Rating: 
Summary: Fine defence of industry
Review: Bjorn Lomborg, Associate Professor of Statistics at Denmark's Aarhus University, aims to allow us to see the real state of the world more clearly by confronting myths with data. He seeks to use only the best available statistical information from internationally recognised research institutes: 2930 references and a 70-page bibliography attest to the depth of his research into health, life expectancy, food, forests, resources, pollution and global warming. For example, we are constantly told that our forests are vanishing, but according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, the world's forests covered 40.24 million square kilometres in 1950, and 43.04 million in 1994. 80% of the world's original rainforest is still intact. The evidence that Lomborg presents undermines the misanthropic scare mongering of leading environmentalists like Paul Ehrlich, who said in 1967 that India was doomed. Lomborg explodes the Greens' litany of disaster and their liberal contempt for productive forces; he shows how wonderfully creative workers are, and how technological progress brings great benefits. Listening to some Greens, you would think that our factories produced only pollution! In the historic debate between the anti-industry parson Malthus and the pro-industry Marx, Lomborg is clearly with Marx. Unfortunately, Lomborg mistakenly credits 'market economies', not workers' creativity, for this progress, although, as he notes, the most important welfare improvement of the last 50 years was achieved in post-revolutionary China, and the most significant worsening of welfare has happened in post-counter-revolutionary Russia and Eastern Europe. Some environmentalists mistakenly damn GM foods, pesticides, the chlorination of water and vaccination, technological achievements that all help to save us from killer diseases. As Lomborg points out, nobody has died from eating GM foods, or from cancer caused by pesticides, or from chlorination or vaccination. Banning GM foods and pesticides would reduce yields of fruit and veg, making them dearer and diets worse, and would therefore increase deaths from cancer. Peru didn't chlorinate its water, which resulted in the cholera epidemic of 1991. Falling rates of vaccination are increasing the risks of lethal epidemics. He does not ignore the huge problems facing the world: every year, ten million children under the age of five die of preventable diseases; 1.1 billion people still have no clean drinking water, and 2.5 billion have no access to sanitation. But to solve these problems, we need a clear-headed prioritisation of resources, not counsels of despair.
Rating: 
Summary: Prioritization
Review: I have not come across any criticisms on this book which dispute any of the facts or methodologies used by Lomborg. Instead, they are driven by emotion. The mentality of the people who do not like this book is that all animals must be saved, we cannot tolerate any deaths due to pesticides, we must vastly reduce carbon dioxide emissions, etc. The primary point of the book is that we do not have infinite wealth, so we need to prioritize our spending so it has the greatest positive impact for the planet and human population. The only way to do this is to have a clear understanding of which problems are most important, so we can prioritize our spending on those issues. To those who say that every environmental problem is important, I doubt that you would put your money (unbearably higher taxes and higher prices for everything else you enjoy) where your mouth is.
Rating:
Summary: Good Discussion
Review: Confronts current biases of current environmental issues.
Seemed logical. Probably most of it is valid.
It is amazing how doom and gloom predictions, hyped by the media, and promoted by agenda-oriented environmentalists, gain widespread acceptance by the lay population.
I suspect the majority of people who think global warming has been proven to be a threat to civilization could not understand or refuse to accept the scientific concepts presented in his discussion, even as well as the facts are presented.
And the average person does not want to accept the fact that some foods we eat contain naturally occurring carcinogens, more potent than Alar.
Rating:
Summary: Practical Environmentalism
Review: Must read for both those who have disregarded the environmental movement, and those who have embraced it. So many have gotten mixed-up in this battle that maybe it's time to take a step back. Make sure to read both the critique of this book, which does sound rather shill, and Lomborg's measured response.
Rating: 
Summary: Scientific Dishonesty at Its Most Damaging
Review: Lomborg is not an expert . . . he is not even a scientist. His work is filled with errors and displays a general ignorance on ecological theories and processes. Readers would be better advised to turn to peer-reviewed journals (i.e., Nature or Science) for their information, or an Environmental Science textbook for an overview. One thing of note - it is important to be critical of scientific information. Every good scientist is. But there is a difference between critical thinking and lack of understanding. Lomborg does not provide a critical review of scientific literature. Have we made great strides in improving the state of the world? Of course. Without a doubt. But we have not won that war yet - we still have many more improvements to make. --ER Lawrence, Ecologist
Rating:
Summary: Refreshing to say the least!
Review: Its refreshing to read a book, that doesn't just give you facts but challenges you to go find the data and analyze it yourself. He doesn't disqualify the eviromental concerns, but rather puts them in a reasonalble perspective. The enviroment still needs work, but its darn refreshing to see someone who takes a moderate view. Very informative and well written.
Rating:
Summary: Ill-informed and biased
Review: Lomborg is not a natural scientist of any kind. His work, while feted by anti-environmentalist lobby groups, has been criticised by a number of leading journals - see, for example, the April 2002 Scientific American, available online - and is currently under investigation for academic misconduct. This book is worse than worthless.
Rating: 
Summary: tennis star science
Review: Sensationalism over scientific environmentalism equals mental pollution.
Rating:
Summary: After careful reading, criticism on the book is unscientific
Review: Contrary to what the critics are claiming, this book does not tell us "everything is alright". Basically what the book does is place al problems in context and then it tries to compare them so we can judge where our money makes the biggest difference. But some people apparently don't like the resulting priorities like "we could give all people in the world food and clean water forever for less than the yearly costs of Kyoto". Notice that the writers sympathy is with the sick and starving, not with the wealthy. What is so good about the book that the writer uses the most acclaimed sources in each field, so people that don't like the resulting priorities find themselves fighting their own conclusions. As you've guessed from the title I've carefully read the 11 page Scientific American article, Lomboks even larger rebuttal, Scientific Americans reaction to that and finally the ruling of the DCSD (the Danish group of scientists that ruled him biased). This Scientific American article uses a very heavyhanded and even rhetoric approach to stress that the critics are scientific heavyweights in their field, not te be disputed. But after the dust clears only two factual errors (that are never relevant to the main theme) remain: (1) the tekst contains the term catalyse where it should have been electrolyze (translation error according to Lombok) and (2) a "20% dependence" on nuclear energy in nations having nuclear power should have been a "20% dependence for electric use".
So here's a book picked to pieces by heavywheights and these are the only factual mistakes they can find! In his rebuttal (DO read it: I'cant put in web adresses here but you'll find it in no time) Lombok comes up with a long list of errors on the part of his critics. The obviously misleading quotings where the most annoying. Often his critics point a finger at Lombok for giving one view but not the other when Lombok gives exactly the same view not one paragraph later, really! Don't take my word for it but read the text. I'm a long fan of Scientific American but Lombok is not nobody so I wanted to investigate. Since all the data was readily available I could do just that. It disturbs me to find that this journal so eagerly cooperated in what turns out to be a scientific witch hunt. I've spent some time in academic circles and have many friends there. My estimate is that Lomboks "crime" is not that he has gotten his facts wrong but that he is a threat to the scientific powers that be. Their reputation and careers are on issues like global warming, energy depletion and population growth and they are viciously defending their turf. However, the political agenda surrounding these problems is too important for that attitude to be acceptable. This book is an excellent overview of what it says it is. If you want to make you political decisions better informed and your outlook less pessimistic then this book is perfect for you.
Rating:
Summary: Author is out of his element
Review: " Limited credentials.
Bjørn Lomborg is an Associate Professor of Statistics in the Department of Political Science, University of Aarhus, Denmark. His prior publications are in game theory and computer simulations. He has no professional training -- and has done no professional research -- in ecology, climate science, resource economics, environmental policy, or other fields covered by his new book. Lomborg says the book grew out of a class project for his students. The author has every right to venture into new territory and express his personal views, but equally his audience has the right to question the authority of his judgments."-World Resorces Institute
| 
