Bjorn Lomborg Vindicated
Danes Rebuke The Rebukers
A year or so ago I posted several pieces on Bjorn Lomborg, the Danish statistician whose research showed to his own surprise that the standard environmentalist litany that he had subscribed to and set out to substantiate was, in fact, overwhelmingly wrong. The revelation by a former believer provoked panic among the church leaders of environmentalism and a shabby personal attack in the Scientific American by four committed radicals that a writer in The Spectator described as devastating not to Lomborg but to themselves on account of the standards and methods employed. Nevertheless, what many believed would be the final blow came when the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSC) sided with the critics and dismissed Lomborg's work as "objectively dishonest" and "clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice" in a report given wide media coverage.
Now, after a lengthy review of the affair, the Danish Ministry of Science has rebuked the DCSC's politically correct treatment of the case as "dissatisfactory," "deserving criticism," and "emotional," and found the ruling "completely void of argumentation." Apparently, the DCSC relied simply on excerpts from the Scientific American smears for its verdict. The only other evidence came from Time magazine. No kidding. Full story in James K. Glassman's article "Skeptical Environmentalist Vindicated", Capitalism Magazine, January 4, 2004. Thanks to Lisa Liel for pointing it out.
I've also been informed that Lomborg may be preparing another project to apply his methods of statistical analysis to the subject of "infectious diseases." If this should expose some of the statistical juggling used to justify the official story on HIV/AIDS, the consequences could be extremely interesting.