Denmark Panel Won't Review Researcher
Dr. Convection
http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/247-03122004-263649.html
Denmark Panel Won't Review Researcher
The Associated Press
COPENHAGEN, Denmark - A scientific panel said Friday that it won't conduct a
new review of the work of a researcher who asserted that concerns about
global warming, deforestation, and other environmental issues are
exaggerated.
The decision by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty was a victory
for statistician Bjoern Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist,"
which won international praise and condemnation by challenging widely held
beliefs.
"I am happy that this grotesque affair has been closed," Lomborg said. "They
are not reopening the case because every stone has been turned and there is
nothing to pick up."
The panel found in January 2003 that Lomborg's book violated scientific
norms and ignored contradicting data.
At the time, the author acknowledged he may not have always quoted all
available sources, but said the panel failed to provide examples of
wrongdoing.
The book, which was translated into a dozen languages, argued that many
claims of environmental degradation are overblown, that the earth overall is
getting cleaner and that humans are healthier and richer.
In December, the Danish government declared the panel had failed to back up
its criticism of Lomborg and to give him a fair hearing.
Since then, the committee had been discussing whether to reopen the case. On
Friday, the panel decided to close it, saying it would not spend more money
and time on the issue.
Lomborg, a former member of Greenpeace, is the government-appointed director
of the national Environmental Assessment Institute, which monitors public
spending on curbing pollution.
March 12, 2004 6:28 PM
Ian St. John
"Dr. Convection" <Conve...@convection.org> wrote in message
news:HuHxD...@campus-news-reading.utoronto.ca...
> From:
> http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/247-03122004-263649.html
>
> Denmark Panel Won't Review Researcher
> The Associated Press
>
> COPENHAGEN, Denmark - A scientific panel said Friday that it won't conduct
a
> new review of the work of a researcher who asserted that concerns about
> global warming, deforestation, and other environmental issues are
> exaggerated.
That sounds right. After all, they were rebuked and told that they could
only rule on the fraud, which they have already done. There is no need to
convict him on the 'failure to follow good scientific practices' charge
which they are told they did not have a mandate to do, because it is obvious
anyway.
Thomas Palm
> From:
> http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/247-03122004-263649.html
>
> Denmark Panel Won't Review Researcher
> The Associated Press
> In December, the Danish government declared the panel had failed to
> back up its criticism of Lomborg and to give him a fair hearing.
>
> Since then, the committee had been discussing whether to reopen the
> case. On Friday, the panel decided to close it, saying it would not
> spend more money and time on the issue.
>
> Lomborg, a former member of Greenpeace, is the government-appointed
> director of the national Environmental Assessment Institute, which
> monitors public spending on curbing pollution.
After having giving Lomborg a cushy job for stating what they wanted to
hear the Danish government now has managed to suppress any criticism of
him, or in effect of their own decision to hire a person with no real
experience in environmental science to an important job in the field based
only on writing that single, flawed book.
Let's guess from which side AP got it's information. Do they normally
mention that people once were paying members of an organization like
Greenpeace? Hardly, but since that's the only credentials Lomborg seems to
have it has to be included every single time his name is brought up.
/Thomas Palm, former member of Greenpeace. Current member of SNF and WWF.
(See, I have at least three times the credibility of Lomborg :-)
Titan Point
> "Dr. Convection" <Conve...@convection.org> wrote in
> news:HuHxD...@campus-news-reading.utoronto.ca:
>
>> From:
>> http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/247-03122004-263649.html
>>
>> Denmark Panel Won't Review Researcher
>> The Associated Press
>
>> In December, the Danish government declared the panel had failed to
>> back up its criticism of Lomborg and to give him a fair hearing.
>>
>> Since then, the committee had been discussing whether to reopen the
>> case. On Friday, the panel decided to close it, saying it would not
>> spend more money and time on the issue.
>>
>> Lomborg, a former member of Greenpeace, is the government-appointed
>> director of the national Environmental Assessment Institute, which
>> monitors public spending on curbing pollution.
>
> After having giving Lomborg a cushy job for stating what they wanted to
> hear the Danish government now has managed to suppress any criticism of
> him, or in effect of their own decision to hire a person with no real
> experience in environmental science to an important job in the field based
> only on writing that single, flawed book.
Unfortunately Thomas, the only flaws where those who tried to supress it,
and failed.
FerdiEgb
Ian,
The whole decision of the DCSD was trashed, including the ruling on
"sientific fraud"...
Ferdinand
Don Libby
"Thomas Palm" <Thoma...@chello.removethis.se> wrote in message
news:Xns94AB5A4815FD1T...@212.83.64.229...
> /Thomas Palm, former member of Greenpeace. Current member of SNF and WWF.
> (See, I have at least three times the credibility of Lomborg :-)
Thomas, I am a former member of Greenpeace and WWF. What is SNF?
-dl
Thomas Palm
news:40534f04$1...@newspeer2.tds.net:
The largest Swedish organisation. I saw there acutally is an English
abbreviation too, SSNC, Swedish Society for Nature Conservation.
http://www.snf.se/english.cfm
I've even been a board member in the local organisation in Stockholm so the
difference between me and Lomborg is even larger. I've done some good, not
only paid a yearly fee.
w...@bas.ac.uk
>http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/247-03122004-263649.html
(cuts)
>COPENHAGEN, Denmark - A scientific panel said Friday that it won't conduct a
>new review of the work of a researcher who asserted that concerns about
>global warming, deforestation, and other environmental issues are
>exaggerated.
>The decision by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty was a victory
>for statistician Bjoern Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist,"
>which won international praise and condemnation by challenging widely held
>beliefs.
>The panel found in January 2003 that Lomborg's book violated scientific
>norms and ignored contradicting data.
>In December, the Danish government declared the panel had failed to back up
>its criticism of Lomborg and to give him a fair hearing.
I'm confused. Why is this a success for Lomborg? The committee made a ruling;
the govt didn't like it and told the committee to think again; and they've just
said that they won't. So the original ruling stands.
-W.
--
William M Connolley | w...@bas.ac.uk | http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/wmc/
Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | Disclaimer: I speak for myself
I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file & help me spread!
Ian St. John
"FerdiEgb" <ferdinand...@pandora.be> wrote in message
news:6350136.04031...@posting.google.com...
> "Ian St. John" <ist...@noemail.ca> wrote in message
news:<7Ax4c.45455$lT6.3...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
> Ian,
>
> The whole decision of the DCSD was trashed, including the ruling on
> "sientific fraud"...
>
claims, was trashed, not the determination itself. However, anyone who does
the same evaluation of the bias and cherry picking of the book will reach
the same conclusions. The issue was not whether the individual cherry picked
studies were valid but the presentation of cherry picked selections to
distort the overall picture of science.
As a 'victory' it is about the same as getting a murder conviction thrown
out on a 'technicality'.
FerdiEgb
> Dr. Convection <Conve...@convection.org> wrote:
> >http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/247-03122004-263649.html
>
>
> I'm confused. Why is this a success for Lomborg? The committee made a ruling;
> the govt didn't like it and told the committee to think again; and they've just
> said that they won't. So the original ruling stands.
>
> -W.
William,
The whole ruling was trashed by the Ministry, specifically the ruling
about scientific dishonesty:
"Here the Ministry must point out that the DCSD has not documented
where the respondent (BL) has allegedly been biased in his choice of
data and in his argumentation, and that the ruling is completely void
of argumentation for why the DCSD find that the complainants are right
in their criticisms of BL's working methods. It is not sufficient that
the criticisms of a researcher's working methods exist; the DCSD must
consider the criticisms and take a position on whether or not the
criticisms are justified, and why.
These are precisely the tasks the DCSD has a fundamental duty to carry
out and as this has not happened, the ruling must be remitted back to
the DCSD, cf. the above quote from the administrative law on the
consequences of neglecting the principle of inquisitorial procedure.
This type of significant neglect in case processing by the DCSD
deserves criticism in itself."
If the DCSD now doesn't reopen the case, I don't see how they can
stand up with the first ruling, as they obviously have no solid
arguments to make it clear where Lomborg was wrong...
Ferdinand
w...@bas.ac.uk
>w...@bas.ac.uk wrote in message news:<4053...@news.nwl.ac.uk>...
>> Dr. Convection <Conve...@convection.org> wrote:
>> >http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/247-03122004-263649.html
>>
>> I'm confused. Why is this a success for Lomborg? The committee made a ruling;
>> the govt didn't like it and told the committee to think again; and they've just
>> said that they won't. So the original ruling stands.
>William,
>The whole ruling was trashed by the Ministry, specifically the ruling
>about scientific dishonesty:
>"Here the Ministry must point out that the DCSD has not documented
>where the respondent (BL)..."
>If the DCSD now doesn't reopen the case, I don't see how they can
>stand up with the first ruling, as they obviously have no solid
>arguments to make it clear where Lomborg was wrong...
<sarcasm>
Oh well, if they *obviously have no solid arguments* then
clearly they are wrong. OTOH, those of us who don't have a direct
hotline from god, of who don't take the word of the Danish Govt as
gospel truth, don't know that.
</sarcasm>
The Ministry clearly don't like the DCSD ruling. OK. But the
ministry didn't overturn the DCSD ruling - as I understand it,
they can't - they sent it back for reconsideration. AS reported,
the DCSD has refused to reconsider. Why do you think that means
they think they are wrong? You could just as plausibly say they
are thumbing their noses at the ministry and saying: "we were
right the first time; we reject your instructions to reconsider".
I'm not saying I know this for sure; just that on the basis of the
reports presented here, you can't tell which is correct.
Perhaps that nice Thomas Plam has been watching the case?
FerdiEgb
William,
The Ministry legally can not overturn the ruling, but returned it to
the DCSD. In the wordings of the Ministry, because they failed to
include the most basic principles of ruling: saying where and why the
complaints and defence were right or wrong. I haven't seen any court
case in a normal democracy, where that not is done (including the case
of Greenpeace Germany e.V. against me in person). If the DCSD doesn't
reopen the case, after such a basic critique, that can hardly be
called a defence of their ruling.
I did not (yet) find much in the Danish press, neither on the UVVU
(DCSD) web site, but a reaction of one of the complainants gives a
good view of the situation:
In Danish: En af dem, der har klaget over Bjørn Lomborgs bog, er
biologen Kåre Fog. Han opfatter UVVU's beslutning om at skrinlægge
Lomborg-sagen som knæfald for regeringsmagten, og han kalder
Udvalgenes medlemmer for "kujoner".
As far a my Norwegian goes (and if the similarities with Danish hold):
One of them, who has complained [note: before the DCSD] about Bjørn
Lomborgs book, is biologist Kåre Fog. His opinion on the DCSD's
decision to file the Lomborg-saga is that it is a kneefall for the
Governments power, and he scolds the committee's members for
"cowards".
Ferdinand
w...@bas.ac.uk
>The Ministry legally can not overturn the ruling, but returned it to
>the DCSD. In the wordings of the Ministry, because they failed to
>include the most basic principles of ruling: saying where and why the
>complaints and defence were right or wrong. I haven't seen any court
>case in a normal democracy, where that not is done (including the case
>of Greenpeace Germany e.V. against me in person). If the DCSD doesn't
>reopen the case, after such a basic critique, that can hardly be
>called a defence of their ruling.
Well yes it can, as I've said: the govt said review it, they said no.
>One of them, who has complained [note: before the DCSD] about Bjørn
>Lomborgs book, is biologist Kåre Fog. His opinion on the DCSD's
>decision to file the Lomborg-saga is that it is a kneefall for the
>Governments power, and he scolds the committee's members for
>"cowards".
Well, thats certainly suggestive.
Lloyd Parker
Yes, but mainly for jurisdictional reasons and the lack of complete details
in the report.
FerdiEgb
> FerdiEgb <ferdinand...@pandora.be> wrote:
>
> >The Ministry legally can not overturn the ruling, but returned it to
> >the DCSD. In the wordings of the Ministry, because they failed to
> >include the most basic principles of ruling: saying where and why the
> >complaints and defence were right or wrong. I haven't seen any court
> >case in a normal democracy, where that not is done (including the case
> >of Greenpeace Germany e.V. against me in person). If the DCSD doesn't
> >reopen the case, after such a basic critique, that can hardly be
> >called a defence of their ruling.
>
> Well yes it can, as I've said: the govt said review it, they said no.
>
> >One of them, who has complained [note: before the DCSD] about Bjørn
> >Lomborgs book, is biologist Kåre Fog. His opinion on the DCSD's
> >decision to file the Lomborg-saga is that it is a kneefall for the
> >Governments power, and he scolds the committee's members for
> >"cowards".
>
> Well, thats certainly suggestive.
>
> -W.
William,
The press release of the DCSD is now on line, be it for the moment
only in Danish, see:
http://www.forsk.dk/uvvu/nyt/presse/lomborg_presse.htm
The main tenure (as far as my understanding of Danish is) is that it
will take a lot of time to do a new investigation, that the first
ruling did not give an indication of deliberate or gross neglect, and
therefore dishonesty, thus the DCSD does not find it reasonable to
restart such a broad new investigation.
In the DCSD's opinion, a new investigation, only on the point of
scientific dishonesty, will lead to the same result as their first
ruling. The house rules of the DCSD say that they must reject a case
for which one can expect in advance that it is unlikely that a
complainant [!] will agree with it [I include the original Danish text
here, as this seems very remarkable, and I am not comletely sure of
the interpretation: "UVVU skal afvise en sag, hvis det på forhånd må
anses for usandsynligt, at en klager kan få medhold"]. The DCSD
therefore has no legal base to reopen the complaint against Lomborg
for a renewed investigation. [comment: I begin to understand the
"cowards" scold by Kåre Fog...]
Further, around the Lomborg case, it is clear that there is a need for
more specific rules in the ruling base of the DCSD. That was already
said to the ministry in the aftermath of the 17 December decision.
In their overview of the case, this sentence after the 17 December
decision of the ministry:
"The ministry later on has disclosed that the ministry decision shall
be interpreted in such way, that the DCDS decision from 6 January 2003
is void."
I had the impression that the ministry had no legal base for a
canceling of the DCSD decision; but that seems to be wrong...
Ferdinand
w...@bas.ac.uk
>http://www.forsk.dk/uvvu/nyt/presse/lomborg_presse.htm
>In the DCSD's opinion, a new investigation, only on the point of
>scientific dishonesty, will lead to the same result as their first
>ruling.
I too cannot read Danish, but that sounds like exactly the interpretation
I was putting on it.
>"The ministry later on has disclosed that the ministry decision shall
>be interpreted in such way, that the DCDS decision from 6 January 2003
>is void."
Well, this sounds like the ministry doing it best to render the
decision void. But if it was serious, it wouldn't just be "disclosing" it
it would be putting it out officially. Who knows: perhaps it has
elsewhere.
Thomas Palm
news:6350136.04031...@posting.google.com:
> The press release of the DCSD is now on line, be it for the moment
> only in Danish, see:
> http://www.forsk.dk/uvvu/nyt/presse/lomborg_presse.htm
>
> The main tenure (as far as my understanding of Danish is) is that it
> will take a lot of time to do a new investigation, that the first
> ruling did not give an indication of deliberate or gross neglect, and
> therefore dishonesty, thus the DCSD does not find it reasonable to
> restart such a broad new investigation.
Based on my knowledge of Danish (which is a lot easier to read than to
understand when spoken) they said they had two choices, bring in a set of
external reviewers, which would take at least 6-12 month, which they find
out of proportion to the severity of the former verdict, or they could do
a new evaluation themselves, which they assume would give the same result
since no new facts would be added.
> In the DCSD's opinion, a new investigation, only on the point of
> scientific dishonesty, will lead to the same result as their first
> ruling. The house rules of the DCSD say that they must reject a case
> for which one can expect in advance that it is unlikely that a
> complainant [!] will agree with it [I include the original Danish text
> here, as this seems very remarkable, and I am not comletely sure of
> the interpretation: "UVVU skal afvise en sag, hvis det på forhånd må
> anses for usandsynligt, at en klager kan få medhold"]. The DCSD
> therefore has no legal base to reopen the complaint against Lomborg
> for a renewed investigation. [comment: I begin to understand the
> "cowards" scold by Kåre Fog...]
The way I read that sentence was that the rules say that UVVU shall
dismiss any complaints where it in advance may be considered unlikely
that the committee will agree with the complaint, i.e, they have a rule
banning frivolous complaints on their rulings. (Given the obsessive
nature of some academics that makes sense)
Torsten Brinch
>FerdiEgb <ferdinand...@pandora.be> wrote:
>>http://www.forsk.dk/uvvu/nyt/presse/lomborg_presse.htm
>
>>In the DCSD's opinion, a new investigation, only on the point of
>>scientific dishonesty, will lead to the same result as their first
>>ruling.
>
>I too cannot read Danish, but that sounds like exactly the interpretation
>I was putting on it.
Perhaps I can help, I am perfectly fluent in Danish. It is pertinent to
understand what the first ruling actually was.
Now, the DCSD has the authority to decide in questions of scientific
dishonesty. For that, two criteria must be fulfilled , firstly the
product must be objectively 'bad science' and, secondly, the originator
must have done it out of intent or negligence.
The DCSD ruling in this case was that whereas the product was
objectively 'bad science', the originator had not done it with intent
or negligence. And therefore, the ruling was that Mr. Lomborg had
not been scientifically dishonest.
(In essence they said, he didn't 'do it' on purpose, or could not
reasonably be expected to have known what he was doing.)
That's the first key thing to note: The DCSD did -not- rule
that Mr. Lomborg had been guilty of scientific dishonesty.
However, the second thing to note, is that the DCSD in the ruling added
that the publishing, as such, of Mr Lomborg's book, had been a breach of
good scientific practice.
It is -that- language use in this latter part of the ruling, which
forms the main basis for the ministry decision to ask the DCSD to reopen
the case.
Firstly, the ministry acknowledges, that the DCSD in its premises
for a ruling very well can relate to questions on good scientific
practice, but secondly the ministry notes that if it does so in the
-ruling- it may have overstepped its authority, or alternatively, it
may at least not have made the underlying norms for good scientific
practice clear, or it may not have had them right in all areas of
science -- in which context the ministry particularly mentions the
social sciences.
>>"The ministry later on has disclosed that the ministry decision shall
>>be interpreted in such way, that the DCDS decision from 6 January 2003
>>is void."
>
>Well, this sounds like the ministry doing it best to render the
>decision void. But if it was serious, it wouldn't just be "disclosing" it
>it would be putting it out officially. Who knows: perhaps it has
>elsewhere.
I haven't seen that put officially, but of course that proves nothing,
I might have missed it. However it would have been more than strange,
if it had.
Because, in the context into which I intervene here, it would have
meant to disclose or put officially something like that ' the DCDS
ruling of scientific dishonesty on the side of Mr Lomborg has been
made void by the ministry decision.'
Since there never was any such DCDS ruling, that would simply not
have made sense.
Torsten Brinch
wrote:
>The press release of the DCSD is now on line, be it for the moment
>only in Danish, see:
>http://www.forsk.dk/uvvu/nyt/presse/lomborg_presse.htm
>
>The main tenure (as far as my understanding of Danish is) is that it
>will take a lot of time to do a new investigation, that the first
>ruling did not give an indication of deliberate or gross neglect, and
>therefore dishonesty, thus the DCSD does not find it reasonable to
>restart such a broad new investigation.
This would be if the DCSD should make a whole new more thorough
examination of the case, employing external ad-hoc committees of
experts to comb through selected parts of the book so as to make a new
decision on whether or not Mr. Lomborg is guilty of scientific
dishonesty. The viewpoint there is that it would not be reasonable to
waste money and time doing that, since the best outcome Lomborg could
expect repeat ruling, the same DCDS had already made, namely that
Mr.Lomborg was not guilty of scientific dishonesty.
>In the DCSD's opinion, a new investigation, only on the point of
>scientific dishonesty, will lead to the same result as their first
>ruling. The house rules of the DCSD say that they must reject a case
>for which one can expect in advance that it is unlikely that a
>complainant [!] will agree with it [I include the original Danish text
>here, as this seems very remarkable, and I am not comletely sure of
>the interpretation: "UVVU skal afvise en sag, hvis det på forhånd må
>anses for usandsynligt, at en klager kan få medhold"].
The meaning is "UVVU must (by law) dismiss a case, if a priori it
must be considered improbable, that the complaint can be upheld"
It is said in the context of the potentiality of a renewed evaluation
in the DCSD using -only- the resources of the UVVU itself, as
was the case with the first ruling.
It is implied in a complaint over a ruling that an upheld complaint
would mean something changed in that ruling. The viewpoint of the
UVVU here is that, if the UVVU alone were to deal with the case one
more time over, it would be improbable that it would result in a
substantially changed ruling than the one it arrived to the first time.
>The DCSD
>therefore has no legal base to reopen the complaint against Lomborg
>for a renewed investigation. [comment: I begin to understand the
>"cowards" scold by Kåre Fog...]
But surely, Lomborg must understand that the limited resources of
society cannot, and should not be wasted to rule him 'not guilty' in
scientific dishonesty -- more than once.
Grin.
>Further, around the Lomborg case, it is clear that there is a need for
>more specific rules in the ruling base of the DCSD. That was already
>said to the ministry in the aftermath of the 17 December decision.
>
>In their overview of the case, this sentence after the 17 December
>decision of the ministry:
>"The ministry later on has disclosed that the ministry decision shall
>be interpreted in such way, that the DCDS decision from 6 January 2003
>is void."
Yes, I see that now. The UVVU actually writes that the ministry has
informed them of that. Well, in that case -- then -- I guess,
Mr. Lomborg can no longer boast that he has a UVVU ruling, that
says that he is not guilty of scientific dishonesty. Grin.
Hey guys! GUYS! Y'all are free to accuse Lomborg of scientific
dishonesty now again.
>I had the impression that the ministry had no legal base for a
>canceling of the DCSD decision; but that seems to be wrong...
Oh, undoubtedly it has.
FerdiEgb
Thanks a lot for the perfect translation, it is always better to have
someone who knows the language from inside (native or inhabitant) than
to try to guess what is written with a limited knowledge... Especially
in this kind of cases, where every word is weighted on a very fine
balance...
Thus in fact the UVVU/DCSD decision is cancelled and shelved, and the
chase on Lomborg is open again. Poor guy (but I have the impression
that he likes that).
Grin back,
Ferdinand
Torsten Brinch <ia...@inet.uni2.dk> wrote in message news:<kerd50po9ein4r6d4...@4ax.com>...
Torsten Brinch
wrote:
>Kjære Torsten,
Kære (the 'Kj' spelling is now old fashioned) Ferdinand
>Thanks a lot for the perfect translation, it is always better to have
>someone who knows the language from inside (native or inhabitant) than
>to try to guess what is written with a limited knowledge... Especially
>in this kind of cases, where every word is weighted on a very fine
>balance...
>
>Thus in fact the UVVU/DCSD decision is cancelled and shelved, and the
>chase on Lomborg is open again.
Well, at least that would be my interpretation. As long as the ruling
stood, noone could come out and accuse him of scientific dishonesty.
But the ministry has ruled there had been a mistrial, so the ruling must
be said to have been canceled. And the case must be said to have been
shelved, since the UVVU/DSCD has explicitly said that's what they have
done with it. So, there is also no prospect of another ruling.
>Poor guy (but I have the impression that he likes that).
Of course he has come out saying that the outcome means he has
been thoroughly vindicated. Yes, perhaps he likes the fight. Certainly
he likes to be -right-, and a bit too much IMO -- which here comes out
as his interpretation of a ruling of mistrial, followed by a shelving
of the case rather than a reopening of it .... as a vindication.
I mean, that is not -quite- a vindication, is it? I read now that he
is considering to sue for damages. If he does and can pull that
through, I'd say he would be vindicated.
Until then, I can't see why I should not to the extent I might have
the expertise feel free to consider, and accuse him of having been
scientific dishonest in some part of his book. I am certainly not
impressed by his approach in the book, on those topics I feel
somewhat qualified to judge on.
Otoh, should I seriously consider whether he has strictly been
scientifically dishonest doing it, I would most likely come to the same
conclusion as the UVVU/DSCD, that is: either his book is not to be
looked upon as science, or if it is to be judged as science, he has not
had sufficient expertise to quite know what he has been doing.
Had he only written on the title page: "This book is meant to inspire
debate, and must not be taken as the author's attempt to exhaust
any of the scientific topics covered", I would have no quibble with it.
(Otoh, had that caveat been included he could not also have blared
on the title page "Measuring the real state of the Earth" (or as it was
in the Danish version ~ "The True state of the World", nor could he
have written from the start of the book that that was the kind of
endeavor he felt he was setting out on.)
Josh Halpern
Torsten Brinch wrote:
> (FerdiEgb) wrote:
>
>
>>Kjære Torsten,
>>
>>
SNIP....
>
>
>
>Of course he has come out saying that the outcome means he has
>been thoroughly vindicated. Yes, perhaps he likes the fight. Certainly
>he likes to be -right-, and a bit too much IMO -- which here comes out
>as his interpretation of a ruling of mistrial, followed by a shelving
>of the case rather than a reopening of it .... as a vindication.
>I mean, that is not -quite- a vindication, is it? I read now that he
>is considering to sue for damages. If he does and can pull that
>through, I'd say he would be vindicated.
>
I guess that depends on the libel laws in Denmark (and maybe England).
Would the defense have to show that Lomborg (a) knew what he was talking
about and (b) was wrong in what he wrote with malice or is it sufficient
merely to show that what is in the book is wrong.
josh halpern
Torsten Brinch
<j.ha...@incoming.verizon.net> wrote:
>Torsten Brinch wrote:
>>Of course he has come out saying that the outcome means he has
>>been thoroughly vindicated. Yes, perhaps he likes the fight. Certainly
>>he likes to be -right-, and a bit too much IMO -- which here comes out
>>as his interpretation of a ruling of mistrial, followed by a shelving
>>of the case rather than a reopening of it .... as a vindication.
>>I mean, that is not -quite- a vindication, is it? I read now that he
>>is considering to sue for damages. If he does and can pull that
>>through, I'd say he would be vindicated.
>>
>
>I guess that depends on the libel laws in Denmark (and maybe England).
>Would the defense have to show that Lomborg (a) knew what he was talking
>about and (b) was wrong in what he wrote with malice or is it sufficient
>merely to show that what is in the book is wrong.
Hard for me to say, Josh. Press reports has quoted him for saying that
he considered to sue because he has been 'for a year labeled as being
scientifically dishonest', and because such charges 'tend to stick'.
However -- he can't reasonably sue for having been labeled as being
scientifically dishonest, since the voided ruling that stood for a year
patently was that he had -not- been scientifically dishonest.
What could remain to sue for damages of would seem to me to be
the part of the ruling which said that his book was not proper science.
I think it is correct that that charge, or criticism, will tend to
stick, notwithstanding that the ruling has now been canceled, and the
ministry prior to that in their motivation to ask the DSCD to reopen
the case had found that there was a dire lack of substantiation for
that criticism in the premises of the ruling.
However to pursue that matter at the courts would be problematic,
do we have any courts that can decide what is proper science?
We don't seem to have, there's only the DSCD, and it is to decide
only in terms of scientific dishonesty, whether a piece of science is
objectively improper AND subjectively has constituted scientific
dishonesty due to malice or gross negligence.
A damage suit would seem to me to necessitate a complete
reopening of the case, with an expanded base of expert committees
combing through the book with the aim to decide again, not only
if the book is good science, but indeed again to make a determination
on the question whether or not Mr.Lomborg has been scientifically
dishonest doing it.
I think that is what the DSCD meant when they said in their refusal to
reopen the case that such renewed and expanded reopening for scrutiny
they judged to be not worth the time and money - FOR THE MOMENT -.
(my emphasis) It may well have been their way of saying:
"However, if Mr Lomborg insists...".
My gut feeling is that he will not insist. The latest press release from
him rather indicates that he is happy to leave the matter where it
stands.
My translation (from Press release March 12th 2004):
"The DCSD has decided against reopening the case. That is as one
would have expected. It is more than 2 years since the case about my
book started. Every stone has been turned and the DSCD has not found
a single point of criticism which could hold up for scrutiny. In actual
fact there has been nothing to get on to. The DSCD has therefore come
to the only logical conclusion - not to reopen the case. The DSCD has
also acknowledged that the previous ruling is invalid. I am happy that
there has now been put a period to what in every way has been a
grotesque sequence of events."