Rating: 
Summary: Infamous Volume
Review: This is a "wake up and smell the roses" book. It is NOT politically correct.Whether you agree or disagree it is worth reading to understand the arguements being waged in the science media. NOTE: The author is being targeted by many, in what amounts to a "witch hunt", citing bias and selective data. Also... one of the strongest critics of the book (Schneider, interview in Discover magazine) once stated: "... we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. ... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." END NOTE About the book: The book points out some serious flaws in the hyperbole of predictions of human induced planetary disasters. The book does not white-wash away problems. There is strong acknowledgement that the world does have problems. They are just not as bad as popularized. Lomborg also points out the solution most likely to be sucessful in avoiding many of these same problems (overpopulation, famine, global warming etc), which is to reduce world poverty, that enables the use of less destructive lifestyle practices. I bought a second copy, because I keep lending the first copy out.
Rating: 
Summary: Good Book, gives different side of old debate
Review: The book tries to present a side not often heard in this debate. One should read it to judge for themselves. This issue is so close to some, all you see here are either 5 star reviews or 1 star reviews. As some here wish to cite the NY Times and this Danish agency's rebuking of the author. Remember, majority scientific consensus does not always equate into truth. At one point in history, the majority of scientists felt they had undeniable proof the world was flat and the Earth was it's center, and those that opposed this view were not treated very well to say the least! Let's not walk the same road again of idea stifling, no matter how ridiculous you believe another's ideas are.
Rating: 
Summary: Read the Scientific American Criticism & Lomborg's Response
Review: As a professor with a good knowledge of statistics and public policy issues (though not an expert on environmental issues), the anger on both sides of this issue is part of the problem. The Scientific American asked 4 generally respected scientists who had written strongly pro-environmentalist pieces to evaluate the book for their journal (most were people whom Lomborg had caught using false scare tactics in the past). The editor added his criticisms as well. In a later issue Lomborg was given only 1 page to respond to all 5 critical pieces. Lomborg then wrote a very long response to every single paragraph of criticism, a response that can be found on the website of Scientific American for downloading. I just finished reading all the Scientific American's criticisms and Lomborg's response to each supposed error and Lomborg gets much the better of the argument. Frankly, it is shocking that his critics could have made so many obvious and unscientific errors. The Scientific American critics did catch a very few small errors which Lomborg promptly corrected on his website, but the many errors that Lomborg caught in the Scientific American reviews stand uncorrected to this day. Sadly, I don't think enough reasonable people are working in these fields to sort out these matters one way or the other for us lay people--which is a shame. Before you make up your mind, please read both the criticisms and Lomborg's response (which repeats every word of the criticisms). Those who are quick to suggest that Lomborg's work is riddled with errors should see how specious most of the criticisms are. What comes through quite clearly is that Lomborg's standards for accuracy, fairness and balance in argumentation are higher than those of his critics. But is Lomborg right in the overall argument? I can't tell, but his critics show themselves to be less reliable than Lomborg, so he might well be. Consider these exchanges as fairly typical examples. Note that Lomborg's critics have a very unscientific approach to environmental policy (which is the point of the book): [SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN (John Bongaarts):] "Agricultural expansion, however, will be costly, especially if global food production has to rise twofold or even threefold to accommodate the demand for better diets from several billion more people. The land now used for agriculture is generally of better quality than unused, potentially cultivable land. Similarly, existing irrigation systems have been built on the most favorable sites. And water is increasingly in short supply in many countries as the competition for that resource among households, industry and agriculture intensifies. Consequently, each new increase in food production is becoming more expensive to obtain. This is especially true if one considers environmental costs not reflected in the price of agricultural products." [LOMBORG'S RESPONSE:] "This is one of the stunningly simplistic analyses from the environmental Litany: Since we have already used the best land sites with the easiest irrigation etc., an expansion of the agricultural production will lead to higher prices. However, this clearly neglects the historical trend towards ever more efficient production and better crops which has given us steadily declining prices. However, Bongaarts simply does not supply any evidence that his scenario of increasing prices should become true--yet, both IFPRI, USDA and the World Bank predicts ever lower prices (IFPRI 1997, 1999; ERS 1997:4; USDA 2000b; Mitchell et al. 1997), which is a continuation of the almost constant decrease in food prices since 1800 (data on wheat prices from 1316-2000 in SE:62)." [SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN (Bongaarts):] "Lomborg's view that the production of more food is a non-issue rests heavily on the fact that world food prices are low and have declined over time. But this evidence is flawed. Massive governmental subsidies to farmers, particularly in the developed countries, keep food prices artificially low. Although technological developments have reduced prices, without these massive subsidies, world food prices would certainly be higher." [LOMBORG'S RESPONSE:] "The last hypothetical sentence is true--without subsidies, prices would be higher, but the argument lies with the trend of the price, which is downwards, and has been so since early 1800s. It is still curious that Scientific American lets their critic `defend science' by referring to such fickle speculation instead of giving real references. Again, this could possibly be due to the fact that all major food analysis institutions still predict decreasing food prices (as above, IFPRI 1997, 1999; ERS 1997:4; USDA 2000b; Mitchell et al. 1997)." [SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN (Bongaarts):] "The environmental cost of what Paul R. and Anne H. Ehrlich describe as "turning the earth into a giant human feedlot" could be severe. A large expansion of agriculture to provide growing populations with improved diets is likely to lead to further deforestation, loss of species, soil erosion, and pollution from pesticides and fertilizer runoff as farming intensifies and new land is brought into production . . . ." [LOMBORG'S RESPONSE:] "Surprisingly and without any statistical backing, Bongaarts invoke[s] the doomsday metaphor of "turning the earth into a giant human feedlot." However, as we saw above, we are currently using about 11% of the global land surface area for agriculture, and in 2030, where we will be feeding more than 8 billion much better (3100 calories per person) we will be using 12%--hardly "turning the earth into a giant human feedlot." Moreover, had Bongaarts accessed the available statistics, he could have seen that the increase in agricultural land use was actually bigger over the last 25 years than the coming 30 years (increasing land use by 0.173Gha, compared to the expected increase of 0.12Gha, FAO 2000d:105)." ... In Lomborg's response, there is much more like these exchanges--which reflects very badly on the ethical and scientific standards at Scientific American.
Rating: 
Summary: "Contrary to the standards of good scientific practice..."
Review: While I am all for a careful review of the science that is behind our environmental policies and standards, readers of Lomborg's "The Skeptical Environmentalist" should be aware that the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) reviewed this book because of its dubious claim to scientific standards. Their discussions centered mainly on whether or not the book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" could even be classified as science. A number of DCSD members stated that the book fails to meet even the most rudimentary requirements of basic scientific inquiry and that DCSD should not even handle the case. Other members thought that the term "bad science" should not be an obstacle to evaluating the complaint. In their assessment DCSD refereed to a Scientific American forum from the Jan 2002 issue which asked four leading experts to assess Lomborg's treatment of global warming, energy, population and biodiversity. Lomborg was repeatedly cited for distorting statistics, misrepresentation, vagueness, illusory precision, and "persistent conceptual confusions." In their final ruling DCSD concluded that "On the basis of the material adduced by the complainants, DCSD deems it to have been adequately substantiated that the defendant, who has himself insisted on presenting his publication in scientific form... based on customary scientific standards and in light of his systematic one-sidedness in the choice of data and line of argument, has clearly acted at variance with good scientific practice...Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty... the publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice." In response to the DCSD ruling members of the Danish government have called for him to step down as Director of the Environmental Assessment Institute. Jeff Harvey, former editor of the scientific journal Nature commented on the ruling in an Associated Press interview that "It is unfortunate that I and many others felt it necessary to take Lomborg and his book to task for the veritable deluge of inaccuracies it contains, but Lomborg has veered well across the line that divides controversial, if not competent, science from unrepentant incompetence... Scientists must be held accountable for serious transgressions that are committed without responsibility, and this judgment goes at least some way to underlining Lomborg's dishonesty."
Rating: 
Summary: Danish Committee Cites Lomborg For Scientific Dishonesty
Review: The Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty, which brings together some of the most senior members of Denmark's scientific establishment, spent much of 2002 considering the evidence before concluding today that Lomborg had "clearly acted at variance with good scientific practice". The Committee's ruling continued: "There has been such perversion of the scientific message in the form of systematically biased representation that the objective criteria for upholding scientific dishonesty... have been met." Although the Committee did not feel able to conclude that Lomborg had misled his readers deliberately, this was only because the scientists considering the case felt that Lomborg might simply have misunderstood the issues he was working on. Jeff Harvey, a former editor of the prestigious scientific journal Nature and currently a Senior Scientist at the Netherlands Institute of Ecology, was one of the original complainants who took the case to the Danish committee. He said: "It is unfortunate that I and many others felt it necessary to take Lomborg and his book to task for the veritable deluge of inaccuracies it contains, but Lomborg has veered well across the line that divides controversial, if not competent, science from unrepentant incompetence." He continued: "Lomborg has failed time and again to rectify the egregious distortions he makes, he has based his conclusions on cherry-picking the studies he likes, and he has seriously undermined the public's understanding of important contemporary scientific issues. Scientists must be held accountable for serious transgressions that are committed without responsibility, and this judgement goes at least some way to underlining Lomborg's dishonesty."
Rating:
Summary: Ideology Trumps Science
Review: Lomborg's book ought to be retitled, "Ideology Trumps Science." Obviously Bjorn learned early there's more money to be made writing to support corporate and right-wing interests than in doing & publishing good science. Not wanting to waste anymore time on this nonsense, I'll share two quotes from a Washington Post article by Eric Pianin. "Members of the Danish Research Agency -- Denmark's equivalent of the National Academy of Sciences -- said Lomborg had "clearly acted at variance with good scientific practice" in light of his "one-sidedness in the choice of data and line of argument." The panel, responsible for investigating allegations of scientific dishonesty, said Lomborg lacked "any special scientific expertise" in dealing with "the extraordinarily wide-ranging scientific topics" in his book." "Eleven distinguished scientists, including Thomas Eisner of Cornell University and Edward O. Wilson of Harvard, said in a letter to the publisher in July that "we rarely see this type of careless and manipulative scholarship in the undergraduates we teach."" The book earns one star from me because the ink didn't rub off on my fingers and the pages didn't fall out.
Rating:
Summary: Bjorn...
Review: In 2001, Danish author Bjorn Lomborg rocketed into the spotlight with the publication of "The Skeptical Environmentalist," which claimed to debunk virtually all environmental concerns, from global warming to species extinction, and sought to assure the public that there was nothing much to worry about, ecologically speaking. Now, a division of the Danish Research Agency has condemned Lomborg for "scientific dishonesty," deeming the book "clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice" and systematically one-sided. The Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty conducted a six-month review of
the book after several scientists filed complaints; despite the
damning conclusions it reached, the group stopped short of finding Lomborg guilty of gross negligence or deliberate attempts to mislead readers. Lomborg rejected the committee's findings and said it could get him fired from his new post as director of the Danish Institute for Environmental Assessment, but government officials said his job was not in danger.
Rating:
Summary: Scientific Dishonesty
Review: Potential readers should be aware that, according to a recent New York Times article, the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty issued a report calling Lomborg's book an example of "systematic one-sidedness" and that "the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty," as defined by Danish rules for scientific integrity. Based on his book, he got a job analyzing economic impacts of environmental regulations in Denmark. A classic example of the fox guarding the henhouse.
Rating:
Summary: Total Fraud
Review: washingtonpost.com Danish Professor Denounced for 'Scientific Dishonesty'
Panel of Scientists Assails Scholarship of Book Praised in Press
By Eric Pianin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 8, 2003; Page A20 Once hailed as a brilliant iconoclast who challenged environmentalists' gloom-and-doom prognoses of global warming, overpopulation and worldwide hunger, Danish author Bjorn Lomborg yesterday was denounced by a panel of his country's top scientists for engaging in "scientific dishonesty." Lomborg, an associate professor of statistics at Denmark's University of Aarhus and a former member of Greenpeace, concluded in his best-selling 1999 book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist," that "air and water around us are becoming less and less polluted. Mankind's lot has actually improved in terms of practically every measurable indicator." Members of the Danish Research Agency -- Denmark's equivalent of the National Academy of Sciences -- said Lomborg had "clearly acted at variance with good scientific practice" in light of his "one-sidedness in the choice of data and line of argument." The panel, responsible for investigating allegations of scientific dishonesty, said Lomborg lacked "any special scientific expertise" in dealing with "the extraordinarily wide-ranging scientific topics" in his book. Lomborg's British publisher, Cambridge University Press, said it would not comment on the panel's finding. Sloane Federer, the publisher's New York marketing director, said in an interview that "we went through all the usual processes [of reviewing the material] in order for it to be printed." He added, "We have no reason to doubt the process." Publication of the English-language version of Lomborg's book in September 2001 was greeted with glowing media attention. The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Economist and other publications praised the Danish professor, who dismissed many environmental concerns as "phantom problems created and perpetuated by a self-serving environmental movement." A Washington Post book reviewer concluded that the book was "a magnificent achievement." Corporate-sponsored groups and libertarian Washington think tanks praised and promoted the book during Lomborg's visit to the United States. But the book touched off a wave of criticism from environmental groups and academics. They said Lomborg had been highly selective in his use of research data and secondary source material to attack the work of dozens of respected and prize-winning scientists and broad-based, peer-reviewed scientific panels. Eleven distinguished scientists, including Thomas Eisner of Cornell University and Edward O. Wilson of Harvard, said in a letter to the publisher in July that "we rarely see this type of careless and manipulative scholarship in the undergraduates we teach."
Rating:
Summary: Systematic onesidedness
Review: The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty found that this book falls "within the concept of scientific dishonesty."
| 
