Cont..

So we get to the procedural error of judging the book as a piece of scientific literature (as Lomborg requested) or whether it should have been acknowledged for what it was, a product of the 'soft sciences' not the 'hard'.

The working group could not return a consensus option on this.

Quote;

6. The Working Party's recommendation to DCSD

Against the backdrop of their review of the material, the Working Party has discussed the question on which DCSD had directed it to take up a position:

“Can a book of this nature warrant an evaluation of scientific dishonesty on the basis of the standards otherwise applied to scientific works?”

No consensus on the Working Party was forthcoming in its reply to this question, as some members of the Working Party argued that the book is not science/research but in its manifest onesidedness gives the appearance of a topical debate-generating book, while other members of the Working Party argued that the book has been presented and, in wide circles including the scientific community, perceived as research/science and must therefore be assessed in accordance with scientific standards, i.e. be examined on its individual merits in accordance with the Executive Order on the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty.

End quote.

In reality you seem to be supportive of the members who “argued that the book is not science/research but in its manifest onesidedness gives the appearance of a topical debate-generating book” since you wanted it to be judged with far less rigour.

You are right.

And still not a single error found in either the original post or any thing else from Lomborg. Much like all the other criticisms of him like DDCD and Scientific America. Just complaints that he's using data that others would prefer to keep hidden because it refutes the narrative.

So SR is in good company

more on the same theme....

http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20180626000809&utm_source=CapX+briefing&utm_campaign=79ae58d44d-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_07_17_COPY_02&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b5017135a0-79ae58d44d-241797377&fbclid=IwAR23TcSwrAUYaHA_zmGHvBmhsJ3bbsBEpNpnjhNqVqIyDGvBDX5VbAeXzOo

Dear SM and mhaze,

We might as well start listing Lomborg's errors. How about some examples from the first few chapters courtesy of Kare Fog.

Preface "I´m an old left-wing Greenpeace member". Error: Lomborg has - allegedly - paid contributions to Greenpeace, but he has never been a member of Greenpeace, and he has never worked actively in the organization. It is correct, however, that before 1997 he had been concerned about environmental questions. 

Chapter 1
"In all, Indonesia`s forest fires affected approximately 1 percent of the nation´s forests." Error: According to an authoritative report by Goldammer & Hoffmann (see comments to chapter 10, p. 116), the affected forest area made out 4-5 % of the nation´s forests. In the region that was hardest hit, 25 % of the forest area burned.

Chapter 2
"Ten years later all fears had evaporated - acid rain only damages trees under very rare conditions." Error: This is simply wrong, as explained in the comments to chapter 16. The theories on forest death that originated in the early 1980s have by and large been substantiated, and the negative trend for the condition of the forests has continued, especially in Germany. So, this is an example that things actually continue in a negative direction, but we do not hear about it, because it is no news anymore. Lomborg thinks that this example supports his point, but actually, it shows just the opposite.

Chapter 3
"In more densely populated areas, the most serious infectious diseases . . become less of a problem the closer the buildings are together." Error: This is completely contrary to Wright (1997), which Lomborg has read, in which it is stated that: " . . the urban poor are especially vulnerable to epidemics of water-related and vector-borne diseases." Thus, Lomborg makes a statement to which he has no reference, and at the same time he omits a reference, which he has read, to the opposite statement. This is a case of either gross negligence or deliberate misleading.

Plenty more to list but it's a start.

SR,

In the link to the Scientific American article that rubbished BL's work, a couple of things stand out:

1- The accusations point to BL's "inaccuracies" but with very little detail or any evidence trail.

2- The complainants were both deeply invested in the climate change which irrespective of their accreditation makes them far from unbiased.

If this article was the foundation of the negative finding, then the finding was deeply flawed.

I don't intend to follow SR down all the rabbit holes re Lomborg.

But SR's penchant for running to Google asking it to help him find a way to get out of the hole he's dug for himself isn't really a search of the truth, n'est pas?

The problem is that these opponents of Lomborg that SR keeps relying on don't find errors, they find scientific disagreement. If someone looked out of their window last week they could have easily claimed that the sky is grey. Looking today someone else could say its blue. But to then say the first is in error is basically what SR and his links do.

Two examples....
1. Greenpeace. In days of yore, Greenpeace used to assert that all who worked for or donated to it were members. Thus they could claim to have millions of 'members' one of whom was Lomborg. But in fact Greenpeace was/is a highly autocratic group with one a dozen or so members millions of minions. After some court cases, Greenpeace was required to come clean.

When Lomborg said he was a member, that is indeed what Greenpeace was telling all its financial supporters. So no error.

2. Acid rain. Many continue to claim that acid rain is real. Again careers and money are involved. But...."The 1990 NAPAP (The National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program) report, titled “Acidic Deposition: State of Science and Technology,” concluded that acidic deposition has not been shown to be a significant factor contributing to current forest health problems in North America, with the possible exception of the high-elevation red spruce in the northern Appalachian Mountains. Another study found that damage to Appalachian red spruce forests was caused by the conifer swift moth, not acid rain.

To be sure, other data says other things. But what these critics of Lomborg do is assert that he should only use the data they like and therefore he's wrong. Its the opposite of science just as what SR does is the opposite of research.