Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

This book is nothing new and even Lomborg himself admits that he has no new insight to offer. Why the fuss about the book then? Basically the anti-science coalition found a sexy new way to sell the same misinformation: a former "member" of Greenpeace examines the issues for himself and concludes that environmentalists exaggerate the "true" state of the world. It is hard to believe that so many people have fallen for that catch. Lomborg admits that he was never active in the group, and it is more significant to note that Lomborg is in a political science department. Years ago I gave $15 to Greenpeace but that doesn't make me a left-wing environmentalist. I also read the Economist but that doesn't make me a right-wing capitalist. On the other hand, I have a Ph.D. in biology and have been involved in university teaching and research for the past 15 years. I read Lomborg's invited essay in the Economist last fall and felt that his treatment of the issues ranged from misleading to basically wrong. I read the whole book to get a better idea of the basis for his arguments. I am sorry to say that I find the book severely lacking in merit. Here's why: 1. False comparisons The basic premise of the book, as well as many of the individual chapters, are based on false comparisons. For example, he makes clear in the introduction that humans are his main concern as opposed to the environment or functioning ecosystems in general. For Lomborg the environment serves to provide specific products for humanity, whereas for environmentalists, humans are simultaneously part of and dependent upon the environment. Thus, Lomborg is not asking the same question as environmentalists and therefore is able to dodge many of the tough issues. Another type of false comparison Lomborg frequently uses is pitting the most extreme view against the most optimistic view rather than acknowledge that a range of opinions exists. 2. Misuse of statistics and data. In the beginning of the book he makes a generally reasonable explanation of how statistics can be misused. But then he forgets his own lesson and makes some of the same errors. 2A.He typically uses global averages to obscure specific local and regional problems; global "forest" cover, global freshwater supply, global air quality, total marine harvests, etc. 2B. He correctly notes the importance of long term trends vs short-term changes but also forgets this lesson when the long-term trends conflict with his view. For example, plotting the known extinctions of species per century since 1600 shows an exponential increase that by his own logic is likely to continue increasing. But Lomborg does not shown a graph of these data because doing so would undermine his argument that extinction rates are no cause for alarm. 2C. Lomborg rarely mentions ranges, and never mentions variation, or confidence intervals. He presents many graphs showing trends but does not once mention the statistical significance of those trends or of how much of the "noise" in the data is explained by the variable of interest as opposed to other factors. 3. Poor scholarship. Many other reviewers note the extensive footnotes and references but this is only the appearance of scholarly work. Lomborg frequently cites sources out of context, misunderstands the data he uses, ignores information that contradicts his view, and relies far too heavily on outdated and secondary sources while ignoring most of the current peer-reviewed scientific journals. 3A. By relying so heavily on Julian Simon's book (which he purportedly set out to disprove) he walks a fine line between paraphrasing and plagiarism. He lifts entire sections of Simon's book, including quotations and references, without reading the original sources himself. 3B. Many of his footnotes do not contain references but contain irrelevant comments (2044), subtle insults (2109), or information that contradicts what he says in the text (2068). In note 1606 he states "we must assume that the best recycling ideas have already been exploited and that yields from further recycling will be lower" without any supporting data or references and apparently contradicting his frequent claim that human ingenuity will continue to find new solutions to various problems. I am an optimist too, but Lomborg's analysis too often just doesn't hold up under scrutiny - and careful readers are not the intended audience. 4. Official data. Lomborg adopts government and international reports at face value. But these "official data" often rely on the assumption that individual countries report values honestly. Unfortunately, many instances of misreporting are known. This problem affects data on marine harvests, deforestation, and pollution emissions, among others. 5. A blind eye toward history. The purpose of calling attention to potential problems is to attempt solutions before conditions worsen. Lomborg focuses on predictions made 20-40 years ago and then compares those with current data as if nothing has happened since then. We have made progress because we focussed attention on potential problems. And progress is not an automatic result of free-markets, but has been and must be guided by policy. 6. Funding priorities. Yes, we need to prioritize, but Lomborg makes no convincing case on specifics. Lomborg fails to note that eliminating environmentally harmful subsidies, estimated at $1 trillion annually, would benefit the environment AND the economy directly. 7. Alleged personal attacks by Lomborg's critics. Simply not true. This book is a failure as a scientific analysis. The small errors (such as calling worms insects) are telling but inconsequential. The big problem is the pervasive misunderstanding of science, misinterpretation of data, and misuse of statistics. The "corrections" on his website are little more than typos. In response to the larger and more important issues noted above, Lomborg continues to obfuscate and dodge meaningful debate. For example, when errors with his examples refuting extinction rates were pointed out he responded that the errors were with the sources and therefore not his errors. As evidenced by many reviews here, this book will succeed in misleading people, not in clarifying the issues.