I suggest being highly skeptical of the work coming from the Copenhagen Consensus Center. It’s founder, Bjorn Lomborg, has on several occasions been found to have committed scientific dishonesty. I wouldn’t use this report to make an determinations of what are the “best investments” without independently verifying the data and methodology.
I suggest being highly skeptical of the work coming from the Copenhagen Consensus Center. It’s founder, Bjorn Lomborg, has on several occasions been found to have committed scientific dishonesty.
For reference, readers interested in digging further into Bjorn’s case can search for “Cases Nos. 4, 5 and 6” in this report. Here is a relevant passage:
If the book [The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn] was intended to be evaluated as science and not as a contribution to the general debate, then in addition the scientific message had been so distorted that the objective criteria for establishing scientific dishonesty had been met. DCSD [The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty] did not find a sufficient basis, however, on which to establish that the defendant had misled his readers with intent or gross negligence. DCSD noted, in this context, that in the preface to the book the defendant had himself drawn attention to the fact that he was no expert in environmental issues.
For what it is worth, none of the papers has Bjorn as one of authors, and all were published in a peer-reviewed journal.
I wouldn’t use this report to make an determinations of what are the “best investments” without independently verifying the data and methodology.
I would say that checking the methodology of papers makes sense in general to see how much one can trust their conclusions, regardless of who are the authors.
I suggest being highly skeptical of the work coming from the Copenhagen Consensus Center. It’s founder, Bjorn Lomborg, has on several occasions been found to have committed scientific dishonesty. I wouldn’t use this report to make an determinations of what are the “best investments” without independently verifying the data and methodology.
Thanks for commenting, Matthew!
For reference, readers interested in digging further into Bjorn’s case can search for “Cases Nos. 4, 5 and 6” in this report. Here is a relevant passage:
For what it is worth, none of the papers has Bjorn as one of authors, and all were published in a peer-reviewed journal.
I would say that checking the methodology of papers makes sense in general to see how much one can trust their conclusions, regardless of who are the authors.