- Join CSI as an associate member to receive the newsletter
CSI
Special Features
Web Columns
Center for Inquiry
Resources
|
Home
: Science and the Media
The Skeptical Environmentalist:
A Case Study in the Manufacture of News
Matthew Nisbet
Ithaca, N.Y.
January 23, 2003
By now, most are familiar with the controversy surrounding Danish political
scientist Bjorn Lomborg and the claims made in his book The Skeptical Environmentalist. The
latest development took place in early January 2003 when the Danish
Committees on Scientific Dishonesty issued a decision that declared
Lomborg's research "to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty," and
to be "clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice." The
committee, however, did not find grounds that Lomborg "misled his readers
deliberately or with gross negligence." Instead, the decision recommends that
the book should be properly understood and interpreted as a "a provocative
debate-generating paper."
The Danish decision and the reviews that have appeared in Scientific American, Science, and
Nature strongly question the scientific merits of Lomborg's claims. He
remains, however, highly regarded by conservatives and by the financial press.
Last year, Lomborg was appointed director of Denmark's Environmental Assessment
Institute by the newly elected right wing government, and among the many kudos
emanating from the financial press, Lomborg was named one of the 50 stars of
Europe by Business Week magazine.
Clearly, The Skeptical Environmentalist has fueled Lomborg's personal
celebrity. So, how did a book authored by an obscure Danish academic with
little or no expertise in environmental science become an international media
event? Or more precisely, what was so newsworthy about this book?
Sketchy Science, Heavy Promotion
The critiques of Lomborg's claims by scientists can be summarized and
categorized as the following:
- Lomborg misinterprets or misrepresents data. He criticizes the misuse of
data by environmental groups and the media, but commits similar mistakes in his
own work (Bongaarts, 2001; Gleick, 2002; Grubb, 2001; Holdren, 2002; Pimm and
Harvey, 2001; Pimentel, 2002; Schneider, 2001; Wilson et al., 2002). Lomborg
selectively examines issues or problems that support his thesis that the state
of the environment is improving, while ignoring other issues that refute his
claims (Bongaarts, 2002; Grubb, 2001; Pimentel, 2002). In other cases, he
over-simplifies, commits gross-generalizations, or fails to discuss the issue
of uncertainty and subjectivity in the data that he presents (Gleick, 2002;
Schneider, 2001)
- He uncritically and selectively cites literature, much of it
non-peer-reviewed, and misinterprets or misunderstands the previously published
scientific research (Gleick, 2002; Grubb, 2001; Schneider, 2002; Wilson et al.,
2002). Several scientists observe that most of Lomborg's 3,000 citations are
to media articles and secondary sources (Pimm & Harvey, 2001; Schneider,
2002).
- Lomborg's research is conceptually flawed. He ignores ecology and
connections among environmental problems, taking instead a "human-centered"
approach (Gleick, 2002). In several cases he uses statistical measures that
are not valid indicators of the problems he reports are improving (Pimm and
Harvey, 2001). On the topic of biodiversity, E.O Wilson and a team of
reviewers find that Lomborg's work is "strikingly at odds with what every
expert in the field has stated..." (Wilson et al., 2002, pg. 5). The review
appearing in Nature goes broader, and concludes that The Skeptical
Environmentalist is "a hastily prepared book on complex scientific issues
which disagrees with the broad scientific consensus, using arguments too often
supported by news sources rather than by peer-reviewed publications" (Pimm
& Harvey, 2001, p. 150).
The vast criticism of the book from credentialed scientists contrasts
sharply with the early advance hype from the mainstream media. Just how so
much glowing enthusiasm and credibility could be thrust upon a single book from
an unknown author before experts could even begin to weigh its claims offers an
excellent case study in the manufacture of news.
Getting on the Agenda
Lomborg first made his optimistic claims about the state of the environment
in a series of newspaper op-eds published in his home country of Denmark. By
Lomborg's count, the op-eds sparked some 400 news articles and commentaries in
the Danish press. The vast amount of resistance to his optimistic views on the
environment, and his debunking of what he termed "the litany" of extreme claims
made by environmentalists, motivated him in 1998 to publish a Danish version of
The Skeptical Environmentalist. The fracas went largely unnoticed
outside of Denmark, but that would change with the fall 2001 release of an
English version of the The Skeptical Environmentalist by Cambridge
University Press.
News of the pending book first appeared in the U.K in early June of 2001
when a Sunday Times article by Nayab Chohan featured an advanced report
of claims made by Lomborg that London's air was cleaner than at any time since
1585. Headlined "Cleanest London Air for 400 Years," the publicity hook was
both local and timely, as the tail end of the article linked the book's
questioning of the Kyoto climate change protocol to U.S. president George
W. Bush's visit the same week to Europe, and Bush's controversial opposition to
the treaty. The Times followed up the report the next day with a news
article further detailing the book's Kyoto protocol angle.
With The Times reports, Lomborg and his claims had made the Anglo
media agenda. As is typically the case, other media outlets followed the
reporting of the elite newspaper. Articles pegging the claims of The
Skeptical Environmentalist to Bush's European visit ran later that week in
the U.K's The Express and Daily Telegraph, and
Canada's Toronto Star.
All this set the stage for news of The Skeptical Environmentalist to
hit the U.S. media, and no other outlet could provide a better launching pad
than the New York Times "Science Times"
section. The publication of national record for the U.S., the paper's weekly
science section is widely regarded as the leading model for quality, depth, and
breadth of newspaper science coverage. So in August 2001, when Nicholas Wade
put together a 2,000 word mostly positive profile of Lomborg as part of the
section's prestigious "scientist at work" feature, it proved to be a
significant publicity coup for Lomborg. Indeed, probably the only thing that
kept coverage of the book from completely taking off in the U.S. after the
New York Times profile was the September 11 terrorist attacks that
dominated the news media's attention for the next six months.
Dramatizing the Lomborg Affair
Yet beyond what media researchers call the "inter-agenda setting" effect
with coverage at elite news outlets setting off follow up coverage by other
media (Trumbo, 1995), additional aspects of the Lomborg affair made the story
especially appealing to journalists. Previous studies of the news have shown
that journalists as a profession are attracted to compelling narratives, with a
good story comprised of personalities, conflict, and the odd, peculiar, or
unusual (Bennett, 2001). Specific to coverage of science, those issues that
receive the greatest media attention are often those that are most easily
dramatized, regardless of other more objective criteria (McComas &
Shanahan, 1999).
In terms of narrative, Lomborg was a ready-made movie script. Almost every
news article about Lomborg made reference to the journey of self-discovery he
describes in his book. The narrative as sold by Lomborg and repeated by the
media goes something like this:
A former member of Greenpeace, a self-described leftist, a backpacking
outdoorsman, and a vegetarian, Lomborg in 1997 was paging through a copy of Wired magazine in a bookstore in San
Francisco. He happened across an interview with Julian Simon, a University of
Maryland economist known for his optimistic prediction that population growth
was unlikely to exhaust the planet's resources. Later that year, an intrigued
Lomborg set about in Denmark with ten of his brightest students to examine
Simon's claims. Expecting to prove Simon wrong, Lomborg and his students were
surprised to find that many of the economist's predictions about the state of
the environment were on the mark. This discovery led Lomborg to pen a few
op-eds for a center-left Danish newspaper, and eventually to the publication in
Denmark of the first edition of The Skeptical Environmentalist.
Not only did Lomborg offer a compelling personal narrative, but his claims
were both unusual and controversial. Perhaps tired of the same old "doom and
gloom" predictions of environmental scientists, journalists discovered in
Lomborg a fresh perspective. His claims were those of a "maverick scientist,"
a favorite character in science news dramas (Dearing, 1995).
Moreover, Lomborg's thesis fit the polarized, black and white style in which
most public controversies are covered, with journalists featuring Lomborg's
counter-claims against the most extreme arguments of environmentalists. In
other instances, journalists evoked a "dueling scientists" frame, with Lomborg
challenging conventional scientific wisdom. Finally, most journalists fell
victim to the smoke screen of scholarship that the book projected. Over and
over again, as supporting evidence for Lomborg's claims, journalists made
reference to the book's 515 pages, 2,930 endnotes, and 182 tables and diagrams,
as if sheer volume of words and data were proof enough of scientific merit.
Constructing Expert Endorsement
The credibility of the The Skeptical Environmentalist was further
promoted by reviews in leading newspapers that were inexplicably glowing, and
tributes in the conservative and financial press that were predictably
enthusiastic. In several leading newspapers, experts from the environmental
sciences were noticeably absent from the crop of reviewers. Instead, the
newspapers turned to popularizers, writers with a literary flair that lacked
expertise in the environmental sciences, but could be counted on for either an
entertaining read or a strong opinion. Technical precision didn't matter,
entertaining storytelling and ideology did.
In a late August review for London's Sunday Telegraph, science writer
Matt Ridley (formerly of The Economist)
called The Skeptical Environmentalist "probably the most important book
on the environment ever written." A September review in The Economist
opened with the following over-the-top endorsement: "This is one of the most
valuable books on public policy--not merely on environmental policy--to have
been written for the intelligent reader in the past ten years."
In an October review for the Washington
Post, Denis Dutton, a professor of philosophy at the University of
Canterbury in New Zealand, concluded that the "richly informative, lucid book
is now the place from which environmental policy decisions must be
argued....It's a magnificent achievement." In a review the same month in the
Wall Street Journal, Ronald Bailey,
science correspondent for the libertarian Reason magazine, judged The Skeptical
Environmentalist to be a "superbly documented and readable book," and
referred to the evidence presented as "uncontroversial data." He ended the
review by comparing radical environmentalists to Islamic radicals. The National Review picked John Adler, an
assistant professor of law at Case Western Reserve University, for its April
2002 assessment. Adler proclaimed Lomborg "the environmentalists' Enemy Number
One," and deemed The Skeptical Environmentalist "an encyclopedic
assessment of environmental concerns."
The Skeptical Journalist: Beware of Books
If there is a lesson to be learned by journalists from the Lomborg affair it
is to be suspicious of books, especially those by outsiders to a scientific or
academic field who make extraordinary claims that counter scientific consensus.
The Skeptical Environmentalist is the latest in a line of books over the
past decade that present the strongest of arguments supported by a smoke screen
of data and end notes. Consider for example Hernstein's and Murray's The Bell Curve, or Tierney's Darkness in El Dorado (the jury is still out
on Wolfram's A New Kind of Science).
Some of the material in these books mirrors at least some aspect of the truth,
but the claims made by the authors are stretched into infinite shades of gray,
or just plain error, by their extraordinary nature. If reporters are concerned
with getting a story right, then the challenge remains to balance what the
culture of journalism says makes for a good story with what a scientist knows
about detecting sound science.
Follow-up
John Ståhle, January 29, 2003
In "The Skeptical Environmentalist: A Case Study in the Manufacture of News",
you write: ''The latest development took place in early January 2002 when the
Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty issued a decision that declared
Lomborg's research "to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty," and
to be "clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice." ''
This, however, is nowhere near the latest development.
Since then it has been revealed, that re. Lomborg's "The Skeptical
Environmentalist" The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty has performed
no research of their own, the entire basis for their evaluation is a study of
papers published in or submitted to Scientific American by 4 (highly respected)
scientists, at least 2 of whom were attacked and ridicouled by Lomborg for
their alleged inability to draw sensible conclusions (some years ago one of
them predicted a new ice age real soon now), and so are obvious enemies of
Lomborg. Also, Lomborg's response to the critics has not been taken in
consideration at the evaluation.
That left wing environmentalists have a grudge against Bjørn Lomborg and the
chairman of the Committees is a social democrat politruk, does not constitute
any sort of proof, but should be considered when assessing the ruling.
Consequently, following the Committees's ruling, 287 Danish scientists, most of
whom from the universities including many professors, have in a joint statement
objected strongly to the decision of The Danish Committees on Scientific
Dishonesty, which is not authorized to evaluate, have no proper scientific
procedures for and no competence in evaluating any work outside the realm of
health sciences.
Furthermore a Danish professor has lodged a complaint to the Ombudsman, who for
the time beeing has rejected it on the formal basis that all other ways of
appeal have not been exhausted.
Had the ruling of The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty been a piece
of scientific work, it would indeed have been bad science.
The above mentioned objections and complaints are spawned by consideration of
scientific practices and publication and not in specific support of Lomborg.
Regards, John Ståhle
Unfortunately I have only a couple of late links at hand and the
texts are in Danish:
Scientists:
http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.sasp?PageID=252265
http://www.berlingske.dk/artikel:aid=247336/
http://www.berlingske.dk/artikel:aid=245938/
Editorials:
http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.sasp?PageID=251429
http://www.berlingske.dk/artikel:aid=245946/
|
About the Author
Matthew C. Nisbet, Ph.D, is a professor in the School of
Communication at American University where his research focuses on
the intersections between science, media, and politics. He blogs about these
topics at Framing Science. E-MAIL:
.
See Also
Search CSICOP:
environmental*
Lomborg's Personal Site
Features reviews, Lomborg's bio, Lomborg's replies to criticism, and related
links.
Union
of Concerned Scientists Examines The Skeptical Environmentalist
Scientists assess the book's methods and the sections on water, climate
change, and biodiversity.
Fisher, R.M. (2002, Nov./Dec).
Skeptical about The Skeptical Environmentalist. Skeptical Inquirer,
49-51.
Fisher, a scientist and lawyer in New Zealand, applies the standards for
critically evaluating claims and evidence outlined in Carl Sagan's Demon
Haunted World to The Skeptical Environmentalist.
Scientific American: Skepticism Toward The Skeptical Environmentalist
Page features links to initial reviews that ran in Scientific American along
with reply from Lomborg, letters-to-the-editor, and remarks from SciAm editor
John Rennie.
World
Resources Institute: Things a Journalist Should Know About The Skeptical
Environmentalist
Page includes links to resources for journalists and educators.
REFERENCES
Bennett, L.W. (2001). News: The Politics of
Illusion. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Bongaarts, J. (2002). Population: Ignoring its impact. Scientific
American, 1, 67-70.
Dearing, J. (1995). Newspaper coverage of maverick science: Creating
controversy through balancing. Public Understanding of Science, 4 ,
341-361.
Gleick, P.H. (2002, July/August). Is the skeptic all wet? The Skeptical
Environmentalist. Environment 6, 36-40.
Grubb, M. (2001, Nov. 9). Relying on Manna from Heaven? Science,
1285-1287.
Holdren, J.P. (2002). Energy: Asking the wrong question. Scientific
American, 1, 65-68
McComas, K. and Shanahan, J.E. (1999). Telling stories about global climate
change: Measuring the impact of narratives on issue cycles. Communication
Research, 1, 30-57.
Pimm, S.L. and Harvey, J. (2001). No need to worry about the future:
Environmentally, we are told, "things are getting better." Nature, 414:
149-150.
Pimentel, S. (2002). Exposition on skepticism. Bioscience, 3,
295-298.
Schneider, S. (2002). Global warming: Neglecting the complexities.
Scientific American, 1, 62-66.
Trumbo, C. (1995). Longitudinal modeling of public issues: An application of
the agenda-setting process to the issue of global warming. Journalism &
Mass Communication Monographs, 152.
Wilson, E.O, Lovejoy, T.E., Myers, N., Harvey, J.A., Pimm, S.L. (2002a).
Biodiversity depictions in Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist.
Washington, D.C.: Union of Concerned Scientists.
|