Home
LOMBORG-ERRORS
 
THE DEBATE ON "THE SKEPTICAL ENVIRONMENTALIST"
 
 
LINKS TO ARTICLES ON THE DEBATE

 



SPECIAL ISSUE OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLICY

The 2004 special issue of Environmental Science & Policy (ESP) comprised of five papers, which offered a set of critical perspectives on the controversy over The Skeptical Environmentalist.

Here are all five papers from the special issue in ESP, including an article by Chris Harrison, editor at Cambridge University Press, along with a comment on C. Harrison's "Peer review, politics and pluralism" and another comment on the articles by D. Sarewitz and by R. Pielke. Both discussions were published in ESP's April 2005 edition.

Pielke, Jr., R. A. and S. Rayner, 2004. Editors' Introduction, Environmental Science & Policy, volume 7, pp. 355-356.

(1) Harrison, C., 2004. Peer review, politics and pluralism, ESP, volume 7, pp. 357-368.

Dougherty, P. J., 2005. Comment on "Peer review, politics and pluralism" by Chris Harrison, ESP, volume 8, pp. 191-193.

(2) Oreskes, N., 2004. Science and public policy: what's proof got to do with it?, ESP, volume 7, pp. 369-383.

(3) Sarewitz, D., 2004. How Science makes environmental controversies worse, ESP, volume 7, pp. 385-403.

(4) Pielke, Jr., R. A., 2004. When scientists politicize science: making sense of controversy over The Skeptical Environmentalist, ESP, volume 7, pp. 405-417.

Lövbrand, E. and G. Öberg, 2005. Comment on ‘‘How science makes environmental controversies worse’’ by Daniel Sarewitz, and ‘‘When Scientists politicise science: making sense of the controversy over The Skeptical Environmentalist’’ by Roger A. Pielke Jr., ESP, volume 8, pp. 195-197.

Sarewitz, D. and R. A. Pielke, Jr., 2005. Response to Lövbrand and Öberg, ESP, volume 8, pp. 199-200.

(5) Herrick, C. N., 2005. Objectivity versus narrative coherence: science, environmental policy, and the U.S. Data Quality Act, ESP, volume 7, pp. 419-433.



DEBATE IN JOURNAL OF INFORMATION ETHICS

In the following paper it is claimed that most allegations on errors in The Skeptical Environmentalist do not hold:

Arthur Rörsch, Thomas Frello, Ray Soper & Adriaan de Lange (2005): On the opposition against the book The Skeptical Environmentalist by B. Lomborg. Journal of Information Ethics 14(1): 16-28.

On the basis of the manuscript to this article, Arthur Rörsch in a letter officially requested that the UVVU (Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty) removed the decision in the `Lomborg case´ from their web site, which they did.

In a subsequent paper, Kåre Fog refuted the claims made in the first article:

Kåre Fog (2005): The real nature of the opposition against B. Lomborg. Journal of Information Ethics 14(2): 66-76.