The Real Nature of the Opposition against B. Lomborg

IntroductionA paper by Rorsch, Frello, Soper, and de Lange in the Journal of Information Ethics (Spring 2005) discusses why the postulates of the Danish skeptical environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg have been opposed from the beginning by experts in the various fields dealt with by Lomborg. They conclude falsely that the experts act as a social group, using their authority to suppress Lomborg. This is a cunning statement, because if any group of experts protests, the protest will be seen as a confirmation of the statement. Instead, I will here do the tire-some but necessary job of demonstrating in detail that the claims in their paper are totally wrong.The Lomborg CaseBjorn Lomborg first published his controversial anti-environmentalist points of view in a major Danish newspaper at the start of i998; then, in the autumn of i998, in a Danish booki; and later, in the autumn of 200i, an English version of the book,2 The Skeptical Environmentalist (hereafter TSE). Editions have since been published in many other languages.The article and books ignited a fierce and continuing debate. There have been several attempts in scientific forums to clarify Lomborg's controversial claims. In all of these, Lomborg has had ample opportunity to defend his views. However, not a trace of consensus has been reached, because Lomborg has practically never made any admissions, even of obvious errors. The clarification attempts were the following:1. In May i999, a group of Danes produced a book refuting Lomborg's claims,3 and Lomborg published a response on the internet.4 A public debate was arranged.2. The same group of Danes produced an English version of the "counterbook," which appeared in June 2002.53. The January 2002 issue of Scientific American was devoted to extensive criticism of TSE.6 Lomborg's response was a 32 page rebuttal,7 which was followed by a 2i page reply by J. Holdren and the editor of Scientific American, J. Rennie.84. Complaints were lodged with the Danish Committee for Scientific Dishonesty (abbreviated UVVU in Danish). The first complaint was lodged by me in February 2002, and was soon followed by two others, viz., one by M. Hertz and H. Stiesdal (DK), and one by Stuart Pimm (USA) and Je∂ Harvey (NL). After nearly a year, in January 2003, UVVU announced its decision.9The 24 scientific members of UVVU, representing the social, natural and medical sciences, and the chairman, a high court judge, deemed Lomborg's book "objectively dishonest." By this they meant that what he wrote was, by an objective evaluation, not true, whether he was consciously aware of it or not. UVVU refrained from deciding whether Lomborg was "subjectively dishonest," i.e., whether his errors were deliberate.Lomborg appealed the decision of UVVU to the Danish Ministry of Research. In December 2003, the Ministry ruled that UVVU was not legally competent to judge on objective dishonesty, and it therefore annulled UVVU's verdict. Their competence, it was held, exclusively covered "subjective dishonesty," i.e., deliberate cheating, an issue on which, unfortunately, they had not pronounced. Further details can be read in my account, "The Lomborg Story."i0Provocative or untrue?For the sake of simplicity, we may formulate two alternative hypotheses to explain the opposition of most scientists to Lomborg's postulates.a. When Lomborg claims that many experts have exaggerated the severity of environmental problems, the experts are unable to refute this; instead, they persecute him with accusations of ignorance and with ad hominem attacks. They do not understand his approach and they defend their fields against the intruder who crosses professional boundaries. This hypothesis that Lomborg stands as a brave young man opposing the old-fashioned inquisition may be called the "Galileo hypothesis," because some Lomborg supporters have compared him to Galileo.b. Lomborg's postulates are deliberately manipulated, and may be refuted. …