view_article

A Response to a Dismayed Environmentalist

By Jim Peron

Jeffrey Harvey was one of five environmentalists to file charges against Bjorn Lomborg as outlined in The Continuing Crucifixion of Bjorn Lomborg. In response to that article he sent an email to ILV's Jim Peron.

While we do not have permission to reprint the Harvey email, the nature of his remarks are clear from the context of Jim's reply to him which is reprinted below in full.

---

Dear Mr. Harvey:

I have read your email in full, as you requested, and assume you will show the same courtesy in return.

I am sorry you are dismayed that I criticized the Danish Committee for Scientific Dishonesty. But then we are equal since I'm dismayed that you were one of the people to file charges with this agency.

Allow me to explain. First, even if everything Prof. Lomborg said was proven to be completely false and intentionally fabricated, I would still be dismayed. I am an advocate of freedom of speech including the right of people to peddle falsehoods that they believe, or claim to believe. This includes your right to disagree with Prof. Lomborg. In the dying days of apartheid I experienced first hand police raids based on opinions and censorship issues. It is one, but not the only, reason that I support freedom of speech. My problem is, that as I understand it, this agency is a pseudo-government agency. And government is not supposed to be in the business of judging the opinions of individuals. I would defend your right to rail against Prof. Lomborg as much as you want. In fact I think you even have the right to libel him. The moment any state agency or government funds are used to express your agenda then I problems. I agree with Thomas Jefferson: "the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction."

It also dismays me that, instead of merely debating the issues and facts, you frequently resort to smearing, name-calling and insinuation. In the process you often reveal what I assume to be your own political agenda. Let me explain.

You refer to Lomborg's "defenders on the political right". Not knowing what you mean by "political right" this is a problem when it comes to responding. The insinuation is, whatever you mean, there is something inherently wrong with being on the political right. This seems to imply that your terminology is meant to lower Prof. Lomborg in my eyes due to the fact that a vague and undefined group of people defend him. In Fundamentalist Christian circles that's known as "Secondary Separation". It means that if someone is supported by people who we assume to be evil then the person in question is evil as well. Having fought the Religious Right for decades it is disconcerting to see similar values in movements that are ostensibly secular.

You also refer to "corporate-sponsored think tanks". For the record my Institute has not received any "corporate" funds but would be happy to do so. We'd take donations from anyone, including yourself, provided no ideological strings were attached. In South Africa I worked with groups like the Helen Suzman Foundation, the Freedom of Expression Institute and the South African Institute of Race Relations. With the exception of FXI (where I was a board member for one year) I had no knowledge of where their funds came from. This is true of most writers and researchers at most think tanks around the world. Their writings are not determined by donors.

I find your insinuation that donations determine research outcome insulting to a lot of people who I believe well intentioned, including many people I disagree with.

In addition you do not explain what is meant by "corporate-sponsored". I have read annual reports from various foundations and find that virtually all think tanks (and most environmental groups - especially the most well known) receive some corporate funding. Does the receipt of any donation, regardless of how small a portion of a budget it may be, from a corporation make one corporate sponsored? And if they are corporate sponsored do you assume this makes them biased? And does the same bias not apply to environmentalists funded by people who advocate what Lomborg calls the Litany?

Should I assume that you are politically biased against corporations since it appears that you assume that merely charging one as being "corporate sponsored" is tantamount to proclaiming them the antiChrist? That such an accusation is presumed negative reveals your own anti-corporation biases. This seems to indicate that you have a political agenda as well. You seemingly dismiss Lomborg's "defenders" as being Right-wing and thus they are discredited due to their own political agenda. But if having a prior political agenda discredits them then surely it equally discredits you since you seem to have a political agenda as well. It appears that the main problem you have with his defenders is that they oppose your agenda.

In an email which you did not send to me, but to an ecology/economics discussion group, you made similar pronouncements which help illustrate your own agenda. For instance you referred to Reason magazine as a "right-wing think tank rag". The Reason Foundation and Competitive Enterprise Institute you called "two fervently anti-environmental think tanks receiving generous dollops of corporate money". Again the clearly political view that corporate money is inherently evil was displayed. You said that support for Lomborg "sheds a lot of light on the agenda-driven worldview the right are promoting". By implication opposition to Lomborg could be said to shed a lot of light on the agenda-driven worldview of the left.

In the same email you said you "would fail one of my undergraduate students if they were to write such trash" as Lomborg's book. I certainly hope you don't have many undergraduate students since it is clear that disagreeing with you or not determines their grades. At university I only had one professor who specifically said such a thing and the other professor's said this was a clear violation of their code of ethics. Lomborg's book, whether you agree with it or not, clearly articulates one view on the subjects discussed. It is footnoted and well argued. You can disagree with his interpretation and his views if you want but it is well done. If it weren't you and your fellow "environmentalists" wouldn't be fighting it and Lomborg so hard.

This would indicate that if a student were to write such a book that they would clearly deserve an "A" for the project. It does appear, however, that you believe that a student's grade is determined, not by the work they do, but by expressing conclusions which correspond with your own. Again I would take that to mean that you have your own agenda which motivates you. Whether it motivates your work I can't say. But it would be sufficient to motivate what grades you give to students under your tutelage.

You also refuse to grant that anyone who disagrees with you does so sincerely. This is typical of the Fundamentalist mind-set that I found on the Religious Right. You said to me: "As far as yours (sic) are concerned, its obvious to me that you are one of thousands of people who (a) want to believe in what Lomborg writes, and defend him on this account, irrespective of the Œtruth' in his book, and (b) don't understand enough about the relevant issues to take Lomborg to task on them..."

In other words to disagree with you infers one is either entertaining their own whims without resorting to critical thinking or they are just too damn stupid to know better. Again that is typical of the Fundamentalist mind-set. And I should make it clear that I think this Fundamentalist mind-set can be found across the political spectrum and in various movements including among groups with whom I agree. I find your logic to be typical of this view even if you apparently replace the Christian religion with an environmental one.

You insinuate that I support dishonesty in science in your email. You argue that Lomborg selectively quotes from positive studies. Of course the environmental books I've read seem to omit those studies and concentrate on the negative ones. I have no knowledge of you condemning that practice. You write: "I would like to know how you defend Lomborg knowing that he is super-selective. Perhaps you think that selective bias is perfectly acceptable in science."

No I don't. But does this selectivity go both ways or not? Let me clarify something here.

You argue that Lomborg picks reports that support his optimistic view. This implies that their are reports that are optimistic in their content or conclusions. Yet I rarely see such reports mentioned in environmentalist publications or books. Having followed the UN reports for around 6 years now I know that they are filled with good news regarding population trends, human health statistics, life spans, etc. Yet I so rarely see these trends discussed in Green (not the party but the movement) publications. And when such trends are discussed they are usually dismissed or attacked.

Only after the publication of Lomborg's book have I run into references to such trends by the Greens. Even then they barely acknowledge them. They tend to say that such trends might exist but then go into long discussions of why the trends aren't so good after all or why other trends counter them. It seems to me that those of you on the Green left share a similar selectivity. In fact having read books on both sides I'd say the Green left is more selective. At least Lomborg and Simon and others on the "Right" reference books from the Green left. Reading the works of the Green left one would be hard pressed to realize that there was any dissent on these issues.

In your email to ecology/economics group you express a belief in some conspiracy theory about Lomborg and the "corporate-driven Right". You said:

"It seems clear to me that the media is largely supporting Lomborg because his message, as scientifically fraudulent as it is, bolsters the arguments of those on the political right and lends weight to a corporate-driven political agenda; many of these transnational (sic) are corporate sponsers (sic) and advertisers in the media, and one of the most hostile is that of the Murdoch empire, which owns the rabidly conservative anti-environmental FOX media chain in the US and the Times, Sunday Times and Sun group network in the UK. Mr. leake, you are therefore just exposing your own political bias, even if its crapola. I am also sure that CEO's in boardrooms all over the world are toasting their "new hero", irrespective of the fact that his book contains little useful material and contradicts the scientific consensus in just about every conceivable area. "

Now having been a journalism major at university this analysis surprises me. But I do note that conspiracy theories are favourites of the Fundamentalist mind-set. At the University of Connecticut it was clear that somewhere around 90% of the journalism students were clearly partisan to the Left. Various surveys of journalists world wide shows that the overwhelming majority support a Left agenda and similar majorities support a Green agenda (not that there is much difference between them.) I've lived on three continents and, other than a handful of US newspapers, can attest that most exhibit support for a mild Left agenda. And they do so regardless of who buys advertising. That you seem to think that media coverage of Lomborg implies some sort of Hilary Clintonesque "vast right wing conspiracy" is mind boggling but consistent with what I perceive as a Fundamentalist mind-set on your part.

In your response to me you said that most of Lomborg's defenders "make hollow accusations of my political motivations". Perhaps this wouldn't happen if your political motivations weren't so transparent. You seemingly assume absolute impartiality for your own conclusions and damn, as fully biased, the views of anyone who disagrees with you. Once again that is indicative of the Fundamentalist mind-set.

In your email to me you quote Stephen Schneider but you ignore where I noted his own admission of presenting exaggerated "scary scenarios" while downplaying uncertainty in his own apocalyptic environmental pronouncements. If, as you say, you are so concerned about bias why do favourable quote him? Shouldn't you condemn his admission? Or does your concern for "bias" simply mean you don't think people should draw conclusions different from your own? Lomborg started out with biases contrary to the conclusions in his book and no one has offered any evidence to the contrary. This, while not indicative that his conclusion are necessarily correct, implies that his conclusions are sincere. Mr. Schneider was quite open in admitting his own form of dishonesty (in my opinion) Yet you condemn Lomborg who is obviously sincere and cite Schneider favourable. How odd for someone appealing to scientific objectivity.

In your email to me you say: "Please tell me Mr. Peron: considering that Mr. Lomborg states in his book that he "is not an expert as regards environmental problems" and has "tried to present all the facts", I would appreciate how he seems to know good research from bad? Why aren't these more critical studies included in his book, if he is trying to be objective? And most importantly, why won't he now change his story and admit these egregious errors?"

Let's follow the ramifications of what you say. You argue that Lomborg admits he is not an "expert" on these issues and this causes you to ask "how he seems to know good research from bad?" I see two problems here for you.

First, if he admitted he is not an expert how can he be attacked for being scientifically dishonest? That undermines you entire appeal to this morally questionable committee.

Second, and more importantly, if Lomborg is thus unqualified to tell good research from bad this would presumably apply to the members of the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty as well. As I noted in my article these people lacked the same credentials as Lomborg. If his lack of specific credentials made him unqualified to tell good research from bad research then the Committee members were equally unqualified to judge Lomborg's conclusions based on that research. This argument seems to cut both ways.

I also note that the Committee's conclusions were strikingly contradictory and irrational. They said he was guilty of dishonesty but stipulated that he was not intentionally dishonest. But they also dismiss dishonesty due to negligence. I asked in my column how they could have it both ways? You ignored that comment as if it were never made. The conclusion I read didn't make sense. And according to your own logic it was made by people unqualified to make it, regardless of how long they took to do so.

In your email you cite as proof of Lomborg's dishonesty that he has refused to change his conclusions even though, you claim, he's been proven wrong.

Will this principle be applied to Mr. Paul Ehrlich and other extremists in the Green movement? Paul Ehrlich has drawn absurd conclusions based on his "scientific" research and these conclusions are now proven absolutely false. Let's just recap a few in case you've forgotten them:

• He was wrong when he projected a US population of 22.6 million by 1999 due to starvation.
• He thought 65 million alone would starve in the US between 1980 and 1989. He was wrong again.
• He said the oceans would be destroyed by 1979. Wrong again.
• He said the world's ocean catch would be 30 million metric tonnes in 1977. It was 73 million.
• He said he'd take even money, if he were a gambler, that by the year 2000 England would not exist. I haven't been to London lately but if England did disappear CNN forgot to mention it.
• He said (in 1990) that Latin America had food production lagging it's population growth. The International Food Policy Research Institute said the evidence showed a growth in per capita food production not a decline.
• In 1990 Ehrlich said food production had "lost momentum" in India. Again the IFPRI data showed this to be false.
• In 1990 Ehrlich said that "the population growth rate would remain near 2 percent for the next thirty years." When he said this the rate was already well below 2 percent and is now nearer 1 percent than 2 percent though it isonly twelve years later not 30 years later.

Please indulge me for a moment while I present other similar illustrations from others on your side of the debate.

The International Food Policy Research Institute researched various projections about food production and general resource availability over a period of approximately 50 years. They found some interesting things.

• World population projections, even by respected groups like the UN, "were systematically higher than the actual outcome."
• They showed that Greens like Ehrlich and Lester Brown selectively picked years which would project trends that supported their own agenda while ignoring the long term trends.
• IFPRI said that various Green authors cited were clearly "producing pessimistic scenarios with the explicit purpose of pushing the policy process in particular directions."
• In addition these authors (Ehrlich, Brown and many others) "are predicting far enough in advance that they expect no one will be around to check up on them 50 years later."
• Green author's projections on world oil production were equally as bad as their projections on population and food trends. However, Julian Simon (who you think was inaccurate) and Herman Kahn made projections about "oil prices [that] appear generally on track." But Lester Brown "underestimated future oil production" and his projections were a "good illustration of forecasting a long-term future trend on a significant but short-term perturbation as opposed to using long-term trends."
• Lester Brown said world fishery catches would peak in 1990 and the upward limit of catch was around 100 million metric tonnes. IFPRI says "100 million metric tons is not a limit; on the contrary, total catch has surpassed that limit and kept growing."
• The IFPRI concluded: "...the most stark predictions of Ehrlich, the Paddock brothers, and the Club of Rome fortunately never occurred. The persistent predictions of Lester Brown and his colleagues at the Worldwatch Institute of imminent food shortages and rising long-term real food prices have not yet come true. Price spikes in the 1970s and 1990s were quickly deflated by expanded production and long-term real grain prices resumed their 100-year downward trend. Although some authors might argue that their predictions are mainly for years yet to come, there is no evidence of emerging trends pointing in the direction of significant rises in real food prices."

Now that I've laid a bit of groundwork (though much more could be done) I've shown that many who share your agenda have made dire projections or predictions in the past which have been clearly proven wrong. Yet where are their confessions of error? Ehrlich seems to quietly remove statements that were clearly proven wrong without comment or confession on his part.

You chastise Lomborg as a "dishonest fraud" because he "hasn't even attempted to correct" his errors. This is not a rhetorical question. For the record do you think Paul Ehrlich is a "dishonest fraud" for not correcting his obvious errors? Since Mr. Ehrlich loves to write books he could easily do one just outlining his past projections that went wrong.

And what do you think, in regards to honesty, of Mr. Schneider in light of his admission of offering up scary scenarios without mentioning any doubts in order to be politically effective?

What I'm trying to determine is whether or not you apply the same standards to people who agree with you as you do to those who disagree with you.

You argue Lomborg is unqualified to speak on these topics. Do you acknowledge that Al Gore was unqualified to write his book on environmentalism? Do you acknowledge that Helen Caldicott has no credentials to enable her to speak about nuclear power? Do you accept that Ralph Nader lacks credentials to talk about anything regarding the environment? Do you accept that Paul Ehrlich was trained as an butterly specialist and thus shouldn't be writing about population demographics? Can you tell me which prominent Green spokesman, if any, is a resource economist and thus qualified to speak on that topic?

You wrote me: "And yes, knowing the man (Lomborg) and his motives as I do, he is dishonest. Completely and utterly." Could you clarify for me how well you know Lomborg? From this statement you imply personal knowledge based on a history with him. Where you and he close friends, not-so-close friends, whatever? How many times have you met him? How much time has you spent in one on one conversation? If you know him well enough to make the judgment that you make I'm just curious how much interaction you have had with him? Most people, when they say, they "know" someone mean on a personal level. It is a distortion of language to say one "knows" someone they have only read or debated on a few occassions. So to clarify this claim on your part please tell me how well you know Lomborg. If you don't actually know him then such a statement does seem a tad bit dishonest on your part.

Finally, I'm curious regarding what motivation you attribute to Lomborg. No one has yet questioned the idea that he was once a Green accepting what he calls the Litany. And it is clear that he now takes another view on those issue. What is the reason for this?

You seem to dismiss that he honestly reappraised the issues and changed his mind (in fact you seem to imply that any disagreement with you can not be motivated by anything but dishonesty or stupidity). So if his was not a sincere change of mind what was it? What is his motivation? And what evidence can you present to support your theory as to his motivation?

Obviously this topic and the reasons that people take positions are complex and multi-faceted. And no doubt my reply doesn't satisfy all your requests. But I'm trying to lay some groundwork for future discussions if that is acceptable to you. I look forward to your response.

Jim Peron
Institute for Liberal Values
Auckland, New Zealand

---

Jim Peron is the Executive Director of the Institute for Liberal Values, the editor of the book The Liberal Tide, and the author of the forthcoming book 'The Road Not Taken: Resolving the Crisis on the Roads.'