Actuaryblog

Perhaps I deserve some credit for the New York Times's decision to cover of Lomborg's exonoration. Their converage was not so prompt as Greg Easterbrook says it was. I wrote to their public editor on 12/18, who told me their science editor had decided not to cover the story. They finally reported it on 12/23, after I had protested their decision not to cover it.

The correspondance is shown below.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/18/2004
Mr. Okrent:
Bjorn Lomborg is a Danish statistician whose book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, details a great many areas where environmentalists have overstated problems. He is unpopular with those environmentalists and their allies.

Last January his book was severely criticized by the Danish Committee for Scientific Dishonesty. They accused him of scientific dishonesty. That criticism was reported in the Times. Now that Committee's criticism has been overruled by the Danish Ministry of Science, who sharply faulted that Committee's report. However, the Times has no coverage of the new Ministry of Science decision. This imbalance in coverage makes it appear that the Times is biased against Lomborg.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/18/2004
Dear Mr. Skurnick,

Thank you for your message.

You may have a point. I have forwarded your message to the deputy editor of
the science section, Laura Chang.

Cheers,
Arthur Bovino
Office of the Public Editor
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/19/2004
Dear Mr. Skurnick,

I spoke with our science reporter Andy Revkin and editor Laura Chang.

I include Andy's reply: "The danish ministry has simply issued a critique
of the critique by the Danish scientific dishonesty panel. this has not
overturned (yet at any rate) the earlier panel's report. It is the view of
a government ministry that is closely wedded to industry, not an official
withdrawal of the earlier finding. I am planning to keep track of the
Lomborg saga when there is a concrete turn in the road that rises to level
of Times interest."

Cheers,
Arthur Bovino
Office of the Public Editor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/19/2004
Dear Mr. Bovino:

I thank you and Andy Revkin for your prompt attention. However, I still have some concerns.

1. My first concern is uncertainty about whether the scientific panel will produce another report. My reading agrees with Mr. Revkin, that the Ministry of Science did not officially withdraw of the earlier finding of the scientific panel. Their report (available at http://www.imv.dk/Files/Filer/Presse/Summary.pdf ) says the scientific panel report is "remitted." It's reasonable to assume that the scientific panel is now obliged to produce a new report.

However, the Financial Times column headline says "Lomborg cleared." The FT says the scientific panel report was "overturned".

Suppose the scientific panel regards their report as overturned. Might they decide not to produce a second report? In that case, when would Times readers learn that the original report had been overturned?

2. As I understand it, the Ministry of Science is in charge of the scientific panel, which wrote the first report. It's the Ministry's responsibility to oversee this scientific panel. I wonder why Mr. Revkin mentioned that the Ministry is (allegedly) "closely wedded to industry." Is that a reason not to report their findings in the Times? Does Mr. Revkin mean that "industry" is believed to be so unreliable that even a government ministry is unreliable if it's "closely wedded to industry" (whatever that means) is unreliable? Also, I wonder what his basis is for describing the Ministry "closely wedded to industry."

3. It's an understatement for Mr. Revkin to merely say that "the Danish ministry has simply issued a critique..." The critique was remarkably scathing. The damning nature of the critique is itself newsworthy, in my opinion, because it finds that the scientific panel committed what I would consider gross misconduct. I invite you to read the whole critique http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1071251633389
From the FT:

"Yesterday it was damningly overturned by the Danish Ministry of Science, which found that the committees had not discovered any bias in Mr Lomborg's choice of data and that criticism of his working methods was 'completely void of argumentation'. The criticisms continue. The committees used sloppy and emotive language that - perhaps deliberately - obscured the fact that they had in fact cleared Mr Lomborg of gross negligence and an intent to deceive. They failed adequately to assess whether they had proper jurisdiction over the book. They used improper procedures. They failed to assess whether Mr Lomborg's work had been peer reviewed. They had not offered Mr Lomborg a chance to respond. And they allowed his accusers too much time to make their case."

Mr. Bovino, I appreciate your and Mr. Revkin's attention to this matter.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/19/2004
Dear Mr. Skurnick,

If the Financial Times headline says "Lomborg cleared" and he was not fully
cleared, then they are in error.

As I said before, Andy is aware of the events unfolding and has said that
he will be following-up on this at some point in the future.

Cheers,
Arthur Bovino

First post on new blog. The New York Times published my letter yesterday:

The United Nations' wounds (editorial, Jan. 2) were self-inflicted. It allowed Saddam Hussein to flout 12 years of Security Council resolutions. Its ill-judged security arrangements in Baghdad made the horrific bombing possible. Its excuses for not participating in Iraq's reconstruction are shown to be hollow by the successful rebuilding being accomplished by the coalition's military and by private companies like Bechtel and Halliburton.

The world needs an effective United Nations. The solution must be for the United Nations to reform itself, not for the United States to change its policy.

The letter was kept simple and optimistic. In fact, I see little chance that the UN ever will reform itself.