Rating: 
Summary: this book is as useful to mankind as cancer
Review: Anyone who has ever taken an elememtary biology, ecology or environmental science would know that this book contains nothing useful between its covers. This book reminds me of the efforts of creationists trying to refute evolution against all odds, this is the last ditch effort of the conservative right to try and defend there environmental policies using bad science and sometimes outright lies. As a student of carnivore ecology i find this books attitude towards biodiversity very distrubing, turning your back to the world and telling yourself that everything is all right wont help anybody. To read some real good books look under E.O. Wilson, Alan Rabinowitz, Valmik Thapara, Dian Fossey.
Rating: 
Summary: my baloney detector is offscale
Review: We can argue endlessly about this or that statistic, and clearly, sometimes Lomborg and other critics of environmentalists are sometimes right. The world is not deteriorating by ALL measures, and maybe not even by most. Global human life expectancy, currently at 67 (!), continues to increase, with no sign of slowing down. A smaller percentage of the world's population is actually starving than before. AND we continue to drive species to extinction, draw down water tables, and warm the atmosphere. It's a mixed bag. People in the broad, reasonable middle of the opinion spectrum have to agree on certain things.But I find the overall direction of Lomborg's claim highly suspect. Obviously, I cannot know what goes on in his mind to lead him to the conclusions he puts forth, but they seem intended to give support to the anti-environmentalist backlash. They set a new high-water mark for sophistication, and for that reason, may be more dangerous than those of his mentors (such as Julian Simon). Just consider a couple of big-picture things: (1) Can anyone show me just ONE reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journal, without an obvious axe to grind, that supports Lomborg's claims? (2) Lomborg says "We invariably choose to prioritize using our limited resources." He also says that "We have grown to believe that we are faced with an inescapable choice between higher economic welfare and a greener environment--only when we get sufficiently rich can we afford the luxury of caring about the environment." So--we can have improving living conditions for the human race, and a better environment, although we may not be able to insist on perfection in either area. Isn't that pretty much what most people in the environmental movement would agree about? Is Lomborg going through all these statistics just to refute a few romanticist extremists who want to return us to prehistoric conditions? I don't think so. If Lomborg is really as green as he claims, where is the support for people like Amory Lovins, who is promoting new technologies that support a win-win paradigm? Instead, Lomborg disparages such efforts. He says of wind power, "Even in the unlikely event that the rapid wind power growth rate could continue, it would take 46 consecutive years of 22% growth for wind to overtake oil." Well, wind power has been continuing that growth rate for at least a couple of decades, and there is no sign of it slowing down. On the contrary, there is a report in the May Scientific American (or maybe it was Technology Review about the same time, but I think it was SA), where there have been some real breakthroughs in large-scale wind power very recently. And that's just ONE of the major renewable technologies. And that doesn't even mention conservation technologies, where the real action currently is. I think 46 more years is somewhat pessimistic, from the trends I've seen. Thirty to forty years, and the fossil fuel era will be coming to an end, if present trends hold. But you wouldn't know that from Lomborg's self-styled "optimistic" analysis. Read carefully between the lines, and your baloney detector will go off too.
Rating: 
Summary: Right or wrong,he sure as hell is a brave man!
Review: We live in a period in history where there is a disturbing tendency in the western world towards wanting to strangulate free debate and oppress points of views that does not comply with the established views of what it is politically correct to say.
As an example we in Europe recently saw the tragic assasination af the dutch politician Pim Fortuyn,a right wing populist who made a political platform out of being against immigration - a point of view that indeed is politically incorrect.
In stead of using arguments against the man,first a pie was thrown in his face and when that did'nt stop the man and his "dangerous" opinions,he was killed by a crazed animal rights fanatic.
Lomborg has also had the doubtful pleasure of having a pie thrown in his face,this childish behavior is apparently quite common amongst people without any debate culture.
So far,thanks god,no one has tried to hurt Lomborg physically,something wich I could fear because when I read the hateful "anti-lomborgian" propaganda here and elsewhere,it is clear to me that a lot of people feel so provoked by his claims that they wan't to destroy the man rather than attempt to refute him,perhaps because they are unable to do so.
Even if you disagree with him,his courage in standing up against all the people that reject him and his claims is something that demands respect.
I originally read the danish version of the book that was published back in 1998 and it made a good impression on me. His style of writing is easy to understand,making often complex issues as simplified as it is possible without leaving anything essential out.
If you don't believe his claims,he provides lots of refences to his sources so that you can go and check the information for yourself,this adds to his credibility in my opinion.
His overall claims about the (improving) state of the world haven't been effectively refuted by anyone since the book was first published 4 years ago and inspite of his ferocious critics he has also had a lot af positive feedback from scientists that agrees with him.
The most positive thing about the book is that it allows common people to understand and discuss environmental issues,this is extremely important since a small elite of arrogant experts have had a monopoly on the debate for much too long.
He popularizes the debate,doing the democratic debate a great favour.
Recommended 100%!
Rating:
Summary: Snake Oil
Review: In this book Mr. Lomburg proves to have a preoccupation with reality, and that's not a bad thing. It is very refreshing to find someone who can represent environmental science on a factual instead of fictional standing. It has been very frightening to watch the art of soothsaying elevated to the height of an actual science and then this so-called "science" used to achieve political power. As Stephen Schweider (global "cooling" scare/scam) has said, "Each of us (greens) has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest" which in fact tells us our gullibility is no longer in question. The peer review process so often mentioned is no more than bad science "back patting". I have read the reviews in the so-called reputable publications and have found very little resembling objective science rebuffs. Instead they have resorted to emotional tantrums and irrational outbursts, which is typical of those not having a leg to stand on. One good thing did come out of reading these reviews though... it provides me with a very good guideline of what publications not to rely on for scientific insight. With this book Mr. Lomburg successfully weakened the cartoon foundation the greens have been building for so long. It is now time for "actual" scientists to knock it down altogether, re-take the intellectual high ground and prevent science from ever being used as a political weapon again. It's up to "us" to open our eyes and stop buying the snake oil
Rating: 
Summary: A clear voice on a difficult topic...
Review: There are many reasons why this book is a needed voice in the marketplace of ideas. Environmental policies, while so needed, have become reactionary instead of strategic. How we use our resources will have a far-reaching impact on future generations and the preservation of our planet's integrity is essential. As a result, clear-thinking in this area is desperately needed and Lomberg does the job well. Here are the reasons I like this book... --First of all I would like to say how well documented this book is. I wish more writers followed this example. The variety of sources is truly impressive. --Lomborg is clearly not "anti-science", but rather he is anti bad science. This distinction is essential. Policy makers need to keep in mind the fact that not all science is good science. The results from studies must therefore be tested and critiqued just like everything else that's man-made. --This book points out that there are those who place the environment ahead of humanity and those who place human interests as integrated with the environment. Studies, which come from each, are sometimes biased towards their ideology. --Lomborg has a firm understanding of the importance of truth. No matter how noble the cause and how justified the end or goal of that cause, the means which is used to attain that end must be just as noble and just as right. Twisting data, misrepresenting environmental impact, and deceiving the public cannot be done - even in the name of good. The consequences are far too great. --This book makes it clear that if we are to rightly know priorities for what should be protected, cleaned, and guarded, then truth must not be abandoned. Only when the highest priorities are truly known can resources be rightly directed toward those issues. --The unfortunate results of focusing on non-existent problems is that the real problems get ignored. Additionally, poverty stricken nations have precious few resources and it is necessary to focus those resources towards the right issues. --The use of worldwide figures to account for both positive and negative trends for any given issue is a must if we are to truly think and act globally. --In short there can be no valid reasons for producing poor or inflated studies. Instead, this tactic should be called for what it is - deceit. If it's not that then it's at least inexcusable sloppiness.
Rating: 
Summary: Skeptical of Lomborg
Review: The second star is for the negative impact this book has had on the whole issue of environment and conservation. It is widely applauded in many conservative camps including the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal who are always looking for a leftist enviro-conspiracy, and permission to ignore scientists' warnings on global warming, deforestation, and endangered species to overpopulation. What lomborg proceeds to do is mathematically manipulate the facts to make them all magically disappear. Call David Blaine for this illusion is in his realm, not science. A statistician and a professor of political science Lomborg isn't even qualified to have an educated opinion about the subject matter he tackles. I have had this argument with many of the untrained before. "We have more trees today than 100 years ago," is a typical entry of this argument, a classic out of context blanket fact. Maybe we do, somewhere, but in what form? A lot of small tree farm-like sticks that make good kindling and increase forest fire risk. Lack of diverse old growth forests is the problem scientists are concerned with, but Lomborg doesn't even address this. Why? Because he doesn't know enough to. To him and like-kind, a tree is a tree and a farm raised fish is as good as a wild fish. Why bother discussing genetics? Lomborg doesn't. As a scientist I could go on and on, it's not necessary. The worst part is that this book could set us back 100 years because it does what science cannot: fit the facts to the story and tell people what they want to hear.
Rating:
Summary: An interesting read
Review: After reading this book and Julian Simon's "The Ultimate Resource II," I am not sure why so much attention has been heaped on Lomborg's book. The approach is the same. The message is the same. Simon's book is somewhat more comprehensive in its coverage. Lomborg's is a fairly well organized book that provides trend data on many important issues. Most of the trends indicate that, over a period of decades and averaged over the entire world, things are improving. Whether the trends are a result of vocal environmental groups influencing public policy, or a natural result of market forces and improvements in technology, will remain an ongoing debate. I suspect it is probably both. An important message delivered by the book is not new, but is often forgotten- caring for the environment requires money. Deciding "how clean, how pure, how restored to pristine condition" is good enough for society as a whole, requires public debate that includes (as polarizing an effect as it has) books such as this one. Lomborg's book does not provide the literary experience of Edward O. Wilson's "The Future of Life", but both books provide useful viewpoints for every member of society whose tax dollars are used to pay for the protection of the environment.
Rating:
Summary: I have read it all
Review: Yes, I have read the entire book. It's about time someone has emerged to tell the tree huggers to be more thorough in their work. What is already bad science is abused further by pontificators who will say virtually anything to exite the media.
Rating:
Summary: Caught between two fires
Review: This book tries to analyse the available statistics that determine the state of the world. This is done by looking in depth to find some facts that can explain them, so it is not a simple enumeration of raw data. This the author does very well, and the conclusion is clear: things are improving, and can improve faster if we put the resources to the real problems and avoid ghost problems that take nowhere. This is all so credibly explained and so rational that it seems very difficult to rebate. However, if this is so, why don't most scientists support this view? This is perhaps the most astonishing question that one gets in the end. People like me get caught between the opinions of those who say that the world is rapidly deteriorating and those who say that it is improving. Both have arguments. It is so difficult to decide between both, but the book shows many cases where respected scientists have exposed false data to support their view of the problem. This damages their credibility, and may explain the success of the book: we expect more seriousness from science. Sometimes I wonder if a really complex problem like this has so many interpretations that the position taken from most people is closer to religion than science, even scientists themselves.
Rating:
Summary: Dangerous and Ignorant Book
Review: I'd say that this book is a pile of [junk], but feces actually have beneficial and redeeming value. This author has put together a bunch of pseudo-scientific misrepresentations that are designed to give crooked politicians and rapacious industries some sort of justification for continuing to destroy the environment. Even "president" Dubya Bush has stated that global warming is a real problem, though he doesn't want to do anything about it that might hurt the profits of his big oil buddies. If you are a right wing ideologue who needs a few choice lies to help you deceive people effectively in arguments, then this is the book for you. Anyone else will be wasting their time reading this poisonous drivel.
| 
