ENVIRONMENTALIST, KNOW THYSELF: In a thoroughly predictable move, a Danish review board has determined that Bjorn Lomborg's book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" is riddled with inaccuracies amounting to "scientific dishonesty":

Jeff Harvey, a former editor of the prestigious scientific journal Nature and currently a Senior Scientist at the Netherlands Institute of Ecology, was one of the original complainants who took the case to the Danish committee.
He said: "It is unfortunate that I and many others felt it necessary to take Lomborg and his book to task for the veritable deluge of inaccuracies it contains, but Lomborg has veered well across the line that divides controversial, if not competent, science from unrepentant incompetence."
He continued: "Lomborg has failed time and again to rectify the egregious distortions he makes, he has based his conclusions on cherry-picking the studies he likes, and he has seriously undermined the public's understanding of important contemporary scientific issues.

Mmm-kay. So. Are we now going to see the "studies" by environmentalists, which often do precisely what this twit is accusing Lomberg of doing, being taken before scientific accuracy committees? Fat chance -- the environmentalists have nothing to fear. Their own scientific dishonesty is politically fashionable, and despite the clear damage it has done to the public's respect for and trust in science generally, it will continue to be received, quite literally, as gospel.

There may or may not be anthropogenic influences on regional or global climate, and there most certainly is non-anthropogenic climate change occurring all the time. But the source and extent of any ongoing changes seem less well understood now, due to the bias and outright fraud of "experts" who ostensibly know the topic better than Lomborg, than if no research had been done at all.

What has done more damage to the credibility and integrity of science, one statistician poking holes in fad theories, or hundreds of "scientists" promulgating theories that are at variance both with each other and with reality itself, and claiming that today's data, while totally contradictory to yesterday's, are the 'latest incontrovertable proof'?