The Lomborg Debate and the Nature of Science Education
MICHAEL ELLERBROCK
Department of Agricultural & Applied Economics
Virginia Tech
Center for Economic Education
Hutcheson Hall 0401
Blacksburg, VA 24061
USA
http://www.aaec.vt.edu/aaec/faculty/ellerbrock.asp
Abstract: - The worldwide eruption of controversy over Bj ørn Lomborg’s book, The Skeptical
Environmentalist [1], focuses debate on the proper measures of environmental quality, use of the
scientific method, economic versus engineering frameworks of analysis, validity of data and
references, long term modeling, and the need for critical thinking in science education. The
debate offers educators a case study in argumentation. Instructional techniques for teaching
critical thinking are applied to key aspects of the debate.
Key-Words: - Scientific Method, Rhetorical Argumentation, Critical Thinking, Global
Environment, Statistics, Economics, Engineering, Sustainable Development, Lomborg.
1 Introduction
In his opening remarks at the recent 168th
Annual Meeting of the American
Association for the Advancement of
Science, President Peter Raven warned that
Lomborg’s
book
“demonstrates
the
vulnerability of the scientific process –
which is deliberative and hypothesis driven
– to outright misrepresentation and
distortion” [2]. He bluntly questions why
such a prestigious company would publish
the book and why a respected journal like
The Economist would defend it. Raven’s
comments reflect a tip of the iceberg that has
quickly formed in response to Lomborg’s
515 page tome (including 2930 footnotes,
plus a 71 page bibliography) in which he
argues that the global environment “is
generally getting better … there are
problems … but we should not act on myths
of gloom and doom” as propagated by many
environmentalists [3].
During the Spring of 2002, Scientific
American ran a series of articles by eminent
scientists responding to Lomborg [4-10],
including a brief rebuttal from Lomborg [3].
The controversy has ignited a flurry of
articles and discussion in the environmental
and scientific communities. One database
(InfoTrac Onefile) lists 65 responses, both
pro and con, in reaction to The Skeptical
Environmentalist, some of which criticize
and attack Lomborg’s assessment [11-15],
some that defend and praise Lomborg [1619], and some that allow him to respond
again to his critics [20-22].
What are we to make of this debate? At the
least, it raises the epistemological question:
how do we humans know anything? What is
knowledge?
What is truth, wisdom,
certainty, plausibility? Is there a hierarchy
of facts? The debate generated by Lomborg,
a Danish statistician, offers science
educators a compelling case study in
rhetorical argumentation and the need for
critical thinking, the focus of this paper.
Instructional techniques for teaching critical
thinking are applied to key aspects of the
debate.
2 Problem Formulation
Problems central to the Lomborg debate
include:
the
proper
measures
of
environmental quality, use of the scientific
method, economic versus engineering
frameworks of analysis, validity of data and
references, challenges of long term
modeling, and the legitimacy of various
participants and perspectives.
To help
science educators address the debate in their
classrooms, let’s examine some of the key
issues and apply principles of critical
thinking (Table 1) to the arguments
espoused.
2.1 Global Warming
Lomborg [3] asserts that the long term rise
in global temperature from carbon dioxide
will be closer to 1.5 degrees C than 4.5
degrees C, as some have predicted. Stephen
Schneider [4] challenges Lomborg on
several accounts, perhaps most importantly
in Lomborg’s use of a single estimate ($5
trillion) of potential damages from global
warming, yet use of a range of estimates
($3-33 trillion) for the cost of implementing
climate control policies, possibly an error of
Selectivity. Schneider also faults Lomborg
for preferring economists’ high estimates of
those control costs over the lower and nearzero estimates of some engineers who
advocate incentives for consumers and
industry to replace inefficient appliances and
machines with state-of-the art equipment,
possibly another error of Selectivity or an
example of Hidden Ideology: economics
over engineering.
Debates over global warming often center
around the choice of baselines on which to
make inferences about the past and
projections for the future.
Regarding
Clarity, Schneider criticizes Lomborg for
estimating the potential impact of the Kyoto
Protocol only into the 21st Century, a short
term horizon, and for ignoring that Kyoto is
meant to be Flexible and Dynamic, not a
one-shot panacea. With regard to scientific
probabilities,
Schneider
objects
to
Lomborg’s repeated use of the phrase
“plausible” without quantifying it in
mathematical terms, another possible error
of Clarity. When Lomborg emphasizes the
role of solar fluctuations in explaining
global warming, Schneider faults Lomborg
for “the elementary mistake of seeing
correlation as causation” [10], a possible
Non-Sequitur.
With regard to the estimates of damages
from global warming, Schneider rejects
Lomborg’s reliance solely on the loss of
goods and services traded in the
marketplace, without including the harm
inflicted on the environment itself, possibly
reflecting a utilitarian view of nature by
Lomborg, which is perhaps an example of
Hidden Ideology. Conversely, Lomborg
criticizes the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Control for dismissing economic
studies that use aggregate measures of costs
and benefits, whereas Schneider claims such
studies fail to adequately consider important
details and categories of effects, an issue
possibly reflecting the Fallacy of
Composition.
Schneider also faults Lomborg for cleverly
mixing primary and secondary sources of
information and using too many nonscholarly articles, possible violations of the
Authority principle.
When Lomborg
criticizes Schneider for admitting in 1989
that scientists sometimes face a “double
ethical bind” in which they need to “offer up
scary scenarios” to elicit public financial
support, Rennie [10] accuses Lomborg of
questioning Schneider’s motives, a possible
example of Judgmentalism.
2.2 Energy Resources
Whereas Lomborg [1] argues vigorously
that the world is not running out of energy
resources, which few environmentalists
dispute, John Holdren says Lomborg misses
their main point that we are running out of
environment – the biosphere’s capacity to
absorb the consequences and residuals of
energy
extraction,
transportation,
transformation and use [5]. In a sense, the
sides disagree on defining the problem, a
disconnect of mindsets that violates the
principles of Framing and Worldviews.
Holdren also chides Lomborg for making no
distinction between proven versus ultimately
recoverable reserves of fossil fuels, a serious
discrepancy in terms of what is profitable to
extract given today’s technology and prices
versus what might be feasible with future
technologies and potentially higher prices.
Again the interplay of engineering and
economics needs to be integrated into the
analysis, respecting the principle of Holism.
2.3 Population Impact
Whereas Lomborg [1] sees good news in the
declining percentage of starving people on
earth, John Bongaarts [6] argues that the real
news is bad because the number of victims
is rising, here again a debate involving
Clarity. To make his case for relative
measures of human welfare, Lomborg [1, p.
64] argues that a scenario where 750,000
people starve out of a growing population of
2,000,000 is preferable to one where
500,000 starve out of 1,000,000 – a higher
percentage. Lomborg facetiously argues
that, if absolutes measures were preferable,
then a situation where 499,000 starve out of
500,000 would be even better. Bongaarts
retorts that the ideal scenario is a stable
population with declining numbers of
starving people.
2.4 Biodiversity
Much of the debate about biodiversity
hinges on absolute versus relative measures
of change. While Lomborg accepts that the
extinction rate has increased to 1500 times
the natural rate, he nevertheless emphasizes
that “over the next 50 years we might lose
0.7 percent of all species” [3]. Thomas
Lovejoy [7] and Rennie [9] blast Lomborg’s
logic by analogy: whereas AIDS killed three
million people in 2001, that was only 0.05
percent of the world’s population. Toward
Clarity, Lovejoy and Rennie ask the reader
to consider which measure – absolute or
relative – is more important? Lomborg’s
retort might be that it is a False Analogy to
compare human life with primitive
creatures.
In an apparent act of
Judgmentalism, Lomborg [1] notes that
biologists prefer to keep the estimated rates
of extinction high because there “are many
grants at stake” [10].
When Lomborg asserts that the longest data
series reveals little change in world forested
area [1, p. 111], Rennie [10] faults him for
equating new trees with old trees, perhaps an
error of Gross Generalization or the Fallacy
of Composition. Similarly, when Lomborg
[1, p. 113] quotes U.N. Food and
Agriculture Organization figures for tropical
deforestation at 0.46 percent per year of total
global forest cover, Rennie [10] charges that
this is a misleading figure “greatly
understating the pressure on tropical forests,
where most of the deforestation is taking
place,” possibly an error of Selectivity.
Lovejoy [7] also berates Lomborg for
misrepresenting a statement in Paul
Colinvaux’s 1989 text: “As human beings
lay waste to massive tracts of vegetation, an
incalculable and unprecedented number of
species are rapidly becoming extinct.”
Lomborg
subsequently
wrote
that,
“Colinvaux admits in Scientific American
that the rate [of extinction in the tropics] is
‘incalculable’” [10], perhaps abusing the
principle of Language. When charged with
twisting Colinvaux’s statement, Lomborg
refused to recant and asserted that he was
“trying to establish the fact that the vast
extinction numbers are unsupported” [10].
Also in the quest for Accuracy, Rennie [10]
and Schneider [4] fault Lomborg for not
defining the term “catastrophic.”
3 Problem Solution
Students need to be able to evaluate the
validity of arguments and reasoning used in
scientific debates. Table 1 presents some
common principles for educators to use in
developing critical thinking skills in youth
and adults, many of which are applicable to
key issues in the Lomborg debate and other
issues in sustainable development.
Table 1. Some Critical Thinking Skills &
Strategies in Scientific Thought
Tips for the Classroom:










Objectivity - Evaluate an argument for
its rational merits and weaknesses.
Recognize:
* Non-Sequiturs - inferences which do
not logically follow from the
premises or evidence;
* Fallacies of Composition - what’s true
of the whole is not necessarily true
of the parts and vice versa;
* False dichotomies – posing dualistic
paradigms in which the author
wants you to assume that both sides
can’t be true, that the problem is
simple and you should make a clear
choice;
* False Analogies – invalid reasoning,
comparing “apples to oranges;”
* Ill-phrased questions – e.g., “So,
when did you stop dumping toxic
waste in the river?”
Subjectivity - Look beyond strict logic
for illogical, rhetorical, poetic, intuitive
dimensions.
Framing – Ask who framed the
question? Who’s missing? How else
could it be described?
Worldviews - What are the underlying
premises and biases being used
(consciously or not)?
Holism - What facts, ideas, factors,
principles or information are omitted?
What’s missing?
Gross Generalizations – Sweeping
statements that hide details.
Selectivity – Recognize when partial
information is used to ‘prove’ a point.
Diversion - What irrelevant information
is being used to deflect or disguise the
issue?
Context - Try to frame the issue within
larger “umbrella” issues, i.e., what’s the
real issue(s)?
Clarity – Define technical terms,
measures (absolute
vs
relative),
descriptors (quantitative vs qualitative),



















time frames (short vs long run), and
base lines adopted.
Accuracy – Not twisting or spinning
others’ statements out of context.
Authority – Cite sources of data
(primary vs secondary), references used
(expert vs lay).
Claiming Turf – Fear-based responses to
perceived threats, e.g., dismissing
“outsiders.”
Currency – Use best available
information and knowledge.
Fairness – Recognize ad hominem
(personal) assaults, i.e., killing the
messenger for the message.
Judgmentalism – Questioning others’
motives.
Language - Watch for semantic use of
words with double meanings (literal vs
figurative) and value-laden terms
(implied morality).
Hidden Ideology - Rigid schools of
thought, often subtle or implied.
Sensationalism – Watch for use of
words and images for shock value or
hyperbole.
Listening - Seek to hear the voices of
those outside the power structure or the
debate.
Dissent - Consider the ideas of people
with whom you disagree, avoid
sycophants.
Integration - Seek and assimilate multidisciplinary views about the subject.
Paradox – Recognize that seeming
opposites can both be correct or true.
Process - Decide how to decide.
Flexibility - Formulate multiple
solutions to a problem, avoid
irreversible decisions.
Understanding
Communicate
effectively in all modes of expression.
Evaluation – Seek feedback on the
effectiveness and outcomes of a
decision.
Dynamism – Revisit situations in the
future.
4 Conclusion
The Lomborg debate strikes at the heart of
science education. Whereas Lomborg’s
critics [6] agree that he is correct in stating
that humans as a whole now live longer, are
healthier, have fewer children, and possess
greater income and wealth [1], they assert
that his argumentation and conclusions are
seriously flawed, full of Non-Sequiturs and
Selected facts.
Who’s right? The principle of Paradox
reminds us that both sides may be partially
correct, at least temporarily. For example,
Lomborg says the primary cause of hunger
is poverty [1], yet Bongaarts asserts that
overpopulation is part of the problem [6].
There is truth in both views.
The debate raises many other examples of
the need for critical thinking, such as the
economic reality of trade-offs: Lomborg
rejects the Kyoto Protocol on the grounds
that its excessive expenses could otherwise
be used to solve our greatest environmental
problem – safe drinking water for all [3],
thus trying to avoid the error of Diversion.
Bongaarts [6] and Rennie [10] accuse
Lomborg of making a Gross Generalization
when he asserts that China, Egypt, and India
have low population densities when
measured as a percent of their total
respective land base, rather than as a percent
of their arable land area. Rennie [10] further
accuses Lomborg of violating the principle
of Currency when Lomborg criticizes both
Lovejoy’s 1980 estimate that 15-20 percent
of all species may be lost by now and
Norman Myer’s 1979 estimate of the
extinction rate at 40,000 species per year,
figures no longer used by mainstream
scientists, including Lovejoy and Myers.
Schneider [4] faults Lomborg on several
other grounds: failing to distinguish among
different types of probabilities (objective
frequentist versus subjective Bayesian), a
Clarity error; not understanding the natural
science of cloud cover and cosmic radiation,
the Authority principle; and, for approaching
the subject of sustainable development from
an all or nothing paradigm of good news/bad
news, rather than as a matter of risk
management with hedging on particular
issues, a question of Framing.
Much of the Lomborg debate centers on the
principles of Selectivity and Clarity.
Holdren [5] faults Lomborg for “persistently
using numbers to two and three figure
precision for quantities (U.S. energy wasted,
plant photosynthesis) that cannot be known
with such accuracy,” perhaps violating the
Clarity principle. Lomborg retorts that his
critics make ample use of their own
preferred facts and figures.
Has Lomborg helped or hurt the cause of
sustainable development? Whereas some of
his critics [4] reject him outright as an
outsider, citing Lomborg’s own forthright
admission that he is not “an expert as
regards environmental problems,” perhaps
out of their need for Claiming Turf, others
[16-19] welcome Lomborg’s perspective as
a fresh challenge to the scientific
establishment, thereby exemplifying the
principles of Dissent and Integration.
If Lomborg’s monumental effort to
determine “the real state of the world”
forces some radical environmentalists to
base their rhetoric on facts rather than fear,
then so be it. However, if Lomborg’s
assessment
reinforces
an
undue
complacency among consumers across the
globe, then he may indeed undermine his
own optimism.
References:
[1] Lomborg, B., The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World
(Cambridge: University Press, 2001), 515 pp.
[2] Russell, S., “Somber Opening to Science Meeting – Warning of Future Environmental Havoc
Resulting from Western Society’s Lifestyle,” San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 15, 2002, A3; sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=chronicle/archive.
[3] Lomborg, B., “The Skeptical Environmentalist Replies,” Scientific American, May 2002,
286(5): 14-15.
[4] Schneider, S., “Global Warming: Neglecting the Complexities,” Scientific American, Jan.
2002, 286(1): 62-65.
[5] Holdren, J.P., “Energy: Asking the Wrong Question,” Scientific American, Jan. 2002, 286(1):
65-67.
[6] Bongaarts, J., “Population: Ignoring Its Impact,” Scientific American, Jan. 2002, 286(1): 6769.
[7] Lovejoy, T., “Biodiversity: Dismissing Scientific Progress,” Scientific American, Jan. 2002,
286(1): 69-71.
[8] Rennie, J., “Misleading Math about the Earth: Science Defends Itself against The Skeptical
Environmentalist,” Scientific American, Jan. 2002, 286(1): 61.
[9] Rennie, J., “The Skeptical Environmentalist Replies – Rennie Replies,” Scientific American,
May 2002, 286(5): 15.
[10] Rennie, J., “A Response to Lomborg’s Rebuttal,” Scientific American: Explore, April 9,
2002, 18pp; www.sciam.com/explorations/2002/041502lomborg/rennie.html, accessed
May 20, 2002.
[11] Adler, J.H., “Dissident from Denmark,” National Review, April 8, 2002, 18(7): 42.
[12] Baker, R., “The Lomborg File: When the Press is Lured by a Contraria’s Tale,” Columbia
Journalism Review, March-April 2002, 40(6): 78-79.
[13] Burke, T., et al., “Arguments that Don’t Hold Water,” The Guardian, Aug. 20, 2001, G6(2).
[14] Editor, “Bjorn Lomborg the Environmental Optimist,” Africa News Service, March 18, 2002,
p 1008077u6574.
[15] Thornton, J., “How Green Is Our Valley? A Dutch Statistician Insists that Environmentalists
Mislead Us – But Who’s Misleading Whom?” Discover, Jan. 2002, 23(1): 81.
[16] Bailey, R., “Green with Ideology: The Hidden Agenda behind the ‘Scientific’ Attacks on
Bjorn Lomborg’s Controversial New Book, The Skeptical Environmentalist,” Reason,
May 2002, 34(1): 38-47.
[17] Editor, “Defending Science: The Environment,” The Economist, Feb. 2, 2002, 362(8258):
15-16.
[18] Greer, H., “How Data Becomes Dada: A Former Greenie Challenges Doomsayers’
Predictions of Environmental Disaster,” Insight on the News, Feb. 4, 2002, 18(4): 33.
[19] Ridley, M., “The Profits of Doom: Matt Ridley Celebrates Bjorn Lomborg, the
Environmentalist Brave Enough to Tell the Truth – that the End is not Nigh,” Spectator,
Feb. 23, 2002, 288(9055): 10-11.
[20] Lomborg, B., “Yes, It Looks Bad, But,” The Guardian, Aug, 15, 2001, G2(3).
[21] Lomborg, B., “Running on Empty?” The Guardian, Aug, 16, 2001, G6(2).
[22] Lomborg, B., “Why Kyoto Will Not Stop This,” The Guardian, Aug, 17, 2001, G4(2).