I don't think you have to be a scientist to criticize science or science
writing (or whatever SE is). However science has traditionally held
itself up to a certain type of scrutiny and I think Lomborg did intend
his book to be taken in that vein. As such he has no reason, nor do his
supporters, to object to 'scientific' criticism. Clearly Lomborg
intended to influence public policy and opinion with his book. Whether
or not he intended to influence political opinion and to have his book
used as a justification in environmental policy (or the lack thereof) I
don't know, but that is happening anyway. Whether you agree with Lomborg
or not, I think he has done a big disservice to environmental policy
debate with SE. I do not begrudge his making money from his writings,
but he has to expect and, to a certain extent, accept criticism.

I have no idea why such a committee as this one in Denmark exists, but
it seems to be a formal committee, not ad hoc. My assumption is that it
is/was set up to review complaints about scientific publications. I
don't know if the treatment of SE was acceptable or not, I just think
it's interesting.

BTW, thanks to John Foster for some really good research and articles. I
have been making my students in both of my policy classes debate Lomborg
and this is some really good material. Good going John!

Steven

 ". . .having been born into the natural world and evolved there step by
step across millions of years, we are bound to the rest of life in our
ecology, our physiology, and even our spirit. In this sense, the way in
which we view the natural world, Nature has changed fundamentally."
E. O. Wilson, 'Naturalist.'