People actually check stuff here.
This guy was not an expert in the relevant fields, and his work didn't stand up to scientific review. The only people who seemed to embrace it were those who had a vested interest in it being true.
I would be curious to see a legitimate dissenting view on something like global warming, but this aint it.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Bjorn_LomborgParticipating in a panel on the Earthbeat program, Dr Tom Burke, a member of the Executive Committee of Green Alliance in the UK and an environmental adviser to Rio Tinto and BP, challenged the suggestion that that made Lomborg an environmentalist: "That doesn't make you an environmentalist Bjorn, I mean that would make me a statistician because I've done some calculations".
The extensive and uncritical acceptance of Lomborg's claims prompted a reaction from many in the scientific community. In January 2002 Scientific American's editor, John Rennie, wrote the preface to a ten page critique written by four specialists. Rennie commented that "the errors described here, however, show that in its purpose of describing the real state of the world, the book is a failure". <2>
Lomborg and the Danish Committee for Scientific Dishonesty
The concern over Lomborg's misrepresentation of the science was so great that three complaints were lodged with the Danish Committee for Scientific Dishonesty, which Lomborg describes as "a national review body, with considerable authority". <8>
The committee found "the publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice". <9> They stated "there has been such perversion of the scientific message in the form of systematically biased representation that the objective criteria for upholding scientific dishonesty ... have been met".
In the wake of the decision the conservative Danish Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, requested a review of the work of the Institute for Environmental Valuation (IEV) which Lomborg had been appointed to head in February 2002. <10>
Subsequently, the Danish government appointed a panel of five scientists to evaluate the reports produced by IEV. In August 2003 the committee announced that "the panel must conclude that none of the reports represent scientific work or methods in the traditional scientific sense". <11>