks. Many will unthinkingly lump Lomborg in with those data-fabricating physicists who were recently unmasked in the US. So let鈥檚 be clear. Lomborg has neither fabricated data nor set out to mislead. Nor has he been grossly negligent. He has, at worst, cherry-picked his data. Doesn鈥檛 everyone? Certainly some of his critics in Scientific American would not escape such a charge.
For what it鈥檚 worth, I interviewed Lomborg when his book came out. He told me he believed environmentalists and their scientific allies have hooked us all on a doomsday vision of the future that stops us bringing health and wealth to those who still lack it. And in part, this is fair comment. Research is more likely to be funded if it is perceived to be addressing a serious threat, so many scientists cannot help but develop a gloomy 鈥� and, yes, sometimes alarmist 鈥� streak.
But Lomborg鈥檚 antidote to this gloom is itself overblown and illogical. He told me that the 鈥渃olossal sums it is planned to deploy on reducing global warming will be money ill-spent鈥�. Why? Because the problem will solve itself as renewable energy 鈥渋nevitably鈥� takes over from fossil fuels. The fallacy here is that the development of renewables is being driven by the very concerns that Lomborg says are being overplayed, and the only people talking about 鈥渃olossal sums鈥� are the oil industry suits and others who oppose renewables.
Lomborg struck me as an eager and honest researcher working outside his field and out of his depth. But science is as adversarial a process as the law. Without repeated challenges, even flawed or na茂ve ones, evidence and theories go stale. Science needs its dissidents and mavericks, and should be wary of resorting to these draconian Star Chamber tactics to silence them.
Lomborg is by no means a towering intellect or authority. But 鈥渦ndermining public understanding鈥� and 鈥減erverting the scientific message鈥� are nasty, catch-all charges that should have no place in a scientific court. The conviction by this Danish panel is unfair and bad for science. It is also bad for the environmentalists who have so applauded it. Lomborg will now be characterised as the victim of a green witch-hunt. I fear that his accusers have been guilty of just that.