Talk:Bjørn Lomborg/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

I don't find any refenrence to the following web-site ([1]) which examined the book in detail. I don't find any refenrence to the many scientist who very worried by the sentence of the DCDS. This all make it a very one sided article.

(William M. Connolley: 22:30, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)) You can add the han site to the refs. Just don't think its anythnig but one-sided. I'm not sure all that many scientists were worried by the dcds verdict (you can't call it a sentence, which would imply a specified punishment).

I have added the link to HAN. You shall find lots of scientist who where worried by that ruling of the DCDS on the link to HAN. The article suggests that the verdict still stands. This is not the case. Lomborg appealed and won. The DCDS was to give an argumentation for their verdict and follow their own procedures. The DCDS found itself not to be competent to judge "The sceptical enviromentalist". That is why lomborg can write on his site;

The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DSCD) have finally ended their case March 12, 2004, rejecting the original complaints. They have decided that the original decision is invalid and has ended any further inquiry. [2]

The links to the fisrt verdict are not working may be because the DCDS has removed the web-page with the original text. --Michael Sirks

(William M. Connolley 19:59, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)): This is not the case. The DSCD were instructed by the govt to reconsider their verdict. They declined to do so. That was the end of the matter .

I am afraid your wrong. First of all it was the ministery of science which remitted the verdict and not the goverment.

(William M. Connolley 09:40, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)): The ministry of science is an arm of the govt.

The ministery of science is the high court of the DCDS. It repealed its verdict.

(William M. Connolley 09:40, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)): The min is *not* the high court of the DCDS. It has no jurisdiction over it. It did not repeal the "verdict" - because it couldn't.

Maybe we should have the original text of the announcement from the DCDS of march 12 2004 (in English). Lomborg notes that it wasn't translated into english (too embarressing).

If you were right, Lomborg shouldn't be allowed to claim on his web site that;

The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DSCD) have finally ended their case March 12, 2004, rejecting the original complaints. They have decided that the original decision is invalid and has ended any further inquiry. [3]

Check it out.

(William M. Connolley 09:40, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)): Just possibly Lomborg has an interest in this matter and may not be reporting things totally objectively - have you considered that?

I have found "The final decision of the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty in the complaint against Bjørn Lomborg" in english on the web site of the DCDS. ( [4] )

Let's analyse it;

• The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (UVVU) have decided not to resume the investigation of Bjørn Lomborg’s book The Sceptical Environmentalist.
• Such an investigation would be expected to take between 6 and 12 months, perhaps even longer. Since the UVVU did not find, during its first investigation, that Bjørn Lomborg acted with deliberate or gross negligence – and thus dishonesty – the UVVU does not find it reasonable at the present time to perform such a comprehensive investigation. (So they didn't find that he acted dishonetly)
• The rules for the UVVU (Danish Executive Order no. 933 of 15. Dec. 1998, Section 2(2)) state that the UVVU must dismiss a case if, in advance, it is considered unlikely that a complainant will succeed. Thus, the UVVU does not have any legal basis for resuming investigations related to the complaint against Bjørn Lomborg. (they find it unlikely that they find Lomborg dishonest.)
• The Ministry explained at a later date that the decision of the Ministry must be taken to mean that the UVVU’s decision of 6 January 2003 is invalid. (This is noted without an attemp to question it, so they don't question the authority of the ministery.)

(William M. Connolley 21:02, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)): This is exactly what I was saying: the DCSD never revoked their decision. BL's assertion on his website is incorrect and misrepresents their decision.

(Michael Sirks): This not what you were saying. They found him not guilty on the one thing the Danish Society for Dishonesty in Science could find him guilty on namely; deliberate or gross negligence – and thus dishonesty.

(William M. Connolley 23:57, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)): Stop and think what you are writing for just a moment. The govt was reviewing that DCSD's decision. They can't find him innocent of things the DCSD didn't find him guilty of.

(Michael Sirks): The point I am making is one of jurisdiction. DCDS found him not guilty of; "deliberate or gross negligence – and thus dishonesty". Everything else is outside their jurisdiction.

They added a number of remarks which you refer to but this was done without the examination of the specific complaints and this is where Lomborg filed a complaint against. But if you think that the verdict of 6 january is still valid, where on web-site of DCDS stands this verdict? They have removed it because it is no longer valid. So Lomborg is right when he says; The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DSCD) have finally ended their case March 12, 2004, rejecting the original complaints. They have decided that the original decision is invalid and has ended any further inquiry.

And weirdly enough, you seem to have omitted one para; this one: It is the opinion of the UVVU that such renewed scrutiny would, in all likelihood, result in the same conclusion that the UVVU reached in its decision of 6 January 2003.

(Michael Sirks): Here they obviously mean; Since the UVVU did not find, during its first investigation, that Bjørn Lomborg acted with deliberate or gross negligence – and thus dishonesty.

(William M. Connolley 23:57, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)): They mean what they say: that they would have reached the same verdict: which amounts to telling the govt to f*ck off.

(Michael Sirks): I see that you didn't add a link to the verdict. According to you the verdict is still valid but the DCDS has removed it from its web-site.

I propose to change the text in the paragraphe;

"A brief outline of the events related to Bjørn Lomborg’s book

6 January 2003: The UVVU reaches its decision in the complaint against Bjørn Lomborg’s book The Sceptical Environmentalist. The book was published by the Cambridge University Press in 2001.

The main point of the UVVU’s decision of 6 January 2003 is that from an objective point of view, it was a question of scientific dishonesty on the part of Bjørn Lomborg, because, among other reasons, the book was based on a systematically biased choice of data.

Because of Bjørn Lomborg’s lack of scientific expertise in the themes treated in the book, however, the UVVU did not find that Bjørn Lomborg had shown intentional or gross negligence. Bjørn Lomborg was therefore acquitted of the accusations of having acted in a manner considered scientifically dishonest. But the UVVU stated, at the same time, that he had clearly acted contrary to good scientific practice.

13 February 2003: Bjørn Lomborg files a complaint with the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation against the UVVU’s decision of 6 January 2003.

(William M. Connolley 21:02, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)): It is necessary to note that BL was appointed by the govt. The ministry is not unbiased, as you seem to suppose: it is a partisan from BL. It would also be desirable to clarify the authority of the govt over the DCSD: it would appear to have none: in that it clearly instructed them to reconsider; they refused; and the govt did nothing to them.

(Michael Sirks): You assume that because the goverment appointed him to a certain job that the ministery of science could not be unbiased.

(William M. Connolley 23:57, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)): Yes.

(Michael Sirks): Have you any evidence that this is the case?

So the police is also not unbiased and all other goverment institutions.

(William M. Connolley 23:57, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)): No. The sci ministry decicision was essentially a political one.

(Michael Sirks): No evidence, just a opinion.

One big conspiracy! Have your read the responds of the ministery of science? You will read of a number of procedural mistakes and of the fact that in the words of the ministery; 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. This was also why Dr. K. Fog(one of the persons who brought the complaints against Lomborg) was dissapointed with the original dicision; Lomborg and I, agree that the decision is unsatisfactory because there are no references to precise points of alleged dishonesty. If the DCDS wants to brand the sceptical enviromentalist "Dishonnest",

(William M. Connolley 23:57, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)): They didn't convict him of "scientific dishonesty". Read the text of the page.

(Michael Sirks): "If" is here the word. They can not make some off side remarks without substantiating them. It reflects badly on you that you find Oke to make remarks without substantiating them. I am beginning to doubt that you have read "The sceptical enviromentalist"

they must say where specificly he is dishonest. The ministery of science remitted the case back to the DCDS. It was up to the DCDS what to do with it.

(William M. Connolley 23:57, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)): Yes indeed. And what they decided to do was to stick by their original decision.

(Michael Sirks): Where on the web-site stands their original verdict? We can off course write a e-mail to the DCDS and aks them. And maybe we should CC it to Lomborg.

Revised entry

17 December 2003: The Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation makes a decision in the case. The Ministry finds that the UVVU has made a number of procedural errors. 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. The Ministry therefore remits the case to the UVVU. Furthermore, the Ministry’s decision states that it is up to the UVVU to determine whether it will re-examine the case. The Ministry explained at a later date that the decision of the Ministry must be taken to mean that the UVVU’s decision of 6 January 2003 is invalid.

12 March 2004: The UVVU makes is final decision in the complaint against Bjørn Lomborg’s book. The UVVU decides to close the case."

This would make text little less one sided. --Michael Sirks

(William M. Connolley 21:02, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)): Your text appears somewhat pro-L biased. A rather more succinct, and accurate, verision would be: "An arm of the mid-right-wing govt that appointed Lomborg disagreed with the verdict of the DCSD and instructed the DCSD to reconsider its decision; the DCSD refused."

(Michael Sirks): What you're saying is that the DCDS is pro-L biased because it is almost entirely the text of the DCDS.(maybe also part of the goverment.) With the exception of the excerpt of the minstery of science; Here the Ministry must point out that the DCSD ..... by the DCSD deserves criticism in itself. Because I found that part of the final verdict of DCDS a little to vague. Where on the site of the DCDS stands the original verdict. I put it to you that they have removed because it is no longer valid.

(William M. Connolley 23:57, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)): Sorry - I didn't understand that.

(Michael Sirks): The proposed text is copied from the web-page of the DCDS "The final decision of the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty in the complaint against Bjørn Lomborg" under the heading; A brief outline of the events related to Bjørn Lomborg’s book. It isn't my own text. I only added the bit of the ministery of science. Or in your words; Read the text of the page. I get the distinct impression that you want rubbish Lomborg instead of getting a well balanced article. --MichaelSirks 21:18, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(Michael Sirks): Until now (4-01-2005) I have not have not had a responds. I take it that you haven't found the original verdict on the DCDS site. That is because it isn't there because it is no longer valid. If I don't get a responds I will make the proposed change.

(William M. Connolley 22:00, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)): This is nonsense. The press release you quoted above confirmed that their decision still stands.

(MichaelSirks 08:34, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)): Where in the press release does it say that their decision still stands. In their press release it says; The Ministry explained at a later date that the decision of the Ministry must be taken to mean that the UVVU’s decision of 6 January 2003 is invalid. This is noted without any comment so it must be taken that the DCDS accepts the invalidation of the verdict.

(William M. Connolley 09:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)): Nope. It must be taken to mean exactly what it says: that the Ministry doesn't like their decision but that the DCSD hasn't altered it.

It doesn´t say that the ministery doesn´t like their decision. It says that the verdict is not longer valid. It doesn´t say that the DCDS hasn´t altered their decision. With the best will of the world you can´t read your interpretation out of the text. --217.169.231.130 10:55, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore you have not shown where the verdict of the 6 of january stands on the site of the DCDS. That is because it isn´t valid anymore. Have you send an e/mail to the DCDS asking them is if the 6 of january verdict still stands. I have and I am waiting for an anwser. You make assertion which you don't backup with references and you don't check your facts.

(William M. Connolley 09:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)): Everything I've said is backed up. By contrast, you seem to be relying on the text of an email that you haven't yet received. Do let us know if it arrives.

Where in the press release does it say that the verdict of 6 january still stands? Where does the 6 january verdict stand on the web-site of the DCDS? You don´t answer these questions. A normal unbiased person would check the facts by sending a e-mail to DCDS. You don´t. --217.169.231.130 10:55, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Inclusion of HAN in the Encyclopædia Britannica

I read here and there in this page claims that HAN is quoted in Encyclopædia Britannica at the entry for Bjørn Lomborg. With this (inconclusive) Google search I do not find any evidence on the net of this. There seems to be an article about Lomborg on Britannica online, that also claims that The Skeptical Environmentalist was nominated "book of the year" by Britannica, and that would make Britannica biased. My university, anyway, has no sufficiently recent copy of EB, the most recent being from 2002.

I rest my case that HAN must stay in the links/references section, and not be quoted at length (there are also copyright concerns). Otherwise, one may quote anybody's opinion on Lomborg, and this article would explode. HAN is no recognized academic body. --Orzetto 16:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

There is an reference in the lomborg article to HAN in the brittanica online; Four of his environmentalist opponents (two of the four who had contributed to the negative review in the Scientific American) referred the book to the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty, and the committee's judgment was based primarily on the Scientific American articles. In April 2003 a Netherlands-based academic institution, Heidelberg Appeal the Netherlands, examined the judgment. It found that there were 27 accusations against Lomborg, of which only two minor ones might be justified. Meanwhile, Lomborg had lodged a formal complaint against the Danish Committee, and in December the Danish government overturned the committee's ruling. UCS is also no recognised academic body. So revert all your changes.--MichaelSirks 22:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I put back my reduced mention of HAN's contribution to the debate. You are ignoring the entire section above, questioning HAN and the fact that there is practically no online evidence of its existence, except for its own web site, its papers, and use of those papers in a few media mentions. Britannica Online as the sole support for including such a lengthy and detailed section from HAN doesn't make sense. At least you could create an article (or even a decent stub) for HAN here on Wikipedia, if you are so much better acquainted with them. Tsavage 22:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I find the fact that Brittanica does quote HAN in its Lomborg piece sufficient to also mention it here. I find it more important what they say. They make a very good case. You should read it. Maybe it an idea to investigated the complaints in detail here on wikipedia in a new article. So I revert your chance.--MichaelSirks 20:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

HAN is an unrecognized think-tank with no more than a Web page and a few studies, that appear to be biased in the favour of "big industry". I would assume them to be fairly biased, and that's obviously in their full right. However, quoting so much from a report a small, biased and unrecognized think tank made (not even managing to spell "consideration" correctly in the file name, and publishing in a DOC file instead of a webpage or a PDF without any apparent reason for it) seems giving too much attention to it.

Do you have recognized think-tanks? The authority of such an organization rests in its members. (150 professors of universities) The spelling is also no criterium for disqualifing a organisation certainly for not native speakers of a language. Or should I ignore you for writing "that appear to be" instead of " that appears to be". (Also in my text you will find spelling mistakes.) Nor the presentation of the information in doc-file istead of PDF-file is a reason for disqualification. What is important are arguments they use. And I advise to read the documents and check with what is writting in TSE. --MichaelSirks 18:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The authors of the specific report by HAN are a professor in Molecular Genetics, a professor emeritus (="half-retired") in chemical engineering, another emeritus in industrial biotechnology, an "information specialist" (whatever they mean by that) and two non-academically qualified. No climatologists. I am a chemical engineer myself, and I can guarantee we don't have much formation in climatology. A study seeking to judge Lomborg's situation should at the very least include some expert in the field. The study itself claims to have had ...no access to probably additional information in the Danish language, meaning no one in the group spoke or could read Danish. How are they supposed to produce a serious study if no one in their group could read the original documentation? Furthermore, they seem to be unable to even write Lomborg's name correctly (Bjorn is a typo)! When presenting an official paper or report, it should be obvious to spellcheck it—this looks awfully rushed; consider that Dutchmen are the best English speakers in continental Europe. The fact that, when discussing the 27 issues they discuss, they rarely say much more than "Lomborg's right. Accusation's wrong" does not really help either. --Orzetto 17:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The authors are all respected scientists, but that is not good enough for you. The members of the DCDS where also people out of all kinds of disciplines. The accusation are not about the finer points climatalogy or an other discipline. They are;

1. Fabrication of data (3)

2. Selective discarding of unwanted results (8)

3. Deliberately misleading use of statistical results (8)

4. Distorted interpretation of conclusions (5)

5. Plagiarization of others’ results or publications (1)

6. Deliberate misrepresentation of others’ results (2)

If this was the case scientist of other disciplines could have spotted these irragularities. The DCDS has just taken the accusations at face value and haven't investigated the accusation. This was later confirmed by the ministery of science in Denmark. And remember that it is the accusor who must say where someone made an error. I am happy to trough the accusation one by one.--MichaelSirks 21:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I still maintain they are to be quoted as everyone else, but then Kåre Fog's website should be quoted at lengths too.

I have no problem with that if you also put up the point by point rebuttals of lomborg. But I don't think it will benificial for the article. The article gets the format where to sides make there point by quoting for there side favourable references, without really investigating the issues.--MichaelSirks 18:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

A more relevant remark would be that there are, in general, too many quotations (from all parts involved). Again, there are copyright issues here. I would suggest having a synthesis of the commentaries in the articles with links, not extensive quotations. So I would take out the Union of Concerned Scientists' too, for example. --Orzetto 15:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there too many quotations. Maybe would should write down the central conclusion of TSE and see if they are correct or not. Not by looking at third parties but looking at TSE and its references. Investigating ourself instead of quoting. I am not in favour summerizing the quotatations, because continue to have the arguments!! Secondly we should move the discussion to the article of TSE. This article should only contain a biography.--MichaelSirks 18:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, biography and the story about the scientific dishonesty thing, that is about Lomborg in person. For the specific issues, one should be pointed to the TSE article. --Orzetto 17:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

All the accusation of scientific dishonesty are related to TSE. The text of the timeline with regard to DCDS are from it's web-site[5]. All this has been covered in previous discussions. --MichaelSirks 21:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

If there's no rule for this in some Wikipedia style guide that says otherwise, logic and common sense seem to indicate that the charges are against Lomborg, the person, not TSE, the book, therefore, the more detailed coverage of the thing should properly be here in the Lomborg article, not the book article, unless the coverage got so usefully lengthy that it merited its own article. The charges had to do with Lomborg's actions, and any sanctions would have been against Lomborg, not the book. --Tsavage 22:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

HAN quotes suspected of extreme POV

What exactly is Heidelberg Appeal Nederland? It's hard to tell from online sources, I couldn't find clear info (but did find one story about them suspected of being financed by Pfizer...). Their reports are quoted here and there, particularly in various government-related material, but I couldn't find much information about the group itself. What is their philosophical and practical connection to the Heidelberg Appeal, from whence they took their name? And has anyone actually read the HAN submission on Lomborg. While it may be considering the DCSD actions, it reads like total, forgiving support for Lomborg, arguing stuff like, if scientists "neglect the basic principles how complex systems may behave, changing from one state into another", then they are dogmatic pseudo-scientists, so "if we read Lomborg's book with this insight..." Maybe I'm getting it wrong, but it doesn't sound too...POV to me... (A CRITICAL CONSIDERATION OF THE VERDICT OF THE DANISH COMMITTEE ON SCIENTIFIC DISHONESTY ON THE BOOK BY BJORN LOMBORG ‘THE SKEPTICAL ENVIRONMENTALIST’...With an annex “Review of the approaches in the debate on the book”. The Netherlands, April 4, 2003). This is preliminary, will look further... --Tsavage 01:20, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Ran a Google test for English language results:

• Heidelberg Appeal the Netherlands (as appears in the current article): 9
• Heidelberg Appeal Netherlands: 50
• Heidelberg Appeal Nederland (proper name): 136

The HAN director, Dr. J.C. Hanekamp (a medical doctor?),

Dr. J.C. Hanekamp has a doctorate in organical chemistry. I have no information of him being a lawyer or a medical doctor.--MichaelSirks 19:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I removed "lawyer"; the reference for "MD" is here: Dr. J.C. Hanekamp –- Medical doctor, and director of Heidelberg Appeal, Netherlands[6], publisher of the book mentioned just below (dunno where I got lawyer from, maybe misread the following credit on the page just referenced). - Tsavage 03:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

In this document[7] it says that; dr. J.C. Hanekamp

chemicus, gepromoveerd in de organische chemie which translates in English; Dr. J.C. Hanekamp chemist, got his doctorate in Organical Chemistry. Medical doctors get the same Dr. title which may have given the confusion. --MichaelSirks 17:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

is one of 10 contributors to a book: Environment & Health: Myths & Realities – 10 expert scientific contributors analyse key environment and health issues being discussed by the WHO. The book challenges the conventional wisdom that human health problems (cancer, disease and even death) are being caused and exacerbated by modern industrial society. The book offers an overview by scientific experts of the available scientific evidence concerning the impact of pesticides, dioxin, nitrates, radiation, endocrine disruptors, global warming and the precautionary principle on human health. [8] The book is published by the International Policy Network, described here (Wikipedia): "main work is to support and help establish international, rightwing thinktanks, to organise conferences and campaigns, and to write articles promoting its agenda"

This to me raises serious doubt about the objectivity of HAN. Since I can't find any references to HAN apart from citations and endorsements from trade groups commissioning and using HAN studies and reports to support their positions, I'm removing the HAN entry until clarification. --Tsavage 03:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

MichaelSirks 08:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC): This absurd. You removed an piece of text because some of its papers were published by the organisation which is discribed as rightwing. In that case we could also delete the UCS text because that's left-wing organisation. I restored the text.

A Google test for phrase "Union of Concerned Scientists" returns about 784,000 entries, compared to HAN's under 200... An organization with a clear bias and practically no readily examined history is my point here. (I'm still wondering why there is no HAN article in Wikipedia...) Tsavage 03:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

If it's good enough for the encyclopedia brittanica than it's good enough for wikipedia. Look in the article over Lomborg.--MichaelSirks 17:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

That's...absurd. Britannica is a secondary source, with its own editorial process and biases. You can quote Britannica here, if you like, but to use it as the measure for vetting other material for Wikipedia content doens't make sense. By that measure, Wikipedia could be riddled with supporting references all pointing to...Britannica. Tsavage 23:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not absurd. This material presents summary conclusions, with no examples or support, from group that is, in the first instance, little known, and secondly, difficult to easily investigate, since there is little about them online. Thirdly, any HAN material would have to be particularly scrutinized, since the appear to be a group who produce scientific papers and opinions for hire, principally taking a position against other scientists on evironmental and health issues. I've modified the intro to reflect that, you can update it, and I suggest you at least create the stub for Heidelberg Appeal Nederland? --Tsavage 11:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

MichaelSirks 15:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC): First to your changes. You removed the word academics. It is important that this word remains because else you suggest that this organisation has no qualification. According to their own web-site in english; HAN is an independent non-profit making alliance of scientists and science supporters whose aim is to ensure that scientific debates are properly aired, and that decisions which are taken and action that is proposed are founded on sound scientific principles. Members are accepted from all walks of life and all branches of science. HAN has at present over 800 donors, including almost 200 professors.

You added the qualification; a little-publicized European think tank notable for taking contrary positions to other scientists on controversial issues This is your POV of the organisation. It has no place in this article.

Now to your comment above. It is well known in the Netherlands. They aren't for hire. Would you name your source for this slur? (or is this just because they have different position then scientist with vested interest, namely research funds?). In respect to the lomborg case they provide detailed examples where the critics misquote or read out of context.

Fair enough, you have a counter-argument that I can't properly answer without looking much into further into HAN, so I'm not going to simply revert (I did change the intro to HAN on the TSE page). And, I could be wrong. But as it stands, you are using a summary quote in a context that makes it seem an impartial group has investigated and in some manner vindicated Lomborg/TSE. If it is a group dedicated to promoting Lomborg-like (generally, "anti-environmentalist") postions, then that would be all different. If it was a well-known group, with bias readers could be expected to know, that would be different as well, but how many people have heard of HAN? What you can say about HAN (so, presumably, all you know about them) is what their own site says, and that they are "well known in the Netherlands". I've read a good part of their numerous Lomborg stuff, all of those no-frills Word files, and it there is as more opinion and general pronouncement in there than any original new research. It mostly amounts to a teacher marking a paper with copious notes.

You seem maybe reasonable, but in this case, if you can't support HAN with background, you're just taking the easy way out, as most do, putting in half-read, unbackgrounded stuff. Sure, contributing is a kind of game, but people do read Wikipedia and form ideas from it, you know. You should take more pride in what you do. You asked me (I think) if I read TSE. Well, do you know anthing at all about HAN? --Tsavage 17:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

[[User:MichaelSirk--MichaelSirks 18:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)s|MichaelSirks]] 14:59, 19 May 2005 (UTC) I do know one of the members who wrote one of the critiques personally. And I can assure you that it´s not someone who´s motivated by money. What motivates him is the sense that society should base its decisions on good scientific arguments. You can of course argue over what good scientificly based arguements are. But they are very happy to have a discussion. On their site you can find what their mission statement is.[9]

Now to a sidepoint our main rival the Brittanica quotes HAN without comment. Of course we shouldn´t replicate the Brittanica. But it is an indication.

I'm spending a little of the time that I have on trying to figure out who HAN is. The initial picture is that they support a kind of laissez faire approach to science as it comes to regulation. Preliminary, perhaps, but the work I've found most often referenced are papers like:

• investigating the effect of antimicrobial growth promoters used in animals on resistance to human bacteria, i.e. as a health risk (as requested by FEFANA (Fédération Européenne des Fabricants d'Adjuvants pour la Nutrition Animale: European federation of feed additive producers) -- FEFANA asked the HAN foundation to re-evaluate the risk associated with the use of antimicrobial (antibiotic) growth promoting agents in livestock feed in relation to public health

So if industry asks you to investigate a scientific question your supect?--MichaelSirks 18:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• investigating the potential negative effects of traces of an antibiotic found in shrimp, the HAN paper being used immediately by the seafood industry to counter a strong warning by an FAO Quality Assurance Official. A day later, seafood industry news sources described a position paper from Dr. J.C. Hanekamp of the Heidelberg Appeal Nederland Foundation characterizing the issue as being needless over-inflated and arguing that even vastly increased amounts of chloramphenicol pose little or no threat to the average consumer.

• ongoing work to question the precautionary principle ("better safe than sorry" or maybe, "look before you leap") as an approach to science-based policy. "In practice, the precautionary principle has become a political tool. It's an ideal way of doing politics because you don't have to prove anything," - Jaap Hanekamp

The precautionary principle is being used instead of a cost benefit analysis or risk analysis. The precautionary principle says something bad could happen as a result of certain action so don't do it no matter the cost, no matter the chance of it occuring and no matter the possible benefits. --MichaelSirks 18:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Fine, but that's an arbitrary POV (in this case, your personal opinion/bias). Of course, both PP as a general concept, and promoting "science-based" policy by drawing conclusions strictly from science that is generally accepted as "well-established" AT THE MOMENT, are BOTH obviously used as political tools. In practice, from what I can gather, PP is often used to try buy time to gather more info (e.g. "is there a PRESSING NEED to intro duce GE crops RIGHT NOW, with so little data?"), while cost-benefit and risk analysis are based in many tech situations today on data which is...minimal, and with outcomes very much unknown, so used basically to push new commercial ventures. So PP vs. "science-based", in this context, is broadly social activism vs. business interest, therefore, strong opponents of PP must be at least evaluated in this light... Correct me if I'm wrong. Tsavage 03:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

HAN may be non-profit, but it takes requests (which it often seems to act on extremely quickly, at news speed), and it accepts donations. Also, its work seems to be made good use of by industry groups to oppose environmental and health regulations that might limit their activities. So, whatever their motivations and however accurate their work, in substance and in use, what I've found of it is parallel and consistent with the content and opinions of TSE. For a HAN summary statement to be so prominent here, without support, explanation or other context, or even a HAN article, seems too suspect to be NPOV. --Tsavage 19:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: Have no problem with using this HAN stuff in the proper context, but presenting it here as the work of an independent, neutral scientific watchdog group just doesn't hold up. --Tsavage 03:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem when we make one section where all the critiques and counter critiques stand.--MichaelSirks 17:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, but until then the section should be removed. Sir Paul 04:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

If you remove it is your responsibility to create a section which includes all the critiques and counter critiques. This must also be placed in the TSE article. --MichaelSirks 20:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

You've got things upside down. If anyone is responsible for replacing the silly HAN quote with something acceptable in a respectable encyclopedia like Wikipedia is the person who originally introduced the quote. And guess who that person is? You. Please don't revert my changes again.Sir Paul 06:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I am happy the way it is, so I am not gone change it. This "silly" quote is also in the lomborg article in the Brittanica. --MichaelSirks 09:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

This is absurd. Your methodology is to spam an otherwise decent article with a quote by an organization that has about 200 Google hits, on the sole grounds that the quote was included in the online version of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. But this, of course, is not a conclusive reason; and since is the sole reason you present for including it, it is not a good reason at all. The onus of proof, at any rate, is on your side: you are the one who should present a convincing argument that the quote belongs in the article. You may be "happy the way it is", but so far there's a strong consensus among those who have discussed the issue that the quote is wholly inappropriate. My changes, which reflect this consensus, should not be reverted until a significant number of wikipedians become convinced that there's a good case for keeping the quote. Sir Paul 22:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

First you don't relate quality of a reference to number of hits you get with google. Second the Brittanica is a high quality reference. But not only that. The persons who made investigation of the charges against Lomborg are all professors or people with a doctorate. I have offered to investigate these charges here on WIKIPEDIA instead of quoting someone else. In fact do our own analysis. I haven't got any response. Third I can't see any consensus here. But even if there was majority for a certain change it doesn't mean that is correct. We should argue on the bases of facts. --MichaelSirks 20:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The Britannica online article quoted by MichaelSirks is not exactly NPOV, it is actually quite biased. They used expressions like that Lomborg systematically demolished "the litany" of environmentalists, and plain lies such as "The book was subjected to the standard peer-review procedure", which was not: that's the claim of Cambridge press, and judging the reaction of climatologists (the "peers") such a book would never have passed review. In the EB article, the criticism by Nature was called savage review, and perpetuates the myth that Lomborg could not defend himself in the Scientific American (his defense was rejected because it would have taken a disproportionate amount of pages, about 20 if I remember correctly). The Britannica article was written by Michael Allaby, not an academic but a writer interested in "environmental science", who is clearly biased in favour of Lomborg's faction. Allaby has written a lot of books on climatology, but strangely he has only one, not-so-related peer-reviewed article under his belt, "Agriculture in a mature industrial society: The case of Britain", Food Policy, Volume 2, Issue 4, November 1977, Pages 293–304.

I believe the value of HAN as a contributor to this discussion is minimal. They are unknown in the academic world, none of their members has competence in climatology, none can read Danish (so they could not directly review the original papers, as they admit themselves), their online documents (the Web page, the Lomborg documents) are quite improvised and shabby in aspect, and especially their analysis is absolutely superficial, never looking into the issue and referencing their findings. When they say "Lomborg is right", they never elaborate like "...because he wrote on page X that it is like Y, such as reported in independent peer-reviewed study Z in journal T". Instead, their replies are single sentences, quite childish actually, consisting of self-referencing and unproven statements as The accusation is not substantiated, Unjustified accusation, Accusation not proven and so on. There is no in-depth, referenced analysis of why Lomborg would be right or wrong, they take Lomborg's arguments for good; which is quite strange, since "respectable scientists" should be familiar with how one debunks something in the scientific environment: you either reference to a trusted third party, or you make a sound logical reasoning: neither is to be found in HAN's documents. --Orzetto 10:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

PS- Note on how to get to the EB article: I noticed that, if you click on the link I provided, you do not get the full text. Click the first link from this Google search to get it. --Orzetto 10:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

EB can be good, but they can be badly biased, since they are usually (I believe) written by one person. This, of course, is the reason why wikipedia is a good idea and often better! Citing EB in support of Lomborg is not accepable. Citing EB in favour of pretty well anything controversial is probably a bad idea. William M. Connolley 11:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC).

HAN IV

Removed extensive quote from unsupported source. --Tsavage 04:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted back to Ts. I echo the suggestion to Sirks: please create Heidelberg Appeal Nederland instead of edit warring here. I very much doubt HAN is at all neutral. William M. Connolley 22:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC).

The Britannica online article quoted by MichaelSirks is not exactly NPOV, it is actually quite biased. They used expressions like that Lomborg systematically demolished "the litany" of environmentalists, and plain lies such as "The book was subjected to the standard peer-review procedure", which was not: that's the claim of Cambridge press, and judging the reaction of climatologists (the "peers") such a book would never have passed review.

The article in the Brittanica can hardly be called biased.

EB starts off with ...Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty ruled that a book challenging a number of widely held opinions was “clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice.”. I suppose we could do the same? William M. Connolley 20:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC).

For your claim that TSE was not peer reviewed plainly wrong. If you look at the TSE article you will see that Cambridge press did not only have it peer reviewed it took some extra measures to ensure it's correctness. But then I suppose you will also not trust Cambridge press.--MichaelSirks 20:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Cambridge Press is an editor. They sell books. You expect them to say their book is dishonest? If TSE could have withstood peer review, why did it not get published in journals, as normal science is? Sorry, but publishing "astonishing new discoveries" in books or press conferences is something that gets most scientists' bullshit alarm ringing like crazy. --Orzetto 15:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

In the EB article, the criticism by Nature was called savage review, and perpetuates the myth that Lomborg could not defend himself in the Scientific American (his defense was rejected because it would have taken a disproportionate amount of pages, about 20 if I remember correctly).

First there was the fact that got 1 page to respond to a 20 page attack. But second he was threatend whit legal action if he put his full response at his own site. That's why that Patrick Moore placed it on his web site dared SA to suite him.--MichaelSirks 20:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

He was threatened legally because he posted SA's text online, not for his reply. It's not like you can get 20 pages in SA like nothing, the magazine is about science, not about Mr. Lomborg. Anyway, the "savage review" description is hardly NPOV. --Orzetto 15:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The Britannica article was written by Michael Allaby, not an academic but a writer interested in "environmental science", who is clearly biased in favour of Lomborg's faction. Allaby has written a lot of books on climatology, but strangely he has only one, not-so-related peer-reviewed article under his belt, "Agriculture in a mature industrial society: The case of Britain", Food Policy, Volume 2, Issue 4, November 1977, Pages 293–304. I believe the value of HAN as a contributor to this discussion is minimal. They are unknown in the academic world, none of their members has competence in climatology, none can read Danish (so they could not directly review the original papers, as they admit themselves), their online documents (the Web page, the Lomborg documents) are quite improvised and shabby in aspect, and especially their analysis is absolutely superficial, never looking into the issue and referencing their findings. When they say "Lomborg is right", they never elaborate like "...because he wrote on page X that it is like Y, such as reported in independent peer-reviewed study Z in journal T". Instead, their replies are single sentences, quite childish actually, consisting of self-referencing and unproven statements as The accusation is not substantiated, Unjustified accusation, Accusation not proven and so on.

First HAN consists of first rate academics. If you don't know them that's your problem. I fail to see why HAN should have a competence in climatology. Lomborg doesn't deny global warming. He divers on who to act against global warming. He further notes in side remarks some uncertainties about global warming based on some articles of respected authors. Schneider says that Lomborg misrepresents those articles. The actual authors disagree with Schneider. I think the actual authors know what they mean in there own article. I doubt very much if you have read the sceptical enviromentalist.

Second the decision of the DCDS was published in english. The whole case was based almost intirely on the SA article. What you see the analysis of the critique and the rebuttal. These rebuttal are in detail. So if you want in detail analyses that the response of Lomborg to SA next to the HAN piece. Here is the link to the complete rebuttal of Lomborg of the SA piece.[http://www.greenspirit.com/lomborg/ScientificAmericanBjornLomborgAnswer.pdf--MichaelSirks 20:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

What "first-rate academics"? From what do you infer these golden qualifications? All HAN has been doing is publishing a couple of non-peer-reviewed studies (not being peer-reviewed seems to be something in fashion in that circuit). If I search for "Heidelberg Appeal" in an academic database such as ScienceDirect I get absolutely no hits. They have no recognition whatsoever. They are nothing.

Why they should have competence in climatology, you ask? Maybe to understand whether the book is actually rubbish, or whether Lomborg is being persecuted.

I do not care whether Lomborg denies or confirms global warming, this is not the issue here.

HAN made a case of going also into the formalities of the process. You cannot really do that unless you can read rules and regulations, and assess the competence area of DCSD; all documentation is in Danish, and HAN themselves state that they could not read all the documentation because of this. --Orzetto 15:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

There is no in-depth, referenced analysis of why Lomborg would be right or wrong, they take Lomborg's arguments for good; which is quite strange, since "respectable scientists" should be familiar with how one debunks something in the scientific environment: you either reference to a trusted third party, or you make a sound logical reasoning: neither is to be found in HAN's documents. --Orzetto 10:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC) PS- Note on how to get to the EB article: I noticed that, if you click on the link I provided, you do not get the full text. Click the first link from this Google search to get it. --Orzetto 10:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

You haven't reacted to my comments(under Horribly Bias Format) why I reverted your text. You haven't reacted to my suggestion to go through the accusation one by one. So it's clear that I will revert.--MichaelSirks 20:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I adjusted the DCSD ruling stuff a bit to clearly state what I believe is correct, that the ruling was a kind of a backhanded exoneration: Officially, not guilty, "but really, guilty". I believe this was the conclusion of all the old discussion from a few months back, and I believe I confirmed that by reading the summary information in the relevant DCSD annual reports, which were and may still be online, in English (I may've kept the references (I hope so). Somewhere in there was the fact that they'd also released their working papers. All of this is in the TSE summary. More attention to proper citations, footnotes, whatever :) is required... --Tsavage 19:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Could you give link to the relevant DCDS annual reports. The way stands here it is simply not correct. I will revert it.--MichaelSirks 20:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

You've re-inserted the HAN stuff, you don't like the obvious interpretation of DCDS, and for that and the rest I prefer the TS version. William M. Connolley 20:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC).

Here is the link to the English version of the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) 2003 Annual Report. There is a clear and detailed discussion of the whole thing, under Cases 4, 5 and 6 (pg 26). http://forsk.dk/pls/portal/url/ITEM/EF36913D939B7142E030E00A8201731A. (I can't believe I took notes!) I've posted the relevant text below as well, just in case the link dies (it's still alive and well right now) ;) --Tsavage 00:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

DCSD Summary: 2003 Annual Report: Cases Nos. 4, 5 and 6

Three cases of alleged dishonesty in research connected with a social science researcher’s treatment of subjects in areas including the health and natural sciences

In February/March 2002 DCSD received two Danish and one foreign complaint about a book written by a Danish social science researcher. The book had been published abroad and written in English. Since the three complaints were levelled at the same book and generally included areas of natural, social and health science, DCSD decided to treat these complaints as one at joint meetings common to all committees. A fourth complaint about the same book was submitted so late on in the course of things that it was not subjected to special consideration.

To examine the highly comprehensive contributions to the case and present them to DCSD's members, DCSD set up a working party consisting of members from DCSD's three committees.

DCSD made its decision in January 2003. In it, DCSD found that, by customary scientific standards, the defendant had acted at odds with good scientific practice in his systematically one-sided choice of data and in his arguments.

If the book was intended to be evaluated as science and not as a contribution to the general debate, then in addition the scientific message had been so distorted that the objective criteria for establishing scientific dishonesty had been met. DCSD did not find a sufficient basis, however, on which to establish that the defendant had misled his readers with intent or gross negligence. DCSD noted, in this context, that in the preface to the book the defendant had himself drawn attention to the fact that he was no expert in environmental issues.

By the time the case was considered, journalists and others had long been asking for the right to access to relevant documents, and when it became known when DCSD intended to make its ruling, it was decided to grant anyone who had requested it permission to inspect all the case files, including access to DCSD's ruling.

The defendant researcher appealed the decision to the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. The Ministry of Science delivered its ruling on 17 December 2003 and remitted the case to the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty. At the same time, the ruling was made public. The ruling, which implied a reversal of DCSD's decision, was critical of DCSD in a number of respects, partly DCSD's reasoning for the decision, including the rationale for regarding the book as a scientific work (research), and partly DCSD's use of the concept of “good scientific practice”. Other, additional points of criticism were levelled against the decision and DCSD's treatment of the case; these were predominantly of a formal legal nature.

DCSD decided not to resume consideration of the case, however, shelving it on the following grounds:

• An entirely new investigation would require the formation of one or more ad hoc committees, with the participation of external experts able to assess parts of the book. Such an investigation could be expected to last between six and twelve months, possibly longer. Since, on its initial consideration, DCSD did not find that the defendant researcher had acted with intent or gross negligence -and hence dishonestly- DCSD did not consider it reasonable to institute such an investigation now.

• Alternatively, DCSD could opt for renewed assessment of the book based exclusively on the investigations and assessments DCSD itself is in a position to carry out. Such renewed scrutiny could not be expected to lead to any result other than that set out in DCSD's decision of 6 January 2003. The rules governing DCSD (Executive Order No. 933 of 15 December 1998, Section 2, subs. 2) show that DCSD must dismiss a case if the possibility of upholding the complainant’s claim is considered unlikely a priori. DCSD thus had no basis on which to resume the complaint against the researcher for renewed scrutiny.

• Need to adjust the regulatory basis
In its concluding statement DCSD noted that the case showed up a need to qualify the regulatory basis governing the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty on a number of points. Concurrent with its reply about not reopening the case, DCSD sent a number of comments on the criticism that the Ministry of Science had levelled at DCSD's decision of 6 January 2003.

NOTE: The above is the entirety of the text that appears under "Cases 4, 5 and 6". The text formatting (italicized text, paragraphs, and bullet points) are exactly as they appear in the PDF of the 2003 report. --Tsavage 00:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Since it seems many (all?) of the currently active editors of this article are also actively monitoring this page, I'm putting my restructuring proposal here (although it's really not a big deal), rather than making the changes on the page and see what happens!

New subhead organization - Purpose is to provide a more usefully-weighted distribution of the material, in order to improve readability, and to provide a more accessible framework for additions to the article. Something like this:

introductory summary

Early years (future section)

Academic background

The Skeptical Environmentalist (with reference to main article)

Copenhagen Consensus (with reference to main article)

Recent activities

Trivia

References

See also (future section)

External links

• With the exception of "Early years" and "See also", the existing material can easily be redistributed to provide at least some info in each area.
• The scientific dishonesty charge may seem to require its own subhead to put it into proper perspective. I don't imagine formal charges like this are brought too often, but I really don't know. In any case, however, my thinking is, in no particular order: 1) official findings don't seem to exist at this point; 2) we was found (technically) not guilty; 3) the particular, highly unusual nature of the book and its coverage seem to make the DCSD thing more "part of the firestorm" than anything else, particularly since TSE wasn't put forward as hard science in the first place. I do think the dishonesty charge should be considered for mention in the introduction (how serious and unusual is it really?).
• I don't know whether this is any sort of "standard" bio format, then again, I think as far as Wikipedia is concerned, we are trying to create standards. On a practical level, I can't think of reasons why this wouldn't be an improvement?

On a...personal note, my participation in Lomborg and TSE articles began out of my own interests in related subjects, but continued mostly for wanting to get good articles. And at this point, I actually look forward to reading a balanced, comprehensive Lomborg article, since enough time and events have unfolded post-TSE to give it some context, and make the whole thing kind of mildly fascinating...

Hope all that helps! What do you think? --Tsavage 16:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• I generally agree. I'd just remove the 'trivia' section altogether. Sir Paul 04:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, it's decided, then! ;) I'll put in all the subheads, and continue to work from there as time permits. As soon as sections are filled in somewhat, I'll remove the Clean-up tag. I think it's pretty well open as to how to actually edit an article (onsite, offsite); in this case, since it's been such a mess for such a while anyhow, I think it's ok to have the framework kinda hanging out there, may lead others to pitch in...
    Sir Paul: re Trivia, I think it's all noteworthy, and that stuff would eventually get worked into a better version of the article? --Tsavage 17:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed the tag for two reasons: 1) I don't find there to be any particular POV bias, at least, at this point; 2) the tagger (Marknau 12:23, 25 October 2005) doesn't seem to have left an reasons for his action; if not, there's nothing specific to address. --Tsavage 23:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed the clean-up tag, which I'd placed a couple of weeks ago. The article appears to be stable now, regular deletions and reversions seem to've died down. The article needs lots of work, but it is basically readable and quite complete in outline. --Tsavage 19:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I see a tag that indicates that Nature has found something to correct on this page. However, I cannot find what has been pointed out. I see it is being pointed out in this page that both Britannica and Wikipedia have one problem, but it is not stated which one. Anyone has a clue? --Orzetto 10:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

(Karsten Strandgaard Jørgensen): I don't know which error they found, but I found a typo. Lomborg's 1996 article is referred to as "Evolution of Social Structure in the Interated Prisoner's Dilemma". It should be "Iterated", not "Interated". The typo also appears on Lomborg's personal web site, so that's probably where it came from. On his web site (next to the erroneous title), you can see a scanned image of the front page of the article. It reads "NUCLEUS AND SHIELD: THE EVOLUTION OF SOCIAL STRUCTURE IN THE ITERATED PRISONER'S DILEMMA". So in addition to correcting the "Interated", maybe the "Nucleus and Shield:" part should be added.

I made the changes to the title... --Tsavage 01:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

This "scientific peer-review" fuss, with its special tag, is pretty funny... I wonder which version was reviewed: given the, um, nature of Wikipedia, you'd think the published list of reviewed articles would mention the revision date (especially since it could so easily be retrieved...). One error... It could be gone, now. What does it all mean? --Tsavage 23:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The results of what exactly Nature suggested should be corrected is out... italicize each bullet point once you make the correction. -- user:zanimum

The Copenhagen Consensus project is mentioned but with no explanation of what it actually was.

Nature error corrected on 4-Dec-2005...

According to Nature's (error list), the problem was:

The Copenhagen Consensus project is mentioned but with no explanation of what it actually was.

This was actually corrected on 4-Dec-2005. I noted all of that on the error list. I also added a few more words of explanation to the lead, and removed the article page Nature error tag. --Tsavage 18:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

---

In "The Skeptical Environmentalist" (Cambridge University Press, 2001). the following lines can be found, p. 314 in respect of selecting the rate of discount and the Kyoto Protokol.

"We expect that in 2035 the average American will be twice as rich as she is now . . . Both these arguments indicate that it is probably reasonable to have a discount rate of at least 4-6 percent."

A doubling in 35 years does not equivalate a rate of increase of 4-6 percent per year, but only 2.0 percent per year.

Bjørn Lomborg and Copenhagen Concensus have based their conclusions on a rate of discount of 5% and not 2%.

It is possible that several conclusions in TSE and Copenhagen Concensus might be reversed since they are based on a simple error of calculation.

Please refer to www.lomborg-erros.dk for more information.

This argument doesn't work because the discount rate and the rate of growth of income are two different things, and the discount rate is normally expected to be higher. There are some serious problems with the way Lomborg handles discounting, but they are more subtle than this. JQ 21:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I moved a copyedited version of the last posted version (which wasn't exactly as above) to the Criticism section in Copenhagen Consensus. You can debate/delete it there, as it doesn't seem to fit here. I'll check back in a couple days and maybe move it to Talk there if no-one has addressed it, besed on the observation above. --Tsavage 22:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

This is OK to move this remark to another location. There is a close relation between rate of growth and rate of discount. Most people will select a rate of discount over many year to 1 - 2 percent. Pease refer to IPCC. Thank you for your remark. KFL 29.01.2006

There's a good case for using low or zero discount rates for environmental outcomes over long periods, but it doesn't follow automatically from the growth rate of income as suggested above. The CC post needs more discussion of this JQ

The claim that the decision not to reopen the case rendered the initial decision invalid is interpretation by Fog, rather than that of the DCSD. Also added info on rejection of Fog's appeal, as reported by Fog JQ 08:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

the initial decision being invalid is "official". I merely provided that reference as a reference to chronicle of event, not specifically a reference to the official decision. What I could see is that many antiBL people still consider the initial finding of scientific dishonesty to be "valid" in the sence that it is "true". IMO, these people have more credibility if they had equally rubbished some of "scientific" claims coming out from green ideologue. FWBOarticle

If it's "officially invalid", provide a link to DCSD saying this. The question of whether anti-Bl people think the initial finding was true is irrelevant: presumably they think this regardless of what any committee does or doesn't do. Similarly, their credibility is irrelevant to the question at issue here.

" The Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation has repudiated the findings by one of its own committees that Bjorn Lomborg's book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" was "objectively dishonest" or "clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice"." [10] I believe BBC is neutral/credible enough source here. Afterall, I (and You, I presume) don't read danish. You edit somewhat prove my contention that antiLB people wish the verdict to be still valid/true. It's a dead issue so let it go. FWBOarticle 15:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You might want to read the previous discussion

here. From my understanding of Danish administrative law, it should be clear that the ministry has the authority to remit the decision to the DCSD. And as the DCSD did not reopen the case the decision must necessarily be invalid. According to Danish administrative law they certainly aren't able to ignore a decision made by the supervising ministry. Rasmus (talk)

18:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The previous discussion doesn't seem to help. The BBC source just reports the reversal - it's not a source for the claims made here. You need a source for "At a later date, the Ministry explained that its decision implied that the Committees' previous verdict was invalid." presumably this was reported somewhere If you want to claim further that the DCSD decision not to review also implied invalidity, then you should give a source for this. For example, "According to Danish Administrative Law commentator, Rasmus Faber, this implied ..." You could use the DCSD Annual Report (linked from the BBC) which says that the Ministry decision "Implied a reversal" of the DCSD findings. That would be a proper source, unlike what is there now. JQ 19:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The DCSD decision was disliked by the right wing Danish govt, cos they appointed Lomborg, so it embarassed them. So they learnt on the ministry, who decided to "invalidate" it. But the DCSD never accepted this: thye just said "we won't bother re-open cos we'll decide the same thing". We should not pretend that the science ministry was neutral in this. William M. Connolley 20:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

(via edit conflict) Ah, I hadn't noticed the exact sentence you were objecting to. Rereading it, I would probably agree that it is misleading. The decision was rendered invalid by the ministry remitting the decision, not by the DCSD deciding not to act further on the complaint. Also, what DCSD did was not quite "not acting further on the complaint". They followed the decision by the ministry to decide the question of BL's scientific (dis)honesty. By the rules of the DCSD, if it is obviously that a complaint will result in an verdict of innocence, they have to summarily reject it - and since BL there was no reason to believe they would come to a different decision about scientific (dis)honesty if they performed a second investigation, they had to reject the complaint, thus closing the case without making further verdicts. In effect the decision was changed from "BL's book is contrary to good scientific practice, but BL is innocent of scientific dishonesty" to "BL is innocent of scientific dishonesty". As for a source for the ministry explaining the invalidity of the decision, there is one here. Rasmus (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all of that, except the last bit. I can see no evidence for the DCSD having changed their verdict in any way. I'm happy to have it said that the *ministry* altered the decision, but if so, it should be clear that the ministry was not neutral in the matter. William M. Connolley 21:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I've just finished reading the previous discussion. The term "remit" means, "to bring back to the original position". So the verdict including the charge of TSL being "contrary to good scientific practice" has been invalidated at this point. I will change the edit accordingly. The allegation which Willaim is making is that this reversal by the ministry is political. But the other side (BL and his supporter) and the ministery practically made the same assucation about the committee. What is clear is that ministery's decision is based strictly on the legal technicality of the regulation of the process which govern the committee. Calling it "political" is just a silly ass argument from both side.

The committee, in turn, stated that they won't review the case because it will result in the same "verdict". I think the controversy is the perception of the term "the verdict". This statement is taken by antiBJ groups to mean that the committee will find TSE and BL to be a scientific fraud again. This is not correct. Had the committee's decision based on such reasoning, they obviously had to provide justification for such belief, in effect, reopening the case. The committee's decision is solely on the ground that they will find BJ "not guilty of scientific dishonesty". To imply otherwise is just a spindoctoring.

But more importantly, the committee was given a chance to reconsider the charge against BJ under new conditions (listed in the main page). This time the committee have to provide "specific statements on actual errors" and BL has the right to argue his case in front of them. This seems fair and "scientific" to me. Isn't this what the process of determining "truth" supposed to be in legal as well as all emperical process including natural science? Whichever way the verdict turned out, it would have been a closure. Instead, the committee came up and said, "well, we won't reopen the case and we are covertyly impliying here that we will find his book a fraud anyway but we won't say that because that will force us to reopen the case. We will not show you how we get to this view because we are not going to debate it anymore". The committee's decision looks more political to me. They used legal techincality to avoid defendnig their case in public. The ministry on the other hand did exactly opposite. This, in turn, raise a doubt as to the neutrality of the committee's original verdict. The whole episode stinks, IMO. FWBOarticle

For the record, I claim no expertise in this or any other scientific subject. My only qualification to engage in this discussion is a reasonably intelligent mind and a generaly rational disposition (which causes me to sometimes offend those who assume that a previous stance on one issue pigeonholes me and makes me predictable on all issues). I have read The Skeptical Environmentalist from cover to cover, including a perusual of the 2000+ footnotes.

I made an edit today which

has seen fit to revert, and I was puzzled. I had read the entire Lomborg article—not for the first time—before making it, and I did not understand William's point. So I then read over this article's talk page, and found that the discussions in the past have been lively, but also at times a bit juvenile.

For myself, at this moment I remain of the opinion that Lomborg has essentially been "cleared" of any scientific malpractice, due to the DSCD decision to not re-examine the case. William makes the quite probable point that they [DSCD] had been taken to task by a right-wing Danish government, and saw no reason to butt heads with them again. But I would consider it equally probable, indeed, perhaps even more likely, that the DSCD had been caught with their pants down, so to speak. That perhaps they had thought they could attach some rather vague criticisms to Lomborg and his work, without getting specific, and they simply got called on it. Just as it is that the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation may have a right-wing agenda, it seems to me that the DSCD may have a left-wing agenda (though, presuming that its membership is not politically appointed, this would be less obvious). Accordingly, we have two agencies, with differing opinions on Lomborg, perhaps even two pre-ordained agendas on Lomborg. What then are we to make of the current state of affairs? Since the DSCD has the authority to further pursue the matter, and chooses not to, I think a fair-minded person has to give Lomborg the benefit of the doubt. DSCD's failure to further prosecute the issue does not prove Lomborg's work to be good and valid, but I think it must give one a presumption of such.

After all, when in the (Anglo-American) courts one is convicted of a crime, and the appeals courts "throws out" the conviction, that person has not been found innocent. It merely means that they were not tried fairly. It is up to the prosecutor to decide whether or not to pursue the case further. But if the prosecutor opts not to try the case again, then the formerly accused person is accorded all the same rights and priveleges granted to those never accused of a crime. No one can say for sure if he is innocent, but the onus is on the accuser/prosecutor to prove that he is guilty.

Lomborg's accusers have chosen to let the matter drop. My initial assumption upon reading this was that they knew that they had overreached, and that they would be unlikely to be able to successfully level their accusations within the parameters that proper procedure (according to MSTI) required.

That is why I said in my edit that the accsations of scientific dishonesty were settled in Lomborg's favor. All that remains of the claims against Lomborg are memories of dismissed allegations. DSCD has the right to revive these, but, choosing not to, Lomborg is entitled to say that his work stands. Controversial it is, of course, but officially it stands. At least, that's what I see. I welcome further discussion of this matter, and will hold off on any edits or reverts for the time being.

And, by the way, I know that scientific review and judicial procedure are not exactly the same. But I think that fairness is fairness, wherever it is found. Unschool 21:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you say, but not the conclusion or summary. The DSCD found Lomborg guilty; the govt disagreed and told them to review their decision; and they said no. You can't call that clearing Lomborg. I agree entirely with your we have two agencies, with differing opinions on Lomborg - which is why summarisig it as Lomborg was cleared is far too one sided to be acceptable William M. Connolley 22:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me for employing another American judicial analogy, William, but here goes. Supposing that a prosecutor convened a grand jury to hear evidence against an individual, Mr. Jones. The prosecutor then secures an indictment of Mr. Jones based upon one-sided evidence (not actually unethical in American grand juries) and then the prosecutor and the judge collude to achieve a conviction of Mr. Jones. The appeals court determines that the judge erred in not allowing certain exculpatory evidence into the trial. The appeals court overturns the conviction. The prosecutor is still free to pursue another trial and conviction. But, recognizing that he is unlikely to get a conviction if the judge is required to admit the previously excluded evidence, he declines to prosecute again. In such a case, would Mr. Jones be able to claim he had been found "innocent"? I don't think really think so. But has he been "cleared"? If he has not been cleared, then is it even possible, in your opinion, to be cleared without actually being found "not guilty" by a jury [or scientific equivalent]? If one presumes innocence until proven guilty, then yes, he is cleared, it seems to me. Why can't Lomborg claim to have been cleared of guilt? Indeed, he was originally found not guilty of scientific malfeasance, after all. And now his book has no official charge standing against it. So why is he not cleared? Unschool 23:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You are shifting your ground. In this case, there is no appeals court. Two different agecies have different opinions, as you yuorself recognise William M. Connolley 07:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

But I was under the impression that the DSCD is beneath MSTI; that was the reason for my analogy. If not, then why else was MSTI able to set aside the DSCD finding and direct them to find more substantial grounds? Just as, say, the US Bureau of the Census operates independently 99% of the time, as a piece of the US Commerce Department, it can nonetheless find itself at times forced to change direction, if so directed by its superior agency. Am I misunderstanding the relationship between MSTI and DSCD? Unschool 09:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the exact relationship. But is not very relevant. The two-agencies disagreeing remains; so a bald statement that he was cleared is inappropriate. Bear in mind that he was appointed by the govt, whose miistry "cleared" him - hardly independent. But we seem to be going round in circles William M. Connolley 10:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It's possibly very relevant what their relationship is. If one answers to the other (which is the impression that I had gotten), then the opinion of the higher body is what stands. I mean, if the Muninicpal Traffic Court of Cleveland issues a ruling, and the Ohio Supreme Court overturns it, who would say that the issue was undecided? The higher body is the one whose ruling stands. Is that not the case? Unschool 02:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

"Qui tacet consentit"? Unschool 12:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope, just that we're going round in circles. You started off well, by saying that there were 2 conflicting views. But when that failed to produce the answer you wnated, you've tried to find a way to get rid of the DSCD view, and you can't. In this case, its perfectly clear the the govt ministry didn't overturn the view - they asked the DSCD to reconsider it, and they refused William M. Connolley 13:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

There has been nothing circular about my reasoning at all. If there's been a logical weakness, it's been in your silent refusal to address the issue of supremacy. By your logic, as it's coming across to me, just because there are two opinions, there is an automatic standoff, and nothing more can be said. As I have said, two different sources, could conceivably be equal and thus have their difference of opinion result in a "tie", but such a conclusion is not always the case (see previous examples; kindly respond).

MSTI did not merely ask DSCD to "reconsider" their decision. They stated that DSCD had made significant procedural errors, including failing to cite any specific examples of factual errors from Lomborg's work. On the other hand, neither did MSTI find Lomborg "innocent"; it was not their place to do so. All MSTI did was toss out the findings of DSCD, and required a new proceeding take place if they wished to substantiate their claims about Lomborg's book. This is why I have used the appellate anaolgy. MSTI did not endorse Lomborg, they merely invalidated DSCD's findings. In such a case, the original finding is moot—but DSCD was perfectly entitled to readdress the issue. Their decision to not do so does not prove Lomborg's book to be correct, but it does remove any official sanction against his book. This is what I mean when I say that he is cleared.

William, it is obvious that you are an intelligent man. But one does not need to be a climatologist to follow the logic that I am laying out. Rather than simply label my arguments as circular, I would appreciate the respect of having my points addressed. Circular arguments are those in which point A leads to point B which leads to point A. That is not what has happened here. To the extent which I appear to be repeating myself, it is only because I have readdressed points that you have ignored. Unschool 03:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say your reasonning was circular. I said the discussion was going round in circles. MSTI did not invalidate the DSCD's findings - they said they didn't like them. Had they invalidated them, ahd they actually been superior, they would not have needed to ask the DSCD to reconsider; they would have ordered them to; and DCSD would not have had the option of refusing, which is wha they did William M. Connolley 10:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not yet reverting, William, because I am assuming that you are simply very busy (we all do have lives, after all) and have not had time to respond. I have no problem waiting until next weekend for you to continue our discussion. Unschool 04:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

if i may just add, since it has been suggested a couple of times that lomborg may have been 'found innocent' - while i only know US jurisprudence, i think in general it applies to most systems of justice - a person or party is never 'found innocent', they are only found to be either 'guilty' or 'not guilty'. there *is* a difference, albeit technical, while the comments have been colloquial, of course.

08:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You are, of course, correct. Still, Anglo-American law also contains the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", meaning that we are all innocent until proven otherwise. I am pointing out here that there is no finding against Lomborg currently, that (according to my understanding) a finding of one body (DSCD) against his work was overturned by a superior body (MSTI), and therefore, currently, he is not guilty. (And technically, he was always "not guilty", since even DSCD found him personally not guilty, and only leveled its claims against his book.) So what I am looking for is clarification on this issue. If someone has a solid understanding of the relationship between MSTI and DSCD, and can point to some documentation clarifying this, I would appreciate it. As it stands right now, I believe that it is reasonable to consider Lomborg "cleared" of any charges, since the first finding against his book has been overturned by a superior body. Unschool 19:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. This is what I men about circles. You insist that MSTI is superior... on the basis of... what? As you say yourself, you don't know. This is why a bald statement that L was cleared is POV William M. Connolley 10:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't insisting upon anything. I was merely positing the idea that, given that DSCD is "under" MSTI (see DSCD) that it was merely logical that MSTI would have the right to overturn the findings of DSCD, and I was asking for some discussion of that notion to confirm it before rewording the Lomborg article. I had hoped, that, as someone with a clear interest in the subject, that you or someone else might have something to clarify things. I like to talk about such things before making controversial edits; I discuss things that I am uncertain about, and I don't engage in edit wars. Anyway, it appears that Rasmus has below confirmed what seemed totally logical to me earlier. I shall now attempt to come up with some fair wording of the situation, but if anything would be POV, it would be to leave the sentence under discussion the way it is now; it makes the casual reader think that Lomborg is still stained by the allegations. Unschool 17:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel I must chime in again on this issue. Let us discuss what sources we have for this. I can come up with these:

• MSTIs decision [11]

This includes an opinion from the (independent) Folketingets Ombudsmand [12], which confirms that MSTI in fact has the authority to consider appeals of DSCDs decisions.

• DSCDs press release following their decision not to act further on the complaint.

"The Ministry therefore remits the case to the UVVU. Furthermore, the Ministry’s decision states that it is up to the UVVU to determine whether it will re-examine the case. The Ministry explained at a later date that the decision of the Ministry must be taken to mean that the UVVU’s decision of 6 January 2003 is invalid."

• DSCDs annual report 2003 [13]

This included the wording "Afgørelsen, der var udtryk for en ophævelse af UVVU’s afgørelse" - in their English translation: "The ruling, which implied a reversal of DCSD's decision".

• Kåre Fog's, one of the original complainants, account [14], where he writes:

"The ministry has informed UVVU that UVVU´s decision of 7th Jan. 2003 is no longer valid, because of the formal errors made in the treatment of the case. And because UVVU has decided not to hear the case again, there will not appear any new decision to replace the one that has been cancelled. Even the decision that Lomborg is "objectively dishonest" and has acted at variance with "good scientific practice" is no longer valid. There simply does not any longer exist any decision. Perhaps the most unfortunate consequence of this is that people in general are confused, and there is no authority to lean on when you want to find out what is right and wrong in this case."

While some of the sources can be read both ways (as that the decision still stands and as that the decision has been invalidated), other sources are quite clear that the decision is now invalidated. I still haven't seen any sources indicate clearly that the decision is still valid. Rasmus (talk) 12:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Cut from intro:

In the wake of the book's publication, Lomborg was confronted with allegations of scientific dishonesty from members of the Danish scientific community. However, while many individual scientists remain unconvinced by Lomborg's assertions, he has now been cleared of any official charges of actual scientific dishonesty.

The way this reads, in English, sounds like actual examples of dishonesty were 'pushed into his face'. Then, it balances Lomborg's assertions (of innocence?) against the disbelieving scientists.

Better to have a section on the accusations. As I recall, for almost a year he was dogged by bad press about "being under investigation" (as if this meant he was 'already guilty').

Wouldn't it be better to use this format?

1. Various opponents of his views accused him of scientific dishonesty
2. A national board investigated
   • Initial results
   • Final results (cleared, and why)
3. Reaction to the investigation
   • Those who accept the results
   • Those who dispute the results (and why)

I know he's unpopular with environmentalists who want to discredit him because of his statistical debunking of many scientific ideas they advance. But we should not side with his debunkers, any more than we should side with him.

The article should be completely neutral. --Uncle Ed 16:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This is sooooooooooooo Ed... just totally ignoring the talk just above... 16:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I put an NPA notice on your talk page. --Uncle Ed 17:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Cut:

The wording of the ruling left no doubt that the DCSD, while not finding Lomborg guilty, was not exonerating him either

This is someone's conclusion. It gives the impression than Lomborg was "not exonerated" and is therefore guilty of something.

Since there is considerable dispute over whether Lomborg's book (or he himself) was 'dishonest', we should be careful. How about staying neutral, and just reporting Who said What? (Rather than trying to guess what they were thinking, or speculating on the implications.) --Uncle Ed 17:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

POV summary of DCSD case

I don't know what a POV summary is. Did you mean 'biased' in some way? Did my edit favor one point of view over another? If so, I apologize. It was not intentional.

Please show me where you think I went wrong. For example, which POV did I cause the article to take? And which opposing POV is now missing?

I'd like to have the article conform to the NPOV by including all relevant points of view. --Uncle Ed 17:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Unschooled. I like your recent edits to

. Mentioning the POV that DCSD did not actually examine the book (!) is significant, considering that they criticize the book as "biased".

I'd like to see more about the 'invalidated' aspect. Some Wik contribtors think that DCSD's decision not to re-open the case indicates validation of the POV that SE is biased. The article says that the Ministry overruled its committee, indicating invalidation of that POV.

Another talk page has a long debate between real-life climate modeller

13:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this page [15] from the Danish government makes it clear that the original DCSD decision no longer has any standing. However, I disagree with your assertion that they did not actually "examine" the book. I know that I was not there, and I'm guessing that you were not either; I think it unlikely that they had the chutzpah to issue their original decision without at least a cursory examination of it. Now apparently, from Ministry's report, we can conclude that DCSD's examination was not very scientific, but that's a long ways from saying that they did not examine it. What you can also say, according to the Ministry's report, was that DCSD did not provide any specific examples of errors in the book. While this might lead some to presume that they did not examine the book at all, I cannot make such an assumption—it simply seems beyond belief. Unschool 04:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I know this has been discussed to death, but I want to go over it one more time. The basic issue is this: it currently says in the article that Lomborg is a vegetarian. It does not say that he is homosexual. Both are aspects of his private life that he has publically admitted. My question is this: why does the article have one without the other? Surely it is a case of "both or neither"? (My two cents: neither is preferable). Can somebody please explain to me why the fact that he is vegetarian is at all important, or at least is more important than his homosexuality? If not, in a couple of days I am going to

11:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I am removing the stuff as per above; if anyone disagrees, please contact me. Batmanand | Talk 11:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The Economist magazine did not write an article in his defence. It it important to note that Bjørn Lomborg wrote an article in his defence (Thought control published on Jan 9th 2003)and The Economist published it. Kendirangu 14:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - but Lomborg is not a sceptic - he is outspoken against hysteria, and against the Kyoto protocol - but not on climate change or the IPCC. (see for instance this) --Kim D. Petersen 15:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. After a bit of searching online, it seems like he is a supporter on the idea of AGW, but is still skeptical about many other aspects of GW. I recommend changing the intro of The Skeptical Environmentalist from:

"which argues that claims of global warming, overpopulation, declining energy resources, deforestation, species loss, water shortages, and a variety of other global environmental issues are unsupported by analysis of the relevant data."

to:

"which argues that claims on certain aspects of global warming, overpopulation, declining energy resources, deforestation, species loss, water shortages, and a variety of other global environmental issues are unsupported by analysis of the relevant data."

without the bold of course. What do you think? Sorry about the mixup. The machine512 15:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there any more information on this supposed C-SPAN broadcast referenced in the first footnote of the article? This footnote is the only mention of C-SPAN and I am curious as to how, if at all, it is related. 172.195.53.62 00:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm deleting the word "openly" from the description of Lomborg's sexuality, on the grounds that it betrays a small POV ( in this case a cultural bias ). The use of the phrase "openly gay" tends to be used as a slight pejorative: the yellow press frequently refer to people whom they wish to demonise as "openly gay", where they would not refer to straight people as "openly straight". From the public record we know that people are gay or straight ( or have not disclosed their sexuality, or whatever ). If it's in the public domain we report it as a fact: there is no need to qualify it.

( By the way, apropos some earlier comments, as one who has met him I can report that Mr Lomborg is much less attractive in real life than in the article's picture ! This, of course, is just opinion and shouldn't go in the main article. )

WMMartin 15:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)