Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
One attempt to develop a serious discussion about the nature of climate science and the threats of
climate change was instigated by the Danish academic Bjørn Lomborg. In his 2001 book The Skeptical
Environmentalist, Lomborg cast doubt on various scientific predictions that suggest impending
ecological doom for humanity. In his reflections on climate change, Lomborg accepted that climate
change was happening and that it was caused by humans. He did, however, question predictions
that climate change would lead to serious socio-ecological problems in the near future. Lomborg
thus argued that there were more pressing issues facing humanity than climate change, and that
these should be given a higher priority.
Lomborg's book proved to be controversial and resulted in his work being investigated by the
Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty. In 2003 the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty
ruled that The Skeptical Environmentalist did exhibit scientific dishonesty, but that this dishonesty
was not a result of gross negligence or a deliberate intent to mislead on the part of Lomborg.
In essence the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty felt that the dishonesty evident in
Lomborg's book was largely a product of his lack of scientific expertise in the field of climate change.
Given that climate change embraces sciences as diverse as glaciology, hydrology, climate science
and meteorology, inter alia, this is a charge that could be levelled at many working in the field of
climate change studies. The Economist magazine defended Lomborg's work, suggesting that his
book never claimed to be a scientific study and should not thus have been subject to a scientific
dishonesty hearing. What the case of Lomborg, and his Skeptical Environmentalist book, clearly
illustrate is that climate change raises questions about the nature of scientific expertise and
dishonesty.
Key readings
Economist (2003) 'Thought control', The Economist, 9 January
Lomborg, B. (2001) The Skeptical Environmentalist, Oxford University Press, Oxford
University of East Anglia were leaked onto the
internet (see Nerlich, 2010). Although these emails
had been obtained through the illegal hacking of
scientists' email servers, they raised questions
about the impartiality of well-respected climate
scientists, and led to what became know as
Climategate. For a long period of time scientists
working at the Climate Research Unit had been
strong supporters of the climate change consensus
and had produced reliable data to support the
case for anthropogenic climate change. The inter-
cepted emails related to correspondences that had
been undertaken over a 15-year period. Climate
sceptics took a particular interest in emails that
discussed attempts to stop the publication of
certain scientists' work, and how data could be
adjusted using certain 'tricks' (Nerlich, 2010:
422). Although an independent panel cleared the
Climate Research Unit of 'scientific impropriety or
dishonesty', Climategate revealed how easy it is to
discredit scientific consensuses and undermine
For a discussion of the role of the media
in shaping the climate change debate
and the ways in which climate science is
interpreted by the public go to The Yale
Forum on Climate and the Media:
