Rating: 
Summary: This book is biased
Review: Instead of buying it read the list of errors available on the web. It is lame.
Rating:
Summary: A dishonest book with many errors
Review: Being a Dane, I have followed the career of Bjørn Lomborg since his first newspaper articles in January 1998. When "The Skeptical Environmentalist" was published in 2001, I helped the Danish Ecological Council scrutinizing the contents of the book. We found that it is full of errors, many of which are deliberate. Because of this, I lodged a complaint to the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty, which ruled Lomborg "objectively dishonest". In January 2004, I established the web site www.lomborg-errors.dk, where I review the events behind the book, and where I list errors and flaws, ordered by chapters and pages. Right now (6th March 2004) I have listed 226 flaws and errors, of which about 70 are clearly deliberate. Lomborg's text is written in a very seductive way, so that you will not detect the flaws unless they are pointed out to you. So, one should not read the book without also consulting critiques. The most extensive list of error corrections up to now is the web site referred to above.
Rating:
Summary: WARNING: this book contains many lies
Review: I've been methodically checking Lomborg's sources. So far I've spent around 30 hours doing this, checking over 200 that looked suspicious to me (my results are summarized here: http://www.geocities.com/jefferson108/blomborg ). (In case you're wondering why I'm motivated to do this investigation: I'm writing a book about the problem of lies in print and I've decided to devote a whole chapter to this author.)
PLEASE note: I'm very careful when making accusations. I fully realize people can write false things unintentionally. I've given Lomborg as much benefit of the doubt as I can muster. However, the pattern that has emerged is very damning. I've so far found around 50 mismatches between his cited source and what he says about the source, and 42 distinctly favor the conclusion Lomborg wants readers to accept, and none disfavor him. Therefore (as a statistical claim using a binomial distribution) at least 80% are surely intentional.
I want evidence when I hear accusations of lying, and I assume all readers of this review want that too, so I'll devote the remainder of this review to listing examples:
--on pages 22-23 Lomborg complains about the higher estimates for TB deaths of Cornell researcher David Pimentel's (2.5, 3.0, and 3.5 million, for, respectively 1990,1995, and 2000), citing his own much lower number (1.699 million) from a 2000 WHO World Health Report (downloadable from www.who.int ). Lomborg here has hid Pimentel's source: WHO -- their 1996 World Health Report! Notice his wording, which explicitly and falsely claims that the first two numbers are Pimentel's. The two author's numbers don't conflict even the tiniest bit! Lomborg avoids telling readers that WHO generates two different, perfectly consistent TB estimates: CONFIRMED TB deaths and TOTAL TB deaths, which explains both why Pimentel's is much higher (it afflicts the worlds poorest, who often die without being seen by an MD) and has only 2 digits of precision, whereas Lomborg's has 4.
--page 13. Lomborg says: "Reference is made...", telling readers that WI (Worldwatch Institute) misquoted a FAO book. It's totally false. WI didn't cite any source for the number (intended to imply, I'm sure: "It's our own estimate"). Check his source for yourself please if you doubt this (or anything else I've said). The source (WI's 1998 State of the World) can be found in university libraries, or downloaded from the www.worldwatch.org site.
--on page 25 Lomborg puts a crazy remark supposedly about tobacco smoke into David Pimentel's mouth. But the actual words preceding the words Lomborg has quoted don't say anything about tobacco: "Environmental diseases are attributed especially to organic and chemical pollutants, including..." See the word "tobacco" anywhere here? Check the web page he cites and see for yourself if you doubt this. Other sites have duplicated the same page, so the discrepancy isn't because Cornell has updated the page.
--note 248 (page 359) misquotes Al Gore severely. Look at the source page and you will see that Gore compared persons who don't recognize the dangers of the environmental problems he describes not to Nazism, but to OPPONENTS of Nazism: one's who, unlike Churchill, failed to recognize the seriousness of the threat posed by the Nazis.
--note 446. The page of the WI 1997 State of the World that Lomborg cites says NOTHING faintly resembling what he says is there.
--figure 3: the WI source he cites (a book) has NO DATA in it at all about fertilizer use. The text associated with this figure says Brown has failed to describe the difference between nations (developing vs wealthier) in their trends of fertilizer use, in a way that "fails to consider what's important" and also deceives Brown's readers. But Brown HAS, on page 16 of the WI 1998 State of the World.
I could go on and on listing out the examples I've found.
Lastly, I want to mention that I like MANY things about this book. As a source of "nuggets" of many interesting and useful bits of knowledge it surpasses almost any other book I'm familar with, and I believe that many of his complaints about environmentalists and their organizations are sound. I like the book for these reasons. However, I estimate that there are at least 100 significant, intentional, defamatory (most are about persons/organizations) false claims in this book. Be VERY careful what you decide to trust in it without checking.
Rating: 
Summary: An interesting book
Review: Whether you agree with the author or not this is an interesting book that forces you to think rather than follow the most current dogma. Most people criticizing this book have missed that completely. Do I agree with Lomborg on every point? Absolutely not. But in my judgement if a book forces you to think it is even more important then if the author himself is right or wrong. I am tired of reading manifestos where there is no place for an alternative point of view only propaganda. Lomborg presents evidence to support his thesis. He might be too optimistic at times but in general I tend to agree with him that sky is not falling. He does not deny the existence of environmental problems but he thinks they are manageable. That is hard to swallow to his detractors. This book has stirred quite a discussion and that is important.
Rating:
Summary: Garbage
Review: Title speaks for itself. This book completely ignores the vast majority of scientific knowledge and selectively presents data without proper biological or ecological context.
Rating: 
Summary: A Statistician VS Environmental Science. Who's Right?
Review: =====>This book (first published in Danish in 1998 then English in 2001) by Bjorn Lomborg (born: 1965) has ignited a storm of controversy. (In fact, his official internet site has received more than 150,000 hits since it began in mid-December 2001.) Opponents say that this book is inaccurate. They say that his conclusion with respect to environmental concerns that "things are better--but not necessarily good" as compared to the past and that the environment will improve even more in the future is not accurate. As far as Lomborg himself, he is Associate Professor of Statistics in the Department of Political Science at Denmark's University of Aarhus (and a former Greenpeace member). He admits that "I am not myself an expert as regards [to] environmental problems" but he had "experts" review the chapters of his book. When I referred to this book's acknowledgements section, I counted about twenty names of people who might be called an expert. For a book that discusses the large topic of the environment, I thought this number to be quite slim. Lomborg also admits that "it's...true that statistics can be used to manipulate the truth. But used judiciously, statistics is the best source of information about our world...[and] the only way [in many areas] we can make a scientifically sound description of the world." This book has a main narrative of about 350 double-columned pages. There are over 2500 endnotes, over 1000 references, almost 175 figures (mainly line graphs and histograms), and almost ten tables. This book is divided into six parts and each part is divided into sections. (There are a total of 25 sections.) On the environmental side, these sections cover traditional problems like food, energy, water, and pollution but also future problems like biodiversity and global warming. Part one is a general outline of the entire book. Part two to five present graphs of data with Lomborg analyzing and interpreting the graphs. Part six is a summary and details the author's views and conclusions. Thus, when Lomborg says, "This book presents a lot of data," he's not kidding! Also, I should warn you that if you're not used to it, reading all this graphical data and Lomborg's explanations can be quite tedious and even boring. Thus, I recommend reading this book at a slow pace. As you can imagine, a book like this draws much criticism and most of this criticism I've read has to do with the accuracy and amount of the book's content. According to Lomborg's website, some scientific publications (with their associated experts, scientists, and university professors) that have given negative critiques of his book are as follows: Nature, Science, Scientific American, World Wide Fund for Nature, and the Danish Ecological Council. Even the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty gave this book a "highly critical assessment" but this has been recently retracted. I recommend reading through this mass of criticism to understand what the controversey is all about and perhaps balancing what Lomborg has to say in his book with what others in their areas of environmental expertise have to say about his claims. Why is all this criticism coming from the scientific community? Is Lomborg right and the scientific community wrong? The answer to these questions is found in this book! On the first page of part one, section one, the fourth paragraph states the following: "This book attempts to measure the real state of the world [with respect to environmental concerns]. Of course, it is not possible to write a book (or even lots of books for that matter) which measures the ENTIRE state of the world...I wish to gauge [WHAT I CONSIDER are] the most important characteristics [or indicators] of the world" (my upper-case emphasis added). This is the answer to the two questions above. Lomborg is NOT measuring the ENTIRE state of the world but is only measuring the state of the world based on a relatively FEW indicators WHICH HE CONSIDERS MORE IMPORTANT than other indicators. The environmental science community has data on the entire state of the world (and thus have "a lot of books" on this matter). This is why when you read their criticisms of this book they say his data is not completely accurate SINCE DATA THEY CONSIDER AS IMPORTANT INDICATORS IS MISSING. (For specific indicators, read the scientific community's criticisms in the sources indicated above.) Therefore, in their view, this book is not really "Measuring the Real State of the World" (this book's subtitle). Thus, Lomborg seems to be right (that is, the environment is better) when he bases his analysis on a few indicators. But when you base the analysis on all possible indicators, the scientific community is right (that is, the environment is not better). In Lomborg's analysis, he does, however raise many important ideas. Here are three of my favorites: (1) "Prioritization [of worthy causes] is absolutely essential if we are to achieve the best possible [or most efficient] distribution of resources in society."
(2) "We ought not to let [radical] organizations, business lobbyists, or the media be alone in presenting truths and priorities."
(3) There should be more emphasis on the positive things that have been accomplished rather than dwelling only on the negative. In conclusion, this is a controversial and honest book that bases its conclusions with respect to environmental concerns on the analysis of a limited number of indicators. Thus, caution must be used when applying these conclusions to the environmental state of the entire world. *** 1/2 <=====>
Rating:
Summary: Use his graphs, not his opinions
Review: "The unrelenting we-are-doing-fine tone that pervades Lomborg's book encourages complacency rather than urgency."
- John Bongaarts in the Scientific American review. This quote perfectly sums up the reason for the controversy about this book. Lomborg's narrative implies that things are fine, the world is better not worse, what's all the fuss about? Environmentalists are enraged: the only reason they are getting better is because we've been working so hard, and we need to work harder! In my opinion, Lomborg isn't suggesting that the world become complacent, despite his unfortunate tone. Instead he is suggesting that the world's efforts be directed to where they are most needed, as determined by a scientific rather than an emotional judgement. To that end, he provides a great deal of scientific data. The data itself is mostly undisputed, with some exceptions (population density for example). But for the most part, the graphs he present are accurate and representative. These graphs are the true value of this book. Within a couple of minutes, I can find a graphs of population growth, cancer rates, poverty, global average temperatures, rice yields per acre, etc; valuable information which was previously impractical for me to obtain. With this information, I can make my own judgement about facts or opinions that appear in the media. You can't accept every opinion Lomborg offers, but that's his point: everybody has an agenda. To understand the world you need to think critically and put facts in context. This book lets you do that.
Rating:
Summary: Utterly Disgraceful
Review: Wow... I just finished reading this ridiculously fallacious work and then the particulary satisfying Scientific American response to it (in which the world's top experts rip Lomborg to shreds). It's both depressing and amusing to read how the some of the reviewers here are clicking their heals in delight at the deception as if they now have the absolution they've prayed for in order to keep on popping out 6 kids, tossing their mountains of waste into rivers and landfills, stuffing their faces with Big Macs, speeding along in their Ford Expeditions in order to get back to their housing developments in time to catch 'Paradise Hotel' on Fox.
I'd love to take some of these moronic Amazon reviewers on a little trip away from their gluttonous lives in the American suburbs and visit some of the dead and dying places I have visited (Haiti, the Phillipines, the reefs of the Florida keys, the North Atlantic fisheries) - where people and ecosystems suffer more in a day than these idiots have or will in their entire lives. I would love to show them first hand how bad things really are (and I assure you, they're getting worse). The world we live in has become tragically impoverished - mainly due to our own avarice... if you don't recognize that, you're a simpleton. If you read Lomborg's horror of a book and ignore the experts who have emasculated him; if you live your life in a wasteful manner, without comprehension of how it affects other lands or future generations; if you refuse to change your lifestyle in order to save the living creatures with which we share this planet and ON WHOM we depend for survival; then you join the ranks of the author himself - a disgrace to humanity and a huge waste of time.
Rating:
Summary: A review that doesn't have a political agenda. Hallelujah!
Review: Bjorn Lomborg, The Skeptical Environmentalist (Cambridge University Press, 2001) I have watched the unfolding controversy over The Skeptical Environmentalist with a cynical amusement not at the combatants, but at myself, for still having some shred of belief that reason, logic, and critical analysis has any place in modern reviews, especially those submitted by readers to amazon.com. You would think that by now I'd know better. More fool you (and me, the biggest fool of all.) It is blisteringly obvious that the overwhelming majority of critics (and, one is tempted to say, those heaping the book with such lavish praise) have never actually read the thing. Or, if they have, their reviews of the book are geared toward its political agenda rather than its readability, the competence of the proofreaders, that sort of thing. Oh, well, to each his own. I will warn you that, when reading other reviews of this book, proceed with great caution. Withhold judgment until you've read it yourself. Many of the extant reviews exist to further the agendae of the reviewers, rather than cast an unbiased (however jaded) eye over this book. The main reason for my surmising that most of them haven't read it is because they make pointed, often gleeful, attacks on things that Lomborg specifically addresses in the book. The treehuggers have a penchant for saying the message of The Skeptical Environmentalist is "nothing's wrong," a point which Lomborg specifically addresses many times, far more than he should have to, in this book. (Note to others writing controversial books: it doesn't matter how often and how plainly you state something, the deluded will see the opposite. Not your fault.) Instead, Lomborg's driving purpose in this book is to examine the environmental concerns on which the global economy currently spends many billions of dollars per year to see if there are ways we could better spend that money. That he comes up with a resounding "yes" is not surprising. That his advice has not only not been listened to, but attacked from all sides, is equally unsurprising. Why? Because we have heard the myths Lomborg attempts to put to rest so many times that we take them as truths. What Lomborg calls The Litany has been inculcated into us as surely as has the idea held by some that man has never gone to the moon, or that the Earth is flat. Just because you hear something a million times, and just because you surround yourself with people who also believe it, that doesn't mean it's true. One assumes Lomborg set himself up for the ridicule he has received; you don't tackle topics such as deforestation, global warming, Rachel Carson and the legacy of drooling idiots she has left in her wake, and other such imbecilities without the imbeciles who foster the myths wanting to castrate you. But someone had to do it. Whetehr it would have met with less skepticism coming form Jan Harold Brunvand is anyone's guess. But it came from Lomborg's, and thus, we must look at what we've got. There is no denying that what is here is valuable information. Even if there is a glimmer of truth in the massive Scientific American criticism (to which Lomborg has already responded, so I will save my words), if the many environmental movements whose horse manure we're subjected to daily use massive amounts of hyperbole to try and get their points across, why shouldn't the other side use a little now and again? (Not that I believe this is in any way the case.) Those who don't believe there's been hyperbole on the part of the environmental movement seem to have very short memories, another point Lomborg brings up in almost every chapter. The doomsayers have held a monopoly on our ears for too long; it's about time someone tried to set us straight. And thus we come to the problem with the book itself. It's what my college literary criticism professor would have called a "typically German" work of criticism; well over twenty-five hundred endnotes are packed into the three hundred fifty pages here (and a small mini-rant, if I may; the increasing use of endnotes rather than footnotes is highly annoying. Please cease and desist immediately, and put the notes back where they belong, on the pages where the references are found). One cannot argue that Lomborg hasn't done his homework, though many have. There are huge blocks of text that are nothing more than facts, figures, and interpretation. Which, as you may surmise, makes for a book that is at time more boring than it is controversial. Readability here may not be at a minimum; you'll get more pleasure out of this than you will trying to choke down the dreck that, say, Tom Clancy or Danielle Steel releases on a regular basis. But not much. It suffers from the general malady of the belief that what is important must be dry as dust. There are also a number of questions Lomborg left unanswered, many assumptions he took at face value; did he do so because getting too far into them would have resulted in the book being endless, or because there are certain parts of the litany he believes? It's certainly okay to not question some things, but the professional skeptic will tell you why. Such things do leave questions in the mind of the reader, chinks in the armor that such a controversial book cannot afford. I cannot recommend it highly enough as a way to balance out the loads of excrement we get fed on a daily basis by people who should know better. But I can't recommend it as an unputdownable bestseller. It's hard work, getting through this thing. But it's worth it. *** ½
Rating: 
Summary: Danish Ministry of Science Vindicates Lomborg-Dec.17, 2003
Review: It is true that Lomborg's book does contain some errors. And that is why I am giving it only 4 Stars. But Lomborg has freely admitted them; More importantly, however, these minor mistakes do not undermine his main conclusion that the Earth's Environment is improving, rather than declining. We have had predictions of mass famine in the 1960's too due to the growing world population but the subsequent Green Revolution boosted crop production and supported the increased population. My point here is that Scientists and Prognosticators cannot predict the future. Personally, I do think that we should do more to curb Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions and increase Fuel Economy Standards in both Canada and the US. Having a higher gas or electric bill tends to focus one's mind on buying energy saving devices, light bulbs, etc. Having said that, we should equally NOT Demonise individuals such as Bjorn Lomborg who argue that the Earth's Environment is gradually improving rather than going to hell in a hand basket. Rather we should rationally examine the scientific facts first and then form a conclusion as Lomborg attempts to do in his book. Some critics of Dr. Lomborg have referred to the January 2003 report by the Danish Commitee on Scientific Dishonesty(DCSD) as essentially discrediting the entire basis of The Skeptical Environmentalist. But, in fact, many lay people have pointed out serious flaws in the Methadology of DCSD's conclusions and on its refusal to give Lomborg prior to the release of their critical report. The Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation has now(December 2003) intervened to harshly criticised the DCSD's methadology and to repudiated its findings on Lomborg's book. here. Among the points cited(cf. a very useful web story by Ian Murray(my thanks to him for his insightful analyses of the DCSD situation) ...is that firstly, the DCSD failed to substantiate its case against Lomborg's book and did not state where Lomborg committed his alleged mistakes. In such a situation, Lomborg could not be expected to respond to the DCSD's critiques--which some have said merely copy Scientific American's previous critiques of Lomborg's work. Secondly, while DCSD emphasised that all scientific work should go through a peer review, they omitted to examine whether such a procedure had been done in Lomborg's case. In fact, Lomborg's book had, in fact, been reviewed by 4 recognised scientists prior to its publication by the Cambridge University Press. Thirdly, the Danish Ministry of Scienace, Technology and Innovation criticised the language and tone of DCSD's report as being highly emotional and error prone--in other words, somewhat unprofessional for a scholarly Committee. Fourthly, DCSD's procedure of presenting Lomborg's case before 3 separate scientific Committees instead of the usual one was unusual and procedurally incorrect. Moreover with this new situation, a ruling which was issued by the Individual Committee within whose area of study Lomborg worked could be overturned by the 2 other Commitees. Fifthly, it was "clearly wrong" to deny Dr. Lomborg an opportunity to defend his book in front of the Commitee of Scientific Dishonesty prior to the DCSD's ruling. Finally, the Chairman of the Sub-committee in the Lomborg case came from the Health Sciences, rather than from the Social Sciences Department, which is Dr. Lomborg's field. I thought it was quite funny that this was the case--it wld be like asking a Biologist to study the work of Chemist and makes no sense at all! In summary, the Janury 2003 DCSD ruling seems to have been intended as a hatchet job on Lomborg's work. Perhaps it was an attempt to discredit the views of those who don't subscribe to the Environmentalist viewpoint. But fortunately, there is some justice to this world and the DCSD report has now been publicly repudiated by the DCSD's own superiors. As Lomborg states after the release of the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology & Innovation's report: "It has been hard, but I am happy that we now have confirmation that freedom of speech extends to Environmental debate. Now that this distraction is behind us, we can concentrate our efforts on matters of importance--namely how to prioritize our effort for the earth." I think he couldn't have said it better. One should let the scientific facts on the ground--rather than the angry rhetoric and threats emanating from Environmental groups and their supporters against both Lomborg or his publisher, Cambridge University Press--to control the debate over how to preserve the Earth's Environment for the benefit of our future generations. Such a move strikes me as an attempt suppress dissent over such a topic. Thank You.
|
