He has the right idea in that we need to be looking at climate change in terms of costs and benefits. Not in terms of the hysterics that we are force fed daily.

Are all his facts and numbers correct? I don't know. I've seen some webpages that have gone through point-by-point and refuted Lomborgs claims. Lomberg supposedly has rebuttals (though they're in Danish).

Regardless I like and buy the gist of Lomborg's argument: there are things we can do in the short run to mitigate the adverse effects of global warming. These measures are vastly cheaper than Kyoto and high carbon taxes (for one, let's not subsidize people to live in hurricane prone areas...duh). Expensive carbon taxing can make us much worse off than global warming. Killing our economies is not the answer. In the long run, Lomborg proposes that sufficient R&D could give us solutions to our energy needs. Thus we should fund R&D on a massive scale.

The author takes anthropogenic global warming to be a given. Whether he actually believes that to be the case or is just making the claim for the sake of argument, I'm not sure. However, this is not a book about whether anthropogenic GW is true or not - it's about the costs and benefits of stopping GW.

This book is 'footnoted' but not in a convenient or transparent way. And I think this is awful. You have no idea where footnotes are unless you peer into the Notes section in the back. I have no idea why this is done.

In COOL IT, Professor Lomborg approaches the global warming controversy by admitting that global warming is real, may in fact be caused in part by recent human activity, but no, global warming is not the End Of Days as predicted by Al Gore. Lomborg takes the hydra-headed Green Peace monolith of global warming and analyzes it in ways that have caused some environmentalists to tag him and others of his ilk as climate deniers, the operative word "deniers" meant to resonate with those who seek to assail true Holocaust deniers. Lomborg suggests that recent attempts to reduce the amount of CO2 in the air as exemplified by the failure of the ratification of the 1997 Kyoto Protocols cannot work as hyped because the cost is too high and the benefit is too low. When I first began to read about Kyoto years ago, I believed the hype that we today are too selfish to reduce our standard of living so that our children and grandchildren can live on a planet with moderate, life-sustaining climate. It was only recently that I learned the United States had good reason to refuse to ratify Kyoto. Lomborg succintly summarizes these reasons as follows: (1) The cost to implement Kyoto would be so staggeringly high that no nation would willingly agree to subsidize the attempt. (2) The benefit would be so miniscule that given the cost of the buck, the "bang" is unacceptable. (3) Lomborg urges society to consider the novel idea that global warming might actually be good for many societies that would benefit from higher temperatures. and (4) there are more efficient ways to alleviate human suffering other than by tossing trillions of dollars down the financial black hole of a global warming that has been appropriated for political agendas by the left. Lomborg's conclusion that we need to focus on R & D as the key is a compelling one. I have a criticism that Lomborg might seek to address in future editions. His entire analysis is relentlessly optimistic only because he considers recent human history vis a vis global warming. What of global warming's very long history of plaguing life on earth over the last few hundred million years? In UNDER A GREEN SKY, Peter Ward considers how global warming has been the catalyst for several mass extinctions, the most severe of which concluded the Permian Period some 230 million years ago. Ward notes that the very oceans turned toxic, pumping noxious fumes into the air until the skies above became tinged with green. If Professor Lomborg were to consider the unhappy lot of the Permian reptiles, his thesis of optimism concerning global warming might then be more palatable. Still, COOL IT is required reading, if for no other reason than to counter the annoying Al Gore and his phony Pultizer.

This book seemed reasonable until I started investigating what climate scientists think. For a more informed opinion, see Hell and High Water: Global Warming--the Solution and the Politics--and What We Should Do. Also, read Joseph Romm at ClimateProgress web site and for some real meat go to RealClimate web site. You can look up the actual web site addresses in Google.

The author believes in Man-caused Global Warming. However, rather than reflectively go along with the majority of that group, he demonstrates that their course of action will do little to stem the warming.

He concludes that the better approach is to use the same (or less) amount of money to help people in the developing world. The overall increase in human welfare will then allow the people to adapt to the warmer world.

This book is very well thought out and documented. I totally enjoyed it...especially the fact that global warming will actually result in a net saving of lives rather than loss.

Also, I enjoyed the practical economic solutions such as not encouraging building near the seashore. Time to stop state and federal government flood (& wind) subsidies for expensive beach homes.

I enjoyed this book so much I have ordered a number of copies to give friends and family. This guy truly cares about our world. Thankfully he is smart enough to take an honest, measured and very insightful look at the bigger picture of how we can help, rather than relying on misguided rhetoric. He is brave enough to tell the truth that our energies and money should be poured into initiatives that will have a positive effect that almost completely dwarfs the miniscule effect that CO2 focused policies can hope to achieve. I find his writing style eloquent, convincing and easy to read. He layers his arguments in a way that make a great deal of sense. I highly recommend this book.

"Cool It" by Bjorn Lomborg

After reading this book, I am persuaded that global warming "is not an immediate planetary emergency that will bring down civilization" (p. 148).

Lomborg is not a climatic alarmist, but neither is he a "climate change denier". He accepts the findings of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that humanity has caused a substantial rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, thereby contributing to global warming. But he rejects some extremist political motivations drawn from the IPCC reports.

Using a benefit/cost approach, Lomborg argues convincingly that limiting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as agreed by the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, is a poor bargain, whose global costs of $180 billion annually (0.5% of global GDP) would far exceed its net benefits. That is the main reason why the USA and Australia didn't ratify the treaty, and most signatories are quite unlikely to meet their Kyoto targets.

If one thinks of GHGs as pollutants, it would be reasonable to impelement a modest "carbon tax" of $2 per ton, but anything more would risk adverse economic effects. The quest for a cheap way to reduce GHGs could be and should be pursued by research and development.

However cutting GHG emissions is not the only way to modify the climate. One other idea, of several, is to increase the reflectivity of low-lying clouds by creating more salt droplets from the ocean. It is estimated that this could stabilize temperatures for two percent of the cost of Kyoto. See the "Spiked" online article "Every silver lining has a cloud" for more about this and other alternatives.

If nothing were done to reduce global warming, many of its undesirable effects could be mitigated individually for a far lower cost than Kyoto. And one should remember that global warming also has many beneficial effects.

Lomborg organized the "Copenhagen Consensus", a group of economists who prioritized a number of global initiatives based on their benefit/cost ratios. On a global basis, the best bargains included control of HIV/AIDS, micronutrients to reduce malnutrition, trade liberalization, control of malaria, new agricultural methods and various improvements to water supply and sanitation. Climate control itself was given the lowest priority.

I highly recommend that all serious politicians and concerned citizens read this book.

People argue about the wrong points including Lomborg. Global warming, increases in diseases, starvation / malnutrition, energy crisis, war, ... all are rooted in overpopulation. The ecosystem of the earth is heavily stressed and solving the polutions problems along with all others is too expensive (this is where Lomborg is luke warm). Solving overpopulation is cheap! Education is easy and requires no new technological advances! As demonstrated by France and Germany when they helped Iran get their population problem back under control a few years back, and, as is evidenced by the recent gains by Thailand to move towards achieving the same. The problem with solving the population issue is that Western financial structures count on cheap labor from the third world ... which is driven by overpopulation. Greed has made us blind! The Pope continues to state that large families are good! Wrong! He is reciting doctrine from 500 years ago without any knowledge of real world issues!

The author, Danish scientist, Bjorn Lomborg throws some rational thought on the hype surrounding global warming. He points out that global warming is a real problem but he argues that the costs proposed to confront it greatly exceed the benefits postulated by programs such as Kyoto I or II. The book is interesting, informative, lively, often amusing and, happily, short. He covers so many interesting worries, including the disappearing polar bears, the rise in the oceans, the increase in global temperatures, the melting ice and argues that the potential disasters invoked are not likely to be as great as we fear. He argues that we can improve life for most people to a much greater extent at less cost by dealing with starvation, impure water, disease, and poverty using solutions that are already available to us. Even though he doesn't dispute global warming, his point of view has been viciously attacked by supporters of what has become the new mantra. If you saw V. P. Gore's Film, you should read this book and breathe a little easier still doing your best to reduce CO2's. Just don't panic. The polar bear is not going to disappear.

although his attempt to base his story in the "real world" would meet more success if he didn't pull his commentary from random web sources and company press clippings. he should do a little more research into the background of his characters too, the sorcerer's apprentice has more real science cred than this hack.

This book is beautifully written, and can easily be read in a few hours.
The general idea the author presents is that while "Global Warming" is
real and problematic, there has been too much apocalyptic material written
spoken and propagated in the media. He is particularly hard on Mr. Gore
whom he feels has (among other things) predicted an unrealistic rise in sea levels. He is also hard on the Kyoto Treaty.
Mr. Lomborg is an economist, not a physical scientist. Many of his arguments
concern costs and benefits. He tends to produce "facts" and "figures" in a somewhat oracular manner - one supposes that the references he provides
substantiate these assertions. This is the price paid for a terse readable presentation.
I tend to agree with the idea that heroic measures to control carbon dioxide emissions are politically difficult if not impossible.
The author prefers to spend the money on other human needs where the benefits seem more in line with the expenditures : clean water, fighting diseases etc.
I found particularly interesting his idea that the benefits of global warming( fewer deaths from cold for example) might offset some of the bad effects. Here the oracular statistics were prominent- how could he state so surely the number of lives saved from hypothermia ?
I will continue to read Lomborg's work which is always interesting.

This is just a quick "meta-" review; a review of the reviews.

The Editorial review section leads off with the Reed Elsevier review, trashing Lomborg, followed by Tim Flannery "...an Australian mammalogist, palaeontologist and *global warming activist*," [Wikipedia] again, trashing Lomborg. The Reed Elsevier folks, who apparently handle all the Publishers Weekly reviews, are notable for their Environmentalist bias, as well as a consistently Left bias in every other area in which I've sampled their reviews. If the "Editorial Reviews" section of Amazon.com is supposed to be in any way more authoritative or balanced than the reader reviews section, Amazon may want to look for a more objective source. In fact, many of the user reviews below appear to be better-researched and more objective than the professional lead pieces.

I have my issues with Lomborg opposite theirs. He has become a weak-middle advocate for sanity in the "Global Warming" debates, because he considers GW to be essentially settled science, minus the hysteria -- "let's just deal with it (GW) rationally." I don't agree with the concession, to disclose my bias, but let's grant his stance for sake of discussion.

The "models" and "studies" Reed Elsevier trots out (without name, content, or reference) that he supposedly "ignores" could be counter-posed to corrections to midleading temperature "corrections" where the NASA data shows no consistent upward trend, solar minima, and other issues that the GW advocates have marginalized or ignored outright.

The "Washington Post" review is not a "Washington Post Review," it's a slanted attack by an envirnomental activist with an agenda. Since it's not identified that way, it's dishonest.

Evidently, it's enough to disparage with a journalistic sneer to qualify as a qualified reviewer,now, so I respond in kind to the Reed people. Publishers Weekly -- get yourself reviewers that will review the book, not smear it and distort facts in order to push their own agenda.

And, again, Amazon's informed, intelligent user community demonstrates why the mainstream media are losing eyeballs, while the blogosphere grows and broadens in influence.

Bjørn Lomborg, an adjunct professor at Copenhagen Business School and author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, has written another well-researched book. As he writes, "Global warming is happening, the consequences are important and mostly negative." He notes that the 2007 International Panel on Climate Change has predicted rises of 1.50C by 2050 and 2.50C by 2100, which will raise sea levels and increase malaria, starvation and poverty.

But, Lomborg argues, it does not follow that directly combating climate change through cutting CO2 will do most to maximise human welfare. Preventing disease, providing clean drinking water and feeding people could do more good more cheaply.

What are the options? We could, for example, spend $3 billion a year on mosquito eradication, medicine and mosquito nets: this would halve malaria incidence (2 billion infections and one million deaths every year) by 2015. We could spend $4 billion a year on helping three billion people to access clean water and sanitation.

Or, by contrast, we could do what the EU tells us and spend $84 trillion to cut CO2 emissions to 20% below 1990 levels, to ensure that the temperature rises by no more than 20C above pre-industrial times. Yet this hugely expensive effort would have only a tiny effect: it would be 2.480C hotter than now by 2100 instead of by 2098. And a 2.5% rise is only what the IPCC predicted would happen anyway! As a 2007 peer-reviewed study in the journal Energy Policy concluded, "the 20C target of the EU seems unfounded."

Lomborg shows that the consequences of global warming will not be as bad as they have been painted. For example, the IPCC predicted that sea-levels would rise by 29 cm by 2100 (the same as the rise since 1860), as against the 20 feet that Al Gore publicises. We could cope with this by better use of floodplains, more wetlands, stricter building policies and fewer floodplain subsidies.

Lomborg shows that global warming does not cause extreme weather events, which are anyway not curable by cutting CO2. The IPCC said of the Hollywood/Pentagon/Al Gore picture of a new ice age triggered by a shutdown of the Gulf Stream, "we can confidently exclude this scenario."

Fossil fuels have grown the industries that produce the goods we need and give us low-cost light, heat, food, travel and trade. As Lomborg writes, "a world without fossil fuels ... is a lot like a world gone medieval." So he argues that we need to spend far more on researching renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Directly cutting CO2 would be hugely expensive. Lomborg argues that we should do what is both cheaper and more effective - cope with the consequences of global warming rather than try to stop it at source. If he is right, we would maximise human welfare not by rolling back our civilisation's industrial advance, but by using our industrial ingenuity and know-how to prevent disease, provide people with food and water, and develop energy resources.

this book is a good review about the problems associated with global warming.It shows where the science either has been ignored or not reported in the press. Too often we are victims of the popular press. They seem to want to change opinions by using sound bites and not giving details. The problem of global warming is that it is here but all the info about the real cause is being ignored.We may find ourselves paying enormous amounts of money chasing a red herring.
A good example of attempting to solve the problem before looking at the consequences is the rush to use food for fuel. We as Americans certainlyneed to conserve but using food to fuel our cars is stupid. Here we have the case of seeking a simple solution to a complex problem.
I recommend this book as another way to look at the problem. The answers are not readily available but we do need to consider all aspects before we take the next steps. As a caution I feel that too much time has been spent listening to politicians and hollywood.

This book ignores a huge body of climate research and makes the case that combatting global warming will cost too much. Lomborg frames every argument in the language of cost-benefit analysis, ignoring the fact that there are many goods and services provided by nature that do not show up on economic spreadsheets. It seems to be his belief that natural ecosystems, human happiness, and endangered species need to be sacrificed for the sake of increasing GDP. It is no wonder he has been widely accused of scientific dishonesty.

As with his The Skeptical Environmentalist (TSE), Lomborg has again bravely stepped forward and pointed out that the Emperor is hardly wearing any clothes.

What is interesting in reading the reviews for Prof. Lomborg's latest offering is that they have been overwhelmingly positive. After reading the book I can see why.

Dr. Lomborg does a brilliant job pointing out simple realities that cumulatively eviscerate most of the Catastrophic AGWers sacred cows. Sacred cows such as the loss of glacial run off, rising sea levels that will flood major cities, Katrina-like hurricanes that will increasingly devastate our coastal cities and towns, malaria that will become epidemic in Vermont, and declining food production. He does this in such an understated way, that one is left shaking one's head at some of the absurdities to which Gore and others have subjected us. He does all this by clearly and succinctly - this is a very short book - pointing out that most of the risks attached to global warming can be mitigated at a fraction of the cost of Kyoto like draconian counter measures. He makes clear that the real numbers are far more manageable than the hyperbolic numbers thrown carelessly around by Gore et al. For example, he points out that it is a relatively cheap solution to build levees and flood barriers and that there are relatively cheap solutions for building water storage to off-set possible loss of glacier-based water storage. Note the word relatively. Bjorn's powerful case is based on the fact that Kyoto-like measures are incredibly expensive and that the opportunity costs, especially for developing countries, are huge.

As I noted, this book is really short especially for the price. I would like to have seen it filled out a bit with tables of data, maps and diagrams. The bibliography is extensive as are the notes, although not quite as informative as in TSE. Perhaps he is still recovering from his TSE magnus opus and its 3000 footnotes.

Regardless, it is a great read - actually it is marvellously well written given that English is not Bjorn's native language. It is also almost a primer on how to assemble a compelling and devastating argument.

As with his The Skeptical Environmentalist (TSE), Lomborg has again bravely stepped forward and pointed out that the Emperor is hardly wearing any clothes.

What is interesting in reading the reviews for Prof. Lomborg's latest offering is that they have been overwhelmingly positive. After reading the book I can see why.

Dr. Lomborg does a brilliant job pointing out simple realities that cumulatively eviscerate most of the Catastrophic AGWers sacred cows. Sacred cows such as the loss of glacial run off, rising sea levels that will flood major cities, Katrina-like hurricanes that will increasingly devastate our coastal cities and towns. He does this in such an understated way, that one is left shaking one's head at some of the absurdities to which Gore and others have subjected us. He does all this by clearly and succinctly - this is a very short book - pointing out that most of the risks attached to global warming can be mitigated at a fraction of the cost of Kyoto like draconian counter measures. He makes clear that the real numbers are far more manageable than the hyperbolic numbers thrown carelessly around by Gore et al. For example, he points out that it is a relatively cheap solution to build levees and flood barriers and that there are relatively cheap solutions for building water storage to off-set possible loss of glacier-based water storage. Note the word relatively. Bjorn's powerful case is based on the fact that Kyoto-like measures are incredibly expensive and that the opportunity costs, especially for developing countries, are huge.

As I noted, this book is really short especially for the price. I would like to have seen it filled out a bit with tables of data, maps and diagrams and more extensive notes. Perhaps he is still recovering from his TSE magnus opus and its 3000 footnotes.

Regardless, it is a great read - actually it is marvellously well written given that English is not Bjorn's native language. It is also almost a primer on how to assemble a compelling and devastating argument.

Every person who doesn't believe that global warming is caused by human activity on planet earth, should read this book. Excellent reading.

Bjorn Lomborg is a voice of reason in an ocean of global warming alarmists and opportunists.

Essentially Lomborg is a statistician who has carefully analyzed the claims of the alarmists, found them lacking and clearly explains where the alarmists have exaggerated or, in many cases, simply lied.

Lomborg believes that there are other global concerns that are of greater importance to humanity than so-called climate change. One of the most dramatic illustrations of the paucity of the Kyoto approach versus more rational, less panicky approaches is shown in a chart on page 162.

Aptly (and informatively) labelled "Feel Good" v. "Do Good", two columns show the projected results of the Kyoto approach versus the more rational Lomborg approach. The differences in the results of the two approaches is truly dramatic.

Lomborg punctures the pomposity and hypocrisy of the global warming alarmists in a pair of particularly apt lines: "Since the climate is constantly changing, there will always be a change that can be blamed on global warming, while it has an immediacy that communicates well with voters. One online editor has compiled a list of more than three hundred problems claimed in the popular pressss to be caused by global warming - from allergies, gender inequality, and maple-syrup shortages to yellow fever." In short, global warmimg panic has become an industry and a quite profitable one at that for those who market such nostrums carbon offsets to energy saving lightbulbs.

Lomborg pierces the nonsense and demonstrates that there are many problems facing humanity that are more serious than global warming. And he lays out a rational program for dealing with those problems as well as global warming.

Jerry

I must admit that prior to reading this book I knew little regarding the entire global warming issue (besides what I read in the newspaper headlines). Now I realize it is very important for one to be well-informed before arriving to any conclusions. Lomborg looks at the issue of global warming in a very objective, unbiased manner, and when reading the book, it becomes evident to the reader that this author did his homework. Bjorn Lomborg examines every angle pertaining to the global warming problem that even die-hard global warming fanatics will have a bit of a problem refuting the evidence.

Global Warming is a fact, right? And Man has caused it, right? For at least a decade, that has been the accepted mantra in the mainstream media - spurred by Al Gore's award-winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth.

Anyone suggesting otherwise is a nutcase, fringe lunatic who probably thinks Al Gore made near-failing grades in both math and science in college.

But something has gone wrong with the proven fact of Anthropogenic ( Man-Made ) Global Warming. The new facts which have been locked in the ancient ice cores of our planet. It appears now that CO2 lags, rather than leads warming or cooling cycles... just the opposite of Al Gore's movie. Egads, the future cannot affect the present... what has gone wrong with the mantra? It seems more glaciers are growing rather than retreating. It appears a volcanic hot spot in Greenland is causing local melting there. Ditto for Antarctica and volcanoes under the Ross Ice Shelf. Sea level has been rising at one millimeter per year. The polar bear photo in Gore's movie turned out to be 2-1/2 years old and taken in the summer, when the ice normally melts and the bears weren't far from shore at any rate. Global Warming has no effect on hurricanes, say the hurricane experts. Warming isn't spreading mosquitoes northward, they're already present at the Arctic circle and have been for millennia.

The house of cards of AGW is beginning to fall. The UN IPCC has been proven to be so corrupt it makes the oil-for-food scandal look like someone stole a kids lunch money.

And the British High Court has ruled that Al Gore's movie can't be shown to school children without a warning that it is propaganda, not a documentary, and they must be made aware of at least 9 totally incorrect "truths" in it ( actually, the number has now expanded to over 25 )

In short, AGW has turned out to be a giant hoax, renounced by many thousands of real climate scientists, including the President of the World Federation of Scientists. And the number is growing in a groundswell that may soon sink Al Gore's company that sells "carbon offsets".

This book is just one of the cards - a relatively benign piece suggesting that we stop wasting our money on trying to find a cure for a nonexistent disease and instead spend it on something we can affect. For a closer look at the whole Global Warming Hoax, try http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

Fair-minded people should be willing to discuss important problems, and their proposed solutions, in a reasonable manner. Lomborg's book points out that there are overstatements about both the alleged crisis of global warming and about the proposed solutions. But the biggest impact of this book isn't on whether the Kyoto accords should or shouldn't be adopted, it is, instead, in promoting cost/benefit analysis in approaching world problems like malaria. Even idealistic people need to focus on how they can best achieve their utopian goals in the real world and put their money where their mouth is. While I wish there had been a bit more on the end game for a world with an ever increasing population, I understand the need to focus on the near term. Never be afraid to read both sides of an argument. Donald J. Bingle, author of GREENSWORD (coming Jan. 2009).

This was an excellent book. Lomborg showed that global warming, while real, has good aspects as well as bad and that wildly curtailing the use of carbon-based fuels would cost the society an enormous amount of money which would best be used for other uses, for instance, finding a vaccine for malaria and supplying nets for people to sleep under until a vaccine is found. These kind of actions are cheap compared to disrupting the whole economy by drastic steps to save on carbon use. This will save far more lives than slowing down global warming, part of which is created by nature recovering from the "little ice age" of several hundred years ago.

Lomborg has as big of an influence as he does in a hostile intellectual environment because of his carefully neutral, meticulously reasoned, and evidence based approach to environmental issues. This book is no exception. The first chapter alone, on polar bear populations, refutes thousands of pages of internet and dead-tree hype on supposed imminent species extinction due to global warming.

Our society would be well-served if more people took Lomborg's empirical approach towards discussing policy issues.

cool it,though having many good,possibly correct points, is not nearly as good or convincing as the sceptical environlist by the same author.it shows that he is a statistician rather than a scientist,even if his conclusions are sound. unfortunately the discussion is now more political than factual. to combat the hysterical conclusions of al gore et al it needs an orator like cicero.

Excellent summary of what is wrong with current human induced global warming hype.

Lomborg is a liberal but he is informed. He understands the cost to western civilization of implementing current Al Gore supported "reforms" to western culture.

As a Vietnam War veteran, the black POW/MIA flag has always disturbed me. Certainly in the early days of its use it was a tool to bash the Vietnamese with; to promote the idea that those listed as MIA were not actually dead, but were in fact still being held as POWs. After the establishment of relations with Vietnam in the mid-90's, it symbolized the effort to find any possible remnant from one of those MIAs, including spending many thousands of dollars in painstaking searches of the countryside. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of very real veterans in the United States were being neglected, some were dying slow deaths from the effects of Agent Orange, that the government denied having an adverse effect on them; others suffered from the effects of PTSD, and roamed the countryside homeless. As the recent scandals at Walter Reed hospital have revealed, the neglect of very real veterans continues during America's latest war.

So what does all this have to do with "Cool It"? First of all, Lomborg's book was very important for me - it changed my mind. I believed in "Global Warming" almost as though it were a large banner. I watched Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" with my critical faculties set aside. I even did a "reality check" with my daughter, a senior at university, who said that "Global Warming is the most important issue we face in the 21st Century." Lomborg's book asks the question: "Is it really"? and provides the negative answers. Lomborg shows how Gore, with a verbal slight of hand managed to greatly exaggerate the projected increase in the sea level. Lomborg never denies that Global Warming IS occurring, and is the result of man's actions. One of his central points though is: What are we going to do about it, at what cost, and what other issues will we neglect in the meantime? He publishes the "Copenhagen Consensus" which was achieved by asking a group of the future leaders of the world what issues, if addressed, would benefit the human race more, and at a significantly lower cost. HIV, Malnutrition, Malaria eradication, headed the list, to which I would certainly add several others, including the current American ideology of endless war. The carbon tax and the Kyoto protocol were at the bottom of the list. The lives of very real people would be improved, the theoretical reduction of the earth's temperature by a half degree in a hundred years is shown to be more like those theoretical concerns expressed by the black POW/MIA flag.

Tellingly he documents how some Global Warming skeptics are lumped in with Holocaust deniers for vitriolic attacks, and even quotes one Australian columnist who wants to make climate change denial a criminal offense since it is a "crime against humanity." Ironically, Lomborg is NOT denying Global Warming, he is simply asking in his mild-mannered Danish way: "Can't we discuss this reasonably, based on facts, which even include some that are inconvenient to Gore's thesis"?

So why not a 5-star rating for a book that has changed my outlook? Because I think Lomborg is guilty of some of the same "sins" that he accuses the Global Warming activists. For example, he mentions the absurdly accurate number of 0.000034 percent, not once, but twice, for the projected land loss in Bangladesh at the end of the 21st Century due to increased sea levels. No reference for the number. Anyone projecting such a number, given the immense unknowns over the next 92 years must be delusional. And the casual numbers he throws around for a carbon tax appear to be in the same vein.

Still, it is an important book, I'd urge you to read it; your own outlook might also be altered.

XXXXX

"The arrangement of this book is simple.

1. Global warming is real and man-made.
2. Statements about the strong, ominous, and immediate consequences of global warming are often wildly exaggerated.
3. We need simpler, smarter, and more efficient solutions for global warming rather than excessive if well-intentioned efforts.
4. Many other issues are much more important than global warming."

The above is found at the end of the first chapter of this intriguing book by the skeptical environmentalist himself, Bjorn Lomborg. Lomborg is, according to this book's inside back flap, "adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School." Through my own research, I discovered, amongst other things, that he has a Ph.D. in Political Science. Note also that he is not a statistician but he did give lectures in statistics.

The above four points are those points that this book revolves around. Each chapter expands each point into a discussion. Unlike Lomborg's first book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" (2001) which is quite long and detailed, this book is very short.

Personally, I was surprised that Lomborg admitted that global warming is real since in his first book he seemed to be in denial that there was any significant environmental problem. On top of that, he admits that global warming is man-made.

The real bug-bear with Lomborg is how global warming is being dealt with. He writes:

"Global warming is happening; the consequences are important and mostly negative. It will cause more heat deaths, an increase in sea level, possibly more intense hurricanes, and more flooding. It will give rise to more malaria, starvation, and poverty. It is therefore not surprising that a vast array of environmental organizations, pundits, and world leaders have concluded that we must act to fix global warming."

He goes on:

"The problem with this analysis is that it overlooks a simple but important fact...From polar bears to water scarcity, as [Lomborg shows] , we can do relatively little with climate policies [which are too expensive according to Lomborg`s cost-benefit analysis] and a lot more with social policies [that is, use the money ear-marked for climate policies to fight social problems such as HIV/AIDS, malnutrition, malaria, and drinking water]."

The first question I asked myself is "How can a book about global warming be so short." It's so short because Lomborg is cherry-picking facts to support his thesis. This kind of cherry-picking creates errors. I will mention only five though there are many:

First, Lomborg tells us that the main problem with present-day global warming is that the Earth is heating up. In fact, this is not the main problem!! The problem is the rate of warming. Also, some people mention that the Earth has warmed in the past. This is true but not at such a fast rate that we're seeing now.

Second, Lomborg implies that we don't know what a planet suffering from global warming looks like and therefore we can and should delay doing anything about it (by investing instead in social problems). Actually, there is a planet suffering from global warming--our sister planet, Venus, the second planet from the Sun. Its atmosphere is over 95% carbon dioxide which causes a massive greenhouse effect, raising its surface temperature so that Venus is actually hotter than Mercury (the closest planet to the Sun)!! Thus, if we heat up the Earth, we will suffer the same fate as Venus, making our planet uninhabitable.

So the question is, "Should we delay alleviating global warming only to suffer the fate of Venus." Lomborg seems to think we should.

Third, from Lomborg's cost-benefit analysis, he implies that the rich will be able to survive better during global warming than the poor. However, in his entire analysis, for some reason, he doesn't mention who caused global warming. Answer: the rich countries. Thus, as developing nations like China get richer and want to enjoy the luxuries of a richer country, their greenhouse emissions will increase. If these emissions are not curtailed, then global warming will increase substantially.

Fourth, Lomborg's entire book is about humans and global warming. (To be fair, he does mention polar bears.) He does not delve into species extinction. The fact is some species of animals and vegetation are very sensitive to increases in temperature. (I guess Lomborg failed to look into this because it doesn't fit into his cost-benefit analysis.)

Lastly, and I was surprised by this, Lomborg does not consider the effects of the internal combustion engine on global warming. He does tell us that "traffic deaths are one of the ten leading causes of death in the world" and costs over $500 billion per year but concludes travel is necessary and reducing it would cause us to have a "medieval" world. The fact is the internal combustion engine in the form of the automobile is one of biggest polluters and it contributes significantly to global warming.

Finally, I want to explain my rating for this book. Those who can see the many flaws in Lomborg's book will probably give it one perhaps two stars. Those who are satisfied with this book and cannot see or don't want to see its flaws will probably give it five perhaps four stars. My final rating is an average of these two extremes.

In conclusion, I do agree with Lomborg when he says that, "global warming is real and man-made." I leave you with the words of the late, great astronomer and planetary scientist Dr. Carl Sagan, inspired by a Voyager 1 spacecraft image of the Earth as seen from 3.7 billion miles away:

"Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand."

(first published 2007; preface; 4 chapters; conclusion; main narrative 165 pages; acknowledgements; notes; references; index)

<>

XXXXX

The title of this review pretty much sums up Bjorn Lomborg's book.

He begins with plight of the polar bears, claiming that hunting will kill more of them than global warming ever will, that their populations are actually increasing despite the ice melting out-from-under their feet.

Lomborg then has the audacity to say that there are many positive benefits to global warming. He sites statistics of more people dying from cold weather than from heat waves. However, he doesn't seem to take in account the testimony of most climate experts. Most of them that I've read say that even just a few degrees increase in global temperature could be devastating, especially for coastal populations.

Lomborg also he thinks that melting glaciers in the Himalayas are a good thing. You see there will be more drinking water in the rivers for the poorer nations. He seems to have not acknowledged that when he glaciers are gone, the source of water for those millions of people go with them.

Lomborg does vaguely acknowledge there might be a problem with the ice melt and rising coastal waters. His answer; just put up a few dikes and those dikes will add to the land mass too. If you believe that this is a viable solution, I have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn.

The author's main problem in dealing with climate change is the supposed economic cost of cutting back on fossil fuels. He believes that the damage caused by the economic impact of the Kyoto protocol will exceed that of global warming itself.

I view the challenges we face from climate change as a opportunity to make the world a better place to live. We should transition from polluting fossil fuels to alternative energy, better transportation and more energy efficient homes. In doing so, we will achieve many great things and help to secure the planet for future generations.

The biggest flaw in "Cool It" is its failure to take into account the full range of possibilities. The computer models project outcomes ranging from mild, which he acknowledges, to truly catastrophic, which he ignores.

While it is nice to see more optimism for the environment and our world, Bjorn Lomborg's guide to global warming is just too flawed to be trusted.

The title of this review pretty much sums up Bjorn Lomborg's book.

He begins with plight of the polar bears, claiming that hunting will kill more of them than global warming ever will, that their populations are actually increasing despite the ice melting out-from-under their feet.

Lomborg then has the audacity to say that there are many positive benefits to global warming. He sites statistics of more people dying from cold weather than from heat waves. However, he doesn't seem to take in account the testimony of most climate experts. Most of them that I've read say that even just a few degrees increase in global temperature could be devastating, especially for coastal populations.

Lomborg also he thinks that melting glaciers in the Himalayas are a good thing. You see there will be more drinking water in the rivers for the poorer nations. He seems to have not acknowledged that when he glaciers are gone, the source of water for those millions of people go with them.

Lomborg does vaguely acknowledge there might be a problem with the ice melt and rising coastal waters. His answer; just put up a few dikes and those dikes will add to the land mass too. If you believe that this is a viable solution, I have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn.

The author's main problem in dealing with climate change is the supposed economic cost of cutting back on fossil fuels. He believes that the damage caused by the economic impact of the Kyoto protocol will exceed that of global warming itself.

I view the challenges we face from climate change as a opportunity to make the world a better place to live. We should transition from polluting fossil fuels to alternative energy, better transportation and more energy efficient homes. In doing so, we will achieve many great things and help to secure the planet for future generations.

The biggest flaw in "Cool It" is its failure to take into account the full range of possibilities. The computer models project outcomes ranging from mild, which he acknowledges, to truly catastrophic, which he ignores.

While it is nice to see more optimism for the environment and our world, Bjorn Lomborg's guide to global warming is just too flawed to be trusted.

Where you are totally convinced that Global Warming is the most dangerous threat to the planet Earth short of the eventual explosion of the Sun, or you are totally convinced that Global Warming is a plot hatched by the UN you need to read this book for the common sense and logical approach it offers.

What is the likely change to the Earth's climate?

How bad will that climate change be?

What can we do?

How much will it cost?

Is this a financially and morally good use of this money?

Could the money be better spent on other problems?

Can we take some actions that are cost effective to reduce the problems Global Warming will present to the earths climate and populations?

Neither a true believer nor a nut case denier, the author walks use through an understandable analysis of the real risks of not taking specific actions and the rewards from pursuing economically feasible adjustments.

Where you are totally convinced that Global Warming is the most dangerous threat to the planet Earth short of the eventual explosion of the Sun, or you are totally convinced that Global Warming is a plot hatched by the UN you need to read this book for the common sense and logical approach it offers.

What is the likely change to the Earth's climate?

How bad will that climate change be?

What can we do?

How much will it cost?

Is this a financially and morally good use of this money?

Could the money be better spent on other problems?

Can we take some actions that are cost effective to reduce the problems Global Warming will present to the earths climate and populations?

Neither a true believer nor a nut case denier, the author walks use through an understandable analysis of the real risks of not taking specific actions and the rewards from pursuing economically feasible adjustments.

Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming argues that most of the solutions to the problems of global warming are emotional overreactions and are not based on rational scientific facts. Lomborg, a professor of economics at the Copenhagen Business School and named by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world, assumes that global warming is real and that it is caused by human activity substantially increasing the Carbon Dioxide content of the atmosphere. He feels that this is beyond debate? However, what he does decry is the hysteria surrounding this issue and suggestions for extravagantly expensive programs to curb CO2 that will only accomplish minimal results. He points out that in a world where billions live in poverty, and millions die of disease each year, these lives can be saved, much of the poverty can be eliminated and the environment can be improved at a fraction of the cost of proposed projects which will have only a minimum effect upon global warming.

Polar Bears have been in the news recently as becoming an endangered species.He points out that of the 20 species of Polar Bears, one or two were declining in number, more than half were stable, and two species were actually increasing. Moreover, from about 5000 in 1960 there are now about 25000. Contrary to what might be expected, the two species that have declined are in colder areas and the two increasing species are in warmer areas. Al Gore's comment on four dead bears omits that they were part of an increasing bear species. He points out that many other species will benefit from global warming. This is just one example of vastly exaggerated emotional claims not supported by data. Furthermore, worry makes us focus on the wrong solutions.

The book argues: 1.Global warming exists and is man-made. 2. Good policy is unlikely to result from hysterically exaggerated emotional statements about imminent catastrophe.3.There are better more efficient solutions for global warming. 4.There are many other issues much more important than global warming.
Indeed, our ultimate ultimate goal should be to improve the quality of life, and that addressing global warming is just a part of that.

In a manner similar to the Polar Bear examination, Lomborg addresses temperature increases, the costs and benefits of climate action,living in a hotter world, melting glaciers, rising sea levels, extreme weather, flooding rivers, water shortages, and numerous similar issues. In each case, he points out the true facts that have been omitted and in many cases alternate solutions to problems that will be more effective at substantially lower cost.
The last chapters are devoted to the politics of global warming and alternate solutions to improving the quality of life for mankind. Pages 167-244 contain copious notes to the chapters and an extensive references to the literature of warming.
Everyone should read this book. It helps dispel the existing climate hysteria, and instead provides a rational approach to mans' attempt to improve the quality of life and the environment.

In "Cool It", Bjorn Lomborg has done an excellent job balancing out the strident voices on the issue of global warming. His perspective is not that of an oil industry lapdog challenging the reality of human-induced climate change. Instead, he argues very credibly and insightfully that the effects have been overstated by the alarmists, whose goal has been to dramatize and excite using worst case analyses instead of the mid-range outcomes of the forecasting models. He provides some background and context to the outrageously expensive proposals for curtailing CO2 outputs that will have relatively small effects on climate outcomes but will siphon monumental amounts of the world's economic resources away from other much more cost effective efforts that mankind could make to reduce human suffering. He asks readers to consider the relative costs and benefits of alternative measures before rushing to judgment as to what should be done. His is a very rational and thought-provoking approach to evaluating the issue of global warming and the appropriate public policy responses that we should consider. Highly recommended.

About time someone offers concise choices to the hype we are confronted with daily.
Great read for the winter ( during the snowstorms sweeping the US and China )
Offers choices for mankind to consider.
In my dream world all politcians read the book and are held accountable for their actions while in office.
This book offers facts, choices not hype. We can become better caretakers of the planet but need to make informed decisions versus being led by narrow personal agendas.
Al Gore and his clan will not be thrilled with the alternative view.
My Hero book of 2008

I have become somewhat of a fanatic in terms of following the long-winded debate over Global Warming - the science is "NOT" settled - far from it - Gore is certainly a recovering politician - hey, couldn't resist the chance to throw our my brief opinion - now on to the book.

Bjorn's book "Cool It" is by far the most balanced read in my growing library on the subject - he was recently nominated as one of the top 50 people that can save the planet and voted as Time Magazine's 100 most influential people in the World. He does not state that Global Warming is a hoax. On the contrary, he solidly admits to the problem - with both anthropogenic and natual causes. However, he is staunchly against the Kyoto Protocols that call for trillions of dollars required to stem the plight of Global Warming - knowing, as so many others are becoming well aware of, will have very little impact on changing the climate 100 years from now.

If you are an avid follower of Global Warming and/or are just now diving into the fray, buy this book ASAP. Be wary of the Greens and their hardeaded, no-dialogue apporach to Global Warming if you decide to venture out into the world of debate. Bjorn knows this approach all to well, having "formerly" been a member of Greenpeace.

Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming
This book is a must read for all those concerned with global warming.It describes the destruction to the environment & world economy that will be done, not by global warming, but by expensive, futile efforts to control something that is cyclic in nature and not caused by human activities.
If you really care for helping mankind you must read this book.

As his "Skeptical Environmentalist" was received with great angst by the doom and gloom environmentalist, this book will be equally received by the global-warming cult with great handwringing and denial. What is ironic is that Lomborg is "one of them" but has the intellectual honesty to present the facts and let them fall where they may. His honesty is something his bretheren cannot accept.

If you are part of the global warming cult, save your money. If you want to learn more on this issue, Lomborg's book is a great, short read, presented in as objective a manner as possible.

When Bjorn Lomborg published his Skeptical Environmentalist in 2001, he got a pie thrown in his face. I'm not aware that the emotions have tempered since, although this is apparently what Lomborg is aiming at with this book. Tim Flannery, of The Weather Makers-fame, dismisses it as being flawed, glib, misleading and so forth and ends his scathing review with the statement that 'Cool It is a stealth attack on humanity's future'. This is clearly an overreaction and in no way helps the debate. But perhaps you shouldn't expect anything else from a man who by the Financial Times has been described as a cross between Indiana Jones and Charles Darwin?
So why can't the discussion about climate change be conducted in a constructive manner? Why all the abuse and hyperbole? The debate has become so fierce that one cannot sometimes help but wondering if the main motives really are caring about polar bears and penguins or trying to defeat HIV/AIDS and malaria. It has been so infested with political correctness that all sensible arguments seem to have flown out the window.
Having said this, I must confess that I find Lomborgs arguments compelling. In a calm and collected way he argues his case. He underpins his ideas with a few easy- to-understand graphs. Whether he's actually right about everything he says is hard to say. How are we to know, when thousands of experts are daily quibbling about the 'facts'? I suppose that Lomborg, being a statistician, also knows how to make the figures fit his scheme.
But the main point here is that he presents his point of view clearly and without denigrating his opponents. He simply does not think that Kyoto is the best way to proceed. Lomborg gives priority to disease-control, malnutrition, trade liberalization, sanitation and water. He is not against cutting CO², but by following Kyoto you would spend an awful lot and gain very little.
What he is calling for is to quit the mudslinging and COOL IT. With this, I wish him all the luck in the world. He'll need it.

"Cool It" has an important message: we need to focus on the best ways of solving the world's problems. Presently, we are headed in the wrong direction. Not because our direction won't help solve problems related to global warming, but because it is a very inefficient and expensive way of trying to reach a solution. Lomborg gives alternatives that are both effective and much more affordable. His thought out solutions are in contrast with the world's panicked running in all directions with the hope that something will work.

Finally, some common sense to rescue us from the hysteria of the media hype. There are smart ways to deal with global warming and not so smart ways. Let's actually do some good by enacting policies that can work. Signing treaties that no one will ever adhere to in order to feel good about ourselves is not the answer. The heavy R and D program recommended in the book is our only real hope for a solution. The world never has and never will cut back on its own energy use voluntarily. Technologies must change because people sure won't.
TP

I've read this and also slogged through Lomborg's massive last book, as well as some interesting published studies he's been involved in. His statistical approach unfortunately cherry-picks from the published science, and as stated in the Publisher's Weekly review, dangerously assumes a linear progression of global warming where the realities are much more complex and more threatening. The realities in the Arctic are right now proving this linear approach deeply flawed.

Scientific American published a thorough breakdown of The Skeptical Environmentalist that was harshly critical of his approach-- well worth reading. Much of it applies to this even more simplistic new "for the masses" version, "Cool It". The issue is not Lomborg himself, or an attempt to snuff out an alternative view (to the vast majority of the published science), it is that he is too often just plain wrong in how he analyzes what is established, peer-reviewed research.

Lomborg makes some very good points about the need to focus resource on other critical issues, particularly in aiding the third world, and for the need at this late date to think seriously about adapting to inevitable warming impacts. He does not say do nothing on the climate, he says take some big steps, but also aggressively take on other problems. I only wish his fan base paid more attention to this large part of his story, rather than using his work as a reason to reject the broad consensus on climate science... but I'm not holding my breath on a convergence of the politics of climate change skepticism and support for massive foreign aide.

The great concern of those who actively advocate for the environment is that Lomborg is a smiling face serving to cloud the picture and slow the world's response to a massive threat. This response has still not gotten off the launching pad after 20 years of debate and weak action. Sadly, for all the angst, Lomborg's thoughts on emissions taxes, caps, and third world assistance are probably radically to the left of what US leaders are likely to put in action in the next few years.

Cool It by Bjorn Lomborg
Reviewed by Carl Steinke

He says if climate change will cause only a 1-foot rise in sea level by 2100, the Kyoto protocols would cost $180 billion per year and produce miniscule benefit to people. An alternative plan, such as installing coastal protections and providing mosquito nets, condoms, and clean water would cost 70% less and benefit humans 100 times more.

Lomborg thinks we should reduce CO2 gradually rather than quickly. He says that the threat has been greatly exaggerated. What an environmental scientist calls a worst- case scenario, Lomborg calls an exaggeration.

He recommends a surtax of 4% on fossil fuels increasing to about 50% by the end of the century.

Steinke's Reflections:
I'm an expert in energy conservation. Rather, I'm an expert at noticing energy waste.
Lomborg and the delegates to Kyoto are probably not conscious of the enormous amount of energy we waste. Saving energy doesn't cost money. It usually saves.

Lomborg doesn't seem to factor in the environmental costs of coal mining and the health costs of coal burning. The coal industry passes these costs on to their neighbors.

It is the job of the environmental scientist to consider the worst-case scenario. Lomborg doesn't. He does not consider what will happen after the year 2100.

The worst-case scenario involves feedback loops. Ice reflects sunlight. When ice melts, less sunlight is reflected and the planet might warm faster. If Greenland melts, the ocean might rise 24 feet. Rises higher than 1 foot are not considered. Lomborg's surtax will not stop global warming at one foot.

Green house gas emissions today, do not melt the ice today; they melt it bit-by-bit over decades. With Lomborg's recommendation, greenhouse gases will increase significantly throughout the century. Sea levels will rise more rapidly during the next century, than during this century.

Lomborg says that the oceans have already risen 5 inches in the last 65 years. If that is true, I wonder if the IPCC adequately considered the effect of China and India adding 1000 coal burning power plants and 200 million cars. It is difficult to believe that the oceans will rise only 1 foot this century.

A major issue was not discussed is methane. I don't know if the IPCC considered the effect of methane from increased meat consumption or from thawing permafrost. I don't know if Kyoto addresses methane.

Lomborg is from Denmark, which is gung-ho for windmills having about 3000 giants in place. I believe Lomborg would rather have the seven coal burning power plants they take the place of because coal is about 5% cheaper than wind.

Even if global warming was not an issue, coal burning is bad and should be reduced. The coal industry talks about clean coal and then violates and fights the regulations to make it cleaner.

The tar sands of Alberta are an environmental disaster. The cost of gasoline extracted from tar sands is probably not included in Lomborg's economic models.

The Vancouver Schools easily waste a million dollars of electricity each year to light up empty places. When the price of electricity goes up, the schools don't reduce waste, they just ask Congress for energy subsidies.

A 4% surcharge will not motivate people to reduce waste. A 10% surcharge used to fund energy conservation would be better.

Many building managers are not interested in reducing energy consumption unless someone does it for them with no upfront cost. They're too busy with other responsibilities.

I think Lomborg underestimates the risk of global warming, and overestimates the cost of remedies. But I really appreciate his polite and restrained manner.

Disclaimer 1: First, let me say upfront that this review is neither a smear critic nor a bipartisan criticism of U.S. politics. You can find that in other reviews below. If such is your interest, you may skip this review.

In a few words, this book is a must read if you have a genuine interest in the controversy of global warming/climate change and the science behind the debate. Beyond Mr. Lomborg's opinion on this issue, and the assumptions he made to develop his analysis, the book's most important message is really to "cool it", to abandon any radical position