Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
global warming' (Doran
2006
). 'We have seen from encounters with the public how
the political use of
State of Fear
has changed public perception of scientists, espe-
cially researchers in global warming, toward suspicion and hostility' (American
Geophysical Union
2006
: 364). It has been pointed out that Crichton's texts work
'by blurring the borders between false documents and hard data' (Genty
2009
: 6). In
addition, the Union of Concerned Scientists published a list of the novelist's mis-
takes, underlining the existence of a real consensus among climate change experts
and challenging Crichton's biased selection and presentation of scientifi c data
(Union of Concerned Scientists
2005
). Yet Crichton has been taken for a climate
change expert. He appeared on many television talk shows, while Senator Inhofe, of
'greatest hoax' fame, made
State of Fear
the 'required reading' for the Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works which he chaired from 2003 to 2007
and to which he called Crichton to testify in 2005. Crichton's deprecation of science
is revealing: 'Scientists know that continued funding depends on delivering the
results the funders desire. As a result, environmental studies are every bit as suspect
as industry studies' (Afterword of
State of Fear
).
The other is an author of several topics on the environment, two of which I have
examined personally. He is a superb communicator, who uses his considerable tal-
ents to cast doubt on the validity of the science and the integrity of scientists. This
is Lomborg who declares on a website created to attract requests for speakers: 'In
2008 he was named “one of the 50 people who could save the planet by the UK
Guardian”.' Although employed as adjunct professor in economics and statistics at
Copenhagen's Business School with a doctorate in social and political studies, he
styles himself a 'leading expert on global sustainability' on the site in question. This
is at variance with his earlier statement in the preface of the topic that made his
name, The
Skeptical Environmentalist
, '…but I am not myself an expert as regards
environmental problems' (2001: xx).
At fi rst sight, many of Lomborg's statements appear to be highly credible. He
draws readers into sympathising with his views by addressing them at a level non-
academics can understand. His language appears deliberately populist, suited to
attract many readers who might well be scornful of serious scientifi c debate when
writing: 'Not surprisingly, a headline like “Climate Change Death Toll Put at
150,000” sells a lot of newspapers.' Or 'Let us take a peek under the hood of this
number'. (Lomborg
2008
: 93). His prose might be deliberately calculated to give
the impression of being 'antiscience', when writing: '…This chapter accepts the
reality of global warming but questions the way in which future scenarios have been
arrived at and fi nds that forecasts of climate change of 6 degrees by the end of the
century are not plausible' (Lomborg
2001
: 258). As a reviewer commented: '…it is
ironic that in a popular book by a statistician one can't fi nd a clear discussion of the
distinction among different types of probabilities … He uses the word “plausible”
often, but curiously for a statistician, he never attaches any probability to what is
“plausible”' (Schneider
2002
: 61).
Any confi dence one might have in his expertise begins to fade, when it becomes
clear that his authority is based on countless mistakes. He was either very careless
or relied on the belief that readers would not take the trouble to verify the facts used
Search WWH ::
Custom Search