Rating: 
Summary: OK
Review: I read a review, and then a negative review; took it out from the lending library; had to extend the loan; decided I would have to buy it.
Rating: 
Summary: superficial, misleading, deceptively persuasive
Review: This book is nothing new and even Lomborg himself admits that he has no new insight to offer. Why the fuss about the book then? Basically the anti-science coalition found a sexy new way to sell the same misinformation: a former "member" of Greenpeace examines the issues for himself and concludes that environmentalists exaggerate the "true" state of the world. It is hard to believe that so many people have fallen for that catch. Lomborg admits that he was never active in the group, and it is more significant to note that Lomborg is in a political science department. Years ago I gave $15 to Greenpeace but that doesn't make me a left-wing environmentalist. I also read the Economist but that doesn't make me a right-wing capitalist. On the other hand, I have a Ph.D. in biology and have been involved in university teaching and research for the past 15 years. I read Lomborg's invited essay in the Economist last fall and felt that his treatment of the issues ranged from misleading to basically wrong. I read the whole book to get a better idea of the basis for his arguments. I am sorry to say that I find the book severely lacking in merit. Here's why:1. False comparisons
The basic premise of the book, as well as many of the individual chapters, are based on false comparisons. For example, he makes clear in the introduction that humans are his main concern as opposed to the environment or functioning ecosystems in general. For Lomborg the environment serves to provide specific products for humanity, whereas for environmentalists, humans are simultaneously part of and dependent upon the environment. Thus, Lomborg is not asking the same question as environmentalists and therefore is able to dodge many of the tough issues. Another type of false comparison Lomborg frequently uses is pitting the most extreme view against the most optimistic view rather than acknowledge that a range of opinions exists. 2. Misuse of statistics and data. In the beginning of the book he makes a generally reasonable explanation of how statistics can be misused. But then he forgets his own lesson and makes some of the same errors.
2A.He typically uses global averages to obscure specific local and regional problems; global "forest" cover, global freshwater supply, global air quality, total marine harvests, etc.
2B. He correctly notes the importance of long term trends vs short-term changes but also forgets this lesson when the long-term trends conflict with his view. For example, plotting the known extinctions of species per century since 1600 shows an exponential increase that by his own logic is likely to continue increasing. But Lomborg does not shown a graph of these data because doing so would undermine his argument that extinction rates are no cause for alarm.
2C. Lomborg rarely mentions ranges, and never mentions variation, or confidence intervals. He presents many graphs showing trends but does not once mention the statistical significance of those trends or of how much of the "noise" in the data is explained by the variable of interest as opposed to other factors. 3. Poor scholarship. Many other reviewers note the extensive footnotes and references but this is only the appearance of scholarly work. Lomborg frequently cites sources out of context, misunderstands the data he uses, ignores information that contradicts his view, and relies far too heavily on outdated and secondary sources while ignoring most of the current peer-reviewed scientific journals.
3A. By relying so heavily on Julian Simon's book (which he purportedly set out to disprove) he walks a fine line between paraphrasing and plagiarism. He lifts entire sections of Simon's book, including quotations and references, without reading the original sources himself.
3B. Many of his footnotes do not contain references but contain irrelevant comments (2044), subtle insults (2109), or information that contradicts what he says in the text (2068). In note 1606 he states "we must assume that the best recycling ideas have already been exploited and that yields from further recycling will be lower" without any supporting data or references and apparently contradicting his frequent claim that human ingenuity will continue to find new solutions to various problems. I am an optimist too, but Lomborg's analysis too often just doesn't hold up under scrutiny - and careful readers are not the intended audience. 4. Official data. Lomborg adopts government and international reports at face value. But these "official data" often rely on the assumption that individual countries report values honestly. Unfortunately, many instances of misreporting are known. This problem affects data on marine harvests, deforestation, and pollution emissions, among others. 5. A blind eye toward history. The purpose of calling attention to potential problems is to attempt solutions before conditions worsen. Lomborg focuses on predictions made 20-40 years ago and then compares those with current data as if nothing has happened since then. We have made progress because we focussed attention on potential problems. And progress is not an automatic result of free-markets, but has been and must be guided by policy. 6. Funding priorities. Yes, we need to prioritize, but Lomborg makes no convincing case on specifics. Lomborg fails to note that eliminating environmentally harmful subsidies, estimated at $1 trillion annually, would benefit the environment AND the economy directly. 7. Alleged personal attacks by Lomborg's critics. Simply not true. This book is a failure as a scientific analysis. The small errors (such as calling worms insects) are telling but inconsequential. The big problem is the pervasive misunderstanding of science, misinterpretation of data, and misuse of statistics. The "corrections" on his website are little more than typos. In response to the larger and more important issues noted above, Lomborg continues to obfuscate and dodge meaningful debate. For example, when errors with his examples refuting extinction rates were pointed out he responded that the errors were with the sources and therefore not his errors. As evidenced by many reviews here, this book will succeed in misleading people, not in clarifying the issues.
Rating:
Summary: Soft targets and biased selection
Review: This book pays little attention to the peer reviewed scientific literature on environmental problems. That is the basis for policy and has established the seriousness of many environmental problems. In addition to picking "soft targets" of writings by advocates, the book ignores inflated claims by industry about the economic losses that will accompany environmental regulation. This demonstrates its lack of balance.
Rating:
Summary: I knew it!
Review: This book confirms a lot of the things I have been thinking for quite some time now. And you can check all his data, he gives the sources. Much better than all the talking parrots, just forwarding every rumor about how bad the state of the earth is. There is a lot to be done, but please let us know if our efforts are paying off.
Rating:
Summary: You'll get what you expect
Review: In a nutshell, I found this book to be eminently readable (if a bit repetitive on occasion), with a refreshingly straightforward examination of facts and rhetoric surrounding much of the environmental debate. Lomborg states his case well and systematically demolishes most of the more outlandish (but oft repeated) myths about the environment and the state of the world in general. The book is well documented, containing 153 pages of notes and bibliographical information that allows the reader to look deeper into the issues he examines (conceding that many will not undertake the additional effort). That said, no review of this book would be complete without commenting on some of the vicious attacks on it in Science, Nature and Scientific American. A look at the responses to the book says more about it (and the agendas of the critics) than the attacks themselves. The chief critics of Lomborg's work are: Stephen Schneider, an "environmental scientist" described by the Dartmouth Review as "arguably the father of the climate change scare (and once a scaremonger for global cooling)" who once said, "To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest." John Bongaarts of the Population Council (!) who has argued that "[t]he historically unprecedented population expansion in the poorest parts of the world continues largely unabated" when - as Lomborg points out - the birth rate per woman has dropped from 6.2 to 2.8 over the last 50 years. John Holdren, a defense expert (!) from Harvard who once advocated "a condition in which no nation 's military forces were strong enough to threaten the existence of other states" as if such a move could be contemplated unilaterally. Tom Lovejoy, former director of the World Wildlife Fund, possibly the largest environmental lobbying organization on the planet. These are NOT objective scientists, but those whose ox Lomborg has gored. The one valid point that the critics have raised is that Lomborg's work is not exhaustive. There are environmental issues that are not addressed (such as the degradation of coral reefs) and information is available beyond that provided by Lomborg on the subjects he does address. But then, what did they expect? The text of The Skeptical Environmentalist spans 352 pages and covers population concerns, air and water pollution, food and hunger, resource availability, pesticides, biodiversity and global warming. An exhaustive analysis of these topics could easily fill a thousand such volumes, but he touches on all the points of significance succinctly and accurately. This is not an anti-environmental polemic. Lomborg NEVER argues that environmental protection is unnecessary or that all (or nearly all) of the problems have been solved. He even accepts that global warming is a fact (it is, in fact, a viable theory despite some contradictory evidence). Your expectations of this book will determine how much you get from it. If you expect to be enlightened, you will be, and if you expect to be angered ... read something else.
Rating:
Summary: Deserves to be read, whether you believe it or not!
Review: I will keep this review short and to the point. I would like to make my position clear - I believe in the efficacy of the free market system. Why should anyone read this book? Well there is only one answer. To make up your own mind. The controversy surrounding this particular author is not my concern. I am sure that he can fight his own battles. My concern is that if I want to know about what is happening to the environment I want to be able to get the facts from somewhere. I do not trust government statistics, nor do I neccessarily trust the information I get from any sort of organisation that has an axe to grind for one side of the other. To the extent one can trust the scientific community, which is not value free, one should be able to go to published sources and find the information that one seeks. If we do not have the required level of technical expertise we are forced to rely on others to translate accurately the science into English. This book performs an important function for us, as non-scientific members of our community. We owe it to ourselves to read this book and make up our own minds about the information which is made available to us. I am sure that the vast majority of us are concerned about the environment whatever our personal beliefs. We need to make informed decsions based on the best information possible and in my view that means that we should ALL be skeptical. As Bob Dylan so eloquently put it: Don't follow leaders follow parking meters!
Rating:
Summary: Read the reviews he got in science journals, not newspapers!
Review: It's no wonder why this book has gotten such media attention. The story of a bold loner who dares to defy the establishment makes for really great press. Unfortunately, Bjorn Lomborg's "The Skeptical Environmentalist" also makes for really poor science. Thus while Lomborg has mostly gotten rave reviews from newspapers and political commentary journals, the scientific community has exhaustively exposed his fallacies, omissions, misunderstandings, and misrepresentations. You can read scholarly refutations of Lomborg's book in "Science," "Nature," and "Scientific American," among others. I dare not try to cram a summary of all of Lomborg's errors into 1,000 words. One random example: Lomborg claims that ocean productivity has doubled since the 1970s, and thus fears about rampant overfishing are exaggerated. Unfortunately--and inexcusably--he's confused production with consumption. The volume of fish caught has indeed doubled since the 1970s, but this is a far cry from showing that the oceans are actually producing more. Try uprooting a few blades of grass from your lawn with just your bare hands. Then go back over that same patch with a lawnmower. You'll have cut much more grass the second time, and not because your lawn started growing more. If you see the environment as a scientific matter, "The Skeptical Environmentalist" will probably be of little value to you. If you see the environment as a political argument to be won or lost, then you might find it more useful: it sounds convincing and it makes environmentalists look really bad. Sure, it's wrong, but when has that mattered in politics?
Rating:
Summary: Disappointed Scientist
Review: Every now and then a treatise comes along that so egregiously distorts the science it is trying to present and analyze and misuses statistics in the guise of a careful analysis that it ends up simply being an embarassment to itself and its publisher. Such is the case with Lomborg's book. With its 515 pages and nearly 3,000 endnotes, it would appear to be an example of careful scholarship. Unfortunately, the book is full of analytical errors, misstatements and distorted quotations. An example of this can be found in his chapter on biodiversity, in which Lomborg attempts to argue that it is impossible to establish extinction rates by ``quoting'' a Scientific American article by P. A. Colinvaux. Lomborg writes, ``Colinvaux admits in Scientific American that the rate is 'incalculable'. What Colinvaux actually wrote is, ``As human beings lay waste to massive tracts of vegetation, an incalculable and unprecendented number of species are rapidly becoming extinct.'' This kind of irresponsible, out-of-context quotation could have been avoided had the book been properly peer-reviewed. However, like much of the literature cited by Lomborg, the book apparently was not peer-reviewed and, therefore, stands as an example of how uninformed writing can be disguised as a scholarly work. Lomborg's arguments about the state of the environment could potentially lead to dangerous complacency that may have severe repercussions in the years to come. As a mathematician and scientist interested in environmental issues, I rely heavily on the peer reviewed literature as a source of information and strongly encourage prospective readers of this book to do the same. I would also encourage them to read the reviews of Lomborg's book recently published in the January, 2002 issue of Scientific American.
Rating: 
Summary: A review from a different perspective. . .
Review: I'd like to submit a different sort of review for this book. As a homeschooling parent, I am extremely concerned about making sure that my children have access to the best, most accurate information available. This includes, of course, controversial information. As such, "The Skeptical Environmentalist" should be considered a 'must-have' in the library of every high-school age homeschooling family. The premise set forth by Dr. Lomborg, namely that he read some controversial information and decided to refute that information in a scholarly, academic fashion is precisely the sort of determination and drive for academic honesty which homeschooling parents are trying to instill. In Dr. Lomborg's case, he found that the 'controversial information' was largely (but not completely) accurate. Thus, he was forced to modify his own views -- again, an honest, academic response. The actual subject matter in this book would also be of value to the home classroom. Dr. Lomborg tackles most of the significant environmental problems encountered in the world today, and addresses them in a fashion which is straight-forward. While I do not find myself in complete agreement with Dr. Lomborg, I find that his clarity of thought and presentation, as well as his copious references, an aid to forming intelligent and defensible positions. Finally, the observant homeschooler will note the tenor of the opinions attacking Dr. Lomborg. These attacks tend to be ad hominim in character, politically divisive, and largely devoid of any cogent dissent or scientific merit. I have seen little -- even by scientific journals -- which challenge Dr. Lomborg strictly on the facts and information presented. Unfortunately, such tends to be the response of one who would dare to tread on a sacred cow of political correctness. Overall, I would give this book a 3.5 for content, a 4 for presentation and documentation, and a 5 for its usefulness in a high-school homeschool setting.
Rating:
Summary: Required Reading for Environmentalists
Review: Solving our environmental problems requires action from us as voters, consumers, governments and business. But where can we get the most leverage, the most effective outcomes? And how can we avoid prescribing cures with side effects that are worse than the disease? These simple and straightforward questions form the core of Lomborg's work. To improve environmental conditions in the most useful and beneficial way requires hard data, detailed analysis, and a frank recognition of the limits of our knowledge. Lomborg eschews the polemic of extremists on all sides of the environmental debate in favor of rolled-up sleeves and dirt under his fingernails, digging in to the data to understand what's really happening - including areas where our understanding is limited. From time to time Lomborg oversteps his mark with incomplete social analysis, mostly along the lines of "improvements in the environment have come not from government policy but from technological innovation." He may have a point, but these passages are among the few in the book which are only sparsely backed up with supporting material. Lomborg also sets out to debunk a number of left-wing environmentalist myths. Much of this is spot on; it's high time somebody called these bluffs. Some of his debunking, however, rakes over the cold ashes of arguments set aside ages ago, such as the series of bets in the 1970s between Paul Ehrlich and Julian Simon over future prices of strategic natural resources. As every informed reader would know, Simon won every bet; but the environmental movement has since shifted to higher ground. One can understand why these passages would miff the high priesthood of the environmental movement and produce blind adhominem attacks, such as the rabid articles in the January Scientific American. The brahmins never approve when someone starts slaughtering the sacred cows. One can, however, set these passages aside without affecting Lomborg's main argument, which is that we've got to figure out what to do next based on rigorous data and hard thinking about costs, benefits and priorities, not fuzzy feel-good pronouncements. And it's got to involve informed judgements from ordinary citizens. In the words of the old saw, the environment is too important to leave to the scientists. Lomborg's work is not anti-environmentalist. I imagine that in Lomborg's ideal future, the environmental movement is strong and thriving, punching all the political, commercial and technological buttons it can find to get real environmental problems on the agenda and solved - but with more transparency, and with more constructive input and criticism from ordinary, concerned, informed citizens. What a good idea!
| 
