Rating: 
Summary: The Economist 1/11/2003
Review: The Economist reviewed this book on the above noted date and mentioned the findings from Denmarks Committee on Scientific Dishonesty: and I quote"How Odd? Why, in the first place is a panel with a name such as this investigating complaints against a book which makes no claim to be a scientific treatise?" Since the book was not conducting scientific research, what business is it of a panel concerned with scientific dishonesty?. One might expect to find the answers to this question in the arguments and data supporting the ruling-but there are none. Etc. Read the review it is enlightening.
Rating: 
Summary: The Media's Environment, Debunked
Review: I discovered this book accidentally and it's probably the best I've seen in years. It puts all environmental doomsday predictions under the microscope of statistics and reason. You either love it or hate it. But reading most of the reviews, people largely missed the entire point of the book.The book is not a right-wing, pro-capitalist conspiracy intended make the West feel less guilty. It does not trivialize environmental issues. It deals with the issues head-on, in an EVEN HANDED manner. It tries to locate the sources of the problems so we can better understand and deal with them. Doomsday predictions do more to hurt us than to help us because they lack focus. It suffers from its encyclopedic size. The monumental research effort is admirable, but the short chapters don't give each issue the required depth. My favorite example is the graph of population growth which plateaus at a comfy 12 billion people by 2200. He cites the graph with ease, "As we see from Figure 11 . . . ." Huh? Says who? By which method/model? OK, so this book starts the conversation but does not necessarily end it. However, DO buy it to gain new ways of thinking about heretofore unexamined "facts" published in the media. DO buy it to gain a toolset for reading the news more critically.
Rating:
Summary: read this only if you're ready to forgo your prejudices
Review: This meticulously researched book refutes the innumerable jeremiads of the eco-hustlers, while honoring the values and goals of those who wish a liveable environment for the forseeable future. Mr. Lomborg is neither "anti-environment" nor "anti-environmentalist"; rather, he brings facts and a sense of proportion to every imaginable environmental issue. He maintains that the earth is becoming more liveable and more sustainable, and supports his arguments with extremely well-documented analysis of the very same data widely misunderstood and misquoted by others. If you're ready for an alternative to doom-and-gloom, and are willing to acknowledge the adaptability and creativity of humankind, this is the book to read.
Rating: 
Summary: Severe credibility problems
Review: When I read this book, I considered its results deeply suspect, largely because of my own work in the quantitative analysis of environmental contaminants. Lomborg's ideological bias was obvious, and his pronouncements rang hollow. Save for those who reflexively view one form of extremism as a corrective to another--rather than as yet another form of error--Lomberg's arguments were very much less than compelling. And now, in January of 2003, a committee of Danish scientists has ruled that "The Skeptical Environmentalist" is "scientifically dishonest." This decision was released after a six-month investigation of the book and its data by a committee working under the aegis of the Danish Research Agency. Their full decision reads: "Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty. In view of the subjective requirements made in terms of intent or gross negligence, however, Bjorn Lomborg's publication cannot fall within the bounds of this characterization. Conversely, the publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice." These scientists accuse Lomborg "of fabricating data, selectively and surreptitious discarding unwanted results, of the deliberately misleading use of statistical methods, consciously distorted interpretation of the conclusions, plagiarization of others' results or publication, and the deliberate misrepresentation of others' results." I believe that this finding, though perhaps not the last word on the subject, casts the author and his book in a very poor light indeed. Fair-minded readers will certainly want to investigate these charges thoroughly before judging the book.
Rating:
Summary: misguided statistician feeds the bay of industrial pigs
Review: You know it's funny how many people can praise something when it helps them sleep better at night...even though in their heart they know their doing something wrong. What this book won't do is help your children sleep better seven generations from now. Money got this book published, not peer review. I'm a biology major and I personally talked with more than one professor about the inaccuracies of this book due to the unreliable, old and unobjectible sources used. Remember, this author is not an authority on science! Just because he uses over 2,000 sources doesn't mean their all true or not outdated. If you could read between the lines, you would see that he had a hidden agenda and used slanted tactics of a statistician to get HIS viewpoint across. So all the fatcats could feel good about themselves and we can keep on polluting OUR home. One day we will realize that we are only polluting ourselves. May the eternal spirit grow within all of us. Mother nature, our fellow man, unity and a bright (clean, healthy) future is what is important. Bjorn could care less that though as he rolls in the piles of cash this book has made him. Remember, everything you read is not always true or what it seems. I recommend reading State of the World, where the author is The Worldwatch Institute, a Washington, DC-based nonprofit research and publishing organization dedicated to "fostering the evolution of an environmentally sustainable society." Another book is When Smoke Ran Like Water: Tales of Environmental Deception and the Battle Against Pollution where "Davis, one of the world's leading epidemiologists and researchers on environmentally linked illness, writes about her lifelong battle against environmental pollution in strong prose, underlined with some horrifying stories." Read them all, even an environmental spepticist, but remember which books offer positive solutions and sometimes even the horrific truth. Just because Bjorn may help some of you feel better about yourselves, doesn't mean it's right. Too bad the author didn't spend all this time on how we can have a more sustainable environment...in a growing technological age.
Rating:
Summary: Economic growth is key to environmental success
Review: I have always been an advocate for environmental policy.
Reading papers and information about the great problems of the
future had put fear into me in regards to our future on earth. Bjorn Lomborg while being also an advocate for sound
environmental policy has put forward a huge amount of data to
support his theories, so that we can make wise decisions about
how to distribute our resources. I am sure that people who are skeptical of this book will think
he has other motives ie. from oil companies, but if you check
any of his thousands of references, the reservation you may have
will have to be turned around to agreement, if you have a
scientific mind, and can see facts when presented this clearly. I found the book to be highly liberating and am looking forward
to a future that will keep improving, as long as we encourage
economic growth.
Rating:
Summary: Lomborg Rebuked by Dansh Research Agency for Dishonesty
Review: Environment and Science: Danes Rebuke a 'Skeptic'
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
A branch of the Danish Research Agency has concluded that Prof. Bjorn
Lomborg, an author whose upbeat analysis of environmental trends has
been embraced by conservatives, displayed "scientific dishonesty" in
his popular book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist."
Professor Lomborg, who has a doctorate in political science and
teaches statistics at the University of Aarhus, has portrayed the
book as an unbiased scientific refutation of dire pronouncements by
environmental groups. But it has been attacked as deeply flawed by
many environmental scientists since its publication in English in
2001 by Cambridge University Press.
Many experts have said that environmental conditions, in most cases,
are not nearly as good as Professor Lomborg portrays them, but also
not nearly as bad as some environmental groups and scientists have
said.
The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty, after a six-month
review following several complaints filed by scientists, issued a 17-
page report yesterday concluding that the book displayed "systematic
one-sidedness."
"Objectively speaking," the committees found, "the publication of the
work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of
scientific dishonesty," as defined by Danish rules for scientific
integrity.
But because Dr. Lomborg was not found grossly negligent, he could not
be found formally to have been scientifically dishonest, the report
said.
The committee said it found no evidence that Professor Lomborg
deliberately tried to mislead readers, which would have been a graver
issue, and settled on a relatively mild rebuke, concluding, "The
publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good
scientific practice."
The committees, divisions of the Danish Research Agency, are composed
of a variety of scientists and headed by a judge from the Danish High
Court.
In a telephone interview, Professor Lomborg, 38, defended the book
and challenged the committees to come up with specific examples of
errors or bias.
"You can't say I'm scientifically dishonest or in breach of good
scientific conduct unless you point the finger and say this is the
smoking gun," he said. "It's like saying you committed murder but we
won't tell you who you killed. It's impossible for me to defend
myself."
He said the committees' conclusion could get him fired from his new
position as director of the Danish Institute for Environmental
Assessment, in which he reviews the effectiveness of government
spending on environmental programs. Government officials, however,
told Danish news organizations that the criticism of the book did not
jeopardize Professor Lomborg's job.
Cambridge University Press has also been criticized by scientists for
publishing the book. Officials at the publishing house declined to
comment on the findings, saying they had not had a chance to read
them.
The report did not cite specific examples, but asserted that the
book - although presented in the style of a scientific treatise, with
copious footnotes and diagrams - was actually "a provocative debate-
generating paper."
It extensively cited a long critique of Professor Lomborg's book that
was published in Scientific American last year. Professor Lomborg and
his supporters said that critique was itself biased and written by
scientists who have long portrayed the environment as dangerously
degraded.
The book - a dense review of data on forests, climate change, food
supplies, population growth and other issues - has not been a runaway
best seller but has been widely cited by conservative groups,
commentators and elected officials who oppose strict environmental
regulations.
At the same time, the book posed a sharp challenge to environmental
groups and many scientists who have long spoken of looming ecological
and climatic catastrophes that have yet to materialize.
"The environment is a field where, when people do some light
calculations like Lomborg did, it's easy to argue for a happy-times
kind of conclusion," said Dr. Peter H. Raven, the director of the
Missouri Botanical Garden and president of the American Association
for the Advancement of Science.
But such findings should not be portrayed as science, he said,
adding, "This is a just outcome that ought to bring his credibility
to a halt except for those who desperately want to believe what he
says."
Rating:
Summary: Momentous effort
Review: I wanted to start this book review with - what else? - some statistics. As I write this review the book has received 208 other customer reviews and the average customer review rate is about 3.5 stars. Does that mean that most reviewers consider this book to be slightly above ordinary? No. The 3.5 stars average doesn't say anything about how the individual rates are distributed. It would be good if Amazon would disclose also the standard deviation of the ratings or, in other words, how far from the average are the individual star ratings. Without going into calculations I can assert that the standard deviation for the star ratings given to the book is huge. People love it or hate it. There are very few reviews with 2, 3 or 4 stars; the vast majority is either 1 star (the minimum) or 5 stars (the maximum). The controversy represented by such high standard deviation by itself is enough reason to read the book. If a book can instigate such impassioned response it's got to be worth checking out. The book brings new elements into the environmental discussion and that's what all the fuss is about. One of the key elements is of course accountability. The author double-checked the sources cited in many doomsday predictions, mostly from Lester Brown from the Worldwatch Institute. It becomes apparent from reading the book that Mr. Brown is keen on data massaging. Mr. Brown, according to the book, would select, from a historic data set, points that deviate from the line that best fits the data and, based on those particular points, assume a considerably different trend. According to Lomborg the Worldwatch Institute predictions need to be taken with a grain of salt. Another element brought by the book is falsifiability. Nobody can be criticized at hindsight from making a wrong prediction based on a poor model. But once this happens the model has to be reevaluated. This is what the scientific method is all about; it's called falsifiability. A model or hypothesis should be testable against experimental data and if it fails to predict the outcome of the experiment the model or hypothesis should be reconsidered. What the doomsday theorists such as the Worldwatch Institute do, according to the book, is to recycle failed hypothesis such as "humanity is running out of food"; "most animal species will go extinct within the next few years"; "water-wars will crop up everywhere". Such predictions have being made, again and again, for decades now and as we find ourselves still having readily available food, water, oil, lush biodiversity, those theories should be reevaluated. Instead the doomsday theorists keep using the same predictions saying, "now it is the turning point", and this turning point keeps being pushed to the future but never challenged. Another element mostly absent from the environmental discussion is economics. Preservationist efforts need to be economically sound. If to save an acre of forests someone needs to set in motion a chain reaction that will damage several acres elsewhere then it's not worth doing it. One of my favorite examples of this approach on the book is the unfortunate Exxon-Valdez oil spill in Alaska, 1989. That was certainly a tragic incident that should be avoided but the reaction to the spill was far from optimal. Scientists knew at that point that the oil would naturally degrade or evaporate and the best course of action was to leave things as they were. Instead More than 2.1 billion dollars were spent on cleanup efforts using pressurized hot water and other techniques. However, some portions of the beaches were left aside without undergoing the cleanup efforts so that compare the two strategies could be compared. The places where the hot steam was used were pretty much sterile for about four years while at the beaches left with the spill remains life was thriving only 8 months after the spill. Most of the oil on those beaches naturally degraded, evaporated or formed harmless tar nodules. Knowledge is power but not even the scientific knowledge could save those 2.1 billion dollars from being wasted in harmful cleanup efforts. Something more powerful than knowledge prevailed: public opinion. The public just wanted to see some action being taken. The Skeptical Environmentalist has the potential to help changing that public opinion. Think about what could those 2.1 billion dollars have done to improve the environment if used elsewhere. The book has its flaws. The author himself has a few corrections posted in his personal website. But it is still a momentous effort to challenge environmentalists' claims that went unchecked for so many years. The book is not a final answer but is a much-needed reality check. Leonardo Alves - Houghton, Michigan - January 2003
Rating:
Summary: An Emerging Classic
Review: THE BOOK
Bjorn Lomborg conducted an extensive literature review using the most commonly referenced studies of the major environmental issues currently under debate (human welfare, natural resources, pollution, global warming). Seeking an objective assessment, he discusses: inconsistencies between sets of data, different ways to evaluate and interpret research findings, how pasts forecasts have been wrong, the limitations of current knowledge, and cost/benefit analysis of risks and available options. His overall analysis is in stark contrast to what he calls the "litany" (what everyone "knows", what the media reports). The book's strength is that it is meticulously referenced (over 2,900 references!) and is written clearly, concisely, and in a well-organized manner. THE CONTROVERSEY
Some cry out that this is a biased, misleading, unscientific account of the environmental issues, while others cheer the voice of reason and objectivity they always knew was out there but never reported in the media. While the disagreement includes factual disputes, the heart of the conflict centers around philosophical questions concerning ways to interpret research findings and about deciding what actions should be taken. You would think that a critical response to this book is a best-seller waiting to happen, but so far only vague denouncements rather than specific examples of substantial errors in the argument or the offering a counter interpretation. WHY YOU SHOULD READ THIS BOOK
The enormous public and private debate this book has stirred up is reason enough to put this on your must-read list (aren't you curious what everyone is so fired-up about?). Being an easy-read and a broad-based review of current environmental topics, it serves very well as an introductory text to those who are unfamiliar with the issues. Even if you end up not in agreement with the data and arguments presented in this book, you will be in a better position to understand the reasoning and more effectively communicate with those who agree with this book's position.
Rating:
Summary: Deception at it's best
Review: When you read this book, be sure and check his sources. Remember what you have learned in school about argument from improper authourity. Most of Mr. Lomborg's sources are not from accepted scientific sources but are mostly ancedotal stories in non scientific articles, etc. Then he accepts and rejects the same sources as needed to support his arguement. Many of the supporting reviews of this book have accepted what the author has said at face value. All I ask is for everyone who reads this book to make sure what you see is what you get.
| 
