Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming (Vintage)
Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming (Vintage) – Review
This work is very frustrating as is Lomborg writ large. He is eloquent and a talented writer. He can make fine points about environmentalists managing mistakes in arguments (such as closely associating special weather events with Global Warming). And, he points to the consequence of effectively making wise decisions as to how to invest best (by definition) limited resources. Yet, sadly, he simply misrepresents too much evidence and is too misleading. For example, * Re Hurricanes & Global Warming: While Lomborg makes a fine point about how people mistakenly link a special hurricane (or any weather event) and Global Warming, he misleads in his reference of a World Meteorological Organization 2006 statement. This statement has ten points and Lomborg just cites/discusses the three that support his rigid notions and does not finally let readers understand that he is selectively citing. Reading the statement in full, in essence, contradicts Lomborg with its outlining of ways global warming will worsen hurricane impacts. Here are two “consensus” points Lomborg omits: “It is likely that some increase in tropical cyclone peak wind-speed and rainfall will occur if the climate remains to warm. Model studies and theory project a three per cents increase in wind-speed per degree Celsius rise of hot sea surface temperatures”; and “If the projected rise in sea level due to global warming occurs, then the vulnerability to tropical cyclone storm surge flooding would increase.” Hmmm … another reviewer praised Lomborg and stated that “rich research [is] on his side and [he] is simply summaring that data in an objective fashion”. I don’t think therefore … * Lomborg incorrectly argues that CO2 emission reduction is costly. He overstates the loss of energy efficiency (think Amory Lovins/RMI and Negawatts) and does not adequately discussion full losses of energy (all that free currently riding of pollution due to “external costs” of slowly burning fossil fuels). Lomborg does not include in costs restrictions on mainly eating tuna due to mercury pollution from coal-fired electricity. Sadly, Lomborg distorts in this work that moves it from a valuable widely read into something that only experts (who can see the distortions) should widely read because the distortions will mislead rather than enlighten.