Rating: 
Summary: The Witch Hunters Revenge
Review: Ordinarily I wouldn't bother to write a review of a self-evidently useful book, but the latest developments begin to surpass the Salem witch trials in interest. The very people criticized in Lomborg's book are engaged in a mass lynching of him for simply speaking the truth.Let's start at the beginning. This is by far the most useful reference on environmental issues and facts ever published. Lomborg has undertaken the Herculean task of locating, interpreting, and presenting the collective knowledge of the world on environmental issues. As a compendium of knowledge, The Skeptical Environmentalist is awesome and unequaled. To be sure, it is not uniformly excellent. For example, he devotes only a handful of pages to nuclear energy, incorrectly dismisses nuclear as unreasonably expensive and dangerous (relying on weak, tertiary sources), and unduly credits wind, solar, and other unconventional sources as likely to solve future energy problems. In fact, modern nuclear plant designs are immune from meltdown, cannot produce weapons-grade material, and are economical to build and operate. Anyone worried about global warming should be leading the fight to replace coal and oil-fired electrical power with nuclear power. Lomborg could also use some editing by a serious craftsman of the English language. But no book is perfect, and this one is hugely impressive. Lomborg also aims at exposing what he calls the "Litany" of environmentally and politically correct extremists who dominate most popular, mass media organs. He accomplishes this effectively, though that is no great achievement, since environmental hype is so widespread and patently erroneous. Anyone with the slightest acquaintance with environmental data knows that things are improving rapidly on almost all fronts, and have been improving for decades, in most of the world. Julian Symons (The Ultimate Resource) long ago discredited the Malthusians. The Limits to Growth was exposed as a nonsensical sham thirty years ago. Yet, the Malthusians persist. Donella Meadows, one of the authors of Limits, won a so-called Genius award from the MacArthur Foundation for her misuse of modeling and demonstrably false predictions. The predictions of Paul Ehrlich, and of Lester Brown of the Worldwatch Institute, have been proven equally idiotic. When I first read Lomborg, I found his exposure of the "Litany" almost boring--sort of like hunting fish in a barrel. But the "Litany" has struck back. A committee of Danish witch hunters, apparently Malthusians to the core, has taken charge of a Danish bureaucracy called "The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty". Using Kangaroo Court techniques, they have found Lomborg guilty of scientific dishonesty because the environmental establishment disagrees with his views. Despite their inability to document a single important error of fact or inference in his massive work , they have condemned him as dishonest, based on the disagreement of the very people he criticizes and whom he demonstrates to hysterically misrepresent the scientific data. Their report, linked from his web site, condemns him for having criticized many environmental activists "of having misunderstood the basic concepts, of misrepresenting relevant facts, of understating uncertainties, of cherry-picking data, ... in a nutshell, at members of the research community being guilty of large-scale infractions of the researchers' code of conduct." Well, yes. That is exactly what Lomborg criticizes them for, quite thoroughly and quite effectively. And that, if you read the witch hunter report cover to cover, is apparently enough to convict him of a science (sic) crime. In a particularly Orwellian twist, he is condemned because he himself is a scientist, not a mere journalist, and is hence not allowed to "a provocative debate-generating publication" (never mind that his critics engage in the very behavior for which he is condemned). Precious. I can hardly wait for the next edition of his book. Bjorn, be sure to reserve some special praise for the mentally challenged chairman of the witch hunter committee, one Hans Henrik Brykensholt, as you tote up your increased royalties. With enemies like him, one hardly needs friends
Rating: 
Summary: Bad work from a good statistician
Review: So much ink has been spilled over this book, it hardly seems necessary for me to weigh in. I did actually read it, it purports to deal with matters I care deeply about--pseudoscience and the biosphere. Nevertheless, it may be helpful to know that yes, in fact, this book has been refuted point by point, by the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty (Udvalgene Vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed), that it was brought before this body in Lomborg's own nation by his scientific peers (he is a statistician), and that the debate centered on (1) is this even science, and (2) is it intentionally misleading? Their ruling, with all the scientific debate noted and discussed in dusty. In short, the DCSD's decsion was: "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, Bjørn 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." I hope this puts it to rest. What is boils down to is this, it seems to me: if you are prone to think that the environment is either unimportant, overemphasized, or a "left-wing" plot of some sort, you'll like this book. It reinforces your own ideas, and you'll quote the statistics. If you don't like the ideas, you won't like the book. Whitehead and Kuhn more or less taught us that science is as ideological as anything else, always has been, and that that's ok. Ideas, opinions, biases, presuppositions; that's how things get done, after all. "Objectivity" is a myth that scientists, above all, ought to have given up a long time ago. Importance, after all, depends on purpose and point of view. So let's play nice. The jury is in on this particular book, we can go to the next thing, I'm sure it's waiting for us somewhere.
Rating:
Summary: A good critical look at the evidence
Review: Bjorn Lomborg is a committed environmentalist who has comitted the unforgivenable sin- in some eyes, at least- of taking a critical look at some of the cliams being made in support of environmental policy programs. For this, he has been condemned in the scientific press and accused of everything from ignorance to being a tool of the corporations- everything short of being an agent of the devil himself. Even New Scientist magazine, in comdemning his treatment, found it necessary to repeatedly characterize him as being "out of his depth", and his ideas as "illogical" and "by no means a towering intellect". All of which, I think, goes a long way in supporting the notion that far too much environmental policy is more about politics than science. Looking closely at data and trying to replicate findings- something that I was taught is at the heart of scientific inquiry- is not allowed. Now I think of myself as an environmentalist. I drive a tiny 4-cylinder car, I don't run two-stroke motors, I don't dump solvents into the drain, I compoost my lawn, I use organic methiods on my lawn and garden, I superinsulated my house and I try to use manual power wherever possible. I'm excited about the coming of hybrid vehicles in the mass market. But like Lomborg, I am skeptical of much of the data and theory being presented in support of policy. I know, for example, that a good part of global temperature fluctuation- though I would not claim all of it- it due to long-period, well documented, solar oscillations. And while research on the correlation has been published in Sweden, you won't find any scientist publishing that data in this country. It's just too risky to a career to go up against the politically popular models. Some of Lomborg's statements that have upset his opponants the most have been those that point out what should be obvious truths- like the fact that while pesticides may have toxic effects, they can also save lives by providing cheaper food. Remember the Alar flap? It wasn't that long ago that Hollywood mustered dozens of stars to protest against a relatively harmless antifungal agent called Alar. You may also remember those touching ads with Meryl Streep talking about this terrible poison. Well, Alar was only found to be carcinogenic when administered in a dose large enough to kill 90% of those receiving it- the equivalent of eating pounds of it, when only a few milligrams or micrograms were applied to apples. So now, Alar is banned, and instead we have apples with fungi producing aflatoxins- some of the most potent carcinogens known. All thanks to some concerned and grossly ignorant Hollywood stars repeating the facts they were told. If you're a comitted environmetalist- and you think you have all the facts- you owe it to yourself to read this book.
Rating:
Summary: A wonderful splash of cold water
Review: right in the face of environmentalist hysteria. The author, who makes no bones about NOT being an environmental scientist, presents an analysis of environmental trends using the science he knows- statistics. He argues that many of the statistical trends he reveals stand in direct opposition to the common wisdom that the earth is in peril. He raises questions, a lot of them, about the real state of the environment. He defends his view that the earth is in better shape than what others say it is and pokes holes in the histrionic assertions of the environmental movement that all is woe. He questions the motivations of such pronouncements of doom and gloom and wonders aloud if they can be believed. The environmentalists are, of course, livid over this challenge to their litany and have descended in force to criticize and critique the work as being scientifically dishonest. Their charges are based on the fact that the book does not adhere to the standards of publication of a peer reviewed scientific journal. But the critics miss the mark - the book is not a scientific paper (just as most pronouncements from the enviromentalist movement are not), and does not attempt to hold itself out as authoritative on any of the subjects it discusses. It only expresses the opinions of the author, who is advocating his view in the debate over the true state of the planet. Whether or not you agree or disagree with the author's viewpoint, the book is topical, thought provoking and well-substantiated. Read it, discuss it, and be critical of the "truth" you are told by people with an agenda.
Rating: 
Summary: "Environmentalist" from another planet
Review: How very interesting -- a book claiming to debunk alarmist reports of the environmental decline of the planet, written by a self-professed environmentalist whose only agenda is the truth. The main message of this book, supported by thousands of statistics, is that the global environment is not as bad off as we have been led to believe by those pesky environmentalists and their scare tactics. Let's just leave the statistics by the wayside. The trouble with statistics is that you can pick and choose them to support whatever you like. Which, it seems, is what Mr. Lomborg did -- he certainly didn't conduct any of the studies he cites. If one had the time, one could just as easily compile thousands of statistics in a book that concluded that the global environment is in a world of hurt. Scientists have been arguing, from their respective value camps, about "good science" since the beginning of empirical thought. ... Does anyone out there actually believe for one minute that wild lands are increasing in the world? Mr. Lomborg could probably find a statistic that proves this is the case. Does that make it reality? It's true that certain environmental groups have used exaggerations and scare tactics in order to accomplish their aims... One could easily compile a companion volume detailing industry scare tactics that never came true. There's more than a bit of sleight of hand and spin in this book. Particularly interesting is the author's definition of "forests" -- it seems to be any type of tree foliage that covers the ground. There certainly isn't any discussion of remaining climax old-growth ecosystems in the U.S., or any different stages of growth -- just "coverage" and "plantations". Therefore the author is able to pontificate that forest cover has remained constant or increased and oh happy day! Yes, air quality in certain places is better than it has been in times past. Does anybody really think that this is due to industry or the free-market wonks who are crowing about how great this book is? Actually, our air and water are cleaner now because of the efforts of environmentalists..... Environmentalism isn't just about preventing a horrible, bleak future, despite the picture this book paints. In fact, most environmentalists that I know aren't particularly worried that the human race is all going to starve or die of thirst. Rather, they are concerned with providing a reasonable quality of life for future generations and the preservation of wild lands. Sure, it's possible that future generations may have a surplus of food to eat and lots of drinkable water (after it's been processed), but for a whole lot of people that won't amount to a hill of beans if there aren't wild, unpolluted, unspoiled places to enjoy. And that is a fact that this book conveniently ignores --- the consequences of global warming are described in categories of impacts on agriculture, sea levels rising, human health, weather and economic costs -- direct, measurable effects on humanity. What about the alpine ecosystems, the heather and the whitebark pines, that are going to wink out of existence because of the temperature increase? The implicit assumption here is that since they don't directly affect human hunger, thirst, shelter or acquisition of consumer goods, they don't matter. And therein lies the flaw of this book -- the assumption that all humans need to be well off are food, water, air and consumer goods. This book doesn't reside in reality.
Rating:
Summary: An oustanding book! Lomborg tells the truth & is attacked!
Review: Bjorn Lomborg does an excellent job in debunking the mass hysteria from the environmental left. Mr. Lomborg has been attacked and pilloried for daring to expose the lies and bogus research by the left. Buy this book if you want to understand what is really happening to the environment and see why most of the environmentalists are lying to you.
Rating:
Summary: I'd Love to See Detailed Point by Point Refutation
Review: Doesn't it say a lot that the response of many of the critics is to tell you not to read the book, to tell the publisher to stop printing it? I'd love to see a detailed, point by point refutation of this book. Despite all the criticism that's come out about it very little criticism has been written that is of this type. I'd love for the critics of the book to explain to us in factual terms why what Lomborg says is so wrong, because none of the critics have done this that I know of, and I thought that's the way science is supposed to work. I went through the book and did a brief listing of the fact topics and conclusions made in each chapter, then went back and marked through those items of fact that had been contested by some critic. That done, I found that 97% of what Lomborg wrote was never touched by the critics. Most of the book and its major conclusions are untouched. The book is deadly dry, and it takes a lot of determination go go through it in this way. But I invite anyone who is seriously concerned about these issues to do so. Because you are not going to get the truth by relying on the environmentalist experts. You are going to have to take the effort to figure it out for yourself.
Rating:
Summary: Bad Science to keep the Status Quo
Review: A sufficient comment about this book would be the fact that recently the Danish Science Council (Lomborg hails from Denmark) proclaimed this book to not be a scientific publication. So what is it? Lomborg himself admitted that he is not an environmental expert. Perhaps we should then pay attention to people who are! The Union of Concerned Scientists in Washingtons solicited reviews of this book from a number of respected top scientists. To quote a little from the UCS Website: "Reviewing Lomborg's claims are Dr. Peter Gleick, an internationally recognized expert on the state of freshwater resources; Dr. Jerry Mahlman, one of the most highly regarded atmospheric scientists and climate modelers; and top biologists and biodiversity experts Dr.'s Edward O. Wilson, Thomas Lovejoy, Norman Myers, Jeffrey Harvey and Stuart Pimm. These separately written expert reviews unequivocally demonstrate that on closer inspection, Lomborg's book is seriously flawed and fails to meet basic standards of credible scientific analysis. The authors note how Lomborg consistently misuses, misrepresents or misinterprets data to greatly underestimate rates of species extinction, ignore evidence that billions of people lack access to clean water and sanitation, and minimize the extent and impacts of global warming due to the burning of fossil fuels and other human-caused emissions of heat-trapping gases. Time and again, these experts find that Lomborg's assertions and analyses are marred by flawed logic, inappropriate use of statistics and hidden value judgments. He uncritically and selectively cites literature -- often not peer-reviewed -- that supports his assertions, while ignoring or misinterpreting scientific evidence that does not. His consistently flawed use of scientific data is, in Peter Gleick's words "unexpected and disturbing in a statistician".
"
I find it disturbing that such a flawed book gets so much attention - even though it did not fool any real expert for a second.
The full reviews as well as further links and comments are available at the link below. They are a more interesting and better informed read...
Rating:
Summary: The Irony
Review: The author takes one side of complex issues that have decades worth of science (from global warming to extinction rates) and 'analyzes' them via statistics. You know the old saying about lying with statistics? Lomborg has done a fine job of that! FYI, the Danish Research Advisory just condemed this book and its author for scientific dishonesty.
Rating:
Summary: From the Economist
Review: Jan 9th 2003
From The Economist: THE Bjorn Lomborg saga took a decidedly Orwellian turn this week. Readers will recall that Mr Lomborg, a statistician and director of Denmark's Environmental Assessment Institute, is the author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist", which attacks the environmental lobby for systematically exaggerated pessimism. Environmentalists have risen as one in furious condemnation of Mr Lomborg's presumption in challenging their claims, partly no doubt because he did it so tellingly. This week, to the delight of greens everywhere, Denmark's Committees on Scientific Dishonesty ruled on the book as follows: "Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty." 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? "The Skeptical Environmentalist" is explicitly not concerned with conducting scientific research. Rather, it measures the "litany" of environmental alarm that is constantly fed to the public against a range of largely uncontested data about the state of the planet. The litany comes off very badly from the comparison. The environmental movement was right to find the book a severe embarrassment. But 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 answer to this question in the arguments and data supporting the ruling-but there aren't any. The material assembled by the panel consists almost entirely of a synopsis of four articles published by Scientific American last year. (We criticised those articles and the editorial that ran with them in our issue of February 2nd 2002.) The panel seems to regard these pieces as disinterested science, rather than counter-advocacy from committed environmentalists. Incredibly, the complaints of these self-interested parties are blandly accepted at face value. Mr Lomborg's line-by-line replies to the criticisms ... are not reported. On its own behalf, the panel offers not one instance of inaccuracy or distortion in Mr Lomborg's book: not its job, it says. On this basis it finds Mr Lomborg guilty of dishonesty. The panel's ruling-objectively speaking-is incompetent and shameful.
| 
