Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming

The author, Danish political scientist, Bjorn Lomborg throws some rational thought on the hype surrounding global warming. He points out that global warming is a real problem but he argues that the costs proposed to confront it greatly exceed the benefits postulated by programs such as Kyoto I or II. The book is interesting, informative, lively, often amusing and, happily, short. He covers so many interesting worries, including the disappearing polar bears, the rise in the oceans, the increase in global temperatures, the melting ice and argues that the potential disasters invoked are not likely to be as great as we fear. He argues that we can improve life for most people to a much greater extent at less cost by dealing with starvation, impure water, disease, and poverty using solutions that are already available to us. Even though he doesn't dispute global warming, his point of view has been viciously attacked by supporters of what has become the new mantra. If you saw V. P. Gore's Film, you should read this book and breathe a little easier still doing your best to reduce CO2's. Just don't panic. The polar bear is not going to disappear.

Environmentalists have attacked Lomborg ever since he wrote The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World. I have not read it, but read critiques in Scientific American. It seemed Lomborg did cross lines that rendered him vulnerable to scientific attacks; But, with "Cool It" he his on strong scientific ground. He is still attacked by the usual suspects such as Kare Fog, a Danish biologist who posts on the web all the "errors" Lomborg made. Fog goes on pages advancing a case how Lomborg misinterpreted sea level rise data. Fog argues sea level rise is more likely to be two feet instead of one per Lomborg (relying on the IPCC best estimate). In the end Fog contradicts himself by quoting most recent studies that support Lomborg. Kare Fog other attacks are fruitless. In this great short book, Lomborg covers the following fascinating themes. First, the impact of Global Warming is hugely exaggerated. Second, the efficacy of the Kyoto Protocol is close to nil. Third, the Kyoto Protocol is unworkable as the majority of member-countries fail their CO2 reduction targets. Fourth, we can improve our environmental prospects at a fraction of the Kyoto Protocol's cost and with often more than a 1,000 times the effectiveness. In the first three chapters Lomborg debunks all the wild exaggerations regarding the impact of Global Warming as conveyed by the media. A couple of examples include the supposedly rapid disappearance of the polar bear often pictured on a melting iceberg. Meanwhile, the overall polar bear population is actually growing. Another is the prospective catastrophic sea level rise of 20 to 40 feet as vividly depicted in An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It with maps showing flooded global coastal regions. Meanwhile the IPCC scientists' models suggest only a one foot increase by the end of the century (same as what we experienced over the last century without any disruption). Al Gore scenarios entail the melting of half or all of the ice caps of both Greenland and Antarctica. The reality is that Greenland is loosing ice at a very slow pace and Antarctica is actually gaining mass. Warmer temperatures cause more precipitation and more snow and ice formation in Antarctica that contributes to lower sea levels. Lomborg goes on uncovering a bunch more mythical exaggerations including the increasing frequency and intensity of hurricanes. None of them is being supported by IPCC data. He also mentions the flawed `hockey stick' graph manufactured by Michael Mann's spurious model that artificially created a spike in simulated temperatures in present time. He indicated how reluctant the IPCC scientific community was to admit the flaw in this hockey stick model. I was not surprised by any of the above. I have studied Global Warming for several years now, and had already learned about these politicized exaggerations in other excellent books including: Meltdow

True believers won't like this book, but anyone who is willing to listen with an open mind and consider multiple points of view will find this book to be a breath of fresh air in the climate change / global warming clash. Bjorn Lomborg is a liberal, a vegetarian, an economist and a passionate environmentalist. Certainly, he is far left of me. He also is convinced that global warming is real, that mankind does have a role in creating it and making it worse, and that we do need to change the way we live in order to improve conditions for all life on the planet. So, why do I like him and find this book very much worth reading? Because he is sensible in the arguments he makes. Rather than beating the drum of gloom and doom, he looks at the evidence, looks at what we can realistically do, and what it is we can do that will have the most effect. He also pokes holes in the overheated bag-of-wind arguments of the drowning polar bears (more die from hunting), the 20 foot sea rise (it is rising, but no more in the coming century than in the last), and the benefits of Kyoto (basically an attempted $16 trillion tax on the United States that would, after a century, delay global warming by a few years). And he nicely points out that the devastation in New Orleans was NOT because of global warming or because of the hurricane itself, but because of poorly maintained levees and destroyed wetlands that would have provided some protection. He is also right in pointing out that there has been NO increase in the violence of the storms. The critics will point to the vastly increased costs of the storms. But those costs have their roots in the fact that more people are living in these risky areas (partly because of increased wealth and partly because of government subsidies to those experiencing losses in these areas) and are building more costly structures in areas that people mostly avoided in the past. His emphasis on what we can do that will have the most positive effect for the money spent is terrific. For example, changing the kinds of building materials we use, the amount of concrete and asphalt versus the opening of green space in our cities all make good sense, as does the helping of people in the developing world with micronutrients and controlling malaria. The list of items that experts and politicians recognize as the most pressing issues and the most useful for the money spent (see pages 44 and 162) is most instructive regarding reality versus hype. Frankly, I think Lomborg calls himself the skeptical environmentalist because it sounds better than the sensible environmentalist. However, he really is sensible and worth listening to whether you end up agreeing with his prescriptions or not. Reviewed by Craig Matteson, Ann Arbor, MI

All Bjørn is saying is that we're doing a heck of a job ignoring our current catastrophes. Anyone remember the Katrina victims? Anyone remember that AIDS hasn't been cured yet? You might want to just sit back, take a breath, and get your priorities in a row. Before you go and save some lives from the year 2100, you might want to look around and save a few here in 2007. This is like people from 1907 trying to help us with breast cancer. No one knew what a gene was in 1907! I'm sure that the people of 2100 will have both the technology and the smarts to come up with something better than anything we could do. But change IS happening. The ball is rolling. Things are becoming different. We are on a much better trajectory now than we were ten years ago, as far as cutting pollution is concerned. Nothing we do additionally is going to have much effect, so let's get our priorities straight and save our current victims, our homeless, our hungry, our crappy healthcare system. This is what Bjørn is saying. The way the environmentalists are attacking Mr. Lomborg is appalling. "Methinks thou dost protest too much." The way they attack his character is like a dog protecting his bone. In this case the bone is a company that sells carbon offsets to the gullible, illiterate fans of eco-celebrities. Do you think Sheryl Crow is sitting at home reading the IPCC report? No, she's playing her guitar. She gets her global warming news from the same place that you do...Access Hollywood. I'm sure that every negative reviewer here has not even read the book. This is obvious because your arguments for global warming being real are his same arguments! He's not saying it's not happening, he's saying that it's not as horrible as people are being led to believe and that we may have a few years to nip it in the bud, but not by throwing money at various environmental firms. We need to find the companies that are going to get the job done right, and right now it is not Joe Bob's Carbon Offset Emporium at PO Box 119, Santa Barbara, California. There are too many fishy environmental companies popping up all over the place, so be wary of where your carbon offsets are going. Better yet, let the free marketplace get the technology up to speed while you send your money to AIDS research and building new homes. That's where you can really do some good. And as far as Michael Crichton is concerned, he might be a novelist, but he's also a brilliant intellect that knows how to read scientific journals. The only thing he doesn't have is an agenda. Crichton is not covered in oil money. He's not trying to sell you anything but novels. Al Gore co-owns a carbon offset firm and an environmental consultancy firm. This is like a cat salesman trying to convince you that you've got a rat infestation. The environmentalists fear that this is their last big chance to have all of their wishes come true, so they're fighting hard to keep you scared. Don't be afraid. Everything will be okay. The onl

In COOL IT; Dr Lomborg, again, hits the nail on the head. One of the few scientists in the world who is willing to buck the popular and political trend, Dr Lomborg looks at a lot of data and then draws a scientific conclusion. It is amazing how many of those who disagree with Dr Lomborg are trying to stifle his and other's similar comments. Where is the debate? His research and abundant footnotes allow anyone to look up and analyze the data for themselves. (When did we lose the ability to debate - respectfully - both sides of an issue?) Dr Lomborg has abundant research on his side and is simply summarizing that data in an objective fashion. He suggests that there are other more pressing needs on the planet that - if attended to - could save millions of lives rather than chasing the illusive dream of global warming with limited payoff. 5-stars for an important book that deserves to be heard in the debate over global warming.