As an
update to the furious
debate around the writings of
Bjørn Lomborg and especially this book, it should be noted that the
Danish Committee on
Scientific Dishonesty is now being examined itself! Apparently, they have made the
critique on Lomborgs book without setting up clear
criteria for their
claim of scientific dishonesty. At current
date (Jan. 18),
newspapers are arming themselves for yet another debate on possibly the most debated man in modern
Denmark. The
political opposition, which after the fairly recent
election became the
political left, is using the
opportunity to criticize the new,
right-wing Prime Minister,
Anders Fogh Rasmussen for his choice of Lomborg to the position of
director of the Danish
Institute for
Environmental Assessment. All sides are building an
arsenal of
mud for
slinging, in addition to their
rational arguments.
This writeup is not meant to claim right or wrong for any side in this debate. Having studied briefly at the Department of Technology and Social Sciences at
Roskilde University Center in
Roskilde, Denmark, I have had the dubious
experience of being one of three students to ask "should we simply dismiss Lomborg, or should we consider whether his claims, exaggerated or not, may be valuable
contributions to
the environmental debate?". The
comparison to committing
medieval heresy is fairly accurate, and no arguments in favor of any Lomborg claims can today be given in environmental circles without seriously damaging one's own
status. My writeup is more than anything an attempt at demonstrating the
insanity of a debate, in which any and all criticism of the
mainstream, in this case the established environmental
beliefs, is considered inappropriate.
The environmental debate needs to have two sides in order to be a debate. We need to consider the
impact done by
human action on the environment. But we also need to consider the
validity of the
warnings we hear about the state of our environment. And, as one of Lomborgs points goes, we need to consider whether to spend tons of
resources in
panic every time a new
threat is described. Even if that threat is valid, those resources require us to
sacrifice other
projects, which may be just as critical.
A note: It has just come to my attention that 250+ scientists and academic professors (many in social sciences) have signed a protest against the Committee.