Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Prometheus Bound

(3,489 posts)
5. Bjørn Lomborg? Just for the record, his PhD is in political science not nutrition.
Sat May 19, 2012, 09:45 PM
May 2012
Accusations of scientific dishonesty
After the publication of The Skeptical Environmentalist, Lomborg was accused of scientific dishonesty. Several environmental scientists brought a total of three complaints against Lomborg to the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD), a body under Denmark's Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. The charges claimed that The Skeptical Environmentalist contained deliberately misleading data and flawed conclusions. Due to the similarity of the complaints, the DCSD decided to proceed on the three cases under one investigation.

DCSD investigation
On January 6, 2003 the DCSD reached a decision on the complaints. The ruling sent a mixed message, deciding the book to be scientifically dishonest, but Lomborg himself not guilty because of lack of expertise in the fields in question:[8]

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.

The DCSD cited The Skeptical Environmentalist for:

1.Fabrication of data;
2.Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation);
3.Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods;
4.Distorted interpretation of conclusions;
5.Plagiarism;
6.Deliberate misinterpretation of others' results.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Some of us aren't so much against it... randome May 2012 #1
........ marmar May 2012 #2
+1 (nt) NYC_SKP May 2012 #3
Fantastic, thanks! drokhole May 2012 #6
That is an old article - There is a new strain that yields 10X more Vitamin A True Earthling May 2012 #7
Give it up. Your OP source has been exposed as a fraud. marmar May 2012 #8
I don't care if the article was written by George Bush True Earthling May 2012 #10
More reading for you...... marmar May 2012 #14
There's a lot of gullible people in the world tabasco May 2012 #22
Very true - on both sides of the aisle. True Earthling May 2012 #23
The article you posted was inaccurate... True Earthling May 2012 #12
Umm, I'll trust Vandana Shiva over some crackpot industry shill any day. marmar May 2012 #15
Yes I knew that.... and I didn't call you a fraud. True Earthling May 2012 #19
Vitamin A & beta-carotene are easy to get from food. There are lots of good sources. HiPointDem May 2012 #45
There may be no one more credible on this topic than Vandana Shiva. EFerrari May 2012 #16
No use arguing with luddites. Odin2005 May 2012 #17
Who mentioned Monsanto? You interjected it, and now you're calling people Luddites? marmar May 2012 #18
Why do you hate leafy greens and orange-fleshed squash kestrel91316 May 2012 #39
I don't. I love baby spinach. False Dichotomy. Odin2005 May 2012 #42
Why do you hate children having well-balanced diets, instead of diets consisting mostly of HiPointDem May 2012 #46
This is a lot more complicated than I thought. True Earthling May 2012 #49
Because free rice undercuts market prices, not just for rice but also for other staple grains. When HiPointDem May 2012 #53
But the plan for Golden Rice is for farmers to grow it... True Earthling May 2012 #56
Maybe you should ask yourself *which* farmers. Look past the PR. HiPointDem May 2012 #58
In Nigeria the small family farmers were driven off their land which the peanut farms then occupied jwirr May 2012 #77
Bingo. jwirr May 2012 #76
* ronnie624 May 2012 #79
"expected...potential...depend on" - any hard data published that would prove the claims? Prometheus Bound May 2012 #35
There is a clinical trial by Tufts University True Earthling May 2012 #43
I see. There is no proof of the claims. So this thread is a waste of time. Prometheus Bound May 2012 #66
Wait, you are citing a study not even finished yet??? obamanut2012 May 2012 #72
Hear! Hear! burrowowl May 2012 #32
Personally, I think your source author is a crackpot: NYC_SKP May 2012 #4
Ridley is not so easy to pin down pscot May 2012 #9
Bjørn Lomborg? Just for the record, his PhD is in political science not nutrition. Prometheus Bound May 2012 #5
How about Ingo Potrykus? True Earthling May 2012 #11
Because people think just because Monstanto misuses genetic engineering... Odin2005 May 2012 #13
You really like to pen OPs with right wing memes stevenleser May 2012 #20
Since when is wanting to save lives and prevent blindness a "right wing meme"? True Earthling May 2012 #21
Nope, that is not why me and others are here. We are here to talk with other stevenleser May 2012 #24
Not a republican True Earthling May 2012 #27
The CATO Institute is funded by the Koch brothers and big corporations. UnrepentantLiberal May 2012 #28
Where's the connection to the Cato Institute? True Earthling May 2012 #29
The author of your OP is a frequent contributor to CATO. UnrepentantLiberal May 2012 #30
I admit I do like Ridley so guilty as charged.. True Earthling May 2012 #33
This line sounds like classic Cato double speak. UnrepentantLiberal May 2012 #41
But But Read His Profile HangOnKids May 2012 #68
The OP is an obvious RW troll. I give him another 2 weeks. kestrel91316 May 2012 #40
Yep, obvious troll is obvious. They all think they are being slick. nt stevenleser May 2012 #44
yeah, i think their strategy to post the most controversial issues.. DCBob May 2012 #59
I called it last September- Starry Messenger May 2012 #50
With your link that is three posts with right wing memes. Unfortunately, poster has too many stevenleser May 2012 #54
I believe you are correct. Starry Messenger May 2012 #57
MIRT can PRR them with +100 posts obamanut2012 May 2012 #64
You and Starry are mistaken obamanut2012 May 2012 #63
Yup, I first notived it obamanut2012 May 2012 #62
So you've noticed that too? obamanut2012 May 2012 #61
in the meantime, is anyone trying to provide these people with regular vitamin A? eShirl May 2012 #25
They can get plenty of Vitamin A from eating leafy greens and kestrel91316 May 2012 #38
Charity rice from america undercuts prices in their ag sector, meaning small farmers lose their land HiPointDem May 2012 #47
Absolutely true. This led to starvation in Haiti. UnrepentantLiberal May 2012 #52
I Was In A Focus Group About This in 2000 otohara May 2012 #26
Because it is easy to ask other people to die for YOUR principles Sen. Walter Sobchak May 2012 #31
Charity rice from america is making it impossible for traditional agriculture to exist. It HiPointDem May 2012 #48
traditional agriculture doesn't need to exist Sen. Walter Sobchak May 2012 #51
It doesn't have to feed 7 billion people. And neither is hi-tech agriculture feeding 7 billion HiPointDem May 2012 #55
The problem being that agribusiness *won't* feed six or seven or however many billion people.. Fumesucker May 2012 #67
Modern agriculture most certainly will, if it is allowed to... Sen. Walter Sobchak May 2012 #80
Where's the profit in feeding the starving? Fumesucker May 2012 #81
This message was self-deleted by its author Mnemosyne May 2012 #34
Wow. Another RW talking point from you. Amazing. kestrel91316 May 2012 #36
Because Vit A a/o beta-carotene are so easy to find in foods that the only reason kids would HiPointDem May 2012 #37
GM food, along with the "Green Revolution", has done a good job feeding the world's population bhikkhu May 2012 #60
can this genetically modified rice produce its own seeds? ibegurpard May 2012 #65
Those are the real questions that need answering. Farmers in Africa and around the world have jwirr May 2012 #78
Why are people opposed? 99Forever May 2012 #69
+1. Why do GM companies oppose their products being labeled "GM"? That's the real argument. nt Honeycombe8 May 2012 #73
The answer to that is obvious. 99Forever May 2012 #75
How about this? sendero May 2012 #70
I was thinking that, too obamanut2012 May 2012 #74
Because it actually doesn't? quaker bill May 2012 #71
why not add carrots and sweet potatoes to their diets instead magical thyme May 2012 #82
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Outrageous! Why are peopl...»Reply #5