Science defends itself against The Skeptical Environmentalist
| MISLEADING MATH ABOUT THE EARTH |
Critical thinking and hard data are cornerstones of all good
science. Because environmental sciences are so keenly important to both
our biological and economic survival--causes that are often seen to be
in conflict--they deserve full scrutiny. With that in mind, the book
The Skeptical Environmentalist (Cambridge University Press), by Bjorn
Lomborg, a statistician and political scientist at the University of
Aarhus in Denmark, should be a welcome audit. And yet it isn't.
As the book's subtitle--Measuring the Real State of the
World--indicates, Lomborg's intention was to reanalyze environmental
data so that the public might make policy decisions based on the truest
understanding of what science has determined. His conclusion, which he
writes surprised even him, was that contrary to the gloomy predictions
of degradation he calls "the litany," everything is getting better. Not
that all is rosy, but the future for the environment is less dire than
is supposed. Instead Lomborg accuses a pessimistic and dishonest cabal
of environmental groups, institutions and the media of distorting
scientists' actual findings. (A copy of the book's first chapter can be
found at www.lomborg.org.)
The problem with Lomborg's conclusion is that the scientists themselves disavow it. Many spoke to us at SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN
about their frustration at what they described as Lomborg's
misrepresentation of their fields. His seemingly dispassionate
outsider's view, they told us, is often marred by an incomplete use of
the data or a misunderstanding of the underlying science. Even where
his statistical analyses are valid, his interpretations are frequently
off the mark--literally not seeing the state of the forests for the
number of the trees, for example. And it is hard not to be struck by
Lomborg's presumption that he has seen into the heart of the science
more faithfully than have investigators who have devoted their lives to
it; it is equally curious that he finds the same contrari an good news
lurking in every diverse area of environmental science.
We asked four leading experts to critique Lomborg's treatments of
their areas--global warning, energy, population and biodiversity--so
readers could understand why the book provokes so much disagreement.
Lomborg's assessment that conditions on earth are generally improving
for human welfare may hold some truth. The errors described here,
however, show that in its purpose of describing the real state of the
world, the book is a failure.
PHOTO (COLOR)
~~~~~~~~
By John Rennie, EDITOR IN CHIEF
My Folder | Preferences | Help
