Directed by Ondi Timoner. With Bjørn Lomborg, Hashem Akbari, Joe Barton, Ed Begley Jr.. A documentary that takes an alternative approach to dealing with the. [email protected] Recommended Citation. Bortscheller, Mary J. “Cool It : The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming by Bjørn Lomborg. Bjørn Lomborg is the best-informed & most humane advocate for environmental change in the world today. In contrast to other figures that promote a single issue .
|Published (Last):||13 June 2014|
|PDF File Size:||18.80 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||4.21 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Want to Read saving…. Want to Read Currently Reading Read. Refresh and try again. Open Preview See a Problem? Thanks for telling us about the problem.
Return to Book Page. His 1st book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, established the importance of a fact-based approach. Not surprisingly, Time named him one of the most influential people in the world. For anyone who wants an overview of the global warming debate from an objective source, this brief text is a good place to start. He’s only interested in real problems.
He’s no patience with media fear-mongering. He begins by dispatching the myth of endangered polar bears, showing that this Disneyesque cartoon has no relevance to the real world where polar bear populations are in fact increasing.
He considers the issue in detail, citing sources from Al Gore to the World Wildlife Fund, then demonstrating that polar bear populations have actually increased fivefold since the ’60s.
He then works his way thru the concerns we hear so much about: He believes in climate change–despite his critics, he’s no denier–but his fact-based approach, grounded in economic analyses, leads him to a different view. That is a bad deal.
He himself takes the larger view, detailing why the tone of hysteria is inappropriate to addressing the problems. In the end, his concerns embrace the planet.
In ,omborg end, his ability to put climate in a global perspective is perhaps the book’s greatest value. Hardcoverpages. Published September 11th by Alfred A. Knopf NY first published January 1st To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. To ask other readers questions about Cool Itplease sign up. Lists with This Book. Mar 15, Manny rated it did not like it Shelves: Many llmborg have pointed out that the right to free speech doesn’t mean that you are allowed to shout “Fire!
I suppose that what Lomborg is doing isn’t quite as bad; the theater is on fire, and he’s shouting “Sit down, there’s nothing to worry about! As everyone who’s worked with science knows, if you cherry-pick your facts to favor only the most extreme interpretations, you can suppo Many people have pointed out that the right to free speech doesn’t mean that lomobrg are allowed to shout “Fire!
As everyone who’s worked with science knows, if you cherry-pick your facts to favor only the most extreme interpretations, you can support almost any position, and make it sound superficially plausible. That’s what Lomborg has done here with the skeptical position on global warming.
Unfortunately, it’s not easy to refute him out of hand, unless you are yourself an expert; I had a long argument with a friend a couple of years bjprn, and spent several hours searching the web.
The problem is that we don’t yet know for sure what’s going on, the models are all very complicated, and even the experts disagree. Lomborg is exploiting that disagreement, and making it sound like they think there is room for doubt; it’s rather like the way that Intelligent Design people look at disagreements between evolutionary biologists, and then tell you that evolution’s just a theory.
They disagree over many details; they don’t disagree about the basic fact of evolution. The bottom line for me, is simple. Why ever should Lomborg, who has had no formal training in this subject, be able to get it right, when the very responsible IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are supposed to have got it wrong?
Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming by Bjørn Lomborg
They have hundreds of people working for them, they take all the competing viewpoints into consideration, and they are careful to give only the most conservative projections, the ones that everyone is prepared to sign up to. You have to postulate some kind of conspiracy among most of the world’s scientists, which is frankly absurd.
They don’t have sufficient motivation, and science doesn’t jt that way. View all 36 comments. Dec 18, Anthony A rated ig it was amazing. Lomborg looks at global warming and the proposed solutions with the unflinching eye of an economist, and discovers that ot of the hype and hysteria is unjustifiable, and that most of the political solutions offered will make things worse for future generations.
Lomborg is not a “climate change denier” – he fully accepts the IPCC consensus that global warming exists and is significantly caused by human activity. But that’s where he parts company from most people who discuss global warming in pu Lomborg looks at global warming and the proposed solutions with the unflinching eye of an economist, and discovers that most of the hype and hysteria is unjustifiable, and that most of the political solutions offered will make things worse for future generations.
But that’s where he parts company from most people who discuss global warming in public. Early in the book, he shows that warming is not always bad – warming in big cities has noticeably reduced death rates, for example, and polar bear populations are increasing in those areas of the Arctic which are warming.
He then recounts what the actual consensus science of the impacts of warming, which excludes most of the apocalyptic visions peddled by the fearmongers. After establishing the actual effects of global warming, he starts to examine the costs and benefits of lombborg solutions, and finds most of them, particularly Kyoto, wanting. This is probably the most lombrog book written regarding the political bbjorn over coping with global warming Dec 30, Scot rated it did not like it.
A conservative friend gave me this book for Christmas, saying it stimulated her book club to have a thoughtful discussion bjjorn the global warming debate. Not wanting to condemn cokl without reading Lomborg’s position first, I made a valiant effort cooo read this all the way through, but grew increasingly disturbed at the way he reduces, simplifies, and misrepresents the arguments of col committed environmentalists, as he offers a rather smug economist’s reaction to the fact that global warming is A conservative friend gave me this book for Christmas, saying it stimulated her book club to have a thoughtful discussion about the global warming debate.
Not wanting to condemn it without reading Lomborg’s position first, I made a valiant effort to read this all the way through, but grew increasingly disturbed at the if he reduces, simplifies, and misrepresents the arguments of many committed environmentalists, as he offers a rather smug economist’s reaction to the fact that llomborg warming is occurring–“alright already, so what if it is?
Stop worrying about climate change, all your attempts to save the environment, whether individual or collective, are counterproductive, so why not just cool it, he asks. Arguments presented here are faulty, evidence is highly selective, the opposing side is oversimplified to an extreme and then belittled, and there is no awareness that major lifestyle and behavior changes must occur in a wasteful, self-indulgent consumer society like the United States.
I don’t trust his “liberal” economic theories at all.
Instead of wasting energy on this book, better to use the time to check out a book that documents its facts about how the influence of such economists can be very harmful to societies: I’m quite willing to consider alternatives but the US has got to willingly accept that it is consuming too much too fast, and with the rest of the world wanting to emulate us, we’re going to clean out that larder SOON.
This book is a bad guide to solving social problems, and he seems to leave the concept of or impact on interelated ecosystems out entirely when theorizing how benefits of global warming might accrue. He suggests environmentalists do not support fighting AIDS, hunger, or world poverty. He is, in a word, wrong, and my deepest concern is his argument will be used by Bushniks to keep avoiding dealing with the imperative need to start changing our consumption behaviors and lifestyles.
That is a bad thing and a sad thing. Jan 20, Larry rated it really liked it. Lomborg takes the science and applies statistical and economic methodology to it. Bottom line, the scare stories miss the point. Quite often they forget to give the other fact or more embaressing to look at the denominator. For example, about 5 times as many people die from cold than from heat related disease, etc. So warming saves lives.
Rain increases so some areas do better others worse, but on the whole the world may do better. The amount of starvation may go up, but fa Interesting book.
The amount of starvation may go up, but far less than population grows. The population exposed to Malaria may increase but the science assumes no wealth effect which ameliorates the effects. Even if stronger hurricanes happen, much of the added destruction is due to population shifts.
Lomborg suggests that much of the money politicians propose to spend on preventing global warming could be better spent on food, clean water, disease prevention, etc.
Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming
Apr 16, Lomblrg rated it did not like it. I have a fascination with reading what is popular in non-fiction no matter how idiotic the book appears. I have at times been surprised and my intuitions about a book proved completely wrong.
That was not the case with this book.
Lomborg, has nothing new to say, he has no specialization in education or experience that is in anyway relevant to the topic he has chose to discuss, and he has no sense of proper scholarship. One would have thought that the fire storm that broke over his last book would I have a fascination with reading what is popular in non-fiction no matter how idiotic the book appears. One would have thought that the fire storm that broke over his last book would be enough to get him out of the spotlight, but alas, still a best-seller.
As with the last book, where several of the scientists whose data he used said he had grossly misrepresented it, this book is full of false uses of data. I am actually realizing as I write this that there is one born that this book could be put to that it is better suited than any others, it could be studied by students of the sciences and social sciences in order to show them how statistics and data can be manipulated to make arguments that are obviously false.
As a last point, I have ciol idea why best selling literature always leans towards the unspecialist, people read journalist Friedman on economics, instead of Nobel Prize winners Joseph Steigltz or Amartya Sen; and now they read Lomborg, who has not one single article published in a per reviewed journal on climate change. In closing I agree completely with the Publishers Weekly Review above: Dec 10, Brian rated it it was amazing.
Feb 15, Michelle rated it it was amazing Shelves: On my “most important reads of ” informal list at the moment. This little book is a tour de force of sound reasoning.
I’m so glad I found it, as I had been prone to stomping up and down my house muttering “Moby Dick, Moby” Oh, no, wrong life. Muttering “Cost-benefit analysiswhy isn’t anyone doing global warming cost-benefit analysis? Have we all collectively lost our minds? He has planned a more extended version with more data bjlrn I will try to locate, but this book is a GREAT start and a good thing to have in hand when our eyes and ears lombrog assaulted by the deliberate hyperbole and planned paranoia of the global warming crowd.
Cool it | Bjorn Lomborg
Dec 01, Michael rated it it was amazing. Excellent book about climate change, and the choices we face over the next century. Professor Lomborg is not a ‘climate change denier’ a disparaging term coined by assholes whose lomobrg vanity is matched only by their self-righteousness.
For example of usage, see: