Rating: 
Summary: Poorly researched, many technical errors
Review: Although the idea of skepticism is a good one, and needed in any highly politicized area. Lomborg does skepticism a disservice by having so little regard for solid research, for recent research, and for accuracy. For an excellent point by point review of just how Lomborg oversimplifies to the point of inaccuracy, take a look at the review on the Scientific American website: www.sciam.com While it's wrong to exaggerate the problems that we face or to simply frighten the public without giving good information and solid alternatives, Lomborg seems to go in the opposite direction by painting an unrealisticly cheery picture in the name of "skepticism." It's sad, really because the average citizen needs real facts, in a language that she, or he, can understand.
Rating:
Summary: the skeptical environmentalist
Review: It is sad to see facts manipulated and data skewed. There is a lack of peer review, but this is understandable since a serious environmental scientist would have nothing to do with such a hideous work.
Rating: 
Summary: Facts and Science, Not Environmental Dogma
Review: Lomborg has come under ideological attack because he commits heresy against the "religion" of environmentalism. But he's got the facts on his side. Just one example of what I learned from this book: remember the horrified commentary about the ozone hole over the South Pole? Remember all the rhetoric about how sheep were going to go blind because of the increased ultraviolet radiation? Turns out that the ozone hole did cause an increase in UV radiation over areas near the south pole. But the increased level was exactly the same as what you would experience at a latitude partway towards the equator. Are sheep going blind at latitude 45? I DON'T THINK SO. Are they, for that matter going blind at the equator (where the UV intensity is at its highest)? Again, I DON'T THINK SO. So if you'd rather have facts and science than environmental dogma, I highly recommend this book.
Rating:
Summary: Lomborg Debunked
Review: A panel of independent Scandinavian scientists said on Tuesday 8/26/03,that recent reports by a controversial Danish environmentalist were unscientific and of dubious value.
The Danish government asked the panel of five academics to evaluate reports from an independent environmental institute headed by Bjorn Lomborg, after a prestigious Danish scientific committee earlier this year accused the environmental maverick of scientific dishonesty -- a charge he dismissed.
The 38-year-old statistician, author of the controversial book "The Skeptical Environmentalist," enraged the scientific community by saying that the dangers of global warming (news - web sites) had been exaggerated and that trying to slow it was a waste of money.
"The panel must conclude that none of the reports represent scientific work or methods in the traditional scientific sense," the five scientists said in their report.
In his book, Lomborg said the world's forests are barely declining, few animals have become extinct lately and rivers and oceans are becoming cleaner.
Lomborg has also criticized the vast sums being spent on reducing pollution, arguing that the amount spent on reducing greenhouse gas emissions would be enough to provide every person in the world with access to clean water and sewerage.
The chairman of Lomborg's Institute for Environmental Valuation, created by the center-right government in 2002, said the board took note of the panel's evaluation, while the Danish opposition said the institute should be closed.
Rating:
Summary: The ideological masquerade goes on and on
Review: I will briefly comment on only one aspect of Bjorn's book. It will serve as an example of the many problems of this book. In his work Lomberg claims that habitat loss has had no effect on birds, that is it has not caused extinctions. This is utterly irresponsible. Clearly, habitat loss lead to the loss of no less than four species of birds in North America alone. They are, the Carolina Parakeet, Passenger Pigeon, Ivory-billed Woodpecker and Dusky Seaside Sparrow. These extinctions offer a cautionary tale to those who would haphazardly slash and burn rain forests or even northern temperate forests. The important point made by our North American extinctions is that evolutionary specialization can mean disaster when the local environment is decimated. The kind of specialization exhibited by the species mentioned above is uncommon in temperate regions, however endemism and ecological specialization is extraordinarily high in the tropics. So thoughtless clearing of the kind engaged in here in North America would spell absolute disaster in the tropics. I am not saying that development and the conservation of biodiversity are incompatible, I hamppen to think they are. But the picture that Lomberg presents is not an honest one. Not in the slightest. There is geniune truth in the 'litany'. I think it is clear that pollution, bioaccumlation, ozone depletion (not so much a problem now as decisive action has been taken), acid rain are all serious problems that affect the quality of all life. Lomberg likes to gloss over this fact, or say that it is not really a problem, or that is not as serious a problem as the environmentalists think it is. This is a horribly irresponsible book.
Rating:
Summary: What About Some Specific Objections?
Review: It is very interesting to read the many reviews of Bjorn Lomborg's book. The remarkable thing is how polarised the reviews are. There are many 5 star reviews, and just as many 1 star reviews, with only a few giving a score in between. Most of the 5 star reviews compliment Bjorn Lomborg for his intelligent discussion of the issues, and for his integrity and honesty in his presentation. The 1 star reviews on the other hand are clearly the work of people who don't want to accept Lomborg's positions. However, the Lomborg opponents don't seem to be able to come up with specific examples where Lomborg is wrong. Instead they resort to emotional language, and say things like "there are simply too many errors and distortions to list them all." Excuse me? It would indeed be very helpful if those who take such a position would provide clear, objective, unemotional instances of where Lomborg is wrong, with page number references, contradicting data etc. As a review of his reply to the Scientific American articles attacking him will show, Lomborg has been able, in nearly every case, to effectively argue for his conclusion over the viewpoint of his opponent. For the rest of us, the obligation is, as it always must be if we are to avoid being conned by propaganda from either side, to find out for ourselves. For example, an area where Lomborg may not have it right is his acceptance of the IPCC Summary Report position that there is evidence for global warming, and that that warming is caused by anthropogenic activities. Examination of the DATA itself, especially that collated from rural stations or the satellite record, shows that there is very little, if any, evidence for secular global warming at all. And even if one accepts the flawed record that includes stations subject to urban heat island effect, the record shows that it is only average night time temperatures that are increasing, not the average daytime temperature which just goes to show the merit of the urban heat island argument! The best that can be said about global warming is that there may be a cyclical fluctuation in the climate that appears to correlate with cycles of solar activity. But it behooves all of us to find out for OURSELVES. The conservation movement has made a major contribution to the quality of life on the planet over the past 30 years. As a result of their efforts we all enjoy cleaner harbours and beaches, streets free of litter (at least in Australia), and much improved air quality. There is much to be done yet, but there really has been a major change in the awareness and concern of the general population regarding conservation issues. Bjorn Lomborg's work has been effective in stimulating discussion, and challenged interested parties to develop a better understanding of the issues. That has to be a good thing.
Rating: 
Summary: The truth about the environment.
Review: If you want to hear the truth about the environment, read this book. There is increasing interest in environmental studies these days. Many of the environmentalists tell us that we are destroying hour planet. Nothing could be further from the truth. Lomborg takes all the major fields of concern and shows there is nothing to worry about. Let me give you an example. It is often said, even educated people tend to believe it, that the oil is not going to last. There is going to be scarcity of oil in the future. Lomborg points out that the best indicator of scarcity is the price. When supply goes down the price goes up. For the last decades the price of oil has been going heavily down. That means that there is more and more oil available to us in this world. In fact, all these government projects about hydrogen or solar power are a waste of taxpayers hard earned money. In fact, if oil would be scarce, the price of oil would get higher and private firms would have an incentive to spend money on new ways of energy. Lomborg also talks about the Kyoto-protocol and shows how stupid it really is. What the environmentalists talk about is the cost of global warming. But they never mention the cost of stopping global warming which is enormous. In fact, Lomborg shows that the cost of stopping global warming is probably much more than the cost of global warming itself. This means that the Kyoto-protocol is in fact nothing but the biggest government waste in history.
Rating:
Summary: Outstanding!!
Review: A remarkable achievement. The depth of learning and research displayed in this book is extremely impressive. I read this book with a very skeptical eye, looking for ideological biases. There were NONE. This is a straigforward, honest, in-depth description of the actual state of the world today. I cannot recommend this book too highly. The book is immensely cheering, a testament to the human spirit. And, if his policy recommendations are carried out, the world will be a much better place in the future. Perhaps even more important is his exposing the intellectual dishonesty (ie, their complete willingness to lie in pursuit of their own private agenda) of the professional doom-prophets/"environmentalists". This is the best thing that could have happened to the environmental movement, at least for those of us who really do care about the environment. Bravo, Mr Lomborg!
Rating:
Summary: 95% Correct: This is as good as it gets
Review: This book is well written, scientifically and statistically pretty sound (I've a PhD in engineering, and apply the models, statistics, and arguments Lomborg uses here on a daily basis), and is for a book with a lot of facts and nearly 2000 citations rhetorically witty, and very enjoyable to read. The negative reviews wouldn't be so strident if this book was not effective and interesting!. If you are an environmentalist, read this book to help you figure out the things that you (and I) should work on to actually improve the environment rather than wasting our time and resources on efforts that may have only marginal (or negative!) effects on things that aren't even problems! No book of this size, with this much information, could every be 100% correct but this type of even-handed, open-minded analysis and clearly laid out discussion (from a Liberal-left Scandanavian university professor, no less!) has been what's missing from the rather totalitarian environmental movement (think my statement is too strong? Read the book yourself, then check out some of the reviews here!). This book is not a slam-dunk refutation of all of us with an environmental sensitivity. It is certainly not scientifically, statistically, or rhetorically deficient. It IS an effective antidote to the extremely unscientific fear-mongering and outright lies made by some scientists and pseudo-authorities to effect popular activism and strict regulation that they favor. It does call into focus the "Quo Vadis?" of how some people and environmental groups increase their contributions and power base by inflaming fears (often wtih incorrect or stilted "facts"). It does bring up the correct point that, given that we are skeptical when business advocacy groups say "everything is peachy", shouldn't we try to not accept so gullibly negative pronouncements by groups or experts whose revenue stream is enhanced by making folks believe that the world is going to hell? Paul Ehrlich, for example, earns fees by writing books predicting starvation, disaster, and environmental despoilation within five years. Seems to write a new one every five years! As a technically trained person who enjoys the outdoors and loves and wants to protect the environment, I am often frustrated by ignorance in popular media (and indeed, even in some science-trained friends). One can read, almost daily, some incorrect or impossible claim about the environment. This ignorance is illustrated by the story of a city council member who, upon hearing testimony that indicated that reduced emissions had lowered a stream's acidity from pH 9 to 8, insisted that "we won't be satisfied until that pH is zero!"*. The anecdote illustrates another of Professor Lomborg's points, which I think is this: if you don't accurately know the real problems, chances are that any actions you take to fix things may not have beneficial effects, and you will have wasted resources. I suggest that you read the book. If you disagree with points Lomborg makes, research these issues as thoroughly as he has and work as hard to understand and explain the proper point of view and conclusions from the facts and explicitly stated assumptions. If you do this, I believe that Lomborg will have succeeded in his overall goal: to insist on a science based, rational, and rigorously reasoned environmental viewpoint. Enjoy! *pH is a measure of acidity. pH 7 is neutral (your tears and saliva are both near 7). Higher numbers are alkaline, lower numbers are acidic. A solution of pH zero would be about as strong an acid as there is. Not good for fishies!
Rating:
Summary: Bullpuckey
Review: This book is bullpuckey. Lomborg supported this book with shoddy statistics. This book has thoroughly discredited by a panel of specialist scientists. Some of these statements have been published in magazines such as Scientific American. He uses out of date statistics, irrelevant statistics, doublespeak, biased statistics and scelectively unrepresentative statistics to support his claims.
| 
