Rating: 
Summary: Scientifically dishonest
Review: Here is a Scientific American article which tears apart this book.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?articleID=000F3D47-C6D2-1CEB-93F6809EC5880000&pageNumber=1&catID=2It disturbs me how many people searching for optimism have been mislead by this book's misguided hope.
Rating: 
Summary: Author has been cleared of scientific dishonesty allegations
Review: Please see: http://www.imv.dk/Default.asp?ID=233 On Dec 17, 2003, the Danish Ministry of Science (DMS) repudiated the findings by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) that this book was scientifically flawed. The DMS found the DCSD's treatment of the book "dissatisfactory" and "emotional". I would make the same claims to most of the negative reviews I found here regarding this book. :-)
Rating:
Summary: Lomborg vindicated by Danish Ministry of Science
Review: I figured this worthy of mention here since the DCSC's smear campaign against Lomborg is oft cited in the preceeding negative reviews of this book.
From a press release today (12/17/03): "The Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation has today repudiated findings by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DSCD) that Bjørn Lomborg's book 'The Skeptical Environmentalist' was 'objectively dishonest' or 'clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice'. "The Ministry, which is responsible for the DSCD, has today released a critical assessment of the Committee's January 6 ruling. The Ministry finds that the DCSD judgment was not backed up by documentation, and was "completely void of argumentation" for the claims of dishonesty and lack of good scientific practice. "The Ministry characterises the DCSD's treatment of the case as 'dissatisfactory', 'deserving criticism' and 'emotional' and points out a number of significant errors. The DSCD's verdict has consequently been remitted." Link: http://www.imv.dk/Default.asp?ID=233
Rating:
Summary: Lomborg Vindicated by
Review: The following press release was issued today, 12/17/2003, by the Danish Ministry of Science, announcing the Ministry's decision to overturn the findings of the "Danish Commitees on Scientific Dishonesty". As it turns out, the "Committees on Scientific Dishonesty" were, well, dishonest about Lomborg's book: 17. December 2003 The Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation has today repudiated findings by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DSCD) that Bjørn Lomborg's book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" was "objectively dishonest" or "clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice". The Ministry, which is responsible for the DSCD, has today released a critical assessment of the Committee's January 6 ruling. The Ministry finds that the DCSD judgment was not backed up by documentation, and was "completely void of argumentation" for the claims of dishonesty and lack of good scientific practice. The Ministry characterises the DCSD's treatment of the case as "dissatisfactory", "deserving criticism" and "emotional" and points out a number of significant errors. The DSCD's verdict has consequently been remitted.
Rating:
Summary: incorrect
Review: Lomborg selects his statistics very carefully. For example, he reports that the WWF figure for land burned in wildfires in Indonesia was significantly higher than the Indonesian government's estimate. He doesn't say that Indonesia's government was reporting only on forested land burned, nor that a later study showed that actually more than double the WWF's estimate had been burned (Indonesia's estimate was based on reports from farmers and ranchers, who probably started the fires themselves). On the issue of global climate change...are you going to believe his interpretation of the statistics or the World Meteorological Organization's (which says that not only will global warming happen, but that it is happening already). Likewise, he reports that the extinction rates are exponentially lower than those claimed by the environmental movement. In fact, he uses the rates of species being classified as extinct. In order for this to happen, there needs to be either an extensive survey of the species' entire known range (which almost never happens) or the species needs to go for a 50 year period without being recorded (which takes 50 years) Furthermore, the species needs to first be described to science, and the vast majority of species are not. As he talks about oil, he twists the arguement around, from "oil is being consumed too quickly; it fuels wars and emits nitrous oxides and carbon dioxide" to "we are about to run out of oil." He essentially states that forests are not significantly threatened. This is based on several flaws. For example, one of his footnotes references a figure stating that 7.5 million square kilometers (which was apparently misread as a percentage). He then confuses net forest loss with original forest loss, although second growth forests are much poorer biologically than virgin ones. He also expresses forest loss as a fraction of total land mass on earth, rather than forest cover, a misleadingly small statistic. The whole book is intresting, but not in any way grounded in fact. ....
Rating:
Summary: The end is not nigh
Review: Environmentalists are rather like Jehovah's Witnesses, both groups keep insisting that we are all doomed, and that the world is heading for disaster, but somehow the world is still there and they keep having to alter their pronouncements to account for the awkward fact that we have not all perished yet. Bjorn Lomborg's brilliant book shows that the dramatic pronouncements made by the envrionmental movement are nonsense, we are not running out of water or oil or anything else, proportionally fewer people are starving, things are getting better, not worse. Some of the information in this book was already familiar to me from reading P.J. O'Rourke's wonderful book 'All the Trouble in the World' . I was pleased to meet again from O'Rourke's book our old friend Paul Ehrlich, the environmentalist who is always making dramatic pronounciations that turn out to be 100% wrong, yet people still listen to him. Why? Lomborg isn't as funny as O'Rourke, but then he isn't trying to be, his book is utterly fascinating anyway. If you have ever been scared by the dire prophecies of an environmentalist, read this book and arm yourself with courage.
Rating:
Summary: An eye-opener and victory for common sense
Review: Prior to reading this book, I accepted the alarming projections of the environmental movement at face-value. Lomborg's exposure of the distortion of facts by this movement has, for me, irreparably damaged the trustworthiness of any environmental group or agenda. The ferocious response from environmentalists is understandable, given the damage that was inflicted on their credibility. However, instead of countering his evidence with science and salvaging what little credibility they have left, the movement resorted to character assasination - a response that only deepens suspicion of their guilt. Criticism of this book coalesces around several arguments: - Lomborg is not a scientist. The relevance of this argument escapes me - do scientists have a monopoly on truth? Wouldn't his critics have found it so much easier to disprove his assertions if this was in fact relevant? During the whole sorry affair, Lomborg acted much more like a scientist than any of his critics - admitting where he had been wrong on minor points, countering criticism with arguments based on fact, being open to discussion, and most importantly, not resorting to impugning the characters of his opponents. - He is manipulating statistics. Since he is using the exact same statistics that the environmental movement used to arrive at diametrically opposed views, this is hardly an argument in itself (as it is usually presented) - one needs to provide an alternative interpretation that makes more sense. - Authorities have pronounced him wrong. This is correct, in a trivial way. Proving him wrong, however, remains beyond the means of the authorities. Both Scientific American and the Danish council did not refute any evidence by bringing better arguments or facts to the table, but resorted to fuzzy emotional arguments and character assassination. - He misrepresent facts. An oft-repeated mantra, but no real evidence is provided to support this allegation. - He is a stooge of industry / the right wing. A typical character assassination, and irrelevant. Even if this was true, his arguments remain to be countered. Please read this book. It is an important book, and provides a glimmer of real hope for a better future based on common sense.
Rating: 
Summary: Lomborg must have hit a sensitive spot
Review: For all the reviewers who only rely on Scientific American's negative 'review' for your negative perceptions of this book, you must know that SA refused to allow Lomborg a full rebuttal either in the magazine or on his own website. They threatened him with legal action for publishing their criticism so he could respond point by point. Not very scientific, hm? The Danish Committees for Scientific Dishonesty have shown their lack of objectivity also. Read Lomborg's rebuttal at: http://www.greenspirit.com/lomborg/ I look at all this polemic and just shrug. What are the greenies hiding? I place environmentalism high on my list of important issues, but hate being lied to so the green lobby can 'capture [my] imagination'. Most of us aren't so dumb...
Rating: 
Summary: Don't believe everything you read...
Review: This book is a an excellent testament to the adage "a little knowledge can be dangerous". Yes, it's true that some evironmental and social activists have made some bold claims that turn out to be unsupported by data. Lomborg does a fine job of showing us how baseless some of the more outlandish of these claims are (e.g. we are headed for a world food shortage - not true). However, the book's weakness is that Lomborg himself ends up drawing equally erroneous conclusions to prove HIS point. The book is loaded with data, much of it very interesting and supportive of the author's point of view. However, it is also full of straw man arguments and other errors of logic too numerous to list (I'll try to list a few). For example, Lomborg's analysis of income disparity is analogous to the fallacy that you can't drown in a stream averaging 3 feet deep. By comparing the average wealth of whole countries and stating that differences are not severe, he misses the point that the wealth distribution within countries is often hugely unbalanced, and getting worse. Lomborg shows us data on DDT, among other pollutants, and points out, correctly, that the contamination levels have been dropping. Should we be surprised by this? DDT has been banned for years. Of course DDT levels should be dropping. I'm more curious about the stuff we are STILL dumping into our rivers. I'm also curious about the rising levels of bacteria in surface water, which Lomborg brushes off saying "we could solve that if we wanted to". In his discussion on deforestation, Lomborg makes no reference to declining old growth or wilderness areas. At least in the USA, these are huge issues, perhaps even the biggest issues of all (as regards deforestation). Roadless wilderness and old growth giants are two examples of priceless treasures that are quickly disappearing, but nowhere in the book are these issues discussed. Yet Lomborg's overall conclusion is that there is no problem at all with deforestation. I could go on and on. The discussion of cancer risks is grossly oversimplified (and in my opinion misleading), as is the analysis of species extinction. His discussion of energy and future fuel sources does not jive with other works I have read on the subject. Etc. Etc. Having read some other reviews, I see that some folks have taken issue with Lomborg's data being inaccurate. As a layman I can't comment on that. However, in my opinion this book goes a little too far in trying to paint a rosy picture of the world. Ironically, Lomborg has fallen into the same trap as the environmentalist extremists he was seeking to discredit - selectively presenting data to further your own point of view. In conclusion, I will make a two-sided recommendation. If you really believe the claims that the Worldwatch Institute makes when it says we are headed for widespread famine, blackouts, and flooding (due to global warming), you had better read this book! These things are just not true. However, if you're reasonably savvy about the world and just want an opinion on mainstream environmental stewardship, I think this book will disappoint you.
Rating:
Summary: measuring the real state of consent building
Review: Bjorn Lomborg isn't even a trained ecologist or envirnmental scientist - BJORN LOMBORG IS A POLITICAL "SCIENTIST". Seriously - Ph.D Political Science, University of Copenhagen, 1994. This book is a fine piece of work for those pro-pollution, foul-our-own-pot parties to point at when they tell voters that global change doesn't really happen and isn't happening. Having read it for a graduate-level global change course, along with several other texts, it was astounding the way Lomborg carefully chose which studies to use as examples and how he twisted the consensus of science by focusing on the margins to fit his agenda. Don't believe me? Ask the numerous international agencies and groups of scientists that have discounted the claims in this book. I also believe he was removed from his job because of the backlash. This book is an example of ecology's version of the anti-evolution campaign. You stand up a few so-called experts (usually people who real, working, publishing scientists have never heard of; often from fields outside the subject), and point out some negative results (which happens in science - its how science works) that fit your desired conclusion and call it a cover-up, an atrocity of science, a failure to humanity that such studies (the 0.001% of the 99.999%) are not considered the consensus. Heck, statistically speaking we should get negative results 5% of the time, simply by chance - even if the results were really positive. Now, if that is something you want to read as the "truth" about the environment, this is a PRIME example and I highly recommend it. It will at least open your eyes to how selective truths can be worse that flat lies. I think I am qualified in my opinion - I have been a professional ecologist for over 10 years. This BOOK is an atrocity.
| 
