3.1 Criticisms

This section presents an overview of the published criticisms of Lomborg's book. The selection of criticisms in the summary means that they were judged as valid based on the availability of good examples or logical argumentation in the original reviews. Weaker, less well supported criticisms are not mentioned here. All sources and examples in support of criticisms are presented in the longer version of this article (see acknowledgments). The criticisms are organized in seven categories: methodological issues, conceptual issues, theoretical issues, data problems, statistics, form and style, and use of references. A summary of the criticisms that have been most frequently mentioned in the reviews of Lomborg's book will be provided in Table 1. 9

3.2 Positive judgments

Next, the main statements reflecting a positive judgement of Lomborg's book are documented and commented upon. 14 Statements that were evaluated as valid are:

• The book forces one to think (de Groot and Hoekstra 2002, p. 771).

• The book has a high level of detail (Gleick 2001, p. 1).

• The book correctly points out that some environmentalists exaggerate the scope and severity of environmental problems to generate headlines and revenues (Burke and Lomborg 2001, p. 1).

• The idea of prioritizing resources by comparing alternatives (taking into account opportunity costs), judging risks, and trading-off costs and benefits certainly has validity. It makes sense to include some consideration of relative risk when making decisions about allocating resources to reduce threats to humans and the environment (Rohlf 2002, p. 300 and 311). 15

• Insofar as he asks “whether we could do more good spending our resources on helping especially the third world by investing less in global warming abatement and more on, e.g. clean drinking water, sanitation, and all the other but important needs”, he raises an important question (Poirier 2002, p. 410).

• It is generally true, as Lomborg says, that many social and economic measures of human well-being have improved, including life expectancy, human health, and education. (Dernbach 2003, p. 454). 16

• He recognizes the enormous and often overlooked public health problem of developing countries “residential indoor air pollution”, one of the largest single mortality risk factors in the world (Bodnar et al. 2004, p. 61).

The number of statements reflecting positive judgements of Lomborg's book is very small compared with the number of criticisms as documented in Section 3.1. This may disappoint the reader and give the impression that our study is selective or biased. To convince the reader that this is not the case, additional positive statements – from reviews – that were evaluated as unconvincing (as opposed to the ones above) are briefly mentioned below. Arguments in support of our negative evaluation of these judgements are given as well (in Italics).

• The book is remarkably free of factual errors (Schoenbrod 2002, p. 54).

  However, as was argued in Section 3.1 (notably under “4. Data problems”), Lomborg actually makes many factual errors.

• The statistical detail is impressive (Grubb 2001, p. 1285).

  However, as discussed in Section 3.1 (notably under “5. Statistics”), statistical aspects are treated poorly in the book.

• The book is exhaustively referenced to allow checking of his analysis, with many of these references available on the Internet (Stone 2002, p. 50).

  However, as was stated in Section 3.1 (notably under “7. References”), some of his references are very difficult to trace. Thus, it is not always possible to check Lomborg's analysis or conclusions.

• He clearly understands that increasing prosperity is the key to improving human and environmental health (Bailey 2002a, p. 5).

  However, as noted in Section 3.1 (“3. Theoretical issues”) there is no unambiguous empirical evidence for this (see also Section 5 ).

• Lomborg pre-emptively defuses any accusations of selectivity in his choice of statistics by using only mainstream sources, and wherever possible, exactly the same sources as those whose claims he is analyzing (Stone 2002, p. 49).

  However, using official data sources in itself does not guarantee that there is no selectivity in Lomborg's choice of data and indicators. As Section 3.1 (notably under “4. Data problems”) makes clear, Lomborg does indeed selectively use data. Moreover, Lomborg does not only use mainstream data sources.

• As the work of an apostate, one converted from pessimism to optimism, it is even more persuasive and therefore the most powerful (Yandle 2002, p. 285).

  However, in Section 3.1 under point (6) (“Form and style”) it was explained that there is no clear proof of Lomborg's conversion from pessimism to optimism; for one thing, Greenpeace does not have any record of Lomborg's membership. More importantly, this argument is irrelevant from a scientific perspective.

• The book is interesting for a broad audience, ranging from interested laymen to students and insiders in environmental problems (de Groot en Hoekstra 2002, p. 771).

  On the contrary, the book is unsuitable for interested laymen and undergraduates, since they will lack the knowledge and experience to detect and judge the various flaws, biases and subjectivity present in the book.

• Unlike most social scientists, Lomborg really is willing to reject a hypothesis (Anderson and Kosnik 2002, p. 439).

  However, as was stated under point (1) in Section 3.1 (“Methodological issues”): “The overall methodological principle applied by Lomborg is a form of simple falsification to dismiss competing theories and simple verification to accept his own hypothesis. This approach yields predetermined results”. Thus, Lomborg is not open to rejecting his own hypothesis.

• Lomborg has done his work with remarkable care (Huffman 2002, p. 392).

  However, in view of the seven main points of critique in Section 3.1 this clearly is an incorrect statement.

4.1 Stressing own reliability and questioning integrity of critical reviewers

In responding to some of his critics, Lomborg tries to give the impression that his book is very reliable and scientific. He does this by stressing that he openly states the facts and the sources; that everybody is free to point out where these are faulty or incorrect; and that such errors then of course will be posted on his website (Lomborg 2002d, p. 1). As mentioned in note 13, he ultimately mentioned 11 minor errors on his website. Furthermore, he repeatedly notes that he uses the best available statistics from official sources like the UN, OECD, World Bank, IMF, EU, and US (Lomborg 2001c, p. 2; 2002d, p. 4; and 2002f, p. 1). In his rebuttal of the review of the WRI and the WWF he says: “On the main points in the book, I don't ask my audience to trust me, but to trust my sources”. (Lomborg 2001c, p. 3). However, the use of these sources is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for Lomborg's book being reliable or scientific, or for the arguments in it having validity.

In addition, Lomborg tries to make his opponents seem unreliable, not objective and unscientific. Their objectivity is questioned, for example, in his response to Scientific American. There he claims that the four experts who criticize his treatment of their fields of expertise have not been chosen randomly as he criticized them in his book. Subsequently, he mentions wrong predictions that two of the experts had made suggesting that this discredits them (Lomborg 2002d, p. 3). However, Schneider, Holdren, Bongaarts and Lovejoy are strong representatives of their field of expertise, thus representing logical reviewers of parts of Lomborg's book. Rennie (2002, p. 2) states: “Scientists do sometimes make mistakes; they also revise their conclusions as new evidence accumulates. Unlike Lomborg, I see no reason for this to permanently discredit them”. Indeed, progress in science is realized by continuously improving earlier findings, not by denying errors and resisting fair criticism.

Lomborg (2002d, p. 3) further tries to question the objectivity of his critics in the following way: “The obvious lack of any concern for presenting a balanced review of my work calls into question the real purpose of this Scientific American feature”. This “real purpose” is then clarified by him as follows (Lomborg 2002d, p. 3):

Lomborg is suggesting here that one should question the integrity of both Schneider and Rennie (the latter without any argumentation). But the statement by Schneider (from 1989) does not offer the “unambiguous advice” as stated by Lomborg. Instead it presents the “scary scenarios, …” to be an extreme choice which is not the “right balance”.

More examples in which Lomborg discredits his opponents can be mentioned. In his reaction to Schneider he writes: “If I am so wrong, one would expect that my critic should have had an easy time showing it, not having to rely on nitpicking, quoting out of context, and misrepresenting” (Lomborg 2002d, p. 9), and in his reaction to Holdren he writes: “However, I do find the tone of the entire critique surprisingly rough, indicating that Holdren found it necessary to substitute good analysis with plain negative words”. (Lomborg 2002d, p. 19). He is here suggesting a lack of good analysis without providing any evidence.

4.2 Misrepresentation of, and selective responses to, criticisms

Lomborg often reacts to a criticism by responding to a misinterpretation of it or without going to the core of it. This happens in different ways, as will be shown with a few examples.

In some cases, Lomborg does not respond to the full contents of a criticism but only to selected elements of it. An example is his response to Jespersen's (2002, p. 9) criticism of his use of global figures. Lomborg only quotes a part of Jespersen's criticism: “Global averages are misleading indicators of the ‘real state’ … What is the sense of a statement such as, ‘We have seen a global reduction of people living in poverty’, when it covers a dramatic deterioration in Africa, a growing number of street orphans in Brazil, more unemployed people in Indonesia, and heavily reduced old age pensions in Russia, outweighed by fewer hungry people in China?” In response Lomborg says he has pointed out time and again in his book that things are getting better, but are still not necessarily good (Lomborg 2002e, p. 3). However, Lomborg does not mention and respond to Jespersen's main argument here, which is that only genuinely global phenomena, such as the atmospheric content of greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting substances, can be meaningfully analyzed using a global average, while averaged developmental trends – even for a region – are informative only if the region is sufficiently homogenous.

Another example is his response to a criticism by Holdren in Scientific American. Holdren (2002a) is critical of Lomborg's statement that the switch by developed economies to low-sulfur coal, scrubbers and other air-pollution control devices has today removed the vast part of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide emissions. According to Holdren (2002a, p. 70–71), “U.S. emissions of nitrogen oxides from coal-burning electric power plants were 6.1 million short tons in 1980 and 5.4 million short tons in 1998. Emissions of sulfur dioxide from U.S. coal-burning power plants were 16.1 million short tons in 1980 and 12.4 million short tons in 1998. These are moderate reductions, welcome but hardly the ‘vast part’ of the emissions”. In his rebuttal, Lomborg (2002a, p. 17–18) claims that he was referring to emissions per ton of coal burned and not to total emissions, and that he picked 1970 as a starting point rather than 1980. He continues by starting that, if this is taken into account, the sulphur dioxide pollution per quantity of coal has dropped by 75%, underscoring that the statement of vastly diminished pollution is correct. This, however, does not recognize that total emissions are more relevant than emissions per ton. Moreover, he does not mention anything about nitrogen dioxide emissions.

An example of selective citing by Lomborg from his own book is as follows. Jespersen (2002, p. 9) criticizes Lomborg for using average caloric intake as an indicator of the real state of the world, because there are many instances of starvation and undernourishment in countries that seemingly (based on observing the national average) could feed their entire population. Lomborg responds to this by noting that Jespersen's critique seems to suggest that just stating the average caloric intake neglects all the people who are starving. Then he says he also discusses this and gives a quote from his book: “The caloric figure is nonetheless, an average. It is not unthinkable that the figure conceals the fact that some people live better lives while increasing numbers of others just manage or even starve”. (Lomborg 2002e, p. 4–5). He thus gives the impression that Jespersen's did not read him well. However, the previous citation is immediately followed by the sentence: “But here, as elsewhere, things are improving”. (Lomborg 2001, p. 61). With “here” Lomborg is referring to the increasing trend of average caloric intake. In other words, on the basis of the average caloric intake he draws the unconditional conclusion that things are improving.

The following is an example of Lomborg answering a misrepresentation of a criticism. Holdren criticizes Lomborg in Scientific American for spending most of his energy chapter attacking a view that is very rare among environmentalists. Holdren (2002a, p. 69) claims: “What environmentalists mainly say on this topic is not that we are running out of energy but that we are running out of environment – that is, running out of the capacity of air, water, soil and biota to absorb, without intolerable consequences for human well-being, the impacts of energy extraction, transport, transformation, and use. They also argue that we are running out of the ability to manage other risks of energy supply, such as the political and economic dangers of over-dependence on Middle East oil and the risk that nuclear energy systems will leak weapons materials and expertise into the hands of proliferation-prone nations or terrorists”. Lomborg's (2002d, p. 61) response to this is: “This is exactly the kind of exposition which I try to counter in my book – without any references Holdren manages to describe everything as going ever worse and even include into the environmental agenda concepts that are far removed from its core, such as nuclear proliferation, terrorism and economic recession from oil price hikes”. Of course, it is clear that Holdren does not say “everything is going ever worse”. He merely gives an interpretation of the various concerns of environmentalists in relation to energy use. However, Lomborg simply waves these concerns away as being non-environmental in nature. Thus he is able to avoid answering the real criticism, namely that he is knocking down a straw man. Moreover, despite what Lomborg says Holdren actually mentions four references in the subsequent paragraph to substantiate his criticism.

Another example of Lomborg's misinterpretation of a criticism can be found in his correspondence with Burke in Prospect Magazine. In it, Burke calls the Litany a caricature of Lomborg's own creation, and he criticizes Lomborg for not recognizing that the public is much more influenced by real events that have happened than by a few environmentalists who play on people's fears. He writes: “There is indeed an environmental Litany. It is a litany of tragedy. It reads: DDT, Bhopal, Torrey Canyon, Sveso, Exxon Valdez, Flixborough, CFCs, Chernobyl, BSE … These are not words that people have written, but events that have happened. These events, and many more, were brought to the public's attention by the carelessness or ignorance of businesses and governments, not by environmentalists. In my 30 years as an environmentalist, nothing I or my colleagues have ever said or written has had as much influence on the public as these events”. (Burke in Burke and Lomborg 2001, p. 1). Lomborg reacts to this by saying: “Curiously, you then go on to confirm my claim of a Litany – you say that there is a litany of environmental tragedy and list examples such as DDT, oil spills from Torrey Canyon and Exxon Valdez, and CFCs damaging the ozone layer. Because these are actual events, they somehow show that the environmental decline is real and not just the creation of environmentalists. But singular events cannot reliably be used to describe general trends”. (Lomborg in Burke and Lomborg 2001, p. 3). This is a very surprising, peculiar reasoning, which makes clear that Lomborg avoids replying to Burke's point by misinterpreting him.

4.3 Counter-criticising reviewers

The following examples illustrate Lomborg's use of a strategy to criticize an opponent and thus avoid having to respond to the contents of the criticism.

Bongaarts mentions in Scientific American that past population growth has led to high population densities in many countries. He criticizes Lomborg for dismissing concerns about this issue based on a simplistic and misleading calculation of density as the ratio of people to all land. According to him, a more useful and accurate indicator of density would be based on the land that remains after excluding areas unsuited for human habitation or agriculture. To clarify this, Bongaarts (January 2002, p. 72) calculates the density of Egypt in both ways. This country has a population density of 68 persons per square kilometre according to Lomborg's simple calculation but an astonishing 2000 persons per square kilometre if the unirrigated Egyptian deserts are excluded. He concludes that, measured properly, population densities have reached extremely high levels, particularly in large countries in Asia and the Middle East. Lomborg reacts as follows: “It is curious that Bongaarts, trying to show how wrong I am, is forced to use a hypothetical argument (of Egypt) and does not even find it necessary to point out that I never make this argument. The real challenge is in the text shown above, where I point out that some of the most densely populated areas of the world are in Europe. Is Bongaarts obvious point at all relevant to my examples of, for example, the Netherlands being far more densely populated than India? We are never told”. (Lomborg 2002d, p. 22). However, Bongaarts never gave the impression that Lomborg presents an argument about Egypt. He clearly points out that he gives an example to clarify that his measure of density is more useful than that of Lomborg. Secondly, Bongaarts point is very relevant to Lomborg's examples; for instance, the population density in the Netherlands in terms of the number of people per square kilometre of potentially arable land (385) is actually lower than that of India (437) (Rennie 2002, p. 7). By counter-criticizing Bongaarts, Lomborg is able to avoid having to respond to the criticism, and in particular to say what the best measure of density is and why.

Another example can be found in Lomborg's response to Holdren's review in Scientific American. Holdren (2002a) criticizes Lomborg for not giving a clear explanation in his energy chapter of the distinction between “proved reserves” and “remaining ultimately recoverable resources”. Lomborg (2002d, p. 16) reacts by counter-criticizing Holdren: “Holdren spends half this paragraph complaining that I do not explain all distinctions, while above arguing that I make an obvious point (so that I presumably should not spend vast amounts of space explaining everything). Even on a kind reading, this critique seems excessively compulsive”. The “obvious” point Lomborg is talking about refers to the former paragraph in Holdren's rebuttal in which Holdren (2002b) says: “Lomborg gets right the basic point that the dominance of oil in the world energy market will end not because no oil is left in the ground, but because other energy sources have become more attractive relative to oil”. However, immediately after saying this, Holdren criticizes Lomborg for not recognizing that the transition from oil to other sources will not necessarily be smooth or occur at prices as low as those enjoyed by oil consumers today. Furthermore, Holdren argues that Lomborg does not show a good understanding of the complete problem. Again, Lomborg avoids responding to the main criticism of the reviewer.

4.4 The use of an authoritative source as an excuse to not respond to a criticism

At several occasions Lomborg counters criticism by suggesting that his use of an authoritative source means he is not responsible for his own statement. This then serves as an excuse to not respond to the criticism. This is illustrated by the following examples.

Lomborg claims in his book that there is no case of forest decline in which acidic deposition is known to be a predominant cause. Lovejoy (2002, p. 74–75) criticizes him for this statement in Scientific American and says this is simply untrue. According to him two clear-cut examples are red spruce in the Adirondacks and sugar maple in Pennsylvania. Lomborg (2002d, p. 28) reacts to this by saying: “Lovejoy neglects to mention that the quote is not mine but the conclusion of NAPAP, the official American acid rain project, which is the world's biggest, longest and most expensive study of acid rain; it spanned most of a decade, involved about 700 scientists, and cost half a million dollars. It would seem that a little more than “simply untrue” would be needed for Lovejoy to counter this conclusion”. The NAPAP paper which Lomborg cites dates back from 1990. It was even considered controversial at the time of its release and its conclusions were hotly debated. The NAPAP's Biennial Report to Congress from 1998, updating the earlier work, arrives at quite another conclusion: “Sulfur and nitrogen deposition have caused adverse impacts on certain highly sensitive forest ecosystems in the United States”. Rennie (2002, p. 10). Clearly, Lomborg used an outdated source.

Another example can be found in his response to the review in Nature written by Harvey and Pimm (2001). In trying to prove that the projection of extinction rates can not be based on the species-area curve, Lomborg (2001, p. 254) discusses deforestation rates and the extinction of forest birds in North America in his book. He states that the eastern forests were reduced over two centuries to fragments equal to just 1–2% of their original area, but that only one forest bird became extinct. Harvey and Pimm claim in their review in Nature that this is incorrect. According to them, the correct percentage is close to 50%, and the number of extinctions four, plus two species seriously wounded. They state that these statistics confirm the predictions made from the species-area curve models (Harvey and Pimm 2001, p. 150). Lomborg reacts by saying that the statistics on forest and bird loss come from the biologist Daniel Simberloff, who advised the World Conservation Union (IUCN). He consequently states: “If he is wrong, Pimm and Harvey should criticize him”. (Lomborg 2001b, p. 5). Again, Lomborg peculiarly suggests that he is not responsible for his own statement.

In both cases, an honest response would have been to admit the mistakes and try to learn from the additional information offered by the reviewers.

4.5 Content of responses to criticisms

In many cases where Lomborg offers a substantial response to a commentary by a reviewer, the substance of his answer can be criticized.

Tom Burke in Prospect Magazine criticizes Lomborg for misrepresenting Lester Brown's views about the food problem. Lomborg claims that Brown keeps on telling us that food production is going down the tubes (Burke in Burke and Lomborg 2001, p. 1–2). Burke, however, says the only thing Brown wrote (in a passage from 1965, quoted by Lomborg) is that the food problem emerging in the less developing regions may be one of the most nearly insoluble problems facing man over the next few decades. Lomborg (in Burke and Lomborg 2001, p. 3) responds by stating that “insoluble” is a vague term, and that, since Brown said this, more than two billion extra people have been fed properly, the proportion of hungry people has declined from more than 35–17%, and even the absolute number of hungry people has declined from about 1 billion to 760 million. He also notes that the UN expects the proportion of hungry people to decline even further to 6% in 2030, down to some 400 million. He concludes that Brown's previous claims of pessimism have been entirely wrong. However, Lomborg merely provides information which allows one to conclude that the food problem is currently unsolved and is likely to be unsolved in 2030, 65 years after Brown's statement.

Holdren in Scientific American criticizes Lomborg for not recognizing that the transition from oil to other sources will not necessarily be smooth or occur at prices as low as those enjoyed by oil consumers today. Lomborg (2002d, p. 16) simply answers that it is true that this could happen, but that it is very unlikely because we have had this kind of fear of running out of oil many times and each time it has proven incorrect. Moreover, he claims we have good reasons to believe that the many different energy sources can give us sufficient energy also for future use at competitive prices. Lomborg's argument in not well substantiated for two reasons. First, the fact that our fears of running out of oil have proven incorrect in the past can not be projected unconditionally into the future. Secondly, “we have good reasons to believe” is not a substantive argument, as the reasons are not spelled out.

In another instance, Lovejoy criticizes Lomborg for selective quoting. Lomborg writes in his book (2001a, p. 254): “Colinvaux admits in Scientific American 17 that the (extinction) rate is “incalculable”. However, what Colinvaux really says, is: “As human beings lay waste to massive tracts of vegetation, an incalculable and unprecedented number of species are rapidly becoming extinct”. Lovejoy (2002, p. 75). Lovejoy rightly notes that it is evident that Colinvaux simply means that the number is “vast”. Yet, Lomborg is unwilling to even admit such an evident mistake: “Of course Lovejoy would like me to quote that Colinvaux really does believe that the number is large, but this is a personal and unsubstantiated point. If someone says “Nixon resigned in 1974 and that was a great loss to the nation”, Lovejoy's requirement that I can only quote the scientific statement when also quoting the personal conviction is equivalent to requiring me not only to quote that Nixon resigned in 1974 but also that it was a great loss to the US”. The word “incalculable”, however, is not a personal conviction but clearly has a unique meaning in this context, which is “large”.

As a final example, Lovejoy criticizes Lomborg for superficial research and selective use of numbers in his forest chapter. He claims the data of the FAO suffers from so many different definitions and methods that any statistician should know they can not be used to create a valid time series (Lovejoy 2002, p. 75). Lomborg (2002d, p. 29) reacts to this by stating that Lovejoy neglects to say that it is the only long-run data series, and that he actually points out that these data are very uncertain in his book on page 111. However, in his book Lomborg (2001a, p. 111) only talks about the uncertainty of the somewhat shorter data series of the FAO and the need to focus on the longest possible time periods because of these short-term uncertainties. This gives the impression that the long-run data series is certain or more certain. In note 770 of his book, Lomborg briefly mentions that the measurement of global forest area is notoriously inaccurate, but on page 111 of his book and in the rest of his forest chapter nothing is said about the long-run data series being uncertain, and the impression is given that the long-run data can be used to create a valid time series. At the end of the chapter, Lomborg (2001a, p. 117) also feels able to draw the general conclusion that since World War II the forested area has not changed much, without making any reservations in view of unreliability of the data.

4.6 Closing remarks

Although Lomborg never admits any important criticism of his reviewers, it is unlikely that he is unaware of the many mistakes in his book. This can be concluded from the way he replies to his critics as illustrated in sections 4.2 –4.5. In the few cases where he selectively responds to a criticism, he often avoids going to the core of it, or in many cases the quality (substantial content) of his responses is very low. This not only suggests Lomborg's awareness of some mistakes, but also it explains why Lomborg's responses have not led to much understanding between him and his critics about the validity of certain points. Furthermore, it simply cannot be true, as Lomborg tries to suggest, that so many recognized experts have been structurally mistaken in expressing (many similar) criticisms on Lomborg's book.

Before Lomborg wrote his rebuttal to Scientific American, he sent out a broadcast email to ask people for help, with the text (Rennie 2002, p. 7):

This can be regarded as reflecting Lomborg's main interest in – at any cost – winning a debate rather than advancing knowledge and honestly searching for the truth. Moreover, one can see it also as showing a lack of confidence by Lomborg in the correctness of what he wrote in his book. If Lomborg was sure that his (important) statements and conclusions were valid and well-checked, he should not have had to ask other people for help in countering arguments.

To conclude this section, one can best cite the editor-in-chief of Scientific American (Rennie 2002, p. 1): “… many of his counter-arguments … display the same patterns of misdirection, bias and selective citation that our authors found in his book”.