The Art of Bjorn Lomborg: Skeptical or plain dishonest?

Rosli Omar

Posted 18 August 2020

Written originally 14 January 2011. Was thinking about Lomborg today and his art, decided to post this.

———————————————

Who do you call when you want to hear that everything is fine with the environment, that the gloom and doom presented by environmentalists are just that, gloom and doom? Bjorn Lomborg of course. He gained notoriety by the publication of his book The Skeptical Environmentalist by the Cambridge University Press in 2001. The CUP gave him the respectability, which I will argue, he does not deserve. His book is full of half truths and dishonest arguments – and I don’t say that lightly. But how does he get away with it?

The basic method he employs is to bury the other half of the truth in the massive amount of footnotes he uses. Now, writers usually use footnotes to put the details of the main argument to one side so that those who want to pursue the details can do so and not get other readers bogged down with those details. Lomborg instead uses the footnotes to hide the other half of the argument and, maybe, just hope that his readers are like most readers, that is, can’t be bothered with the details once the main argument has been made. To catch him you have to read with an attitude. I have followed his footnotes, turning the pages back and forth carefully, which undoubtedly slowed down the reading considerably (which is why most readers just don’t bother), to discover his art.

Let us look at some examples. Lomborg often calls for people to look at trends rather than taking snap-shots of events, to which I generally agree – if you have the data. He accuses Isaac Asimov, a renowned scientist and science-fiction writer, of singling out certain years in trying to show that global warming is increasing the number of hurricanes [pg 8-9 of Lomborg’s book]. According to Lomborg, Asimov looked at the number of hurricane days per year between 1947 to 1969, 1970 to 1987 and 1988-1989 where the number is highest in the latter two years. Then he accuses Asimov: “May be the two years have been singled out just because they can be made spectacular?” [pg 9] But when you check the footnote that Lomborg gives you find that Asimov wrote that in 1991. In publishing one’s work it can take more than a year from when the write up is finished and the work is actually published. So most probably the 1988-1989 data were the latest data that Asimov had and not because he deliberately chose them for their “spectacular” effect.

If you did not check the footnote and just follow Lomborg’s narrative you might accept his accusation. And even if you looked at the footnote you might not realise the implication. Again, one needs to read his work really closely.

Similarly, Lomborg accuses Worldwatch Institute, a non-profit environmental organisation, of “looking at short-term trends” when they looked at fertilizer-use which they saw as a falling trend by 1994 from its peak in 1990. [pg 10-11] Lomborg shows a graph that he says Worldwatch used for their argument. The graph shows the trend to year 2000 with the abovementioned downtrend from 1990 to 1994 with, however, an uptrend after 1994. But when you refer to the footnote Lomborg provides you find that Worldwatch published their report in 1995, thus, they couldn’t be using the same graph, at least not after 1994. As with Asimov, they were just using the latest data available in 1995 whereas Lomborg writing around 2000 was able to look at a longer more accurate trend. Although Lomborg mentions in passing early in his accusation, “In 1995 they pointed out [on the trend]”, but by giving us a graph that extends to 2000 the casual reader will easily be convinced that Worldwatch just chose 1990-1994 because that suited their argument.

Lester Brown, an environmentalist associated with Worldwatch Institute, was also accused of misrepresenting a trend, that of grain yields.[pg 8] According to Lomborg, Brown claims that from 1990 to 1993 worldwide grain yields per hectare declined. Lomborg says: “This claim is documented in Figure 2 [in Lomborg’s book].” This figure shows grain yields up to the year 2000 and that even though the grain yields did decline between 1990 to 1993 it however rose after that. Lomborg then accuses that Brown “neglects and misrepresents the long-term growth.” But when Lomborg’s footnote is checked you find that Brown was writing in 1994 and thus cannot be using Figure 2 with data up to 2000. Thus, like the Worldwatch case above, he was just using the latest available data which showed the yield decline 1990 to 1993 and  was not in any way misrepresenting the trend after 1993.

Another of Lomborg’s art, as in the Worldwatch case above, is to mention a data that is not helpful for his argument in passing, not highlighting it, such that most readers will not register it. Thus, possibly, when accused of being dishonest he can point out that he has indeed given the data. The point is that he is not being straightforward, that he is telling half-truths.

Lomborg’s next accusation is much harder to check. This is the case involving David Pimentel, a professor from Cornell University. [pg 23] He accuses Pimentel of short-termism by picking and choosing the exact years to show an increase in tuberculosis (TB). Lomborg shows a figure showing the trend of TB cases to the year 2000 which indeed shows that between 1985 and 1991 the number of cases increases as Pimentel claims but decreases thereafter. Lomborg has already stated that Pimentel published his paper in 1998 and thus accuses Pimentel of picking “the exact years to show a counter-trend” implying that Pimentel would know of the decrease after 1991. But I checked Pimentel’s paper and found that he used a different source for his TB figures from Lomborg’s and that paper was published in 1993. So that source may only have 1991 as the latest figures and thus Pimentel may not know of the trend after that. Lomborg would be right if he accused Pimentel of using an outdated source but could not accuse him of picking and choosing the data.

Another accusation against Pimentel is similarly difficult for the reader to check. [pg 22-23] Lomborg here accuses Pimentel of exaggerating the number of TB cases (and short-termism again). Lomborg says that Pimentel claims the number of TB cases has gone from killing 2.5 million in 1990 to 3 million in 1995 and citing an expected 3.5 million dead in 2000. Lomborg then says that in 1999, the actual death toll from TB was 1.669 million. I checked Pimentel’s source for his data and it was from the World Health Organisation (WHO) that was published in 1996 (remember that Pimentel’ paper was published in 1998) but that Lomborg’s source is WHO 2000. So Pimentel cannot be faulted – the exaggeration was WHO 1996’s not Pimentel’s. Without knowing the different sources involved we could easily accept Lomborg’s accusation of exaggeration.

Another method Lomborg employs is the straightforward selection of data that supports his case and ignoring others not to his liking – and again, possibly, hoping readers would just follow his narrative and not bother checking the actual data given elsewhere. Lomborg accuses Worldwatch Institute of misrepresentation when they claim, “the world’s forest has declined significantly” in recent decades. [pg 13] Then Lomborg refutes that saying “the longest data series from the UN FAO show that the global forest cover has increased from 30.04 percent of the global land area in 1950 to 30.89 percent in 1994” (emphasis by Lomborg). For this he referred the reader to a figure 98 pages away. If you bothered to check the figure it shows two things. First, there are three other data series, one from FAO database (1961-94), another from FAO State of the World’s Forests (1980-95), and the third from FAO new unified forest definition (1990 – 2000) and all three indicate that forests are declining. Second, the data series that Lomborg uses (FAO Production Yearbook) is indeed the longest graph (1948-1994) but there is a problem with it: there is a sudden massive increase in forest cover 1948 to 1950 and, more importantly, a sudden massive increase in forest cover 1992-93; forests don’t just suddenly increase enormously over a year or two. Thus, Lomborg not only has ignored the three data series that support Worldwatch but also has chosen the most unreliable data to bolster his case.

Yet another method of Lomborg is the traditional misrepresentation of what an author actually says. On the question of solving environmental problems, Lomborg quotes Asimov as saying, “[most] problems don’t get solved. They simply get pushed aside, because they are swamped with unexpected newer and even worse ones.” [pg 11] Three paragraphs later after criticising Asimov, Lomborg concludes, “Or, in the judgment of Asimov, the problem has apparently become even worse.” That is a mischievous conclusion. Asimov says most problems become worse while Lomborg concludes Asimov as saying every problem becomes worse. This is in line with Lomborg’s accusation that environmentalists exaggerate.

Worldwatch Institute is subjected to the same treatment. [pg 13] Lomborg claims, “Worldwatch Institute immediately tells us that we have not solved these problems”. But then he quotes what Worldwatch actually says, “As we complete this seventeenth State of the World report, we are about to enter a new century having solved few of these problems”. So Worldwatch says most of the problems are not solved whereas Lomborg says that Worldwatch is claiming none of the problems are solved. A subtle difference but a difference nevertheless.

I don’t know why Lomborg accuses Asimov and Worldwatch of saying something that they didn’t say and then quoting what they actually said so that readers can, if they want to, compare the accusation against what was actually said. Does he assume that readers would be so lazy to make even that effort at a close reading? But it is true that a casual reading will likely miss the difference.

Lomborg’s misrepresentations do not stop with his book it seems. In a debate between him and Stefan Rahmstorf, a lead author in the 2007 International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, on climate change in the pages of the Guardian,[1,2] Rahmstorf accuses Lomborg of misrepresenting what the IPCC says on sea level rise: “Lomborg misrepresents what we wrote in the report. It did not conclude that sea level will stay within the bounds of 18-59 cm by 2100…the IPCC forecast is 18-59 cm plus an unknown extra rise.” Lomborg was downplaying the extent of sea level rise.

Above, we saw Lomborg lamenting short-termism at the expense of long-term trends. But it seems he forgot that for himself. Thus, Rahmstorf accuses Lomborg that he “cherry-picked” his data; it is worth quoting Rahmstorf at length here: “Lomborg argues that 18 years could be too short for a robust trend comparison because of decadal variations in trend – but the 42-year period analysed by IPCC yields the same result. And it is telling that he then goes on to draw an “inescapable” conclusion about a slow-down of sea level rise from just four years of data. This is another well-worn debating trick: confuse the public about the underlying trend by focusing on short-term fluctuations. It’s like claiming spring won’t come if there is a brief cold snap in April.”

It is always beneficial to have a debate, hearing different sides to an issue, such as the environment. But this is assuming all sides are honest, putting arguments without misrepresenting data or what is said by others. But with Lomborg, you just can’t be sure.

References:

[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/mar/09/climate-change-copenhagen?INTCMP=SRCH

[2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/mar/09/lomborg-climate-change