Editing The Skeptical Environmentalist (section)

===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.<ref name=":6">{{cite web |url=http://en.fi.dk/publications/2004/annual-report-2003-danish-committees-scientific-dishonesty/annual-report-2003-danish-committees-scientific-dishones.pdf |title=Annual Report 2003 Danish Committees Scientific Dishonesty |access-date=2008-10-22 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081217162831/http://en.fi.dk/publications/2004/annual-report-2003-danish-committees-scientific-dishonesty/annual-report-2003-danish-committees-scientific-dishones.pdf |archive-date=2008-12-17}}. Retrieved 22-Dec-2008.</ref><ref name=":5" /> The investigation heavily relied on published reviews of the book.<ref name=":8" />

{{Quote box
| quote = Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty. ... In view of the subjective requirements made in terms of intent or gross negligence, however, Lomborg's publication cannot fall within the bounds of this characterization. Conversely, the publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice.
| source = [[Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty]]
| align = right
}}

The DCSD cited ''The Skeptical Environmentalist'' for [[Data fabrication|fabrication of data]], selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation), deliberately [[systemic bias|misleading use of statistical methods]], distorted interpretation of conclusions, [[plagiarism]] and deliberate misinterpretation of others' results.<ref name=":6" />

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.<ref name=":5" /><ref name=":7" />

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.<ref>[http://www.math.ku.dk/~dlando/indsamling.htm "Underskriftsindsamling i protest mod afgørelsen om Bjørn Lomborg fra - Udvalgene Vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110825145806/http://www.math.ku.dk/~dlando/indsamling.htm|date=25 August 2011}}. Retrieved 26 February 2006.</ref><ref name=":10">{{Cite journal |last=Abbott |first=Alison |date=2003-02-01 |title=Social scientists call for abolition of dishonesty committee |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/421681b |journal=Nature |language=en |volume=421 |issue=6924 |pages=681 |doi=10.1038/421681b |pmid=12610589 |bibcode=2003Natur.421..681A |issn=1476-4687 |access-date=18 April 2024 |archive-date=18 April 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240418155624/https://www.nature.com/articles/421681b |url-status=live }}</ref> Another group of around 600 Danish scientists, many of them from medical and natural science fields, collected signatures in support of the DCSD.<ref>[http://www.ulnits.dk/biologi/frame298.htm "Verden ifølge Lomborg - eller den moderne udgave af "Kejserens Nye Klæder": Han har jo ikke noget på..."] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060118233024/http://www.ulnits.dk/biologi/frame298.htm|date=2006-01-18}}. Retrieved 26 February 2006.</ref><ref name=":10" /> The ruling was also debated in [[Parliament of Denmark|parliament]], and science minister [[Helge Sander]] asked the Danish Research Agency to establish a working group to scrutinise the DCSD's procedures.<ref name=":10" />