In retrospect, the Committee probably should have refused the case, given that Lomborg’s book was subject to intense public scrutiny, often by experts writing (favorably) in The Economist and (unfavorably) in Scientific American.
Retrospectivamente, es probable que el Comité debiera haber rechazado el caso, en vista de que el libro de Lomborg era objeto de un intenso examen público, en muchos casos por parte de expertos que escribieron (favorablemente) en The Economist y (desfavorablemente) en Scientific American.