Rating: 
Summary: This book is a great read.
Review: Sure, it is not totally free from error (as with all texts on this subject matter), but it does make an effort to present the other side of a commonly one-sided equation.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting, Provocative, But Scientifically Questionable!
Review: It is always interesting when personal politics becomes the primary motivation for writing an article or a book. And to anyone who is reasonably well read in environmental affairs, it is obvious that the author is so burdened. So too are some of the reviewers, such as the fellow who so over-simplifies and reduces his arc of thought as to actually believe that free market interests and personal property rights somehow automatically trump wider environmental concerns. I hope the gentleman in question will remember that if and when he has no potable water to drink because the local industries have contaminated the local reservoir, or when there is no electricity to power his comfortable lifestyle because the corporations providing power are more interested in profits than public service, or when his stock portfolio goes into the dumpster because the minions of free-wheeling capitalists, unchecked by any meaningful governmental regulations, choose to exercise their personal prerogatives by putting their own financial interests before those of the other stockholders. Can we all spell Depression? Or is that simply a "Bush"-league shot in the dark? More seriously, the problem with what the author has to say is not that some of what he may have to say has some truth in it, but rather that he has a hidden agenda in concocting this threadbare argument regarding the environment. He is a third-rate scholar who doesn't specialize in the specific subject area he has written the treatise on, and much of what he contends simply does not square with what is scientifically established and proven through much more rigorous studies. Other reviewers argue on his behalf based on the fact that Lomborg can quote statistics to bolster his claims. Yet anyone familiar with statistical analyses will tell you that numbers can be manipulated or pencil-whipped in almost any direction. Figures don't lie, the old adage goes, but liars often figure. Secondly, Lomborg seems to have some problem with following an argument to a logical conclusion. Thus he seems to arrive at conclusions that do not necessarily follow from the data he uses to substantiate his case. As another reviewer comments, to equate a temperate forest with a boreal forest is not only bad science involving poor understanding of the data, it is also recklessly ignorant. As this same reviewer also points out, Lomborg is very selective in his choice of data to use to substantiate his argument. This is usually indicative of someone who is much more interested in forwarding a particular political point of view than with someone honestly trying to reveal the truth. All this said, I did find the book fascinating, and I would be the first to admit that some of the environmental groups have been less than honest and forthright in their presentation of environmental data. Yet the information flowing from the various centers of scientific study all seem to agree, to use just one example of one problem that Lomborg laughingly dismisses as being overblown as a crisis, that global warming is in fact occurring, that it appears to be both more rapid and more serious a phenomenon than was previously believed, and that its political, social, and economic consequences will be far-reaching indeed. Moreover, while I understand that personal experience is not always a reliable guide for making judgments regarding the world around us, most of us can certainly testify that something systematic seems to be happening with the weather. And speaking of the weather, I want to conclude by agreeing that this book has created a firestorm of controversy, and I am sure you will find it as thought-provoking and challenging as I did. So while I do not necessarily agree with all of his conclusions, or even with some of his scientific approaches and methodologies, I do agree with what some of the other reviewers said regarding admiring the singularity of purpose and personal courage he seems to have exhibited both in publishing this work and in facing the controversy since. Poor scientists aren't necessarily bad people, rather just people who may be tragically misinformed. Enjoy!
Rating: 
Summary: Not Skeptical Enough
Review: It is one thing to challenge orthodoxy; doing so is an often brave and heroic endeavour. This book, however, is intellectual dishonest and scientifically sloppy. Too bad, a book which truly challenged some of the claims of environmentalists with serious science could be very useful and could help foster constructive debate. This book does none of that. It is so obviously based on imprecise arguments and distorted 'facts' that no serious debate could possibly ensue, except perhaps how it got published.
Rating:
Summary: All the Criticisms Notwithstanding ...
Review: Given the controversy generated by this book, it is hard to assess the book without referencing the criticisms piled on it. Many reviewers alluded to the fact that many critical and repudiating reviews of the book were from scientific journals. This on the surface commands credence. However, taking a deeper look into this matter reveals something quite different. The science of the environmental studies, mostly conducted in college campuses and in concert with scientific publications, was virtually taken over by the advocate scientists, whereas the old fashion fact-finding scientists have all been silenced. Lomborg's book is an exposé on the political agenda of the advocate scientists, their shoddy work and outrageous claims. It is small wonder that loud squeals are heard from the "scientific" community. Their integrity, their competency, and their raison d'être, no less, are being openly questioned! Reading into some of the refutations (I read a fair number them all, including the ones from Scientific American), one would find a profusion of rhetoric, patronizing and denunciations, but very few actual errors they could cite in Lomborg's book. These criticisms are generally along the lines that Lomborg was a statistician and not a natural scientist, that the issue is "more complicated", or that Lomborg drew conclusions without looking what was happening in the "developing" nations, or that Lomborg selected data to support his claims. (Of course, Lomborg, like anyone else, selects data. But he gave source of the data and also compared data from different sources and explained why a set of data is more credible and/or more consistent with observed facts.) Even the condescending criticism of Lomborg confusing production with consumption about the ocean was not right. It is customary to refer to the rate of yield from a land or an ocean, or a worker or a machine for that matter, as its productivity. The ocean is not a consumer; human beings are. Human beings could not have harvested and consumed the fish if the oceans have not produced them. The question is whether that productivity can be sustained. If this productivity had been on an upward trend for thirty years, and is now double what it was in 1970, Lomborg was quite correct in making that claim. I would not argue that there has not been over-harvesting or depletion over the years. When they happen, feedback mechanisms, natural, economic and legal, will kick in to stop or correct them. Having read both sides, it is clear to me which side is more objective and credible. ...
Rating: 
Summary: Balance?
Review: I was quite surprised, initially, at the very strong negative responses by a number of early reviewers. It reminds me of my long years in Audubon and the Sierra Club - if you don't toe the party line and support their grab for more power(power = land), then you don't belong, and I left. This book is one of the few excellent examples of taking difficult to understand (as fed to us by the media) information and making it understandable to anyone at all with a modicum of intelligence. The points are well presented, the conclusions are fairly easy to draw.. Still, look for underlying agendas, in even the seemingly most obvious books. He has one, but it's quite benign. In a nutshell, any book must be worth reading if it engenders the kind of mouth-foaming, hysterical reactions it has generated, even with this highly intelligent subset of readers. Well worth the cost.
Rating:
Summary: An "A" for effort, "D" for socialism
Review: A very thorough job of laying out facts - the book is layed out like a textbook, though it is more readable than your average textbook. The negative hype and slant of stories about the environment in the media is pretty obvious to me. However, it's nice to see someone get the story out to others. The chapter on global warming has much to be desired. I don't thing Mr. Lomborg or any scientist, for that matter has enough information to make a computer model that can accurately simulate the complex behavior of the atmosphere and oceans. The only way to know whether we even have enough information to predict anything of this complexity is to talk to a mechanical engineer (no, a "computer engineer" is not a real engineer and will not do). He could at least have the knowledge of which details of a computer model are known well enough and how much uncertainty exists in the final output of such a model. So, don't believe what's written in Scientific American, as many of the science writers have an agendas. Engineers cannot afford to have an agenda, as their results get immediate use - they must be correct, not just politically correct. OK, the "D" is for all the inherent socialism in Mr. Lomborg's worldview. Everything he talks about is in terms of "we should do this", "we should do that". I understand he comes from Denmark. This is America and the free market should rule. Many environmental problems become non-problems with the understanding of property rights. People take care of their own stuff much better then "the commons". I think that the author's socialistic viewpoint may irk some readers, such as myself. Oh, and he likes to be politically correct and put in BCE instead of BC, something instead of AD, etc. That's easily taken care of with an inkpen, but still annoying. This book is worth buying, anyway.
Rating:
Summary: Be skeptical, but read it
Review: I care about the environment and the future of the globe. Lomborg must have hit a nerve from the howls from the environmental establishment. Trouble with "establishments" is that they get closed minded and dismiss anyone not in the club. Lomborg is performing a useful service by challanging the orthodoxy. Be skeptical but read the book. In addition to the great debates about species extinction and global warming, Lomborg also looks at the urban air we breath, the safety of our drinking water, and other topics that inform our daily decisions. I don't buy all his arguments but some of the cases Lomborg makes seem reasonable to me. The book has gotten me to do additional reading in the field, and that's high praise for any book.
Rating:
Summary: Definitely worth a read
Review: The book does an excellent job of introducing the reader to each of the various areas of discussion which is quite broad. While one book could never exhaust the material in question, Lomborg does an incredible job of providing an insight into the vital statistics. All this while remaining very readable. Most critics object to Lomborg on one of two grounds. One is that he is not qualified. This is nonsence as the book is a review of statistical data and as such it is right up his alley. Two is that he makes the wrong conclusions. This is a somewhat subjective matter, however the book is certainly consitent and conclusions are rationalised and fully explained. If you don't like his conclusions you will at least understand them. If you think the environment debate is all hot air then you will be disappointed because Lomborg explains in much detail the environmental problems we face as a society. As Lomborg says a species extinction rate 1500 times the natural rate is nothing to be pleased about. If you can't understand a chart that uses a log scale on the vertical axis then don't buy this book. If you can then you will have no problem understanding the data. If you want to understand why some people believe the world does not need major institutional reform in order to tackle environment issues then this book has all the best arguments. All up I thought it was a great book. Well worth the time and money.
Rating:
Summary: excellent book
Review: After reading some of the savage, irrational reviews of this book, I felt like I had to respond. I am an environmentalist and have been active in the field academically since the 1980s. The longer I studied the situation, the more dismayed I became about the claims from the radical environmentalists. It seemed that science was being hijacked for political purposes.
This book is a welcomed antidote. Lomborg uses the exact same data and statistics that are used by the Ehrlichs of the world to forecast continual doom and gloom. He shows how they, not him, as some of the reviewers claim, distort and manipulate the data. He presents all of the data and lets you make up your mind. My conclusion, one that I actually came to many years ago, was that the radical environmentalists lie. Ehrlich continually uses two years data out of many to distort and make his point. Lomborg presents it all. I agree with the reviewer from Franklin, TN, below. Radical environmentalism has become a religion, but it is one based on a lack of ethics. It is one in which the ends justify the means and any amount of lying is justified. Lomborg is questioning the basis of this religion and the hate and venom virtually explode from the negative reviews. The so-called peer reviews in Science were by the high priests of this religion. You expect balance? I have not addressed the reliability of the data Lomborg uses because it stands on its own. It is the same data used by the UN, EPA, and other organizations. It amuses me that the negative reviewers accuse him of distortion when he uses the same data their organizations use. I salute Lomborg for writing this book and exposing the distortions and lies of the radical environmentalists. It is about time someone did it. Maybe some of them will think for a change.
Rating:
Summary: How to lie with statistics
Review: Lomborg's book could serve has a source of examples for an older book called: 'How to Lie with Statistics.' There are several errors in the chapter about forests. For example:
The author assumes all forests are the same (except plantations). Temperate forest is temperate forest, tropical forest is tropical forest, and boreal forest is boreal forest. The assumption is not valid. The current structure and dynamics of, say Brown County
State Forest, are dramatically different then they were 200 years ago. It's still forestland, but it's very different. About 2% of forests account for about 20% of the bird population. Lomborg is very selective in his source of data. In some cases he ignores the last twenty years of research to choose a data source that supports his assertions. In other cases he filters the data eliminating data that would not support his case. His book is an unfortunate publication. It will provide give justification to people who don't want to be burdened with the support of the humans' habitat.
| 
