Average Rating: 
Rating:  - After careful reading, criticism on the book is unscientific
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:  - Read the book, not the press releases
It is unfortunate people are writing reviews for a book they have apparently not read. Instead, they have read the reactions including the shallow responses in the Scientific American and the findings Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (a group that sounds a bit Orwellian to me).For all the sturm und drang, Lomborg basically extends the arguments made by economist Julian Simon and others. Ironically, Lomborg began his work interested in refuting Simon. His analysis of the information led him to question the claims made by the environmental orthodoxy. The book itself is rather dry. Lomborg is a statistician by training and trade. The book (and the subsequent outcry by environmentalists), however, have become required reading for those interested in environmental science (as opposed to the post modern worship of Gaia, the planet earth). Lomborg basically uses existing data from established sources to make his case. While Lomborg falls short of making a case for a pollyanna view of the environment, he does present enough interesting data to raise some questions about some of the environmental community's articles of faith. The problem here is less Lomborg's data and methods, but a readership thoroughly convinced he is wrong before actually opening the book. Since the 1960s, there has been a steady beat on the drum of environmental doom. Most people find it difficult (if not impossible) to believe the air and water (at least in America) are actually cleaner today than in the recent past. Like any tome that challenges an orthodoxy, Lomborg is probably best read by those few remaining souls who are willing to keep an open mind. If nothing else the work of Lomborg, Simon and others demonstrate that debates over the environment are far from settled... much to the chagrin of some.
Rating:  - An Emerging Classic
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.
| 
