countdown boutiques-francophones Learn more scflyout Home All-New Kindle Music Deals Store sports Tools Registry

Customer Reviews

3.5 out of 5 stars
3.5 out of 5 stars
Format: Paperback|Change
Price:$26.00+ Free shipping with Amazon Prime
Your rating(Clear)Rate this item

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

on May 28, 2016
Was for a class.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on April 21, 2016
a mail got delayed, thought the book was lost. eventually got two copies! need to return one.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on December 19, 2015
This was the second book I ever read regarding climate science. He is an economist/environmentalist who accepts the man-made global warming principle, although he doesn't specifically agree with the projected impact. His point is that it makes much more sense to plan for the adaptation to possible effects over time than to kill the world's economy in the short term.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on December 18, 2015
Finally a truthful environmentalist... they are in short supply nowadays . Great read. Thanks
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on May 25, 2013
In our politically correct world, where special interests work so hard to manipulate us to match their thinking, we need more and more balance. This book does not debunk or preach, it gives a grounded alternate view of environmental reality. Strip away the retoric of various groups, and you will see what really needs to be done. If we viewed the world with this sane and rational approach, we would make much more headway.
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on July 16, 2004
This book shows concern for the earth's environment, but at the same time refutes catastrophic ecological events and processes. It's clear that both sides (environmentalists vs. everyone else) have their own agendas, which is why they argue their viewpoints as they do. So many biases based on innumerable experiences, ideologies, faiths, etc. come into play when discussing environmental issues that any debate is futile unless certain standards are set. In my view, this book is used best for studying the data provided, and making a conclusion based on your own educated reasoning - of course not until you have read the same data as interpreted by true blue 'environmentalists'. Data can be manipulated in countless ways to accommodate many viewpoints, so instead of looking at numbers in order to prove their point, I would say it's time to use some common sense, and perhaps some plain old human emotion to determine our environmental policy stances. The book itself is well written, interesting, and informative, but I wouldn't use it as a sole basis for determining an environmental viewpoint.
0Comment| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on July 14, 2004
I have read the (book-length) debates between the author and environmental scientists, and from that I've learned a tremendous amount about the extent of our knowledge of weather and ecosystems. The most informative debate is Lomborg's point-by-point rebuttal of criticism which appeared in Scientific American. (You can find all of this on the web.) In a nutshell, the scientists do not sound very scientific.
I think there is a reason for the disgust of many scientists. Lomborg attacks the evidence of several kinds of environmental catastrophe. The scientists, on the other hand, begin from a conservative point of view in their concern for the mere possibility of irreparable damage to the earth. They are obviously correct to realize that we cannot afford to lose the earth, and we should therefore be wary of any significant perturbation made by mankind.
I believe that the scientists get angry because Lomborg refutes their favorite arguments in favor of strict environmental policies, those which purport that a catastrophe has already begun. Lomborg, on the other hand, does not understand that the strongest argument is that we can always be wrong.
We cannot afford a mistake which destroys our only viable planet, which is why we must limit the global impact of our activities. But this is not the point addresed by either Lomborg or his critics.
Lomborg has done a significant service in pointing out some flaws and biases in scientific research, but you would learn more by following the debates than by reading this large, tendentious book.
0Comment| 8 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on July 13, 2004
This excellent book illustrates that the world isn't on the verge of some "Day After Tommorrow" Apocalypse. If you need this proven to you, if you're skeptical of the skeptics, you should read this book w/ an open mind. Many environmentalists are sincere--however, many are members of a "secular" cult, reverse-evangelicals, who have a God (Mother Nature), a Devil (Man), prophets (Ehrlich, Nader), demons (Capitalists), a way of salvation (Green Socialism), and a nightmare Armageddon (when Nature takes her vengeance on man's greed). The former, the reasonable people should read this book, because they can be persuaded by Lomborg's most important thesis: that the solution to whatever environmental problems we face, will come from economic growth, not anti-industrialism, anti-globalization.
The Kyoto Treaty is not the solution, but would actually exacerbate the problem of Global Warming by restraining technological development and human employment. You want a worldwide Great Depression, put the Kyoto Treaty in practice, and then see if mankind has the collective resources to find alternative sources of fuel or, heck, build new air conditioners. Lomborg shows that as the economy grows, so does environmental problems like pollution reduce.
He also shows that the warming and cooling of the Earth is cyclical, possibly (or probably) tied to Sunspots. At the end of the Medieval Period, the earth was as warm as it is now (possibly warmer), and 1400-1900 the Earth was in a mini-Ice Age. London had worse pollution in 1700 than today. I guess you could say that the internal combustion engine is so metaphysically evil, so powerful, that it's vile emissions travelled back in time to warm the earth around 1300 and to pollute London in 1700. But more likely, the .6% increase in worldwide temperature since 1900 is the result of the workings of the solar system and not evil, vile technology.
0Comment| 5 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on July 5, 2004
Outstanding analysis. Lomborg makes a point of using the same data sources (mainly the UN development agencies) that the rabid "don't confuse me with facts" environmentalists use. General complaints about Lomborg by fanatics are "uses discredited studies" and "picks and chooses data". The book has 2930 footnotes and the bibliography is 72 pages long, so how he left anything out boggles me. Lomborg gives the reader ALL the facts, and shows that our priorities should be based upon the data, not religious zealotry for environmental concerns.
0Comment| 6 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on July 2, 2004
This is a terrific book that should be on the bookshelf of everybody that believes that reason is more powerful than passion or faith. Using detailed statistical analysis, the author essentially tears apart most of the arguments that environmentalists have been using to push their agenda on the rest of us. Reading this book, it became obvious to me that environmentalists for the most part, are *not* interested in the environment and in the health of the people on it (if they were, they would at least get their facts straight, and stop the constant barrage of misinformation that they constantly throw at us). They are indeed, more interested in their political agenda, a combination of fascism and socialism, because of course, "they know best".
Use this book as a fact finder. And then watch your so-called environmentalist friends squirm when you feed them the facts. Guaranteed, they will not have a response, and then eventually concede that the facts don't matter one way or another.
0Comment| 4 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse