---
title: "The Skeptical Environmentalist"
chunk: 4/5
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skeptical_Environmentalist"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:18:21.336470+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

I am neither a statistician nor a scientist, and I lack the skill to judge Lomborg's reworkings of the statistics of conventional wisdom. But I am worried that on virtually every topic he touches, he reaches conclusions radically different from almost everybody else. That seems to suggest that most scientists are wrong, short-sighted, naïve, interested only in securing research funds, or deliberately dancing to the campaigners' tune. Most I know are honest, intelligent and competent. So it beggars belief to suppose that Professor Lomborg is the only one in step, every single time.
Kirby's first concern was not with the extensive research and statistical analysis, but the conclusions drawn from them, concluding: "In the rational world that Bjørn Lomborg thinks we all inhabit, we would manage problems sensibly, one by one. But the real world is messier, more unpredictable—and more impatient."

=== Reception of media coverage ===
Shortly after its release, the World Resources Institute and World Wide Fund for Nature published a nine-point critique of Lomborg's work and credentials specifically targeted at journalists, advising them to "proceed with caution" in their coverage of the book. One critical article, "The Skeptical Environmentalist: A Case Study in the Manufacture of News", attributes the book's media success to its initial, influential supporters, who linked its message to a European visit from United States president George W. Bush.

Richard C. Bell, writing for Worldwatch argued that many reviews in prominent publications were written by individuals with prior association with Lomborg, "instead of seeking scientists with a critical perspective." In The Wall Street Journal, a review was published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Ronald Bailey, someone "who had earlier written a book called The True State of the World, from which much of Lomborg's claims were taken." Bell also criticized the Washington Post, whose Sunday Book World assigned the book review to Denis Dutton, identified as "a professor of philosophy who lectures on the dangers of pseudoscience at the science faculties of the University of Canterbury in New Zealand", and the editor of the web site Arts and Letters Daily. Bell noted that "The Post did not tell its readers that Dutton's web site features links to the Global Climate Coalition, an anti-Kyoto consortium of oil and coal businesses, and to the messages of Julian Simon—the man whose denial that global warming was occurring apparently gave Lomborg the idea for his book in the first place."

== Pieing incident ==

On 5 September 2001, at a promotional event at a Borders book shop in Oxford, England, British environmentalist author Mark Lynas threw a cream pie in Lomborg's face. While doing so, he said "I wanted to put a Baked Alaska in his smug face in solidarity with the native Indian and Eskimo people in Alaska". In a post on Indymedia titled "Why I pied Lomborg", Lynas stated "Lomborg specialises in presenting the reader with false choices—such as the assertion that money not spent on preventing climate change could be spent on bringing clean water to the developing world, thereby saving more lives per dollar of expenditure. Of course, in the real world, these are not the kind of choices we are faced with." Lynas also commented on the difficulty of challenging Lomborg's book, arguing "his work, as flawed as it is, has clearly been very time-consuming and meticulous. In a busy and under funded world, few people have the time or background knowledge to plow though 3,000 footnotes checking his sources. It is impressively interdisciplinary."
Lomborg said he was "stunned" by the incident, but "at least the pie tasted good". Lynas later apologised to Lomborg and said that he regretted pieing him. The two would later be on "friendly" terms.

== Accusations of scientific dishonesty ==
After the publication of The Skeptical Environmentalist, Lomborg was accused of scientific dishonesty. Several environmental scientists brought a total of three complaints against Lomborg to the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD), a body under Denmark's Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. Lomborg was asked whether he regarded the book as a "debate" publication, and thereby not under the purview of the DCSD, or as a scientific work; he chose the latter, clearing the way for the inquiry that followed. The charges stated that The Skeptical Environmentalist contained deliberately misleading data and flawed conclusions. Due to the similarity of the complaints, the DCSD decided to proceed on the three cases under one investigation.

=== Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty investigation ===
A six-month review took place and on 6 January 2003, a 17-page DCSD ruling was released, in which the Committees decided that The Skeptical Environmentalist showed "systematic one-sidedness" and was scientifically dishonest, but Lomborg was innocent of wrongdoing due to a lack of expertise in the relevant fields. The investigation heavily relied on published reviews of the book.

The DCSD 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 and deliberate misinterpretation of others' results.
Lomborg defended his work, challenging the committee for not identifying specific errors. He also argued the report could jeopardise his employment at the Danish Institute for Environmental Assessment and some of his critics attempted to do this, although government officials denied his posting would be impacted.
The DCSD decision about Lomborg led to a petition from some Danish social scientists, calling for the body to be abolished and arguing the body cannot hold the book to the same standards as medical and natural sciences. Another group of around 600 Danish scientists, many of them from medical and natural science fields, collected signatures in support of the DCSD. The ruling was also debated in parliament, and science minister Helge Sander asked the Danish Research Agency to establish a working group to scrutinise the DCSD's procedures.