# Bjorn Lomborg **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 11, 2003, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bjorn-lomborg/147915 "2003-01-11T06:07:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Icerigger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/icerigger/32/432_2.png) [@Icerigger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Icerigger)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2003, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bjorn-lomborg/147915/21 "2003-01-12T22:28:46Z")
The fact is the vast majority Lomborgs supporters are conservatives who don’t like the environmentalist movement because they perceive it as liberal. Sadly conservatives seem to think the laws of nature operate on a political basis. The journals Science, Nature, Sci American don’t support it but the Heritage Foundation and Cal Thomas does. Nature does not care about ideology. Liberal plots: acid rain, global warming, evolution, metaphysical naturalism? Look Sam Stone and others most of his critics are scientists and most of his supporters are conservative ideologues, doesn’t that tell you something??? ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2003, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bjorn-lomborg/147915/22 "2003-01-12T22:41:25Z")
_Icerigger_, you seem to take as ‘fact’ that acid rain is some sort of widespread man-made problem. Here is a [professor](http://www.agecon.purdue.edu/academic/agec525/pfuture/) that would disagree. Why should I believe you over him? I am not so willing to accept everything Greenpeace or WWF tells me at face value. They have an agenda. True, I cannot really comprehend what that agenda is, but they are as politically motivated as any PAC. True ‘politics-free’ natural science research seems to be a scarce commodity. And what the hell is ‘metaphysical naturalism’? Like dancing around trees and pretending to be druids or something like that? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2003, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bjorn-lomborg/147915/23 "2003-01-12T22:44:50Z")
**IceRigger:** Your complaint is irrelevant. The material stands on its own. Show us either what’s wrong with Lomborg’s book, or show us other’s criticism of it that we can debate. Just smearing conservatives doesn’t wash. It’s an _ad hominem_ attack. And incidentally, Lomborg is a leftist. ---
**Author:** ![Icerigger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/icerigger/32/432_2.png) [@Icerigger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Icerigger)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2003, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bjorn-lomborg/147915/24 "2003-01-12T22:46:09Z")
Addendum E.O. Wilson thinks it’s bunk…but what does he know. [http://www.gristmagazine.com/books/wilson121201.asp](http://www.gristmagazine.com/books/wilson121201.asp) ---
**Author:** ![js\_africanus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/87869e/32.png) [@js\_africanus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/js_africanus)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2003, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bjorn-lomborg/147915/25 "2003-01-13T00:57:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jshore \* > **Well, again, with the caveat that I haven’t read the book, as I understand it the book is not a statistical treatise by any means.** Um, there are alot of data in the book, and as such, familarity with statistics would be helpful, but far from necessary in reading the book. My beef with BBC Online is that they sent someone who admits to not knowing the science or the handling of data to review the book. That’s different from just reading the book. They really dropped the ball. You should read it. It is very interesting. Taking what **Sam Stone** wrote as accurate, then the Science review affirms the factual claims of the book. You also note that conservatives are increasingly discounting the IPCC; that is pretty much Lomborg’s only source for his take on global warming. Given that the facts are accurate, then it is a book definately worth reading. If you get it from the library, you don’t even have to put money in the author’s pocket. 🙂 > [@](#): > > \*\*It is not like Lomberg has come along and used complicated statistical methods to show that these people in other fields are wrong. [And, other reviewers with a stronger statistical background have, I believe, pointed out faults with some of the statistical reasoning he does employ.] \*\* No he hasn’t. Since he is a professor of statistics, the claim that others with _stronger_ statistical backgrounds have disagreed is a bit skectchy–no offense. I’ve studied quite a bit of statistics myself and I saw no real problems. Indeed, his insistence on taking long time series is very good. For example figures 1, 2, & 6 in his book compare long time series for world exports, grain yields, and tuberculosis cases, respectively, with the the short time series provided by Lester Brown (1 & 2) and David Pimentel (6). The contrast is striking; if I were a cynic I would suggest that those two gentlemen deliberately chose pessimistic data. To what extent these graphs misrepresent Brown and Pimentel’s _modus operandi_ I cannot say; however, such questions are moot since the book is primarily making positive claims rather than merely refuting previous conclusions. (He does, of course, illustrate what he calls “the Litany”, i.e. the chicken-little-esque claims that the earth is dying–I could have phrased that better, sorry. But the bulk of the book isn’t about addressing those claims specifically; rather, it is about putting forth data and drawing conclusions from them.) In his analysis of income figures, for example, he makes sure to utilize purchasing power parity in his comparisons–a necessary step. Absent PPP adjustments, international comparisons of incomes are largely meaningless. It might be somewhat analogous to compare the box office takes of _Titanic_ and _Gone With The Wind_ without adjusting for inflation. Absent such adjustments, what you end up with are merely non-statements about how much the two movies made. Regarding S.A.'s critique, it is noteworthy that the magazine didn’t recruit impartial commentators. Indeed, my cynical self wonders if that fact is not itself evidentiary. To phrase it another way, I don’t care what the Union of Concerned Scientists says about the book, I want to know what the Union of Indifferent Scientists has to say. As I understand it, S.A. didn’t recruit impartial reviewers, it recruited advocates. That’s not to say that advocates can be automatically discounted, however they do have a particular axe to grind. Many of the critiques I’ve read seem to grossly mischaracterize the content and intent of the book. The book does not paint as rosy of a picture as they would have us believe. My reading of the book made it quite clear that there are many environmental problems that need to be addressed. But that doesn’t mean that we are approaching an apocalypse (sp?) as a result. Such a statement is far from grand; “You’re sick, but it doesn’t look like it’s going to kill you” is quite different from “You’re in perfect health.” Others seem to attack him on purely ideological grounds. Some accuse him of being a free marketeer who’s ignored the gains made from policy directives. But so what? That is a subsidiary point to the thesis of the book, that things are not as bad as we have previously believed. Additionally, he notes correctly that proper pricing can solve some problems. That’s simple economics. I don’t recall any claim that the market should do it, however. For all I know he may think that governmental price restrictions are the best solution in those cases. Another ideological battle ground is illustrated in the American Scientist’s review. The review states, > [@](#): > > Lomborg sees the importance of other species wholly in terms of how they can serve humans. The service can simply be providing a sense of well-being by their existence, or it can consist of fostering human wealth or welfare, but Lomborg’s measure of value is always dollar value to humans. Thus, the loss of individuals or species is not of great concern so long as net dollar loss to humans is nil. One might ask, how else _should_ a species’ value be measured? The reviewer seems to assume that a species should be of infinite value as a result of personal fiat. The reviewer is apparently making an ideological statement; an ideological statement that simply doesn’t hold for much of the rest of humanity. He is painting Lomborg as money-minded, when the truth is that Lomborg recognizes that people value things differently and those values have to be balanced. Knowing science and understanding economics are not equivalent, I’ve come to learn. The fact is that there is not enough stuff to fully satisfy our needs, and therefore we need to make choices. The value of these choices can be measured through a numeraire commodity since it provides a link between relative values. What is the existence of a particular species actually _worth_ to a person? This needs to be measured and one way to measure it is to ask, “What is that person willing to give up for the species to exist?” If the answer is “nothing” then the species isn’t worth saving (at least in that person’s eyes). If the answer is “everything” then the species is worth alot. Many critics seem to take environmental “quality” as a quasi-religious value that must be honored regardless of the cost. What they fail to realize is that other human beings have different values, and that their values don’t supercede the values of others. The reviewer goes on to say, > [@](#): > > As an example, the increasing “dead zone” caused by fertilizer-fed hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico is the price we let some marine organisms pay for our success in feeding a burgeoning humanity, and Lomborg sees the benefit to people as far greater than the cost. This is not a heretical stance, of course; many cost-benefit analyses of resource issues rest on the assumption (usually unstated) that dollar value to humans is the universal measure. However, one can imagine that current and future valuations, and confidence limits around them, would foster great disagreement between Lomborg and many environmental scientists. Here he gives lip service to the need to make trade-offs without being being able to understand it. The dollar is the numeraire commodity (in America at least) by which we measure the weight of the trade-offs. The dollar is not the universal measure of value to humans, as he asserts, the dollar is the means by which relate relative values between things we’d like to have. One _can_ imagine that current valuations might not match the conclusion that Lomborg comes to in this case. But the reviewer gives us no reason to do so. Some reviewers seem appalled that Lomborg wants to weigh the cost of global warming against the cost of what else we could do with the money. Lomborg’s suggestion that humanity would be better served if the cost of global warming were put off so that we can use the same money now to concentrate on economic development in LDCs seems to generate much ire. If we work to make the future world richer, then the cost of dealing with global warming will be a smaller proportion of the world’s well-being in the future, claims Lomborg. Suppose I have to make a repair on my house, and I am pretty sure that it will cost $1 in real terms, and that I can do the repair today or one year from now. If I can invest the dollar so that it grows at, let’s say, a 5% real rate of interest, then one year from now, if I invest, I’ll have a real $1.05 to make a $1 repair. I’m ahead by $0.05. That is the essence of Lomborg’s conclusion on Global Warming. It’s better to invest now and let our descendents take the hit, because the cost **to them** of not investing will be **greater** than the cost of dealing with the problem today. Some argue that Lomborg’s global warming cost figures are too low. That point is moot. Whether the cost of repairing my house is $1, $5, or $500 has no impact on the internal logic of the argument. These famed environmental scientists seem unable to grasp a simple economic argument: our descendents simply have to bear a cost, we should make them bear the lowest cost possible. In the Times Higher Education Supplement, Eric Neumayer, a lecturer in environment and development, London School of Economics and Political Science, tells us that the book is “marvellously referenced, providing many details with a comprehensive list of all sources of data.” He seems to have no factual beef with the book. Nor does he mention any problems with Lomborg’s analysis. His criticisms are wholly unrelated to the point of the book. Hardly a compelling claim that the book is bunk. So what’s the point of this long post? Partly, to help my think, I suppose. Also I guess it’s that most reviews I’ve read rest on ideology, bad economics, mischaracterizations, and unrelated issues. Some praise him for offering a different picture and for bringing to light many facts which have been neglected in the environmental debate. Perhaps the point is this: this ain’t cold fusion we’re talking about. Outrageous scientific claims can be dispensed with easily and without invective. No critic whom I’ve read has done so. Outrageous scientific claims have few supporters. Lomborg’s facts are largely affirmed by many of his critics, e.g. _Science_, and praised by others, e.g. The Royal Chemical Society and the American Geological Institute (see Lomborg’s site). Economic issues are frequently misunderstood by scientists–their opinons of much of the book come from little understanding of what the book actually argues. I guess, it sounds to me like the book is worth reading; it is a _prima facie_ argument that things aren’t going to pot, although much work needs to be done. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2003, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bjorn-lomborg/147915/26 "2003-01-13T01:53:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Icerigger \* > \*\*E.O. Wilson thinks it’s bunk…but what does he know. > > [http://www.gristmagazine.com/books/wilson121201.asp](http://www.gristmagazine.com/books/wilson121201.asp) \*\* Wilson has a specific factual dispute. Which of them is right? Wilson wrote: > [@](#): > > Lomborg’s estimate of extinction rates is at odds with the vast majority of respected scholarship on extinction. His estimate, “0.7 percent over the next 50 years” – or 0.014 percent per year – is an order of magnitude smaller than the most conservative species extinction rates by authorities in the field. [Lonborg wrote](http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000001E0-157B-1CD4-B4A8809EC588EEDF): > [@](#): > > I refer to the best possible U.N. data, and I accept that we are causing species extinction at probably about 1,500 times the natural rate. But unlike the traditional environmentalist who feels we have to do whatever is needed to stop it, I also ask how big this means the problem is. Answer: Over the next 50 years we might lose 0.7 percent of all species. (This contrasts both to contrarians who deny species extinction and to Lovejoy’s wildly excessive warning from 1979 of a 20 percent species loss from 1980 to 2000.) [Also, Lonborg wrote](http://www.greenspirit.com/lomborg/) > [@](#): > > This is the end of Lovejoy’s biodiversity discussion. Here, two things are important to note. First, Lovejoy does not actually challenge my central prediction of 0.7% species loss over the next 50 years, which is in line with the UN prediction of 0.1-1%/50 years. This being the central point of the biodiversity chapter, I find the absence of any challenge greatly encouraging, though one might argue it should have been mentioned in the Scientific American piece. > Second, Lovejoy ends by telling us that it will get much worse, as natural habitats continue to dwindle. This of course is a question of whether we believe that forests (especially tropical forests) will continue to be cut down, and the only long-run estimates that we have, come from the IPCC scenarios till 2100. Here, it is expected that inhabitants in the developing countries (where most of the tropical forests lie) will be at least as rich in 2100 as we are today (IPCC 2000b, SE:281). This of course also means that they are unlikely not to value nature much more (at least as much as we do today), that they will be less likely to go out to clear tropical forests for low-productivity agriculture (if you are rich you will have much better jobs) and they will be rich enough to keep or even regrow their forests. This is why all but one IPCC scenario expects there to be more forest in the world by 2100 (IPCC 2000b, > SE:283). This then seems to indicate that Lovejoy’s long-term it-will-get-much- worse expectation is unfounded. Given Wilson’s reputation, I would assume that his estimate of species loss is a good one. Unfortunately, he doesn’t prove that the “vast majority of respected scholarship” disagrees with Lonborg. This is a forgivable omission, since it would require a big survey. Also, and Wilson’s opinion on this topic should be accepted. However, it’s less forgivable that Wilson doesn’t address Lonborg’s “best possible UN” rate of 0.1-1%/50 years. Does Wilson think the UN IPCC is wrong? If so, why? Does he think Lonborg mis-represented what the UN said? Does he think the UN should be ignored because others disagree with its “best possible opinion?” I wish he had told us what he thinks Lonborg’s mistake was. _Does any Doper know enough to answer these questions?_ BTW _Grist Magazine_ has a telling misrepresentation of Lomborg’s position in the cartoon accompanying Wilson’s critique. It shows a happy man (presumably Lonborg) saying, “Species are _not_ being driven to extinction.” Lonborg’s position is that that species _are_ going extinct, at 1500 times the natural rate. The cartoon supports the idea that Lonborg is really being attacked because he isn’t pessimistic and panicked enough to suit his critics. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2003, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bjorn-lomborg/147915/27 "2003-12-19T00:09:13Z")
> [@](#): > > How can they have been so stupid? In a nutshell, this was yesterday’s official verdict on the Danish committees on scientific dishonesty. > > With imperious hauteur the committees had ruled in January that Bjorn Lomborg’s book The Skeptical Environmentalist was “objectively speaking . . . scientific dishonesty”. > > ……. > > Yesterday it was damningly overturned by the Danish Ministry of Science, which found that the committees had not discovered any bias in Mr Lomborg’s choice of data and that criticism of his working methods was “completely void of argumentation”. The criticisms continue. The committees used sloppy and emotive language that - perhaps deliberately - obscured the fact that they had in fact cleared Mr Lomborg of gross negligence and an intent to deceive. They failed adequately to assess whether they had proper jurisdiction over the book. They used improper procedures. They failed to assess whether Mr Lomborg’s work had been peer reviewed. They had not offered Mr Lomborg a chance to respond. And they allowed his accusers too much time to make their case. > …… [http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1071251633389&p=1012571727269](http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1071251633389&p=1012571727269) ---
**Author:** ![js\_africanus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/87869e/32.png) [@js\_africanus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/js_africanus)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2003, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bjorn-lomborg/147915/28 "2003-12-19T00:45:31Z")
Thanks for the update! ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2003, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bjorn-lomborg/147915/29 "2003-12-19T22:42:12Z")
You’re welcome. ---
**Author:** ![duality72](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duality72/32/3910_2.png) [@duality72](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duality72)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2003, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bjorn-lomborg/147915/30 "2003-12-20T00:41:39Z")
In a [more reasoned assessment](http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1071251634079) of the situation, you’ll find that the ruling was overturned on procedural matters, such as the committee in question relying on published criticisms instead of conducting its own analysis, which disappointed even Lomborg’s critics. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2003, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bjorn-lomborg/147915/31 "2003-12-20T01:12:01Z")
“In a more reasoned assessment of the situation, you’ll find that the ruling was overturned on procedural matters” The original article never says otherwise. I can’t see that either is more ‘reasoned’. In fact both seem to be very similar in assessment. > [@](#): > > The ministry overturned a ruling in January by the Danish committee on scientific dishonesty (DCSD), part of the Danish Research Agency, that Mr Lomborg’s book The Skeptical Environmentalist was “clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice”. > …… > In its report, the ministry criticised the committee for failing to provide evidence either that Mr Lomborg had been biased in his selection of data or that his methodology had been dubious. > …… > It also said the committee’s judgment had used “condescending and emotional” language. And it was a “clear mistake” that the committee had failed to give Mr Lomborg an opportunity to defend himself before publishing its judgment. ---
**Author:** ![duality72](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duality72/32/3910_2.png) [@duality72](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duality72)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2003, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bjorn-lomborg/147915/32 "2003-12-21T00:16:58Z")
The other article is an actual article, not an op/ed, and doesn’t begin, “How can they have been so stupid?” Thus, more reasoned. 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bjorn-lomborg/147915.md?page=1)