... i Scientific American denne gangen. Det siste nummeret (januar 2002)
har latt fire eksperter, på hvert sitt område, gi sin vurdering av de
respektive kapitlene i boka. Konklusjonene er drepende på nesten alle
punkter. De sentrale påstandene til Lomborg blir tilbakevist punkt for
punkt. Lomborg blir avslørt som en sjarlatan som knapt noe sted henviser
til vitenskapelig primærlitteratur (og i de tilfellene han gjør det er det
selektivt og/eller røper lite forståelse= og til og med grovt misbruker
sitt eget fagfelt -- statistikk. Som Stephen Schneider sier i sin
gjennomgang av klima-kapitlet: "On page xx of his preface, Lomborg admits,
'I am not myself an expert as regards environmental problems' -- truer
words are not found in the rest of the book".
Jeg gjengir her redaktørens innledning til de fire artiklene:
CRITICAL thinking and hard data are cornerstones of all good science.
Because environmental sciences are so keenly important to both our
biological and economic survival -- causes that are often seen to be in
conflict -- they deserve full scrutiny. With that in mind, the book "The
Skeptical Environmentalist" [Cambridge University Press], by Bjørn Lomborg,
a statistician and political scientist at the University of Århus in
Denmark, should be a welcome audit. And yet it isn't.
As the book's subtitle -- "Measuring the Real State of the World" ---
indicates, Lomborg's intention was to reanalyze environmental data so that
the public might make policy decisions based on the truest understanding of
what science has determined. His conclusion, which he writes surprised
even him, was that contrary to the gloomy predictions of degratation he
calls "the litany". everything is getting better. Not that all is rosy,
but the future for the environment is less dire than is supposed. Instead,
Lomborg accuses a pessimistic and dishonest cabal of environmental groups,
institutions and the media of distorting scientistsæ actual findings. (A
copy of the book's first chapter can be found at www.lomborg.org)
The roblem with Lomborg's conclusion is that the scientists themselves
disawov it. Many spoke to us at Scientific American about their
frustration at what they described as Lomborg's misrepresenations of their
fields. His seemingly dispassionate outsider's view, they told us, is
often marred by an incomplete use of the data or a misunderstanding of the
underlying science. Even where his statistical analyses are valid, his
interpretations are frequently off the mark -- literally not seeing the
state of the forests for the number of the trees, for example. And it is
hard not to be struck by Lomborg's presumption that he has seen into the
heart of the science more faithfully than have investigators who have
devoted their lives to it; it is equally curious that he findes the same
contrarian good news lurking in *every* diverse area of environmental science.
We asked four leading experts to critique Lomborgæs treatments of their
areas -- global warming, energy, population and biodiversity -- so readers
could understand why the book provokes so much disagreement. Lomborg's
assessment that conditions on earth are generally improving for human
welfare may hold some truth. The errors described here, however, show that
in its purpose of describing the real state of the world, the book is a
failure.
John Rennie, Editor in Chief
www.sciam.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 11-07-02 MET DST