Adding to the voices of specialists pointing out flaws within Lomborg’s newest work, COOL It, Tim Flannery had a review in The Washington Post’s 9 Sept 2007 Sunday book section. And, well, if anyone buys the book after reading the review you can’t think that they really read the review … can you?
Flannery begins with the complementing …
Bjorn Lomborg is a Danish statistician and darling of those who believe that markets should not be regulated and that concerns about the environment are overblown. He is articulate, certain in his opinions and well informed on the statistical minutiae of the topics he investigates. Indeed, so compelling and entertaining are the grains of truth that adorn his latest book, Cool It, that you are certain to hear them soon in dinner table conversation.
Sadly, as noted here, Lomborg distorts in his minutia that he so commands.
But, a few phrases to show Flannery’s review’s core:
- Glib, misleading associations mark Lomborg’s style.
- Lomborg’s flawed grasp of climate science …
- The deepest flaw in Cool It is its failure to take into account the full range of future climate possibilities. The computer models project outcomes ranging from mild, which he acknowledges, to truly catastrophic, which he ignores.
Even so, one might feel that Flannery left Lomborg off easily. What was, to me, Flannery’s greatest contribution to the parsing of Lomborg’s misleading work? His calling Lomborg on a core disconnect …
What, ultimately, is Cool It all about? On the surface, it’s a cry from a compassionate conservative not to waste money on combating climate change when that money could be better spent helping the poor. But why climate change rather than military spending? By empathizing with those who are concerned about climate change and poverty, and trying to persuade them to divert their energies, Cool It is a stealth attack on humanity’s future. ?