Talk:Bjørn Lomborg

Is Lomborg employed by Copenhagen Business School?

I Lomborg still an adjunct professor at CBS? I can't find his web-page there. I was looking for it, because I was surprised that he could have an adjuncture at CBS, when his scientific production is almost non-existant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.242.115.68 (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

POV-pushing about "scientific credibility" removed

I have removed this edit as undue POV-pushing without any uninvolved reliable sources to back up these assertions. The same claims have been edit-warred by the same IP in 2 related newspaper articles, again without any appropriate 3rd-party source. The usage of self-published information for such critical and excessively-detailed information clearly violates WP:BLP and WP:SPS (and is undue weight to boot). Such content needs independent uninvolved sources to establish its relevance, and to describe the aspect in a dispassionate succinct manner if it merits encyclopedic inclusion to begin with. Criticism of Lomborg's views is already covered in some detail in other sections. GermanJoe (talk) 11:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Denialist

[1] "Lomborg and the Copenhagen Consensus Center do not seem to deny that climate change is happening or man-made, but discuss the economics of the remedies." This is bullshit. Climate change denial does not just mean "deny that climate change is happening or man-made". There are other flavors, and Lomborg has some of them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Well boohoo, Thanks for the link to that attack page, I'll be editing it. So what is your personal definition of climate change denialism, other than wp:i don't like it? Greglocock (talk) 01:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Nothing personal about it. That page is based on reliable sources, and if you try to inject anti-science denialist POV into it, you will fail. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

"Warmist"

A drunk who insists their drinking isn't causing problems, and besides a little alcohol is good for you, and there are better things to think about, and maybe next year, is in denial.

Lomborg has devoted much of his professional career to saying a little warming is good for you, and the world could better focus its attention elsewhere, and it isn't causing so much problem, and maybe in a few years we can do something.

It is the same way a person can admit to drinking a lot of alcohol and deny there is a problem. We wouldn't call called them an "alcoholist" or say they are "skeptical." Lomborg is a denier. -- M.boli (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

What do you call the alcoholic who comes up with a more complicated and drastic program every year to stop his drinking? And every year when he presents his new plan he admits that his drinking is a little bit worse, but his plan is better? And in the meantime ignores his cancer and his domestic abuse issue and his inability to pay his mortgage? --2607:FEA8:FF01:4E54:3DBD:5499:8EC2:B712 (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Clarification Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty

The link in footnote [9] is dead, but it remains archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20150316130136/http://www.cprm.gov.br/33IGC/1343527.

I'm adding the full quote: "one couldn't prove that Lomborg had deliberately been scientifically dishonest, although he had broken the rules of scientific practice in that he interpreted results beyond the conclusions of the authors he cited", because I think it is more nuanced than "it misrepresented scientific facts." Pushback welcome, particularly because it might be too long for the header section.

Aristotles (talk) 11:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The report from the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty is available on the web: https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DishonestDane.pdf. It does not contain what you quoted. In sum: by the standards of science, the book is dishonest. But Lomborg doesn't do science in those areas, and the book isn't science, so they can't prove he intended to commit fraud. They sum it up nicely here:

Subject to the proviso that the book is to be evaluated as science, there has been such perversion of the scientific message in the form of systematically biased representation that the objective criteria for upholding scientific dishonesty-cf. Danish Order No. 533 of 15 December 1998-have been met. In consideration of the extraordinarily wide-ranging scientific topics dealt with by the defendant without having any special scientific expertise, however, DCSD has not found-or felt able to procure-sufficient grounds to deem that the defendant has misled his readers deliberately or with gross negligence.

That quote immediately precedes the ruling, which says the same thing. I propose to replace the quote in the article with this one or the ruling. Both versions contain some clear language and some confusing language. -- M.boli (talk) 12:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I worry that I don't see a date and a bunch of signatures in that pdf. How can one be sure it's the official government product, not a draft? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The money quote (as it were), the first sentence in the blockquote above, is also quoted in a contemporaneous article in The Guardian.

But I agree finding the report itself would be good. I went looking for it on the agency web site, which has been renamed. The web site didn't seem to have case reports going back that far. It did have annual reports from 2002 and 2003. The 2002 annual report mentions the controversy and says the case report was issued in early 2003, which is consistent with the date on the Guardian article. But the 2003 annual report drops the matter. Some digging is needed. -- M.boli (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

References