Appearance
The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World
Environmentalists of all stripes should welcome this important work, which irrefutably and thoroughly debunks most of the currently popular myths about the state of our environment and leaves the slate clean for the real and verifiable concerns to be addressed. Lomborg, himself a card-carrying green activist and professor of statistics, set out to disprove a critic of the movement, and discovered to his surprise that much of what we carelessly accept as "fact" is actually based on mistakes, misquotations, and junk science. It turned out that the critic was not only correct, he was actually reporting only the tip of the iceberg.There's good news and bad news here:The good news is that we're making real progress on many fronts, despite the professional doomsayers who depend on a steady supply of enviro-scares for their continued funding.The bad news is that, although plenty remains to be done, if we can't put a stop to those crying, "Wolf!" where none exists, we're going to quickly loose all credibility and exhaust the public's patience and support.Lomborg's book is MUST READING for anyone who claims to have a real concern for the environment. It is going to shake up a lot of people. Watch for two reactions from organizations active in the movement: 1) Some will excoriate it and will stoop to ANY level in an attempt to discredit the book, essentially calling for a green jihad against it, 2) since effectively discrediting it is going to be virtually impossible, a larger number will attempt to ignore it and to force others to do the same.Having exposed themselves by their reactions, the folks who fall into either of these categories may then be dismissed as serious players, as people who are part of the problem rather than part of the solution.REAL environmentalists need this book!
The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World
I had to critique a chapter of this book for a class for a module in a postgraduate GeoSciences course at Edinburgh University, Scotland. I chose the chapter on forests. It was not a difficult assignment. It was riddled with inaccuracies, exaggerations, avoidance of key issues, and, I am sad to say, plain lies. Lomborg uses data which is clearly not supposed to be used for the purpose he uses, mis-quotes people, aggregates data sets which aren't meant to go together, all to enable him to present the image he wants to portray. Personally, I can only comment on the chapter on forests, but after talking to my fellow classmates, it is clear he has done the same for the other chapters we were asked to critique. I can only assume he wants create a media frenzy which will push his book sales.Please email me if you want to read my essay critique of the chapter on forests.Thanks,Joseph Gair
The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World
Bjorn Lomborg, Associate Professor of Statistics at the University of Aarhus, Denmark, has succeeded with this momumental work in stripping the myths from the environmental debate and presented the facts, in a way that is most enjoyable to read. He has accomplished this by keeping the fascinating narrative to 350 pages with around 150 pages of notes, bibliography and index.The book clearly spells out how these "environmental myths" which Professor Lomborg refers to as "the Litany" were born, evolved and spread by a willing and gullible media and the damage this has sadly created within the political process. The tide is turning however towards a "facts based' environmental debate and this book will be an enormous assistance in speeding this up.It is very pleasing to see that Lomborg has given well deserved recognition to the great economist Julian Simon, who he attempted to refute, but on researching, found he largely agreed with. While Simon had enormous influence within North America, unfortunately he had considerably less elsewhere. "The Skeptical Environmentalist will indeed have a wider reach.This book is a "must read" for everyone. Lets hope it is carefully read by the young in particular, so that they gain a sound perspective of the real issues we need to deal with and most importantly, built from this, a positive and realistic outlook of this wonderful world.
The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World
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.
The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World
What most critics of this book seem to overlook is that the vast majority of the literature on the environment comes from a certain apocalyptic vein. Even the ex-vice-president's book was so bleak and negative-I'm surprised it didn't come back to haunt him in the campaign (Earth in the Balance-Gore). The truth is the trends are favorable, and almost all the predictions by the fanatics have been proven false, and furthermore, it has been an increase in wealth and affluence that spurs this trend, not a return to cave-dwelling! And if the truth were told, most environmentalist have their own personal fiefdoms they chose to protect, and are not interested in what we may or may not leave to "future generations"! This book will help us get back to a rational evaluation of environmental issues, and away from the religious fervour that groups like Greenpeace display. Read it and give it to a college student!
The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World
First the good news:1.The book's stated aims are laudable.2.Many of the points in the book are sound.3.It (usually) uses a better approach than just emotional gut feeling ("how arrogant are we to believe...")Now the bad news:1.It's a polemic.There's plenty of documentation out there about just how wrong it goes (e.g. the Jan 2002 issue of Scientific American), but I'll add a few thoughts:Lomborg shows no qualms about reversing his position wherever it suits. For example, he argues that acid rain was never a big problem and limiting sulphur dioxide output was a knee-jerk reaction. Then, in discussing air pollution he boasts about how much sulphur dioxide levels have dropped. What is wrong with this picture?Lomborg repeatedly argues that we can't help the environment without giving up schools or hospitals, as if spending less on agricultural subsidies or nuclear arms or even roads isn't an option. He dismisses transferring taxation from wealth creation to pollution for many dubious reasons including "limiting the joy of driving" -- as if that belonged in a supposedly objective book on the environment. He argues that cars are getting lighter; don't they have SUVs in Denmark?Lomborg also seems to have a skewed view of how much effort has been needed to get this far in cleaning up. In his world, and contrary to counter-examples such as Saudi Arabia, countries get to a certain level of wealth and then just clean up; scientific discoveries, public opinion, the democratic process and legislation don't come into it. The post-hoc fallacy should not be made by a self-proclaimed skeptic.Particularly painful to read is his version of the history of the Montreal Protocol, where every country instantly united in banning CFCs and moved on. What *really* happened was a longer process involving political and industrial interests attempting to discredit the science and the scientists (which still goes on), followed later by attempts to claim that reducing CFCs would be more expensive than living with the consequences of reduced ozone. There's an obvious parallel with what Lomborg argues with carbon dioxide limits: I suspect that had the book been written in the 1980s, he'd have argued against limiting CFCs.The book falls well short of meeting its stated goals. It's progress of a kind when a polemic acknowledges that there is such a thing as global warming or ozone depletion, but it goes on to say that in every field the (non-expert, non-peer-reviewed) author has looked into, the consensus of (peer-reviewed) experts is wrong: don't the book's fans find this in the least bit odd?And on the subject of peer reviewing: Cambridge University Press took the strange step of not getting the book reviewed by natural scientists. This isn't unheard of -- Velikovsky's bizarre "Worlds in Collision" also escaped scrutiny and became a big money-spinner for its publishing house.As a balanced text, I'd give it 1.5 stars. As a polemic I'd give it 3, but if that's what you're after then try P.J.O'Rourke's "All the Trouble in the World" -- considerably more upfront and readable.