MarkLynasonthe riseandfall of BjornLomborg
thesepticenvironmentalist.
He'shalfman,half
T-shirt,
and
(according
to his own maths)halfa
statistic
short
of thetruth.
---
--
---
-
-
--
--
-
--
-
--
-
---
-
---
.
I
.
y
ou really fucking pastedme man,'
gaspedBjorn Lomborg, wiping the
cream from his facewith paper
towels hastily provided by the staff of
Bordersbookshop, where the hitherto littleknown Danish statistidan was promoting his
new book.
I had indeed. A basic sponge cake
topped with two inches of spray-can cream
had met its target with a satisfying splat.
I won't go into the history of pieing.
Suffice to say that it's intended as a
relatively light-hearted way to bring
pompous and powerful people down a peg.
Previous recipients have included Milton
Friedman (founder of neo-liberal
economics), Renato Ruggiero (former WTO
head), Anne Widdecombe and Bill Gates.
So, how had a boring old statistics
academic come to join this illustrious
group? Not through any lack of hard work,
that's for sure. The book he was promoting
at the time of his pieing (The Skeptical
Environmentalist:measuringthe real state of
the world) is a weighty, scientific-looking
tome, full of graphs and tables, with 2,900
referencesand published by Cambridge
University Press.
Lomborg's thesis is that, in general,
'things are getting better'. To quote him
directly: 'We are not running out of energy
or natural resources.There will be more
and more food per head of the world's
population. Fewer and fewer people are
starving. Global warming... is probably
taking place, but the typical cure of early
and radical fossil fuel cutbacks is way worse
~
~
~
~
:I:
'"
::)
:I:
~ THEECOLOGIST
MARCH2003
Science
than the original affliction... Moreover,
global warming's total impact will not pose
a devastating problem for our future. Nor
will we lose 25-50 per cent of all speciesin
our lifetime... We are losing probably 0.7
per cent. Acid rain does not kill the forests,
and the air and water around us are
becoming less and less polluted.' In fact, he
assuresus, 'mankind's lot has actually
improved in terms of practically every
measurable indicator'.
A NEW BREED
Most of us had heard this sort of stuff
before. But Lomborg was a new breed of
contrarian. For a start, he was anything but
pompous. With his casual clothes,
relatively youthful looks and informal
delivery, his opponents were the ones who
looked outdated and stuffy. Lomborg even
claimed to have started out as an 'old leftwing Greenpeacemember', who had
accidentally switched sides when he was
unable to refute an article by the late
green-baiter Julian Simon.
This convenient little fairy story should
have rung some bells. But it didn't. 'Strange
to say,the author of this happy thesis is
not a steely-eyed economist at a
conservative Washington think-tank, but a
vegetarian, backpack-toting academic who
was a member of Greenpeacefor four
years,' gushed The New YorkTimes. Even
The Guardian was taken in, devoting a
seriesof front pagesto Lomborg in its G2
supplement. And BBC2 later donated a
whole hour to him during its coverage of
the Johannesburg Earth Summit.
Meanwhile, the real steely-eyed
economists were having a ball. The Wall
StreetJoumalloved Lomborg's book. And
TheEconomist,always on the lookout for
someone to supply an empirical underlay
for the particular perspective it peddles,
pronounced: 'Dr Lomborg's critics protest
too much. They are rattled not because,as
they endlessly insist, Dr Lomborg lacks
credentials as an environmental scientist
and is of no account, but becausehis book
is such a powerful and persuasive assault
on the central tenets of the modern
environmental movement.'
Lomborg was already winning. In a
bizarre inversion of reality, he was able to
poseas a plucky rebel fighting impossible
odds - a heroic outsider exposing green
dogma to new scientific scrutiny - while
actually promoting an agendanot ...
1Ti1~T:riI:Til:t~i~:
U
Iii [1111.:,:~
i~ 1~ :Iii]
Make un.sub~tanti~ted accusations
supporters
Project, to move the entire population
American
measuring
EO Wilson and
continent'.
the paper.' (See: 'Climate Changes: discourse in the
greenhouse'; J Gundermann; in Sceptical Questions
plan, the Wildlands
to recreate a natural wilderness
:"1~ 1~~..I ~[.1] ~1: [I]
de duce d f rom our analysIs,
.,
which we made explicit in
Paul Ehrlich are 'enthusiastic
of an ambitious
Lomborg
hassinceresponded,
saying:
'Thiscannowaybe
you disagree
Lomborg asserts that Harvard biologist
Technology
---
and Solar-Terrestrial PhysicS; 60/18: 719-728; 1998)
. about SCientists
with whosework
Stanford biologist
&
and Sustainable Answers;
of the US so as
in most of the North
(The Skeptical Environmentalist:
the real state of the worlct p 257;
C Ege and J Christiansen
(eds); Danish Ecological Council; 2002.)
FACT: The Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) points out that 'natural forcings
alone. ..' (ie - variability
in solar radiation
and
Cambridge
UniversityPress;2001[referredto
volcanoes)
'.. .donotexplainthethewarming
inthe
hereafter as page numbers only]).
second half of the 20th century'.
FACT: Wilson
in greenhouse
and Ehrlich do indeed support the
Wildlands
Project (www.twp.org),
intention
is rather less ambitious
but the project's
than Lomborg
claims. It merely aims to work with landowners
protect wildlife
Policymakers';
the Scientific
to
habitat.
n
U
Select only the studies which support
your pre-formed conclusion; ignore all
other scientific work
Lomborg
asserts
that globalwarmingwill benefit
plantsby increasingCO2fertilisation,thereby
greeningthe earth(p 299).He basesthis on just one
study,whichto a largeextenthe misunderstands
('Globalresponseof terrestrialecosystemstructure
andfunctionto CO2andclimatechange:resultsfrom
six dynamicglobalvegetationmodels';W Crameret
al; GlobalChangeBiology;7: 357-373;2001).
FACT:Oneof the biggestworriesaboutglobal
warmingis that climatechangewill be so rapidthat
manyplantand animalspecieswill be unableto
adaptin time. Lomborgcompletelyignoresthis. (See
'Ecosystems
andTheirGoodsand Services';IPCC
2001:Impacts,Adaptationand Vulnerability:
Contributionof WorkingGroupII to the Third
AssessmentReportof the Intergovernmental
Panel
on ClimateChange;CambridgeUniversityPress;
2001).This is alreadythoughtto be a majorfactor in
the declineof coralreefs,for example(See:'Climate
Change,CoralBleachingandthe Futureof the
World'sCoralReefs',0 Hoegh-Guldberg;
Marineand
FreshwaterResearch;
50: 839-66;1999.)
n
g
Distort the conclusions and intentions of
scientific studies in order to support a
different conclusion to the one intended by the
authors
Lomborg tries to show that changes in solar radiation
might partly explain global warming, thereby letting
fossil fuels off the hook (p 278). But one of the authors
of the study he cites ('Solar cycle length hypothesis
appears to support the IPCCon global warming';
PLautandJ Gundermann;
Journal of Atmospheric
IPCC 2001: Climate Change 2001Basis; Contribution
to the Third Assessment
Intergovernmental
Cambridge
n
~
Only the increases
gases can do so. (See 'Summary for
of Working Group I
Report of the
Panel on Climate Change;
University
Press; 2001.1
Set up 'straw men' by using old figures
to misrepresent what scientists
are currently saying
Toshow how exaggerated
claimsof massspecies
extinctionsare, Lomborgbeginshis biodiversity
chapterby repeatingNormanMyers'1979estimate
that 40,000speciesare beinglost everyyear(p 249).
But as Myershimselfasks:'Why doesn'the referto
the SO-pluspapersI havepublishedon biodiversity
and massextinctionduringthe 20-yearinterim?'
('Specious:on Lomborgandspeciesdiversity';
N Myers;in GristMagazine[www.gristmagazine.
com/grist/books/myers121201.asp];
2002.)
FACT:RecentUnitedNationsEnvironment
Programme
(UNEP)
estimatesindicatethat 25 per
cent of the world'smammalsand 12 percentof birds
are at significantrisk of globalextinction(Global
Environment
Outlook3; p 121;UNEP;20021.
n
Eli
Where science doesn't support your
preconceived conclusions, refer to
non-scientific work in non-peer-reviewed
publications
Lomborgclaimsthat 'acid rain doesnot kill the
forests' (p 4). This conclusionis basedon a
singlegraph,onewhich was not publishedin a
peer-reviewedjournalbut in a bookby the late
anti-greencontrarianJulian Simon(TheStateof
Humanity;
J Simon;1995).
FACT: Scientistsagreestronglythat acid rain
damagesbothplantandaquaticecosystems.
(Thereis an enormousliteratureon this. See[for
example]: The1997Canadian
Acid RainAssessmen~
Environment
Canada.)
(continuedon nextpage)
THEECOLOGIST
MARCH
2003 27
Science& TechnologyLomborg
m
Use statistical tricks to come to biased
I .
conc uslons.
Lomborg
claimsthat forestsare not disappearing.
'Globally,the overallareacoveredby forestshas not
changedmuchsince1950.'Ip 110.)However.he can
FACT:Thepercentageshaveindeedchanged.But
becauseof populationrise the absolutenumberof
onlyjustify this extraordinarystatementby cobbling
togethersomeold FADstatisticsthat were never
meantto be usedin this way becausethey include
2000Report;[http://www.who.int/water_sanitation-
I
plantationsandevenclearcuts.
FACT:Duringthe 1990sthe net lossin globalforest
areawas an estimated94 million hectaresabout2.4 percent of total forests.ISee:Global
Environment
Outlook3; p 92; UNEP;2002.)
U
peoplelackingwater suppliesstayedstatic between
1990and2000at about1.1billion.(Seetable 2.2;
GlobalWaterSupplyand SanitationAssessment
health/Globassessment/GlobaI2.1.htm];
World
HealthOrganisation;
2000).Lomborg's
figure on
globalwarmingis simplyincorrect.Theuncertainties
and potentialimpactsare muchhigherthan he
states.(Seechapterfour; Hydrologyand Water
Resources
in IPCC2001:Impacts,Adaptationand
Vulnerability:Contributionof WorkingGroupII to the
ThirdAssessmentReportof the Intergovernmental
Use misleading arguments to undermine
global environmental agreements
Lomborgreproduces
a graphshowingthat the
KyotoProtocolwill leadto temperaturesin 2100
Panelon ClimateChange;CambridgeUniversity
Press;2001.1
[fi1
~
Consider only the financial costs of
beingonlymarginallylower (byabout0.150
centigrade!thanwould be the caseif nothingwas
environmental problems
Lomborgreliesheavilyon cost-benefitanalysesto
doneaboutglobalwarming.Kyotois, therefore,
showthat it is moreexpensiveto cut CO2emissions
than it is simplyto adaptto globalwarming.He
pointlessand expensive(p 302!.
FACT:Kyotowas onlyeverintendedas a first step,
one intendedto run until 2012.An analysisof its
effect in 2100is thereforeirrelevant.(See:A Guide
to the ClimateChangeConvention
and its Kyoto
ProtocotUNFCCC;
2002[unfccc.int/resource/
guideconvkp-p.pdf].)
Negotiationsfor toughercuts
after 2012are dueto start by 2005.
A
~
Ask (and answer) the wrong questions,
so you can ignore the real issues
Lomborgdevotesa wholechapterto debunkingthe
supposedclaimsof environmentalists
that we are
runningout of fossil fuel energy.'We havemoreand
moreoillett, not lessand less: he states(p125),
pointingout that scarcitywill increasepriceandthe
incentiveto find moreoil in new ways and places.
FACT:What concernsenvironmentalscientistsis not
that we arefunningout of oil, butthat we are
runningout of the necessaryecologicalspaceto
absorbthe consequences
of our extraction,
transportationandcombustionof oil. (See:'Energy:
askingthe wrongquestion';P Holden;in 'Misleading
Math aboutthe Earth';ScientificAmerican;pp 65-67;
January2002.1
rn
a
Make convenient mistakes and muddle
different data types to suit your ends
In considering access to drinking water, Lomborg
switches back and forth between absolute numbers
and percentages to make it appear as if fewer people
now lack access to clean water than in the past (p
21j. He also asserts that global warming will only
change water availability by '1-5 per cent' (p 152).
~ THE ECOLOGIST
MARCH2003
claimsthat 'the total globalwarmingcost of
$5 trillion' is only 'the equivalentof total world
outputfor abouttwo months',while 'global
stabilisationof CO2emissions'is 'far morecostly'at
'about$8.5trillion' (p 310).Not onlyare thesekinds
of figureshighlycontroversialwithin the climate
economicscommunity,but they alsoassumethat
only humanbeings(andonlymarkettransactions
within humansocieties)matterwhenassessingthe
costsof climatechange.No other life formsor nonmonetarisedaspectsof the humanexperiencecan
enterthis chilly equation.
FACT:Thecost of globalwarmingis simply
incalculable,but if the temperaturerise is in the
upperregionof the IPCC's1.4-5.8°centigrade
projection,it will havea catastrophiceffect on both
naturalecosystems
and humansociety.(The
projectedimpactsof climatechange,andthe costsof
mitigatingit, are discussedexhaustivelyin IPCC
2001:ClimateChange2001:SynthesisReportof the
ThirdAssessmentReportof the Intergovernmental
Panelon ClimateChange.)
dissimilar to that of Exxon and George
Bush. As TheEconomistpurred
disingenuously: 'He usesthe findings of
sdentists to presshis case.How can using
scienceto criticise the Kyoto agreement,to
show that the world's forests are not
disappearing,to demonstrate that the
planet's supplies of energy and food will
suffice indefinitely, and the rest, constitute
an attack on sdence?If that is so, the
scholarswhose work supports these
positions are presumably attacking science
too, and had better stand in line for a pie in
the face.'
ROSE-TINTEDSPECTACLES
According to expert reviewers, however,
Lomborg's work consistently
misrepresented or misinterpreted the
scientific studies it purported to rely on.
In many cases,Lomborg simply ignored an
established scientific consensuson the
issue in question, and quoted selectively
instead from the few studies that supported
his fixed point of view. Right from the
start, many of the scientists and researchers
whose work Lomborg's book was supposed
to be based on were furious.
John Rennie, the editor of Scientific
Americanmagazine,said: '[Many scientists]
spoke to us about their frustration at what
they describedas Lomborg's
misrepresentation of their fields. His
seemingly dispassionateoutsider's view, they
told us, is often marred by an incomplete
use of the data or a misunderstanding
of the underlying science.Even where
his statistical analysesare valid, his
interpretations are frequently off the mark.'
Reviewersin the journal Nature
complained that Lomborg's book 'reads
like a compilation of term papers from
one of those classesfrom hell where one
has to fail all the students'. 'It is,' Nature
said, 'a mass of poorly digested material,
deeply flawed in its selection of examples
and analysis... Lomborg's text relies
heavily on secondary sources.Out of
around 2,000 references,about 5 per cent
come from news sourcesand about 30 per
cent from web downloads... [these sources
are] readily accessible...but frequently not
peer reviewed.'
Back in Denmark, a group of Lomborg's
own colleagueswere so aghastat all the
attention he was receiving that they
establisheda website dedicated to refuting
his claims. The site is basedon the serverof
Sclence&fec hlla"lagyLom"6org
Lomborg's
own
To the
about
popular
peer
spedalist
training
scientific
men
abuse
in
of the
crudally
than
the
that
would
As one
turf
lab
between
But
was
lead
Nature
-
everywhere
sure
would
and
the
in
an email:
to any
come
HERE ENDETH
-
So justice
downfall.
And
an
THE LESSON
was
not
have
'If
that
Nature
that
rather
Dr Jeffrey
arguing
and
it out
I am
to his
a paper
earth,
sending
that
reviewers,
to me
wrote
the
it was
always
and
ultimately
dishonesty.'
Lomborg's
process
cries
of
so much
of environmentalists
drcles
Nature
wars
coats.
lack
like
shrill
to review,
done,
before
been
to the
understanding
the
published
it
(damage
which
interests
will
the
try
Lomborg
contrarians
down
the
credibility
like
a
other
last
single
two
aim:
the
all
very
well
to
hype
y cases
man
Lomboro
q ues'
on
of pretenders
motion
flat-earth
quote!
theoriesand creationist
and
I
.
I
just
lectlvelY
garbageheap'.
Tough,but true.
the
SUPP Ortl
year
of
that
The
'clearly
contrary
the
Danish
Lomborg
readers,
couldn't
the
standards
Although
(all
not
rule
simply
hasn't
looking
at.
able
only
because
out
the
possibility
understood
In
like
to
reality,
Lomborg.
Lomborg
body
is
But
just
Royal
general
Academy
knew
convict
misleading
was
Ouch.
of good
independent
National
feel
to be misrepresented
from
this
can't
defeat
on their
contrarians
Ultimately,
have
to engage
state
his
sdence
may
public
and
even
remember:
have
it took
to find
immediately
of the
if their
by clever
more
work
world'
-
out
that
was
the
the
rest
done
widening
of soctety,
us all a favour.
two
years
what
the
Lomborg's
nothing
is not
manipulators
So, in illustrating
gap between
of Britain's
of deliberately
this
slightly
professional
sdentiststoo
is
the
parent
American
did
fact,
environmentalists
media
committee's
or the
are
(in
with the public and the
equivalent
of Sciences)
ever
probably
own.
-
members
scientists;
Society
l his fixed
point f view.
Environmentalist
to
as
to be learned
will
practice'.
committee
the
which
a full
consideration
scientific
problems
bad
Lomborg's little dose of
which
Skeptical
Environmentalist,
worsebecause
of
..
Danish
- after
concluded
Partly
sorrysaga- not leastthat
Committee on Scientific
Dishonesty,
as
they're
recent
by
planet's
crisis.
denial).Therearelessons
studit
ideas end up on the
judgement
our
world's
wayside,and whose
the
of a
on
Skeptical
insteadf1 mthefew
beliefs who fall by the
Hence
formation
consensus
Now,two yearsafter
the publicationof The
'the
d
a
Lomborgmayturn out to
havebeenthe most
damaging.
consensus n the issue
in
over
with
the start,however,Bjorn
estabUshescientific
of scienceby changing
the courseof mainstream
thought, there are
unique.
because
weall
underestimated
him at
--
Copernicus,
Galileo,
NewtonandDarwinwho
shakes
the foundations
machines,
the
as long
emerged
ecological
,
Harveysaid,'for every
perpetual
from
generally
to prevent
Lomborgasthe new
Galileo,but, asDr
with
for
tackling
In
corporate
have
societal
media
thousands
and
is far
decades,
may
sdence
perpetuate
Many
both
damage
public's
press
to
as possible).
on
belatedly.
of environmental
astrophysicists
accountant's
astronomers
if a little
incalculable
done
of bricks.'
It was
for
sounded
whining
important,
accountant
ton
just
explained
without
this
Lomborg's
scientific
of the
Harvey,
all
and
snobbery;
bearded
sun
media
review
committee's judgement was about as
damning as it gets: 'Objectively speaking,'
it concluded, 'the publication of the work
under consideration is deemed to fall
within the concept of scientific
- Aarhus.
university
more
for
the
sdentists
'real
than
an illusion.
they
that
what
the
he
he was
the
MarkLynaslivesandworksin Oxford.Hisbookon the
humanimpactsof climatechangewill be publishedby
Flamingolaterthis year.Contact:marklynas@zetnet.co.uk
THEECOLOGIST
MARCH
2003 ~