Bjorn Lomberg has long been on the edges of the climate change debate telling all who need an “authoritative” source to cite that the problem was not as bad as the “extremists” were saying. His first book,The Sceptical Environmentalist, 2001, followed 4 major articles in 1998 in a Danish newspaper, Politiken, which generated something like 400 articles in major newspapers — not letters to the editor, but articles.

It’s worth noting that Lomberg has no significant credentials in climate science. He has a Ph.D in political science. He lectures in statistics and is employed at a business school. This is not to say that his approach of “collective action dilemmas” might not be useful. It’s well known that we humans, in groups and en masse often act on emotion rather than analysis; we spend millions on mitigation of small-risk problems and ignore completely large-risk problems. Under imaginable circumstances it could be wiser to spend money on AIDS prevention than on climate-change action. Those circumstances are so narrowly constrained, however, that it is wildly misleading to use such a suggestion to show current alarms about climate change are exaggerated silliness — as he does.

It is also worth noting that this is a man who loudly castigates Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth for falsehoods and exaggerations. And yet like many self appointed morality cops this one was himself accused of the same by The Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty [DSCD].

Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty. …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.

The DCSD cited The Skeptical Environmentalist for:

1. Fabrication of data;
2. Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation);
3. Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods;
4. Distorted interpretation of conclusions;
5. Plagiarism;
6. Deliberate misinterpretation of others’ results.

Wiki

The judgement was eventually annulled by the Ministry of Science with long lists of academics petitioning for and against the methods of the DCSD. Those contesting the evaluations were from the Social Sciences; those supporting from the Natural Science.

That should give you enough of a heads-up when you begin to read the PR and hear your business oriented friends talking excitedly about the new movie Cool-It— a documentary based on Lumberg’s book of the same name.

It seems he’s moved closer to realizing we have a problem on our hands, since he campaigned against the Kyoto Protocols. In his list of solvable, big problems global warming has risen a few notches, but he is still — along with Berkeley professor Richard Muller [Physics for Future Presidents] a Global Warming Minimizer — to contrast them to their targets, Global Warming Alarmists.

“Yeah, it’s not good, but premature worry only gets in the way of (our kind of) rational thinking.”

Plenty has been written about Lomborg, here, here and here. I’ll be looking for reviews of the movie by those who know how to look at the allegations. This one in the NY Times, by Jeanette Catsoulis doesn’t have a clue.

Debunking claims made by “An Inconvenient Truth” and presenting alternative strategies, “Cool It” finally blossoms into an engrossing, brain-tickling picture as many ofAl Gore’s meticulously graphed assertions are systematically — and persuasively — refuted. (I was intrigued to hear Mr. Lomborg say, for instance, that the polar-bear population is more endangered by hunters than melting ice.)

I love these falsely logical statements: More bears are killed by hunters than by melting ice — the implication being that we shouldn’t worry about the deaths by lack of ice. There were those during the Vietnam war that argued our anger at the war was overblown because more people died in highway accidents than fighting in the war…. Oh good! There must be a word for this, comparing two unhappy events to prove they are not so bad… Candide was good at this, too I believe.

More on Lumberg and Muller and alarmism vs somnolence later…. Meanwhile, don’t be taken in, and don’t go to sleep in the heat….

– Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone