In the coverage of Abbott’s speech Jeremy Thompson of the ABC raises this slur.
However, it is the credibility of Mr Lomberg rather than Australian economists which may not stand up to scrutiny.
In 2003 the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty upheld a series of complaints laid about Lomberg’s book The Skepical Environmentalist.
They included scientific dishonesty, selective discarding of unwanted results, deliberately misleading statistical evidence, plagiarism and deliberate misinterpretation of others results.
The findings were later declared invalid on procedural grounds.
Let’s not even comment on the fact that he doesn’t seem to think it inappropriate that the Danish government would even have such an Orwellian committee. That statement is so misleading so as to constitute a lie. At the time even The Economist described the decision as ‘incompetent and shameful’. The Economist went on
On December 17th, Denmark’s Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation published its own response to the DCSD’s finding. It is more politely expressed than ours, but comes to much the same conclusion. The ruling is thrown back to the DCSD with instructions to think again. Among a long list of telling criticisms, the ministry says this: “the DCSD has not documented where [Dr Lomborg] has allegedly been biased in his choice of data and in his argumentation, and…the ruling is completely void of argumentation for why the DCSD find that the complainants are right in their criticisms of [his] working methods. It is not sufficient that the criticisms of a researcher’s working methods exist; the DCSD must consider the criticisms and take a position on whether or not the criticisms are justified, and why.”
Quite so. What kind of panel is it that purports to be concerned with scientific dishonesty, but needs somebody else to point this out?
I wonder if the ABC will retract this lie and apologise to Lomborg?