"Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty. ...In view of the subjective requirements made in terms of intent or gross negligence, however, Bjørn Lomborg's publication cannot fall within the bounds of this characterization. Conversely, the publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice."Lomborg's controversial book's main thesis was that "many of the most-publicized claims and predictions of environmentalists are exaggerated." For which "outrageous" claims, he got rebuked by his fellow scientists, branding him unethical for his "deliberately misleading data and flawed conclusions" in The Skeptical Environmentalist. Like his accusing dissenters, Bjorn Lomborg has his admirers too. Read the following excerpt from Wikipedia entry on Lomborg:
"A Dutch think tank, HAN, Heidelberg Appeal the Netherlands, published a report in which they claimed 25 out of 27 accusations against Lomborg to be unsubstantiated or not to the point. A group of scientists with relation to this think tank also published an article in 2005 in the Journal of Information Ethics, in which they concluded that most criticism against Lomborg was unjustified, and that the scientific community misused their authority to suppress Lomborg."The debates amongst the various "sides" of Global Warming are fierce, each labeling the other side in basest term, holding their own claims to be true. While our world is surely warming up, glaciers are indeed melting away, smogs from pollution are infecting our breathing air, and fossil fuel's grip on world economy and its machineries are so strong that even costly warfares are taken into affirmative consideration in any steps to dominate world's most coveted resources. Amidst these sore points, top notch scientists are in brawl with each other on global warming. Some say that corporate interests play a huge role in paying the "scientists" and "columnists" for hire to keep the debate alive so that no essential steps in solving this urgent issue that the entire planet earth faces are simply diverted away in shrouded jargons and tricky assaults of words.
There should be unified actions. Even Bjorn Lomborg, though his reputation is in tattered shape amongst the mainstream scientific communities, has some valid points that should be taken into consideration in any future "Kyoto" like initiatives.
Here are few excerpts from Lomborg's Washington Post article:
"I point this out not to challenge the reality of global warming or the fact that it's caused in large part by humans, but because the discussion about climate change has turned into a nasty dustup, with one side arguing that we're headed for catastrophe and the other maintaining that it's all a hoax. I say that neither is right. It's wrong to deny the obvious: The Earth is warming, and we're causing it. But that's not the whole story, and predictions of impending disaster just don't stack up.
We have to rediscover the middle ground, where we can have a sensible conversation. We shouldn't ignore climate change or the policies that could attack it. But we should be honest about the shortcomings and costs of those policies, as well as the benefits."
Engaging article. A few good points that needs further explanation and corroboration with real and authentic data. There were no linked references cited in Lomborg's article. But surely that will emerge in time.
Chill out - Stop Fighting over Global Warming