Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming (urspr publ 2007; utgåvan 2007)

Lomborg continues with his level-headed environmental commentary and policy recommendations rather than the usual apocalyptic hysteria that we're used to hearing from mainstream enviro-nuts. ( )

Das schlechteste Buch, das ich seit langem gelesen habe. Die Einseitigkeit und Kurzsichtigkeit der Argumentation machte mich nach einer Zeit verrückt - darum habe ich nach gut der Hälfte das Buch weggelegt und es nicht zuende gelesen.
Eine Recherche zu dem Buch bestätigte mich in meinem Gefühl: Die von Lomborg zitierten Quellen zu vielen Themen kommen jeweils ausschließlich aus einem Lager (zu Folgen des Klimawandels: ausschließlich Klimawandel-Leugner, keine Klimaforscher, zu Interventionsmöglichkeiten: ausschließlich Befürworter minimaler Interventionen). Aus den IPCC-Daten suchte er sich nur EINES der unzähligen prognostizierten Klimamodelle, das seine Hypothesen am besten bestätigt und betrieb übles Rosinenpicken bei Zitaten aus dem Bericht - ignorierte viele Fakten und verzerrte Untersuchungsergebnisse - grauenvolles Buch! ( )

In his book Lomborg acknowledges global warming, but put forward the argument that major societal change for countering global warming may not be economically optimal. Certain parts of Al Gores argument are heavy critized.

An interesting provocation to ordinary orthodox environmentalism, I have though a suspicious feeling over its self-assured presentation. There are quite an amount of critical examination of his text, this one as well as the earlier "The Skeptical Environmentalist". Armchair global warming researchers, such as I, may start at Kåre Fog's website http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/ There one finds that even Yale University Press has published a book with critique. There are counter-critique and counter-counter-critique sufficiently to make your head spin, see, e.g., http://lomborg.com/sites/lomborg.com/files/bl_reply_to_howard_friel_0.pdf ( )

An alternative and partially supported view on environmental issues. I like the pragmatic approach to solving global problems and dislike the disregard for nature itself (meaning loss of species). ( )

An important book with a lot of common sense. I first started covering global warming in the early 1990s, so I've been able to tell when some hyperbole had gone amok. But here is a careful economist's dissection of so much more.

If we start from the consequences of global warming--the very worst scenarios--well, for far less money we can have far greater impact on malaria, flooding, even the polar bears (have Canadians stop shooting 48 of them per year. Or even half that many.)

He doesn't deny that global warming is occurring, but there are better ways (than Kyoto, which has had little effect) to encourage the development of alternative fuels. Although I knew that most of Europe had made little progress despite commitments, who knew that US emissions have remained about level since 1990 while UK's and Denmark's have gone up?

But why does this Lomborg's work seem to have made to little impression on Al Gore or Paul Krugman? ( )