|Books defending Lomborg:
Science and public policy by Ainsley Kellow
Books defending Lomborg
|Ainsley J. Kellow (2007):
Science and public policy: the virtuous corruption of virtual
environmental science. Edward Elgar Publishing. 228 pp.
The main point is that environmentalists who refer to `a noble cause´ hijack science and use it to promote their special political agenda. To illustrate this, the author has been keen to fill the book with as many errors and blunders as possible that have been made by environmentalists, and in general to put environmentalists in the worst possible light. In this endeavour, the book seems to be very one-sided.
The book has 6 chapters, one of which (28 pages) deals with the criticism of Lomborg´s book, The Skeptical Environmentalist. Here, Aynsley Kellow writes that the attack on Lomborg came from a small circle of critics, mostly in the US and mostly closely associated with Paul Ehrlich [author of The Population Bomb]. Kellow writes that for all the highly critical words written in the reviews in Nature, Scientific American, and Science, his critics barely landed a substantive blow on Lomborg.
I am one of the sources cited in Kellow's book, where he refers to the Lomborg-errors website. If he had read that properly, he would hardly have talked of a small circle of critics. The number of scientists being very critical of Lomborg is huge, as is evident inter alia from the quotes about Lomborg's books (here). The critics come from many countries, not least the large number of critics from Denmark. It is remarkable, for instance, that all 24 scientists in the DCSD, representing a wide range of natural and social sciences, agreed that the facts in Lomborg´s book were not correct (see here) - that is as far as one can come from a narrow circle of persons who band together to slate a heretic.
It is strange that Kellow can write that his critics have not landed a substantive blow on Lomborg. I list on my website - which he has seen - more than 500 concrete errors in Lomborg's books, many of which are demonstrably deliberate - is that not a substantive blow? Kellow has no will to understand the central issue: What Lomborg writes is simply not true. He lies. This, of course, must lead to massive criticism. The remarkable thing is not that Lomborg´s books have been criticised so heavily - but rather that they have not been criticised more heavily than they have. It is a disaster for science and for public debate not that Lomborg's book was slated, but that so many people have accepted a text that is full of serious misinformation and outright lies, which is richly documented on this web site.
But, considering that all through his book, Kellow is extremely one-sided, one should not expect anything else. It seems that from the start he has been unable to see that Lomborg has done anything wrong at all and that he believes everything that Lomborg says and writes.