More Criticisms and Comments on The Skeptical Environmentalist

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

The Union of Concerned Scientists examines The Skeptical Environmentalist (http://www.ucsusa.org/environment/lomborg.html). Detailed responses from Peter Gleick on the book¿s treatment of water resources, Jerry Mahlman on global warming, and Edward O. Wilson, Thomas Lovejoy, Norman Myers, Jeffrey Harvey and Stuart Pimm on biodiversity and species loss.

Something is Rotten in the State of Denmark ( http://www.gristmagazine.com/grist/books/lomborg121201.asp). From Grist magazine, a series of essays criticizing the book, including E. O. Wilson on extinction, Stephen Schneider on global warming, Norman Myers on species diversity, Lester Brown on population, Emily Matthews on forests, Al Hammond on statistical errors, Devra Davis on human health, and David Nemtzow on energy, and more.

www.Anti-Lomborg.com. A site established by environmental activists, academics and writers to rebut Lomborg¿s writings

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Debunking Pseudo-Scholarship: Things a journalist should know about The Skeptical Environmentalist (http://www.wri.org/press/mk_lomborg.html). From the World Resources Institute, several articles including a review of the book by Edward Flateau, an article Al Hammond and Tony Janetos, and the text of an address by Peter Raven.

The Lomborg File: When the Press is Lured by a Contrarian¿s Tale (http://www.cjr.org/year/02/2/bakerbook.asp). An article by Russ Baker, published by The Columbia Journalism Review, concerning why Lomborg¿s message proved so appealing to the general media.

Replies from Danish scientists (http://www.au.dk/~cesamat/debate.html). When Lomborg¿s book was first published several years ago in Denmark, members of the Danish scientific and academic community posted rebuttals to it that prefigured the debate now occurring internationally.

Back to Skepticism toward The Skeptical Environmentalist

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American