The fact is the vast majority Lomborgs supporters are conservatives who don’t like the environmentalist movement because they perceive it as liberal. Sadly conservatives seem to think the laws of nature operate on a political basis. The journals Science, Nature, Sci American don’t support it but the Heritage Foundation and Cal Thomas does. Nature does not care about ideology. Liberal plots: acid rain, global warming, evolution, metaphysical naturalism? Look Sam Stone and others most of his critics are scientists and most of his supporters are conservative ideologues, doesn’t that tell you something???
Icerigger, you seem to take as ‘fact’ that acid rain is some sort of widespread man-made problem. Here is a professor that would disagree. Why should I believe you over him?
I am not so willing to accept everything Greenpeace or WWF tells me at face value. They have an agenda. True, I cannot really comprehend what that agenda is, but they are as politically motivated as any PAC. True ‘politics-free’ natural science research seems to be a scarce commodity.
And what the hell is ‘metaphysical naturalism’? Like dancing around trees and pretending to be druids or something like that?
IceRigger: Your complaint is irrelevant. The material stands on its own. Show us either what’s wrong with Lomborg’s book, or show us other’s criticism of it that we can debate.
Just smearing conservatives doesn’t wash. It’s an ad hominem attack. And incidentally, Lomborg is a leftist.
Addendum
E.O. Wilson thinks it’s bunk…but what does he know.
Um, there are alot of data in the book, and as such, familarity with statistics would be helpful, but far from necessary in reading the book. My beef with BBC Online is that they sent someone who admits to not knowing the science or the handling of data to review the book. That’s different from just reading the book. They really dropped the ball.
You should read it. It is very interesting. Taking what Sam Stone wrote as accurate, then the Science review affirms the factual claims of the book. You also note that conservatives are increasingly discounting the IPCC; that is pretty much Lomborg’s only source for his take on global warming. Given that the facts are accurate, then it is a book definately worth reading. If you get it from the library, you don’t even have to put money in the author’s pocket. 
No he hasn’t. Since he is a professor of statistics, the claim that others with stronger statistical backgrounds have disagreed is a bit skectchy–no offense. I’ve studied quite a bit of statistics myself and I saw no real problems. Indeed, his insistence on taking long time series is very good. For example figures 1, 2, & 6 in his book compare long time series for world exports, grain yields, and tuberculosis cases, respectively, with the the short time series provided by Lester Brown (1 & 2) and David Pimentel (6). The contrast is striking; if I were a cynic I would suggest that those two gentlemen deliberately chose pessimistic data. To what extent these graphs misrepresent Brown and Pimentel’s modus operandi I cannot say; however, such questions are moot since the book is primarily making positive claims rather than merely refuting previous conclusions. (He does, of course, illustrate what he calls “the Litany”, i.e. the chicken-little-esque claims that the earth is dying–I could have phrased that better, sorry. But the bulk of the book isn’t about addressing those claims specifically; rather, it is about putting forth data and drawing conclusions from them.)
In his analysis of income figures, for example, he makes sure to utilize purchasing power parity in his comparisons–a necessary step. Absent PPP adjustments, international comparisons of incomes are largely meaningless. It might be somewhat analogous to compare the box office takes of Titanic and Gone With The Wind without adjusting for inflation. Absent such adjustments, what you end up with are merely non-statements about how much the two movies made.
Regarding S.A.'s critique, it is noteworthy that the magazine didn’t recruit impartial commentators. Indeed, my cynical self wonders if that fact is not itself evidentiary. To phrase it another way, I don’t care what the Union of Concerned Scientists says about the book, I want to know what the Union of Indifferent Scientists has to say. As I understand it, S.A. didn’t recruit impartial reviewers, it recruited advocates. That’s not to say that advocates can be automatically discounted, however they do have a particular axe to grind.
Many of the critiques I’ve read seem to grossly mischaracterize the content and intent of the book. The book does not paint as rosy of a picture as they would have us believe. My reading of the book made it quite clear that there are many environmental problems that need to be addressed. But that doesn’t mean that we are approaching an apocalypse (sp?) as a result. Such a statement is far from grand; “You’re sick, but it doesn’t look like it’s going to kill you” is quite different from “You’re in perfect health.”
Others seem to attack him on purely ideological grounds. Some accuse him of being a free marketeer who’s ignored the gains made from policy directives. But so what? That is a subsidiary point to the thesis of the book, that things are not as bad as we have previously believed. Additionally, he notes correctly that proper pricing can solve some problems. That’s simple economics. I don’t recall any claim that the market should do it, however. For all I know he may think that governmental price restrictions are the best solution in those cases.
Another ideological battle ground is illustrated in the American Scientist’s review. The review states,
One might ask, how else should a species’ value be measured? The reviewer seems to assume that a species should be of infinite value as a result of personal fiat. The reviewer is apparently making an ideological statement; an ideological statement that simply doesn’t hold for much of the rest of humanity. He is painting Lomborg as money-minded, when the truth is that Lomborg recognizes that people value things differently and those values have to be balanced. Knowing science and understanding economics are not equivalent, I’ve come to learn. The fact is that there is not enough stuff to fully satisfy our needs, and therefore we need to make choices. The value of these choices can be measured through a numeraire commodity since it provides a link between relative values. What is the existence of a particular species actually worth to a person? This needs to be measured and one way to measure it is to ask, “What is that person willing to give up for the species to exist?” If the answer is “nothing” then the species isn’t worth saving (at least in that person’s eyes). If the answer is “everything” then the species is worth alot. Many critics seem to take environmental “quality” as a quasi-religious value that must be honored regardless of the cost. What they fail to realize is that other human beings have different values, and that their values don’t supercede the values of others.
The reviewer goes on to say,
Here he gives lip service to the need to make trade-offs without being being able to understand it. The dollar is the numeraire commodity (in America at least) by which we measure the weight of the trade-offs. The dollar is not the universal measure of value to humans, as he asserts, the dollar is the means by which relate relative values between things we’d like to have. One can imagine that current valuations might not match the conclusion that Lomborg comes to in this case. But the reviewer gives us no reason to do so.
Some reviewers seem appalled that Lomborg wants to weigh the cost of global warming against the cost of what else we could do with the money. Lomborg’s suggestion that humanity would be better served if the cost of global warming were put off so that we can use the same money now to concentrate on economic development in LDCs seems to generate much ire. If we work to make the future world richer, then the cost of dealing with global warming will be a smaller proportion of the world’s well-being in the future, claims Lomborg. Suppose I have to make a repair on my house, and I am pretty sure that it will cost $1 in real terms, and that I can do the repair today or one year from now. If I can invest the dollar so that it grows at, let’s say, a 5% real rate of interest, then one year from now, if I invest, I’ll have a real $1.05 to make a $1 repair. I’m ahead by $0.05. That is the essence of Lomborg’s conclusion on Global Warming. It’s better to invest now and let our descendents take the hit, because the cost to them of not investing will be greater than the cost of dealing with the problem today.
Some argue that Lomborg’s global warming cost figures are too low. That point is moot. Whether the cost of repairing my house is $1, $5, or $500 has no impact on the internal logic of the argument. These famed environmental scientists seem unable to grasp a simple economic argument: our descendents simply have to bear a cost, we should make them bear the lowest cost possible.
In the Times Higher Education Supplement, Eric Neumayer, a lecturer in environment and development, London School of Economics and Political Science, tells us that the book is “marvellously referenced, providing many details with a comprehensive list of all sources of data.” He seems to have no factual beef with the book. Nor does he mention any problems with Lomborg’s analysis. His criticisms are wholly unrelated to the point of the book. Hardly a compelling claim that the book is bunk.
So what’s the point of this long post? Partly, to help my think, I suppose. Also I guess it’s that most reviews I’ve read rest on ideology, bad economics, mischaracterizations, and unrelated issues. Some praise him for offering a different picture and for bringing to light many facts which have been neglected in the environmental debate. Perhaps the point is this: this ain’t cold fusion we’re talking about. Outrageous scientific claims can be dispensed with easily and without invective. No critic whom I’ve read has done so. Outrageous scientific claims have few supporters. Lomborg’s facts are largely affirmed by many of his critics, e.g. Science, and praised by others, e.g. The Royal Chemical Society and the American Geological Institute (see Lomborg’s site). Economic issues are frequently misunderstood by scientists–their opinons of much of the book come from little understanding of what the book actually argues. I guess, it sounds to me like the book is worth reading; it is a prima facie argument that things aren’t going to pot, although much work needs to be done.
Wilson has a specific factual dispute. Which of them is right? Wilson wrote:
Given Wilson’s reputation, I would assume that his estimate of species loss is a good one. Unfortunately, he doesn’t prove that the “vast majority of respected scholarship” disagrees with Lonborg. This is a forgivable omission, since it would require a big survey. Also, and Wilson’s opinion on this topic should be accepted.
However, it’s less forgivable that Wilson doesn’t address Lonborg’s “best possible UN” rate of 0.1-1%/50 years. Does Wilson think the UN IPCC is wrong? If so, why? Does he think Lonborg mis-represented what the UN said? Does he think the UN should be ignored because others disagree with its “best possible opinion?” I wish he had told us what he thinks Lonborg’s mistake was. Does any Doper know enough to answer these questions?
BTW Grist Magazine has a telling misrepresentation of Lomborg’s position in the cartoon accompanying Wilson’s critique. It shows a happy man (presumably Lonborg) saying, “Species are not being driven to extinction.” Lonborg’s position is that that species are going extinct, at 1500 times the natural rate. The cartoon supports the idea that Lonborg is really being attacked because he isn’t pessimistic and panicked enough to suit his critics.
Thanks for the update!
You’re welcome.
In a more reasoned assessment of the situation, you’ll find that the ruling was overturned on procedural matters, such as the committee in question relying on published criticisms instead of conducting its own analysis, which disappointed even Lomborg’s critics.
“In a more reasoned assessment of the situation, you’ll find that the ruling was overturned on procedural matters”
The original article never says otherwise. I can’t see that either is more ‘reasoned’. In fact both seem to be very similar in assessment.
The other article is an actual article, not an op/ed, and doesn’t begin, “How can they have been so stupid?” Thus, more reasoned.