Talk:Bjørn Lomborg/Archive 2

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
thread_title: DCSD edit: Nov 25-05

message: 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 basisIn 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)
thread_title: DCSD Summary: 2003 Annual Report: Cases Nos. 4, 5 and 6

message: 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)
thread_title: Proposal for restructuring the article: Nov-2005

message: 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)
thread_title: Removed POV-check tag: 2-Dec-05

message: 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)
thread_title: Removed clean-up tag 5-Dec-05

message: 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)
replies: text: I made the changes to the title... --Tsavage 01:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nature peer review finds one error, but which? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Errors ID'd by Nature, to correct 

message: 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)
thread_title: Nature error corrected on 4-Dec-2005...

message: 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?
#Various opponents of his views accused him of scientific dishonesty
#A national board investigated
#*Initial results
#*Final results (cleared, and why)
#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)
replies: text: This is sooooooooooooo Ed... just totally ignoring the talk just above... 16:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put an NPA notice on your talk page. --Uncle Ed 17:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Accusations by opponents

message: :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)
thread_title: Summary of case

message: Hi, Unschooled. I like your recent edits to Bjorn Lomborg. 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  and another Wikipedian on this aspect. --Uncle Ed 13:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this page  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)
thread_title: Unschooled version

message: 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 be bold and remove the vegetarian section. Batmanand | Talk 11:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am removing the stuff as per above; if anyone disagrees, please contact me. Batmanand | Talk 11:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry to bring this up again (homosexuality and vegetarianism) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Economist did not defend him. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  C-SPAN 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Small Change to Trivia Section