The Skeptical Environmentalist

The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World

Hardcover edition
Author	Bjørn Lomborg
Original title	Verdens sande tilstand
Translator	Hugh Matthews
Language	English Danish
Subject	Environmental economics Natural resources Environmental issues
Genre	Non-fiction
Publisher	Cambridge University Press
Publication date	22 September 1998 (Danish) 30 August 2001 (English)
ISBN	0-521-01068-3
OCLC	45618321
Dewey Decimal	363.7 21
LC Class	GE149 .L65 2001
Followed by	Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming

The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World (Danish: Verdens sande tilstand, lit. 'The True State of the World') is a book by Danish author and statistician Bjørn Lomborg. The book is controversial for outlining Lomborg's views that concerns and responses to environmental issues are overly pessimistic and unsupported. It was first published in Danish in 1998 by Centrum, while the English edition was published as a work in environmental economics by Cambridge University Press in 2001.

In the book, Lomborg sets out what he calls a "litany" of what he considers overly pessimistic claims and policies about environmental issues and their impact on human prosperity, and challenges them using cost–benefit analysis. He argues that concerns over pollution, decline in energy resources, deforestation, species loss, water shortages and global warming are overstated. He outlines his view that policy responses to these challenges, such as the Kyoto Protocol, are insufficient and cause greater economic harm than benefit. He argues that focus should be diverted to poverty reduction and combatting diseases such as HIV/AIDS.

The book generated great controversy upon its release. The veracity of Lomborg's assertions were criticised by the scientific community and environmental groups in Denmark and internationally, including negative reviews in Nature, Grist and Scientific American, and from the Union of Concerned Scientists. Positive reception in some popular media outlets contrasted sharply with this, and this combined with the ensuing debate aided the book's profile.

Lomborg was formally accused of scientific dishonesty and was investigated by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (UVVU), which ruled that the book was scientifically dishonest but that Lomborg was innocent of wrongdoing due to his lack of expertise in relevant fields. The Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation later criticised procedural aspects of this investigation, but the Committee decided not to reinvestigate on the basis that it would come to the same conclusion.

The book established Lomborg's international profile as a prominent critic of the scientific consensus on climate change. He released a follow-up, Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming, in 2007.

Background

Bjørn Lomborg

Bjørn Lomborg is a Danish statistician who worked at Aarhus University in the 1990s.

Lomborg was inspired by an interview with Julian Lincoln Simon in Wired, in which Simon claimed that calculations he had conducted with publicly available data led him to conclude that standard doomsday conceptions of the state of the world were incorrect. Assuming that Simon's views would be a product of Simon's American conservative thinking, in 1997, Lomborg undertook a similar assessment with some of his students. After this, they came to similar conclusions as Simon. In 1998, Lomborg published four articles in Danish newspaper Politiken outlining his views and findings from his study. These attracted wider media coverage and controversy in Denmark.

These findings were published as a book in Danish on 22 September 1998 under the title Verdens Sande Tilstand (The True State of the World) by Centrum. The English translation was published literally as The Skeptical Environmentalist in 2001 by Cambridge University Press. The section covering global warming and the notes and references were expanded from the Danish version.

Contents

The Skeptical Environmentalist's subtitle refers to the State of the World report, published annually since 1984 by the Worldwatch Institute. Lomborg designated the report "one of the best-researched and academically most ambitious environmental policy publications," but criticized it for using short-term trends to predict disastrous consequences, in cases where long-term trends would not support the same conclusions.

In establishing its arguments, The Skeptical Environmentalist examined a wide range of issues in the general area of environmental studies, including environmental economics and science, and came to a set of conclusions and recommendations. Lomborg's work directly challenged what it framed as a "Litany" of popular examples of environmental concerns by interpreting data from around 3,000 mostly secondary sources. The author suggested that environmentalists have diverted potentially beneficial resources to less deserving environmental issues in ways that were economically damaging. He portrays his book as an unbiased and scientific refutation of the claims of environmental groups. Much of the book's methodology and integrity have been subject to criticism, which argue that Lomborg distorted the fields of research he covers.

The Skeptical Environmentalist is arranged around four major themes:

1. Human prosperity from an economic and demographic point of view
2. Human prosperity from an ecological point of view
3. Pollution as a threat to human prosperity
4. Future threats to human prosperity

Lomborg's main argument is that the vast majority of environmental problems—such as pollution, water shortages, deforestation, and species loss, as well as population growth, hunger, and AIDS—are area-specific and highly correlated with poverty. Therefore, challenges to human prosperity are essentially logistical matters, and can be solved largely through economic and social development. Concerning problems that are more pressing at the global level, such as the depletion of fossil fuels and global warming, Lomborg argues that these issues are often overstated and that recommended policies are often inappropriate if assessed against alternatives.

1. Human prosperity from an economic and demographic point of view

Lomborg analyzes three major themes: life expectancy, food and hunger, and prosperity, concluding that life expectancy and health levels have dramatically improved over the past centuries, even though several regions of the world remain threatened, in particular by AIDS. He dismisses Thomas Malthus' theory that increases in the world's population lead to widespread hunger. On the contrary, Lomborg claims that food is widespread, and humanity's daily intake of calories is increasing, and will continue to rise until hunger's eradication, thanks to technological improvements in agriculture. However, Lomborg notes that Africa in particular still produces too little sustenance, an effect he attributes to the continent's economic and political systems. Concerning prosperity, Lomborg argues that wealth, as measured by per capita GDP, should not be the only judging criterion. He points to improvements in education, safety, leisure, and more widespread access to consumer goods as signs that prosperity is increasing in most parts of the world.

2. Human prosperity from an ecological point of view

In this section, Lomborg looks at the world's natural resources and draws a conclusion that contrast starkly to that of the well known report The Limits to Growth. First, he analyzes food once more, this time from an ecological perspective, and again claims that most food products are not threatened by human growth. An exception, however, is fish, which he says continues to be depleted. As a partial solution, Lomborg presents fish farms, which he argues has a less disruptive impact on the world's oceans. Next, Lomborg looks at forests. He finds no indication of widespread deforestation, and states that the Amazon still retains more than 80% of its 1978 tree cover. Lomborg points out that in developing countries, deforestation is linked to poverty and poor economic conditions, so he proposes that economic growth is the best means to tackle the loss of forests.

Concerning energy, Lomborg asserts that oil is not being depleted as fast as is claimed, and that improvements of technology will provide people with fossil fuels for years to come. The author further asserts that many alternatives already exist, and that with time they will replace fossil fuels as an energy source. Concerning other resources, such as metals, Lomborg suggests that based on their price history they are not in short supply. Examining the challenge of collecting sufficient amounts of water, Lomborg says that wars will probably not erupt over water because fighting such wars is not cost-effective (he argues that one week of war with the Palestinians, for instance, would cost Israel more than five desalination plants, according to an Israeli officer). Lomborg emphasizes the need for better water management, as water is distributed unequally around the world.

3. Pollution as a threat to human prosperity

Lomborg considers pollution from different angles. He notes that air pollution in wealthy nations has steadily decreased in recent decades. He finds that air pollution levels are highly linked to economic development, with moderately developed countries polluting most. Again, Lomborg argues that faster growth in emerging countries would help them reduce their air pollution levels. Lomborg suggests that devoting resources to reduce the levels of specific air pollutants would provide the greatest health benefits and save the largest number of lives (per amount of money spent), continuing an already decades-long improvement in air quality in most developed countries.

Concerning water pollution, Lomborg notes again that it is connected with economic progress. He also notes that water pollution in major Western rivers decreased rapidly after the use of sewage systems became widespread. Concerning waste, Lomborg argues that fears are overblown, as the entire waste produced by the United States in the 21st century could fit into a square 100 feet thick and 28 km along each side, or 0.009% of the total surface of the United States.

4. Future threats to human prosperity

In this last section, Lomborg puts forward his main assertion: based on a cost-benefit analysis, the environmental threats to human prosperity are overstated and much of policy response is misguided. As an example, Lomborg cites worries about pesticides and their link to cancer. He argues that such concerns are vastly exaggerated in the public perception, as alcohol and coffee are the foods that create by far the greatest risk of cancer, as opposed to vegetables that have been sprayed with pesticides. Furthermore, if pesticides were not used on fruit and vegetables, their cost would rise, and consequently their consumption would go down, which would cause cancer rates to increase. He goes on to criticize the fear of a vertiginous decline in biodiversity, proposing that 0.7% of species have gone extinct in the last 50 years (as compared to a maximum of 50%, as claimed by some biologists). While Lomborg admits that extinctions are a problem, he asserts that they are not the catastrophe claimed by some, and have little effect on human prosperity.

Lomborg also discusses global warming. From the outset, Lomborg "accepts the reality of man-made global warming" though he expresses his uncertainty towards the computer simulations of climate change and some aspects of data collection. His contention is the politics and the policy response to scientific findings. Lomborg points out that, given the amount of greenhouse gas reduction required to combat global warming, the current Kyoto Protocol is grossly insufficient. He argues that the economic costs of legislative restrictions that aim to slow or reverse global warming are far higher than the alternative of international coordination. Moreover, he asserts that the cost of combating global warming would be disproportionately shouldered by developing countries. Lomborg proposes that since the Kyoto agreement limits economic activities, developing countries that suffer from pollution and poverty most, will be perpetually handicapped economically.

Lomborg proposes that the importance of global warming in terms of policy priority is low compared to other policy issues such as fighting poverty, disease and aiding poor countries, which has direct and more immediate impact both in terms of welfare and the environment. He therefore suggests that a global cost-benefit analysis be undertaken before deciding on future measures.

Conclusions

Lomborg concludes his book by once again reviewing his Litany, and states his belief that the real state of the world is much better than his Litany claims. According to Lomborg, this discrepancy poses a problem, as it focuses public attention on relatively unimportant issues, while ignoring those that are paramount. In the worst case, The Skeptical Environmentalist argues, the global community is pressured to adopt inappropriate policies which have adverse effects on humanity, wasting resources that could be put to better use in aiding poor countries or fighting diseases such as AIDS. Lomborg thus urges to look at what he calls the true problems of the world, since solving those will also solve his Litany.

Reception and controversy upon release

Danish edition

The Danish Ecological Council, an independent advisory committee on environmental issues, felt the need to prepare a "counter-publication" to the Danish edition of the book, which was released in 1999 as Fremtidens Pris (The Price of the Future). It featured 18 contributors from various disciplines, which criticised Lomborg's methods and approach.

Scientific community

Edward O. Wilson, Thomas Lovejoy and Peter Gleick were among the scientists to negatively review The Skeptical Environmentalist upon its release.

The scientific and environmental community were generally very critical of the book, in some cases harsh in both content and tone. Criticisms covered a wide variety of topics, including Lomborg's methodology, data issues and theories and concepts. The most common criticism were selective use of data, followed by issues with referencing, choosing arguments not representative of the environmental movement and addressing regional rather than global trends. Many experts in environmental science argued that the book was deeply flawed, and that the state of the environment is not nearly as good as Lomborg portrays it.

The Union of Concerned Scientists published a critique of the book, highlighting reviews by Peter Gleick, Jerry Mahlman, Thomas Lovejoy, Norman Myers, Jeffrey Harvey, E. O. Wilson and Stuart Pimm. The UCS concluded that "The Skeptical Environmentalist fits squarely in a tradition of contrarian works on the environment that may gain temporary prominence but ultimately fail to stand up to scientific scrutiny." Harvey said that the book "has an undergraduate quality to it, but is this surprising considering that ecology is the most complex of sciences and that Lomborg has never done a shred of work in the field?” and “I would fail one of my undergraduate students if they were to write such trash". In a letter to Lomborg, Wilson said that "the greatest regret I have about it all is the time wasted by scientists correcting the misinformation you created.”

The January 2002 issue of Scientific American contained, under the heading "Misleading Math about the Earth", a set of essays by several scientists, which maintain that Lomborg and The Skeptical Environmentalist misrepresent both scientific evidence and scientific opinion. The magazine then refused Lomborg's request to print a lengthy point-by-point rebuttal in his own defence, on the grounds that the 32 pages would have taken a disproportionate share of the month's instalment. Scientific American allowed Lomborg a one-page defense in the May 2002 edition, and then attempted to remove Lomborg's publication of his complete response online, citing a copyright violation. The magazine later published his complete rebuttal on its website, along with the counter rebuttals of John Rennie and John P. Holdren.

Nature also published a harsh review of Lomborg's book, in which Stuart Pimm of the Center for Environmental Research and Conservation at Columbia University and Jeff Harvey of the Netherlands Institute of Ecology wrote: "Like bad term papers, Lomborg's text relies heavily on secondary sources. Out of around 2,000 references, about 5% come from news sources and 30% from web downloads — readily accessible, therefore, but frequently not peer reviewed." They continued that "the text employs the strategy of those who, for example, argue that gay men aren't dying of AIDS, that Jews weren't singled out by the Nazis for extermination, and so on."

Peter Gleick was also highly critical, stating "there is nothing original or unique in Lomborg's book. Many of his criticisms have appeared in... previous works—and even in the work of environmental scientists themselves. What is new, perhaps, is the scope and variety of the errors he makes." David Pimentel wrote a critical review in Population and Environment, particularly taking issue with Lomborg's argument on soil erosion, pesticides, deforestation and water resources. He concluded that "as an agricultural scientist and ecologist, I wish I could share Lomborg’s optimistic views, but my investigations and that of countless scientists leads me to a more conservative outlook." Roger A. Pielke, meanwhile, defended Lomborg and the book, describing the debate as an example of politicising science.

The 12 December 2001 issue of Grist devoted an issue to The Skeptical Environmentalist, with a series of essays from various scientists challenging individual sections. A separate article examining the book's overall approach by Kathryn Schulz took issue with the framing of Lomborg's conclusions, asking "[why] does he weigh the environment only against hospitals and childcare, rather than against, say, industry subsidies and defense spending?".

Media coverage

Influential UK newsweekly The Economist supported Lomborg's views, publishing an advance essay by Lomborg in which he detailed his "litany", and following up with a highly favorable review and supportive coverage. It stated that "This is one of the most valuable books on public policy—not merely environmental policy—to have been written for the intelligent general reader in the past ten years...The Skeptical Environmentalist is a triumph." The book was widely cited in conservative media and groups who oppose environmental regulations.

In a profile of Lomborg preceding the book's publication The New York Times stated that "The primary target of the book, a substantial work of analysis with almost 3,000 footnotes, are statements made by environmental organizations like the Worldwatch Institute, the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace." The Wall Street Journal deemed Lomborg's work "a superbly documented and readable book." In The Washington Post, Denis Dutton claimed that "Bjørn Lomborg's good news about the environment is bad news for Green ideologues. His richly informative, lucid book is now the place from which environmental policy decisions must be argued. In fact, The Skeptical Environmentalist is the most significant work on the environment since the appearance of its polar opposite, Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, in 1962. It's a magnificent achievement." Rolling Stone wrote that "Lomborg pulls off the remarkable feat of welding the techno-optimism of the Internet age with a lefty's concern for the fate of the planet."

In his review, Chris Lavers took issue with Lomborg's characterisation of deforestation, saying "The area of land covered with trees may not have changed much in the last 50 years, but this is mostly because northern forests have increased in area while the biologically richer tropical ones have declined."

Chris Lavers gave a mixed review in The Guardian, saying Lomborg "is clearly committed to rubbishing the views of hand-picked environmentalists, frequently the very silly ones such as Ehrlich, whom professionals have been ignoring for decades" and criticising his framing of deforestation.

In a BBC column from 23 August 2001, veteran BBC environmental correspondent Alex Kirby wrote:

I am neither a statistician nor a scientist, and I lack the skill to judge Lomborg's reworkings of the statistics of conventional wisdom. But I am worried that on virtually every topic he touches, he reaches conclusions radically different from almost everybody else. That seems to suggest that most scientists are wrong, short-sighted, naïve, interested only in securing research funds, or deliberately dancing to the campaigners' tune. Most I know are honest, intelligent and competent. So it beggars belief to suppose that Professor Lomborg is the only one in step, every single time.

Kirby's first concern was not with the extensive research and statistical analysis, but the conclusions drawn from them, concluding: "In the rational world that Bjørn Lomborg thinks we all inhabit, we would manage problems sensibly, one by one. But the real world is messier, more unpredictable—and more impatient."

Legal scholar David Shoenbrod was one of the defenders of Lomborg. In March 2003, the New York Law School Law Review published an examination of the critical reviews of Skeptical Environmentalist from the Scientific American, Nature and Science magazines by Shoenbrod and then-Senior Law Student Christi Wilson of New York Law School. The authors defend Lomborg, say that the book is "largely free from factual errors", and characterise the scientific community's response to the book as a "disingenuous attack", using legal arguments that a court should accept Lomborg as a credible expert witness in the field of statistics, given that his testimony would be appropriately restricted to his area of expertise.

Reception of media coverage

One critical article, "The Skeptical Environmentalist: A Case Study in the Manufacture of News", attributes the book's media success to its initial, influential supporters, who linked its message to a European visit from United States president George W. Bush.

News of the pending book first appeared in the UK in early June of 2001 when a Sunday Times article by Nayab Chohan featured an advanced report of claims made by Lomborg that London's air was cleaner than at any time since 1585. Headlined "Cleanest London Air for 400 Years," the publicity hook was both local and timely, as the tail end of the article linked the book's questioning of the Kyoto climate change protocol to U.S. president George W. Bush's visit the same week to Europe, and Bush's controversial opposition to the treaty. The Times followed up the report the next day with a news article further detailing the book's Kyoto protocol angle. With The Times reports, Lomborg and his claims had made the Anglo media agenda. As is typically the case, other media outlets followed the reporting of the elite newspaper. Articles pegging the claims of The Skeptical Environmentalist to Bush's European visit ran later that week in the U.K's The Express and Daily Telegraph, and Canada's Toronto Star.

Marc Kreider, Skeptical Inquirer

Richard C. Bell, writing for Worldwatch argued that many reviews in prominent publications were written by individuals with prior association with Lomborg, "instead of seeking scientists with a critical perspective." In The Wall Street Journal, a review was published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Ronald Bailey, someone "who had earlier written a book called The True State of the World, from which much of Lomborg's claims were taken." Bell also criticized the Washington Post, whose Sunday Book World assigned the book review to Denis Dutton, identified as "a professor of philosophy who lectures on the dangers of pseudoscience at the science faculties of the University of Canterbury in New Zealand", and the editor of the web site Arts and Letters Daily. Bell noted that "The Post did not tell its readers that Dutton's web site features links to the Global Climate Coalition, an anti-Kyoto consortium of oil and coal businesses, and to the messages of Julian Simon—the man whose denial that global warming was occurring apparently gave Lomborg the idea for his book in the first place."

Pieing incident

Mark Lynas, who pied Lomborg over disagreement with his views set out in The Skeptical Environmentalist.

On 5 September 2001, at a Lomborg book reading in England, British environmentalist author Mark Lynas threw a cream pie in Lomborg's face. In a 9 September 2001, article, "Why I pied Lomborg", Lynas stated "Lomborg specialises in presenting the reader with false choices—such as the assertion that money not spent on preventing climate change could be spent on bringing clean water to the developing world, thereby saving more lives per dollar of expenditure. Of course, in the real world, these are not the kind of choices we are faced with." Lynas also commented on the difficulty of challenging Lomborg's book, arguing "his work, as flawed as it is, has clearly been very time-consuming and meticulous. In a busy and under funded world, few people have the time or background knowledge to plow though 3,000 footnotes checking his sources. It is impressively interdisciplinary." Lomborg later said he was "stunned" by the incident, but "at least the pie tasted good".

Accusations of scientific dishonesty

After the publication of The Skeptical Environmentalist, Lomborg was accused of scientific dishonesty. Several environmental scientists brought a total of three complaints against Lomborg to the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD), a body under Denmark's Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. Lomborg was asked whether he regarded the book as a "debate" publication, and thereby not under the purview of the DCSD, or as a scientific work; he chose the latter, clearing the way for the inquiry that followed. The charges claimed that The Skeptical Environmentalist contained deliberately misleading data and flawed conclusions. Due to the similarity of the complaints, the DCSD decided to proceed on the three cases under one investigation.

Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty investigation

A six-month review took place and on 6 January 2003, a 17-page DCSD ruling was released, in which the Committees decided that The Skeptical Environmentalist showed "systematic one-sidedness" and was scientifically dishonest, but Lomborg was innocent of wrongdoing due to a lack of expertise in the relevant fields. The investigation heavily relied on published reviews of the book.

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, 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.

Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty

The DCSD cited The Skeptical Environmentalist for fabrication of data, selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation), deliberately misleading use of statistical methods, distorted interpretation of conclusions, plagiarism and deliberate misinterpretation of others' results.

Lomborg defended his work, challenging the committee for not identifying specific errors. He also argued the report could jeopardise his employment at the Danish Institute for Environmental Assessment and some of his critics attempted to do this, although government officials denied his posting would be impacted.

The DCSD decision about Lomborg led to a petition from some Danish social scientists, calling for the body to be abolished and arguing the body cannot hold the book to the same standards as medical and natural sciences. Another group of around 600 Danish scientists, many of them from medical and natural science fields, collected signatures in support of the DCSD. The ruling was also debated in parliament, and science minister Helge Sander asked the Danish Research Agency to establish a working group to scrutinise the DCSD's procedures.

Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation review and response

On 13 February 2003, Lomborg filed a complaint against the DCSD's decision with the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MSTI), which oversees the group. On 17 December, the Ministry released a report identifying a number of procedural errors had made, although did not refute any criticisms of the book. It criticised the DCSD for not identifying specific areas of error and for not providing an opportunity for Lomborg to respond before the report's publication.

The Ministry then remitted the case to the DCSD, and instructed the DCSD to decide whether to reinvestigate. On 12 March 2004, the Committee formally decided not to act further on the complaints, reasoning that renewed scrutiny would, in all likelihood, result in the same conclusion.

Legacy

Later assessments

The Skeptical Environmentalist is packed with facts and figures, yet it was the emotional response that it inspired that will be best remembered.

Jim Giles, Nature

A 2003 retrospective by Jim Giles in Nature suggested the intense critical reaction from scientists and environmental groups was driven by fears that the book's talking points would be adopted by conservative politicians, particularly during the Bush administration. Incidentally, Giles argued their criticisms boosted Lomborg's profile, and according to Cambridge University Press, sales of the book quadrupled after critical reviews in Scientific American were published. Jeffrey Harvey, who had debated Lomborg several times by 2003, admitted that the tone of attacks on Lomborg could have been counterproductive. Giles argued at the time that the book would have little long-lasting influence. Lomborg admitted that some polluting industries had quoted him or invited him to speak to further their agendas.

A group of non-climatologist scientists published an article in 2005 in the Journal of Information Ethics, in which they claimed that most criticism against Lomborg was unjustified, and that the scientific community had misused their authority to suppress the author. The claim that the accusations against Lomborg were unjustified was challenged in the next issue of Journal of Information Ethics by Kåre Fog. Fog reasserted his contention that, despite the ministry's decision, most of the accusations against Lomborg were valid. He also rejected what he called "the Galileo hypothesis", which he describes as the conception that Lomborg is a brave young man confronting old-fashioned opposition. Fog and other scientists continued to criticise Lomborg in subsequent years.

A 2010 article in the Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences recounted the controversy surrounding the book and Lomborg's responses to scientific critics. It examines critical and positive arguments made in reviews of the book. The authors were highly critical of Lomborg, as well as Cambridge University Press for publishing the book, concluding "The question remains why a book that contains so many flaws by someone without any scientific credentials has received so much public attention." The authors also scrutinised Lomborg's responses to critics, finding them to have misrepresented, selectively responded to or otherwise failed to address their key points. The authors also concluded the book contradicted principles of environmental economics.

Subsequent work

Lomborg at the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference.

The Skeptical Environmentalist established Lomborg internationally as a prominent critic of the scientific consensus on climate change. He was named one of the Time's 100 most influential people in 2004, and established the Copenhagen Consensus to institutionalise his views. Despite the scientific controversy, Lomborg remained respected by conservatives and financial press outlets, and was later appointed director of Denmark's Environmental Assessment Institute.

He released a follow up book Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming in 2007, which was adapted into a film of the same name.

See also

• Global warming controversy
• Media coverage of climate change
• Environmental skepticism
• State of Fear
• Hubbert peak
• The Population Bomb
• Climate change denial
• Howard Friel, critic of Lomborg

Further reading

• Lomborg, Bjørn (2001). The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-01068-9.
• Stephen Schneider; John P. Holdren; John Bongaarts; Thomas Lovejoy (January 2002). "Misleading Math about the Earth". Scientific American. 286 (1): 61. Bibcode:2002SciAm.286a..61S. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0102-61.
• Ed Regis (1997), The Doomslayer (archived 2009-12-16) (Julian Simon article in Wired magazine), Wired

Bibliography

• Lomborg, Bjørn (2001). The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521010683.
• van den Bergh, Jeroen (2010). An assessment of Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist and the ensuing debate,^[1] Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 7(1).

External links

• A sample of the book (PDF)
• Lomborg's responses to his critics at Bjørn Lomborg's Website
• HAN selection of complaints made by Lomborg critics, an article collection by Heidelberg Appeal Nederland, supporting Lomborg.
• Kyoto Economics by William Shepherd
• New York Law School Law Professor and a Senior Law Student review of the reviews to determine whether Lomborg is still credible as an expert witness and whether his testimony is appropriate to his expertise based on the criticisms of Scientific American, Nature and Science.
• The Lomborg Deception: Setting the Record Straight About Global Warming by Howard Friel (Yale University Press, 2010)

Reviews

• John Gillot: "The Skeptical Environmentalist" Spiked-Science Online, 10 September 2001.
• "Doomsday postponed" The Economist, 6 September 2001.
• "Greener Than You Think" Archived 2018-08-24 at the Wayback Machine, by Denis Dutton in The Washington Post, 21 October 2001.
• Review of The Skeptical Environmentalist by the Union of Concerned Scientists with reviews from Peter Gleick, Jerry D. Mahlman and E.O. Wilson.
• "Nine things journalists should know about The Skeptical Environmentalist", World Resources Institute.
• "The Skeptical Environmentalist: A Case Study in the Manufacture of News", Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, 23 January 2003.
• "Something Is Rotten in the State of Denmark" Archived 2002-01-23 at the Wayback Machine, Grist Magazine, 12 December 2001.
• Misleading Math about the Earth: Science defends itself against The Skeptical Environmentalist Scientific American January 2002
• Chris Lavers: "You've never had it so good", The Guardian 1 September 2001.