Lomborg Decision Overturned by Danish Ministry of Science

[sandlapper]

http://www.imv.dk/Default.asp?ID=233

17. December 2003

<The Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation has today repudiated findings by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DSCD) that Bjørn Lomborg's book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" was "objectively dishonest" or "clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice".>

<snip>

<The Ministry characterises the DCSD's treatment of the case as "dissatisfactory", "deserving criticism" and "emotional" and points out a number of significant errors. The DSCD's verdict has consequently been remitted.>

Well, the Ministry is at least practicing honesty and a bit of oversight. I wonder if Scientific American is likely to ever acknowledge their hatchet job on Lomborg?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

1. Who said it was a hatchet job?

I know longer have that particular issue of Sci Am, but I remember thinking, "I knew Lomborg was off-base, but this is why."

[ChemEng]

2. Because Scientific American didn't let Lomborg reply...

in the magazine, it was a hatchet job. Agree or not with his premise, there should have been at least one round of back and forth.

[Roy G Biv]

10. I read the Sci-Am review.

It consisted mostly of personal attacks against Lomborg. There was very, very little dispute to Lomborg's actual claims. And part of the Sci-Am review was written by some of the doomsayers that Lomborg had proven wrong.

Lomborg put a response to the review on his website. But then Sci-Am threatened to sue him, and Lomborg had to remove it.

What I also notice is that if Lomborg is wrong 10% of the time, the radical environmentalists wage all out personl attacks on him. But when Paul Ehrlich is wrong 100% of the time, the radical environmentalists give him many prestigious and honorary awards, numerous 5 and 6 figure grants, a show on PBS, etc. Clearly, these people are not interested in the truth.

[Roy G Biv]

3. Please critique my review of Lomborg's book.

I have read Lomborg's book. I have also read the many anti-lomborg websites and the Scientific American review of his book, and many other criticisms of the book.

I have written my own review of the book. In your own words, please kindly and politely point out any errors in my review. Please do so in your own words, as I have already spent many, many hours reading the many anti-lomborg websites and critiques. Please comment in your own words, and please address specific points that I make in my review.

Here is my review:

Since Bjorn Lomborg's book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" was published in the United States in 2001, a lot of people have been very critical of Lomborg and his book. That's fine. Healthy debate and disagreement over important issues is essential to the preservation of a free, open, democratic society.

Some of Lomborg's critics have politely raised legitimate disagreements about some of Lomborg's statements, such as on global warming, the amount of public land that's covered in forest, and the size of wild fish populations. However, even these polite and civil critics have ignored the vast majority of Lomborg's book.

Many of Lomborg's other critics have resorted to waging personal attacks on Lomborg, calling him a "liar" and a "fraud" and a "charlatan," and saying that he has "no credentials." These personal attacks against Lomborg suggest that Lomborg must have struck a nerve somewhere.

I suppose that anyone who dares to give statistics and facts to disprove the doomsayer predictions that were made by Paul Ehrlich, Lester Brown, the Club of Rome, Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and others in 1960s and 1970s, is bound to strike a nerve somewhere.

The doomsayers who predicted a worsening of third world famine as the world's population doubled from 3 billion to 6 billion were wrong. Despite what Paul Ehrlich and other doomsayers predicted in the 1960s and 1970s, the truth is that over the past few decades, per capita food production has increased in China, India, Latin America, the developing world in general, and the world as a whole.

The doomsayers were wrong in their claim that the Chinese famines of the 1960s were caused by "overpopulation." And the doomsayers were wrong in their prediction that as China's population got bigger, its problem of famine would get worse. In reality, China's famines of the 1960s were caused by bad economic policies, not by "overpopulation." China's switch from collective farming to private farming in the late 1970s caused a tremendous increase in per capita food production. Today, China's population is much bigger than it was in the 1960s. And today, the people of China are much better fed than they were in the 1960s.

Despite what Paul Ehrlich and other doomsayers want us to believe, Africa actually has a low population density, and is very rich in many valuable natural resources, and has many large tracts of fertile land that are sitting idle, unplanted, with no crops being grown. The real cause of African famine is bad economic policies, not "overpopulation." Collective ownership of farmland discourages farmers from planting crops, because the person who plants the crop is not necessarily the person who gets to harvest it. Government price caps on food discourage farmers from growing food.

Poor countries remain poor because of corrupt government, bad economic policies, and a lack of strong protections of private property rights. Whenever a poor country adopts strong protections of private property rights, free market pricing, and free trade, combined with a strong rule of law, and enforcement of contracts, and holds on to these policies, the country experiences tremendous increases in its standard of living. Recent examples of poor countries transforming themselves into rich countries include Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea, and all of this happened while these countries experienced substantial increases in their populations. Paul Ehrlich said this was impossible, but real world experience proves that Ehrlich was wrong.

In the rich capitalist countries with a first world standard of living, the air and water have been getting cleaner. Once per capita GNP in a country reaches about $4,000, people can start to afford worrying about protecting the environment. And the richer the country gets, the better off its environment becomes.

On privately owned timberland, the greedy landowner is concerned about the future resale value of his land, so he usually plants more trees than he cuts down.

On private fish farms, fish populations keep getting bigger and bigger.

Government price caps on the price of water keep the price artificially low. This artificially low price encourages people to waste water. Also, this artificially low price prevents many water suppliers from being able to afford desalination plants. 70% of the world's surface is covered in water, to an average depth of 2 miles. Water "shortages" are caused by bad economic policies, not by an actual lack of water.

The doomsayers who predicted that before the year 2000, the world would run out of oil, copper, gold, iron, tin, and aluminum, were wrong. In a free market, with private ownership of resources, and free market pricing, it's impossible to run out of a resource. Scarcity of a resource leads to higher prices. Higher prices encourage users to conserve. Higher prices encourage suppliers to look for more of the resource, and/or to find a cheaper substitute. The doomsayers don't understand the function of prices in a free market economy, and that's why their predictions of "running out" of resources have been consistently wrong.

The doomsayers of the 18th century who worried about running out of candle wax and whale oil never realized that things like petroleum and electricity and light bulbs would come along. The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones, and the petroleum age won't end because we run out of petroleum.

The doomsayers who predicted global cooling and an ice age by the year 2000 were wrong.

The doomsayers who predicted the extinction of one million species by the year 2000 were wrong.

The doomsayers who predicted the total disappearance of the amazon rain forest by the year 2000 were wrong.

I recommend that you read Lomborg's book. I also recommend that you read Lomborg's critics. Then you can make up your own mind about who is right.

[Kolesar]

4. What's your point, Roy?

I thought Lomborg's book was about global warming, and not about hunger, overpopulation, timber, fish, oil, copper, gold, iron, tin, aluminum, candle wax or whale oil.

You are trying to support Lomborg by damning your "doomsayers". You don't even bother to restate Lomborg's thesis in your "review" of Lomborg's book. I reject your damning by association.

This statement borders on being the E & E forum "howler of the month": "And the richer the country gets, the better off its environment becomes. " 550 pounds of mercury rains down on my community from the electrical generation plant by the lake. I hardly call that better.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

5. And fish farming, to name just one of the "improvements" you mention

concentrates organic pollution in small areas of offshore waters, so it's not exactly environmentally sound.

[Roy G Biv]

8. Good point.

They should take that waste and use thermal depolymerization to turn it into oil, as is addressed in the article "Anything Into Oil," in the May 2003 issue of Discover magazine.

[Roy G Biv]

7. My point

My point is that the vast majority of Lomborg's book is accurate and correct, and that a lot of the people who are criticizing it have not actually read it.

"I thought Lomborg's book was about global warming, and not about hunger, overpopulation, timber, fish, oil, copper, gold, iron, tin, aluminum, candle wax or whale oil."

The book has one chapter about global warming. He also covers all of those other topics.

"You are trying to support Lomborg by damning your "doomsayers". You don't even bother to restate Lomborg's thesis in your "review" of Lomborg's book."

Every one of my paragraphs is from something that is in Lomborg's book. Every one of my paragraphs restates Lomborg's thesis. The vast majority of the book involves Lomborg explaining why the doomsayers were mistaken in their predictions. Lomborg explains that the doomsayers were wrong because their basic ideas about science, economics, and human nature are wrong.

It is indeed true that as countries get richer, their environments get cleaner and better. This is verified by the real world data. Once per capita GNP passes about $4,000, the enviornment gets better. And the richer the country gets, the better its environment becomes. Just as rich people have better access to food, clothing, housing, education, and health care, rich people also have better access to clean air, clean water, a healthy enviornment, etc.

Obvisouly, you have not read Lomborg's book.

My whole point is that the vast majority of the book is accurate, and that many of the poeple who are bashing the book have not actually read it.

[enki23]

11. define your "the environment"

consumption patterns, consumption patterns. as a country gets richer, it imports. this is not a difficult thing to understand. what we call "importing goods" can as easily be called "exporting production." and with the production goes all the problems, including environmental damage, that it entails.

look at intensive fish, and especially shrimp farming as an example. it's turned out to be environmentally *disasterous* to the areas in which it's practiced. (thailand, i think? and increasingly in vietnam, among others) the locals aren't eating the 12-count shrip they produce, it's north american, european, and japanese consumption which drive the process. shit in your own backyard, or someone else's, it doesn't matter. it's still shit.

[Roy G Biv]

12. response

When you import $100 worth of goods, you're exporting $100 worth of money. But you had to produce $100 worth of goods to get that $100 of money in the first place. Therefore, you are not "exporting production."

If those countries are farming shrimp, it's because they believe it makes them better off. We aren't forcing them to do it.

If those shrimp farming countries ever become rich, then they will be better able to deal with the waste. Rich countries can afford to spend more money on better technology to process waste.

Defining "the environment" involves the water, air, natural resources, and how well you utilize and care for those resources.

In the 19th century, we chopped down a huge amount of the trees in the U.S. We needed the wood for fuel, and we needed to clear the land to have somewhere to grow crops. Cutting down those trees was necessary to grow our economy.

Today, because of economic growth, we are richer. Instead of using wood as our primary source of fuel, we use other sources, which are more efficient. And with modern farming, we can grow way more food per acre of farmland. These two advances both allowed us to replant much of the forest. Thus, our being richer has helped the enviornment in this way.

Being richer lets us pay for better technologies so that factories and cars will pollute much less than they did before.

Being rich lets us utilize our natural resources more efficently. In the past, we used coppper wires to carry telephone signals. Today, we use fiber optic cables. Compared to the copper wire, the fiber optic cable carries far more information, but uses fewer grams of material.

In the 1950s, a computer was as big as a house, and could only do very simple calculations. Today, a computer that weighs only a milionth as much is a million times more powerful. Thus, a given mass of computer today is a trillion times better than in the 1950s.

Being richer means that you take better care of your resources, and you use them more efficiently. In this sense, economic growth is something that can continue forever, without requiring any increase in the number of grams of natural resources.

The issue that then arises is why are some countries doing so much better than others? The anser is because of the differences in their legal and economic institutions.

For example, please compare South Korea to North Korea. Both countries have similar natural resources, similar climates, similar population densities, etc. But South Korea is a rich, first world country with all the modern conveniences, while North Korea is a poor third world country where people are starving to death and there are shortages of everything.

Why the difference? It's because of differences in their legal and economic institutions. South Korea became rich after it adopted the institutions of private property rights, the rule of law, free market pricing, and freedom of contract. There are the institutions that allow resources to be utilized efficiently. North Korea does not have these institutions, and that is why they remain a poor, starving, third world country.

Every poor country in the world would become rich if they would simply adopt the correct kinds of legal and economic institutions. Take a look at pictures of Hong Kong from 50 years ago, vs. pictures of Hong Kong today, for example. The transformation is amazing.

[enki23]

13. er... to be completely forthcoming...

i didn't bother reading much past your first line. your thesis is wrong from the beginning.

"When you import $100 worth of goods, you're exporting $100 worth of money. But you had to produce $100 worth of goods to get that $100 of money in the first place. Therefore, you are not "exporting production."

you really think we only trade in goods? how about services? how about pure financial manipulation disguised as a service? using your model, explain our massive trade deficit. then, elaborate on why the model you insist on working with equates dollar value with environmental impact. even if we traded evenly dollar for dollar, how can you justify assuming all kinds of production have an equal impact on the environment?

as for the rest... you're all over the map, and are so completely beside the point that it's not really worth responding to. you've convinced me, at least, that you have absolutely NO IDEA what the hell you're talking about.

[Roy G Biv]

15. answers

"you really think we only trade in goods? how about services?"

Goods and services can both be exchanged for money, so goods and services are interchangable with each other, as far as the economy is concerned.

"how about pure financial manipulation disguised as a service?"

If a person is paying a bank for these services, and if the bank is behaving legally and honestly, then the bank must be doing something of value, or else the person would not be paying for it.

If the bank is committing theft or fraud, then that is wrong, and the government should prosecute them to the full extent of the law.

"using your model, explain our massive trade deficit."

It's like this: every week, I import more goods from the supermarket than I export to them. Thus, I have a "trade deficit" with the supermarket. But so what? Why should this be a problem for anyone?

Just because they put the word "deficit" in there, please don't let it fool you into thinking that it's a problem, as if somehow we "owe" money because of the "trade deficit." I don't owe any money to the supermarket, even though I have a "trade deficit" with it. The "trade deficit" is not a problem at all.

"then, elaborate on why the model you insist on working with equates dollar value with environmental impact."

A dollar is just a unit of measurement. It represents value. People value things like clean air and clean water, just like they value things like food, medical care, and shelter. Every economic action involves tradeoffs. We could make cars for less money than we do by spending less on the pollution reduction systems, but we've decided that it's worth spending the extra money to reduce the pollution that comes from cars. These decisions invovle tradeoffs, and money is one tool that is used to measure these tradeoffs.

"even if we traded evenly dollar for dollar, how can you justify assuming all kinds of production have an equal impact on the environment?"

They don't all have an equal impact. Different countries have different ways of doing things. And different countries place different values on different things.

[enki23]

16. i rest my case.

your words go together in ways that look like sentences, but have almost nothing whatsoever to do with the questions at hand. that, and they're just plain silly.

just one example, before i give up:

They don't all have an equal impact. Different countries have different ways of doing things. And different countries place different values on different things.

sure. like some countries value their ENVIRONMENT more than others, and are perfectly willing, and able, to pay for much CHEAPER environmental destruction somewhere where poor brown people live. that's why we don't do intensive fish farming here, where we can afford to protect *our own* environment. we pay other people a whole lot less to destroy theirs for us. the destruction happens regardless.

do you realize, at all, that this proves the point from which i started?

in our backyard or theirs, it *does not matter*. our markets are driving the damage, consumption, destruction, whatever you prefer to call it. it's a pattern that plays out over, and over, and over again. the movement to a market economy heralds a sharp decline in the local environment for undeveloped nations. some may recover enough to move into a higher tier, but they will in turn look for cheaper real-estate to pasture their appetites.

and please, no more "economics for dummies" lectures in lieu of answers. i don't believe *any* of them actually got to the point, and i don't know for sure, but i'm probably better versed in it than you are.

[Roy G Biv]

17. In the U.S.

If we hadn't wrecked our environment in the 19th century the way we did, such as by cutting down so many trees, mining, etc, then we'd still be a third world country today.

People in poor countries can't afford the luxury of worrying about protecting the environment, because they're too busy trying to get enough food to stay alive.

Only after you've managed to take care of basic needs such as food, shelter, etc., can you then afford the luxury of worrying about protecting the environment.

And there is plenty of fish and shellfish farming in the U.S. They do have the ability to not pollute excessively - it's simply a question of what kinds of laws we are willing to pass and enforce.

[blindpig]

23. cleaner and better?

So a greatly diminished biota is better? It makes me feel so much better that the passenger pigeon and ivory billed woodpecker are extinct! I can't wait for the bog turtle, blackfooted ferret and southern kestril to join them!
A pox on such homocentric crap.

[treepig]

6. The doomsayers who predicted the extinction of one million species

by the year 2000 were wrong?

really?

if so, glad to hear the good news . . . it's always a nice diversion from reality:



The Earth's species are dying out at an alarming rate, up to 1000 times faster than their natural rate of extinction.3 By carefully examining fossil records and ecosystem destruction, some scientists estimate that as many as 137 species disappear from the Earth each day, which adds up to an astounding 50,000 species disappearing every year.3,7

http://www.ran.org/info_center/factsheets/03b.html

[a2wise]

9. read the book

I have found it in every library that I have visited. Lomborg started with a basic thought, the enviromental debate should be very easy to put to bed by using my training as a statistician to prove the claims of those that are trying to protect the enviroment. Upon his initial research he was dismayed to find that the arithmatic used to base the standard arguments on, where in fact so flawed as to be dishonest. on further review of the math used to make enviromental claims he found that the math never computed. This book relates his revelation of the concept that even with the best of goals, people lie. this book is a disection of facts that can be proven or disproven using the numbers presented by the proponets of the enviromental movement. To redefine this principle again Lomborg uses the very numbers presented by the enviromentalist and uses those numbers to prove the opposite.
An example that might help is something I read on this site within the last week or so. The premise presented was that a gun club had so contaminated the soil they owned with lead that it now presented as a toxic waste area. Someone pointed out that by using the numbers given by the local government body this club would have had to fire guns at the rate of 1 or 2 shots (I forget) every secound that the club was open.
This example does not prove that there may or may not be a problem to remediated, I know nothing of lead or how it reacts in the soil. The example used is just one way of explaining what Lumborg did. Took an argument, used the numbers presented, and saw if what was claimed was possible

[enki23]

14. you look for the same book in every library you visit?

how many libraries do you visit, and what interest do you have in looking for the same book, one which you must have already read at least once, in every one of them?

the image i'm getting is some guy trekking cross the nation, stopping in small town libraries all over the good old USA.

spectacled woman: "yes sir, here it is. it's under 'L' in nonfiction."
lomborgian: "thank you maam." (exits, with a tip of his hat)
spectacled woman: "who was that masked man?"
lomborgian: (travelling down a dusty highway in an equally dusty '75 mustang) "another small town with a chance to resist the environmentalist conspiracy."
empty passenger seat: (silence)

[Kolesar]

18. I just gotta take a moment to snicker at your sarcasm

LOL!

[Landlord]

19. An all natural God?

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches quote05.html
This states the views of radical enviromentalists rather well, better than I ever could.

[Kolesar]

20. your link has an error in it eom

[iowafreed]

21. all very clever

but I dont see anyone responding to Lomborg.....His book refutes all of these arguments and a large portion of the book is devoted to foot notes using the statistics of the people that claim the death of the planet as we know it is eminate. Dispute Lomborg.

[Buzz Clik]

22. Critiquing Lomborg's book is not a trivial task

The tome is over 400 pages long with thousands of endnotes. In addition, Lomborg has been very careful and clever in his writing. He never denies the negative impact of humans on the environment and gives examples of problems. The difficulty I have with him is that he frequently quotes only environmental extremists as if they represent the mainstream; refuting those out on the ragged edge is an easy task.

I haven't dug into his book deep enough to know exactly where I'm going to come to rest on his analysis. However, I've already encountered some troubling uses of statistics. A perfect example is Figure 9 on page 33. He presents a best-fit line with no corresponding R-square value. The quality of the fit is not at all apparent; it's troubling that a statistician would omit this critical parameter from a high level discussion of data.

When reading and discussing his book, it's important to keep in mind that he is trying to prove only one point: the environment is not in as bad shape as the extremists would lead us to believe.

[MrPrax]

25. Good point...but

The problem is not necessarily Lomborg or 'extremists', but solutions to the various problems regarding our interaction with the environment.

Obviously there are thousands and thousands of things we know now through the science that we didn't know before we 'leapt'

Who would have thought that children chewing on cribs and becoming 'retarded' was due to a component of the paint.

Your last line is probably correct: "he is trying to prove only one point: the environment is not in as bad shape as the extremists would lead us to believe."

The big problem is that folks that allign themselves with Lomborg tend to think there is NO problem with the environment and subscribe blightly to the Le Chatelier Principle.

Most people suggest prudence is always best and 'better safe than sorry' is actually good advice on most things--amazingly the Industry spends billions in media each year suggesting this is 'foolhardy' when it comes to their 'interaction' of the environment.

Enivironnmentalists and scientists have every reason to be concerned with people like Lomborg and the disingenious types that use his book to suggest that there is no problem, just a problem with 'groupthink'.

Oddly few of these same people would deny there is a 'groupthink' problem in modern economics, military or national security concerns.

[Kolesar]

24. Whatever....your link still will not execute eom