FINANCIAL TIMES
Lomborg cleared
Published: December 18 2003 4:00
"How can they have been so stupid? In a nutshell, this was yesterday's official verdict on the Danish committees on scientific dishonesty.
With imperious hauteur the committees had ruled in January that Bjorn Lomborg's book The Skeptical Environmentalist was "objectively speaking . . . scientific dishonesty". Purely based on the evidence of articles in the magazine Scientific American, the Danish environmental optimist became the scientific equivalent of a flat-earther and the cause of an almighty dispute about the science behind global warming. "The publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice," the ruling added.
Yesterday it was damningly overturned by the Danish Ministry of Science, which found that the committees had not discovered any bias in Mr Lomborg's choice of data and that criticism of his working methods was "completely void of argumentation". The criticisms continue. The committees used sloppy and emotive language that - perhaps deliberately - obscured the fact that they had in fact cleared Mr Lomborg of gross negligence and an intent to deceive. They failed adequately to assess whether they had proper jurisdiction over the book. They used improper procedures. They failed to assess whether Mr Lomborg's work had been peer reviewed. They had not offered Mr Lomborg a chance to respond. And they allowed his accusers too much time to make their case.
That is enough about the Danish committees on scientific dishonesty; suffice it to say that the science ministry has at last restored Denmark's sinking scientific reputation. Now scientists, politicians and the media should attempt to learn two lessons from this ludicrous episode.
First, given a choice between alarmism and honesty science must always choose the latter. There is nothing to be gained by alarmism about an uncertain future in an attempt to influence the public and change policy. It merely creates opportunities for Mr Lomborg and others to knock down these and many other straw men. The truth is that the vast majority of scientists, whether they study environmental change or other fields, already adhere to this principle.
So the second lesson is for the media, politicians and the public. If we pay attention to important scientific issues such as global warning only when disaster or salvation is confidently predicted, bad policies are almost certain to be the result. Our appetite for a good story without caveats provides an incentive for some scientists to skip the qualifiers and for us to be fed a diet of distortions.
The future is uncertain. We should learn to accept that uncertainty. Scientists should explain what they can deduce about the future but should always sing loudly about the limits of that knowledge. That is the way to avoid hearing about the Danish committees on scientific dishonesty again."

É altura de recordar o que Lomborg escreveu (1):

"As a society we use vast amounts of resources to regulate both health and environmental risks such as toxins. We have also seen above that pesticides, for example, probably result in very few deaths. But because the media attention is so great, many people think that pesticides are rather dangerous. The consequence of the constantly repeated Litany is that we thoroughly regulate and phase toxins but leave alone other areas where the same resources could do much more good, saving many more people from dying from involuntary risks. If the Litany makes us demand regulation of particular areas of the environment while we fail to consider how the money could otherwise have been spent, we actually create a societal structure in which fewer people survive."

O livro de Lomborg foi, acima de tudo, uma obra de descompressão, lucidez, desassombramento. Nunca entendi a forma absolutamente canalha como, por exemplo, a Scientific American o tratou ou, mais tarde, os "Danish committees on scientific dishonesty" o declararam impróprio para consumo. Lomborg nunca afirmou que o planeta estava a salvo e que, em matéria ambiental, tudo estava bem. Lomborg obrigou-nos a olhar para a questão de um outro prisma, desmontando pelo meio algumas ideias erradas. Tudo devidamente fundamentado, com recurso aos dados dos próprios... ambientalistas. Só encontro uma explicação para esta reacção: Lomborg veio colocar em causa o cânone ambientalista, escancarando a céu aberto a latente desonestidade e os erros de palmatória praticados por certos "soldados do ambiente" - estes sim, os únicos responsáveis pela existência do livro "The Skeptical Environmentalist". Essas coisas não se perdoam.

(1) in"The Skeptical Environmentalist", Cambridge University Press 2001, pp. 341-342.