Bjorn Lomborg

Bjørn Lomborg is not an economist. He has a degree in political science. Yet he’s being tasked with starting up an economic research centre in Australia. His main purpose in life has been to argue that his economic analysis shows climate change should not be a high priority for governments. For the past decade he has done this through his pet-child the Copenhagen Consensus Centre. He has no crediblity in the scientifc community (in fact here’s a 11 page take-down of his book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, by the Scientific American) and his way of approaching certain issues with his economic analysis has been criticised by economists.

Denmarks’s Ministry of Science has cited ‘The Skeptical Environmentalist’ for:

Fabrication of data Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation) Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods Distorted interpretation of conclusions Plagiarism Deliberate misinterpretation of others’ results.

Lets take a look at his Academic Record, after all, he’s been given the “task” to set up an academic research centre… Here’s what an open-letter from the Head of the School of Animal Biology at UWA had to say:

Research track record Dr. Lomborg, who will be appointed as adjunct at Level D, has 28 publications with 55 citations (h-index of 3; 1 paper accounts for 84% of citations). Dr. Lomborg’s h-factor is lower than the average of even the School’s Level B (h-factor = 8) appointees. 21 of Dr. Lomborg’s publications have no citations. Although not appointed to the Faculty of Science, his research performance would not reach their Level D KPIs. Dr. Lomborg’s track record is therefore unlikely to merit being a CI on, for example, a nationally competitive ARC Discovery grant. The above represents the majority best practice at Universities and we recognise that appointment of some staff may fall outside this framework. Nevertheless, even individuals with unconventional backgrounds should be subject to a rigorous process for appointment. The School would therefore like to know by what process the appointment was made and did it take the quality of Dr. Lomborg’s research track record into account? Award of $4 m in funding All academics involved in nationally and internationally competitive research currently have to perform at outstanding levels to attract funding. This is right, but becoming increasingly difficult to achieve in the current climate of ever decreasing relative research funds. However, it appears that $4m has been awarded without undergoing independent peer-review. Peer review is essential as it minimises conflict and bias and is at the very heart of Australian and, indeed international world class standards for the ethical conduct of research. The School would therefore like to know by what process the award of $4m was made, in particular was independent peer review of the proposed research program undertaken? Reputation UWA holds its researchers to the highest academic standards and rightly prizes itself on robust debate and conducting research into areas that are not necessarily attractive for all. However, this debate has to be underpinned by internationally recognised professional standards. In 2003, the Danish Committee of Scientific Dishonesty released a ruling that found Dr. Lomborg’s book to be scientifically dishonest through mis-representation of scientific facts. Lomborg himself was found not to be guilty due to his lack of expertise. The potential for scientific dishonesty is inconsistent with University standards. The Federal Government is on record for removing funding of ~$1.5m pa from the independent Climate Change Commission. That UWA has now accepted $4m begs the question of whether our independence will be compromised. We note that the Australian Consensus Centre was funded ($4m) over four years and that this reportedly covers only one third of the total cost of the partnership between UWA and Dr Lomborg. We understand that UWA will seek the additional funds from the private sector.

See the full letter here. I noticed yesterday that The Australian reported on this letter but then later removed their report. I wonder why that was. Somebody at reddit managed to catch a screenshot.