Rating: 
Summary: Lomborg is skeptical of agendas
Review: Lomborg educates the reader about using statistics to arrive at conclusions in a political environment. His book operates at the levels of statistical methodology and analysis. Method requires using the best available data, including both the data points that support and detract from the thesis, and plotting the data in every way that makes sense. His premise is that most of the statistical analyses put forth by environmentalists support an activist agenda. Support the Kyoto Protocol to stop global warming. Eliminate pesticides. No frankenfoods. Swap your SUV for a bicycle. Don't eat meat. Put a high tax on gasoline because we are running out of oil. His observation is that advocates often tend to use sloppy statistics to support radical positions. They incite fear that things are getting worse, whereas by almost any statistical measure life on earth is getting better in almost every way. After presenting his methodology, Lomborg looks into the trends for world hunger, illness and mortality, pollution, depletion of natural resources and energy sources and global warming. Statistics in large measure disprove a number trends that we have been lead to fear: the increase in the incidence of cancer and infectious diseases, air and water pollution and the health risks associated with pesticides. Though statistics support other trends such as the hole in the ozone layer, extinctions, fossil fuel depletion and global warming, Lomborg finds that the extent of the problem, the projected direction and scale, and the threats are often terribly overblown. Lomborg observes that statistics about the environment are inevitably politicized because they feed a political process. What problems need to be addressed, how do we address them, and how much and whose money do we use to do it? Above than that there is a question of whose values will be imposed on the society. Will we outlaw frivolous consumption just because it wastes our resources? A key conclusion, certainly not original with Lomborg, is the need to impose a calculus on the value of human life. Because legislators act out of fear rather than fact, some environmental regulations cost $20 billion per life saved while others cost virtually nothing. While savings lives is certainly good, the obvious conclusion is that far more lives would be bettered by choosing the cheaper options, and in fact more good might result from spending a sum like $20 billion on education rather than the environment. Educated people live longer. Lomborg would purport that his own agenda is to advance the understanding and use of scientific method. His statistics demonstrate he is not in the pay of the tobacco or oil companies. I think he's right, and would ask that a skeptical reader question the motivation of his detractors.
Rating:
Summary: Lomborg vindicated by Danish Ministry of Science
Review: I figured this worthy of mention here since the DCSC's smear campaign against Lomborg is oft cited in the preceeding negative reviews of this book.
From a press release today (12/17/03): "The Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation has today repudiated findings by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DSCD) that Bjørn Lomborg's book 'The Skeptical Environmentalist' was 'objectively dishonest' or 'clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice'. "The Ministry, which is responsible for the DSCD, has today released a critical assessment of the Committee's January 6 ruling. The Ministry finds that the DCSD judgment was not backed up by documentation, and was "completely void of argumentation" for the claims of dishonesty and lack of good scientific practice. "The Ministry characterises the DCSD's treatment of the case as 'dissatisfactory', 'deserving criticism' and 'emotional' and points out a number of significant errors. The DSCD's verdict has consequently been remitted." Link: http://www.imv.dk/Default.asp?ID=233
Rating: 
Summary: Lomborg vindicated
Review: This is not a review as such, but it will help buyers trying to determine the validity of the charges against this book's rigour: Press Release from the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty
March 12, 2004 Scientific Dishonesty Committee Withdraws Lomborg Case The Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) today announced it would not reopen the case concerning Bjørn Lomborg's book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist". In December 2003 The Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation completely rejected the DCSD finding that "The Skeptical Environmentalist" was "objectively dishonest" or "clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice". The Ministry, which is responsible for the DCSD, found that the committee's judgment was not backed up by documentation and was "completely void of argumentation" for the claims of dishonesty and lack of good scientific practice. The Ministry invalidated the original finding and sent the case back to DCSD, where it was up to the committee to decide whether to reopen the case for a new trial. "The committee decision is as one would expect," Environmental Assessment Institute director Bjørn Lomborg said today. "More than two years have passed since the case against my book was started. In that time every possible stone has been turned over, yet DCSD has been unable to find a single point of criticism that withstands further investigation." "DCSD have reached the only logical conclusion. The committee has acknowledged that the former verdict of my book was invalid. I am happy that this will spell an end to what has been a very distasteful course of events," Bjørn Lomborg said.
Rating:
Summary: A beautiful story about a beautiful future
Review: Poverty, infectious diseases, hunger and pollution are serious problems for the humanity. The good news is that all these problems are getting smaller and smaller all the time. The problems have become extraordinary smaller during the last century, and are likely to get even smaller during the next one. That is one of Bjorn Lomborg's messages in this highly controversial book. He is attacking a lot of high-flying pessimist like Lester Brown, Al Gore and UN's climate panel (IPCC), and has therefore been portrayed as a liar, amongst them the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty (before the ministry cancelled their verdict). Their official reason is that the book is one-sided and contains some (a lot of) factual mistakes. My oh my. As he writes himself: the intention is to correct the usual picture painted by the environmental movement and the media, and that must necessarily mean a bias. And the book certainly is biased, but the trouble is that Lomborg is biased the political incorrect way. That there are some factual flaws shouldn't surprise anyone, because the book is so full of facts. However, with his 3000 footnotes and 70 pages of references, the facts are very easy to check. I was planning to give this book four stars, but after checking the some of the allegations other reviewers have posted on their sites, I changed my mind. Lomborg is one place attacked for 'deliberately not' having rounded 174,600 into 175,000 hectares, meaning Lomborg have given the number far to much credibility (Lomborg's footnote number 78). At another point, Lomborg is attacking the IPCC for having a hidden agenda. He accuses the panel's 2001 report for being concerned about consumption in general, and comes up with a lot of fantastic quotations, like "it's doubtful that this trend (of higher speed in transportation) really enhances the quality of life". I couldn't really believe this, but yes, it was true. The IPCC, which I until yesterday believed consisted of natural scientist, has used a lot of their latest report to mourn about how the TV are fooling us to believe that consumption is the road to happiness. The IPCC! The revelation of the UN priorities stunned me a bit really. The book is highly recommended. It's a thorough investigation into the all of humanities greatest concerns, and a highly usable reference. If you doubt any of the claims Lomborg makes you could always check out the primary source.
Rating:
Summary: Is the glass half empty of half full?
Review: Firstly, this book is very controversial. *Mr Lomborg's basic assertion, is that the state of the world, as a whole, and human life in general, is getting better, not worse, and that the alarmist claims of some environmentalists are exaggerated*. Mr Lomborg is an expert in statistics, with a background in political science. A very readable and up to date overview of the human and environmental state of the world is presented, and includes: a) Human welfare-life expectancy, infant mortality, infectious disease rates, food availability, dietary habits.
b) future human prosperity based on measurable trends-forest cover, energy resources, non-energy resources, water availability and quality.
c) pollution issues-air, acid rain, indoor pollution, allergies and asthma, water pollution (eg Exxon Valdez and other oil spills), waste issues.
d) Future issues-chemical, pesticides, cancer rates and causes, GM foods, biodiversity, extinction, global warming-causes and consequences. The first 2 chapters concern discussion of the more common doomsday reports, the underlying assumptions upon which some of these are based, and the problems of a sensationalist-driven media. It is obvious from these initial discussions, and what is just common sense, that selective reporting and human politics pervades environmentalism as much as any other human activity. What Mr Lomborg tries to show, is that we need to channel peoples concerns and energies, as much as possible, into real priorities concerning the environment, and not rely on the doomsday theorists to frighten us by selective use of statistics, and thus clouding issues of prioritisation. He presents longer term trends to show how human welfare is in some ways getting much better (infant mortality, illness decline, technological advance, increased wealth, life expectancy), however some or much of this is undoubtedly due to 'environmental' achievements (such as lower pollution, regulation of food and drugs). Many environmentalists of course contend that human prosperity is occurring at the great expense of the environment in general, however Mr Lomborg's general assertion is that this effect itself is declining, not increasing, even as humans increase-(eg due to better technology, more efficient use of resources, recycling, research, alternative materials, environmental priorities, etc). One major concern in the book is that there seems to be little express acknowledgement that the committment, energy, and scientific concern that people genuinely concerned about the environment, misguided in some instances or not, have had on the very statistics which he presents. It is implied, but not expressly discussed. His assertion that biodiversity decline is real but grossly exaggerted is one of his more questionable assertions. He challenges the specialist biologists on this matter directly, and I think here, as in a few other cases, he is mistaken, claiming that extinction rates over the next 50 years are likely to be 'only' about 0.7%. It even seems that he uses weaknesses in his detractors arguments to support some of his assertions, eg that because we can't measure species decline in many small species for example, this means it is exaggerated. What also is not discussed, is whether some of the effects of this decline are overstated. Ecosystems are interconnected and fragile, but if a more benign species increases at the expense of a less benign species, is this desirable? Are selective pressures partially manageable? Whilst he has made some very good points, especially with regards to human welfare (the past was never a 'golden age'), he does appear to have overstated his case with regards to more direct environmental issues (eg extinction, biodiversity, forest cover). It is important to stress that Mr Lomborg does some very good work in exposing some blatant and serious mistakes about environmental data (eg the claim that 40% of deaths are caused by pollution, that we woud run out of oil by 1992). In covering a range of difficult scientific specialities, no doubt he has made some factual errors. (I can see one with regard to my field of geology-there is no mention of the problem of rate of extraction of oil shale/tar sands). But the point is not trivial mistakes, but broad themes, are things getting worse or better?-well it really depends on what you are referring to. Some people have pointed out that the material in this book will be used by those in power to further their own exploitative ends and/or maintain the status quo. Of course, unfortunately, this is true. But what this book is trying to explain, is that *these sorts of things also go on amongst those who have an active concern for the world*. It simply isn't always as obvious. Mr Lomborg, I hope, is not about undermining the passion of those who are actively concerned about this beautiful planet. What he is about, is targetting and setting this good energy where it needs to be, in informed decision making. People like to see things in relative terms-the glass is "half full" or "half empty", but really without proper use of statistics and a good understanding of that great leveller-time-we often can't see what is 'relatively' going on. That is what this book is about-what we need to chose to do, what to prioritise, what to use and what to save-natures cup, not constraining human delusions.
Rating:
Summary: A look through the lies and exaggerations
Review: I won't add much to the many notes here. This is a book that is important to read to get some perspective on the exaggerations and distortions fed to us and repeated uncritically by the mostly mindless press.
As Lomborg points out more than once in the book, there is real environmental work to do and there are real environmental decisions to be made, but there is so much noise and so much distortion by advocacy groups competing for money and others competing for publicity that it can be hard to get government to do what will really work instead of wasting needed money on foolish enterprises.
The "review" by the appropriately-named Mr. Fog is nothing more than a hatchet job by someone who helped launch the now-discredited Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty and who helped contribute to a lengthy book in Danish attacking Lomborg's. Lomborg's response to the book shows some of its inaccuracies and distortions and can be found on his web site .
The policy stakes here are high. Even higher is the cost of the intellectual pollution offered by dishonest "activists" to the information level of some important pubilc debates. If a closer look isn't given to these issues, lives, health, and money will all be squandered.
Read Lomborg's book carefully. Check it against its critics and them against his rebuttals and all of them against what facts can be nailed down.
Rating:
Summary: A politically incorrect analysis of the Earth
Review: Whatever your views about the state of the Earth are, they are bound to be shaken by "The Skeptical Environmentalist".
This book will challenge you to think that the world is not getting more and more polluted but, rather, the opposite, that world population is not growing out of control, that we are getting healthier and richer, that fewer people die of starvation every year, that deforestation is not happening on an alarming scale and that the extent of global warming may have been grossly overestimated.
Surely these statements will raise quite a few eyebrows among most of us since we are regularly told by the environmental organisations that our modern lifestyle is endangering the life of the planet.
The irony of this book is that Lomborg originally started his investigation with the aim of challenging the views of Julian Simon, an economist critic of the green movement. Lomborg, a former Greenpeace activist, set off to prove him wrong using the sources commonly quoted by environmental activists. Much to his surprise he came to the conclusion that Simon was right on most issues. Lomborg thus turned himself into a "skeptical environmentalist".
While some scientists have praised Lomborg's effort to put environmental issues through a tough scrutiny, many more have accused him of distorting the truth and misleading the public.
Most of these accusations are unfair. Lomborg may be wrong on some issues. He may also forget that if the world is not in such a bad state, it is also thanks to the efforts of the environmental organisations which warned of the dangers a few decades ago. "The Skeptical Environmentalist", however, deserves attention since it is well documented and Lomborg's writing does not lack clarity and enthusiasm.
Furthermore, the progress of science cannot avoid the confrontation of ideas, particularly when these are highly controversial and provocative.
Rating:
Summary: Lomborg raises valid points and makes a very strong case.
Review: Andre Lang, when asked to review the work of one of his rivals, once observed, "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts--for support rather than for illumination."This observation sums up in a nutshell one of the major premises of Bjorn Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World, wherein Mr. Lomborg analyzes-and in large part rejects-much of the statistical analysis used to "prove" the validity of many of the assumptions that support current "mainstream" environmental "science". Thirty years ago, many smart people believed that, by now, the population explosion would have knocked the world into a catastrophic famine, killing hundreds of millions of people. Ecologist Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb, predicted back then that by the year 2000 Japan would run out of food and an armada of famished Chinese would invade Russia. Needless to say, these predictions, like virtually all others made in that book, were wrong: although the number of humans on Earth has almost doubled since 1960, there are fewer hungry people now than there were four decades ago. Just eight percent of humankind now lives in nations with insufficient average calorie intakes; according to the U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization, that represents the lowest such percentage in human history. Moreover, recent U. N. reports suggest hallowed assumptions about the rates of world population growth appear to be highly questionable at the least. Has Mr. Ehrlich's credibility and stature been adversely affected by the fact that developments have utterly failed to support his theories and projections? Not in the slightest! He's still considered an "expert" in this area by many! That is why this is book is so important. Using a rigidly objective statistical approach Mr. Lomborg examines the factual basis for a number of popularly accepted "Environmental Truths" and reaches, in some but not all cases, very different conclusions about the validity of many of the assumptions accepted as gospel within the environmental community. Mr. Lomborgs aim, as the subtitle to the book suggests, is not simply to disprove and bludgeon the environmental community. It is, rather, to provide some objective analysis with the goal of fostering an environment wherein actual debate over reality based facts can occur that could lead to actual development of measures that could provide meaningful, cost effective solutions to real, as opposed to assumed, problems. In a world where the Paul Ehrlich's-and they are legion within the environmental community-can be so wrong, so often, for so long, the development of a skeptical view of the assumptions underlying much of what constitutes "environmental science" can only be a good thing. With The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World, Mr. Lomborg has skillfully used logic and reason to jumpstart that process.
Whether you agree or disagree with Mr. Lomborg, this is a book anyone who is concerned with public environmental policy formation needs to read.
Rating:
Summary: Useful Addition to My Environmental Knowledge
Review: I focused on the section on Global Warming. Lomberg agrees that the Earth is warming (politicians, please take note). There are many graphs and notes to back up a thoughtful discussion of the costs of global warming and the costs of preventing it. This type of analysis is indeed the foundation for determining what to do. Lomberg concludes we are better off letting the Earth warm but admits a lot of Bangladeshis will die in severe weather. And Danes may get a bit more tan. The level of detail is dazzling but the book does not attempt to address what the actual costs are for prevention. It therefore did not convince me it's impossible for the developed world to change its behaviors without damaging the economic future. To my way of business thinking, spending less on fossil fuel per GDP dollar and inventing devices to allow others to do the same is going to be a economic benefit, not a cost. Having been asked by President Bush to take it on faith that adopting the Kyoto Protocol would harm our economy, I had hoped to find some proof in this book. I did not, but would still recommend it for its richness in data. And be sure to note what kind of science Mr. Lomborg teaches.
Rating:
Summary: a little scary....
Review: ....that Scientific American and The Star Chamber (Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty) piled on Lomborg with polemic statements and petty arguments against The Skeptical Environmentalist. I have a physics degree and currently study politics with a stastistical approach, and I appreciate the effort Lomborg put into his comprehensive survey so that we now have a dispassionate reference of the state of the environment. Read Lomborg's careful rebuttle to Scientific American on the web, and watch him debate a Berkeley professor of Ecological Studies on PBS's Uncommon Knowledge (where you can view 25 minutes on several topics -- just enter Lomborg's name in the web site serach engine). Lomborg doesn't simply win the debate but utterly smashes these scientists' feeble arguments, all while gracefully taking their cheap shots. To some extent the lopsidedness is funny, but deeper down it is disturbing. I still have respesct for science in general although worry when many prominent scientists have inexcusable lapses in reasoning. But then again, Lomborg has one clear advantage over many scientists he debates: He understands basic economics and benefit/cost analysis while too many bright scientists obviously do not. Long live science, but live longer the intelligent skeptics.
|
