Don't know how many of you have been keeping it with this debate, but it's pretty interesting. Background: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,871320,00.html Lomborg responds: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002949
I am morally required to post this. Comprehensive review of The Sceptical Environmentalist by yours truly. Also see the (somewhat disgustingly fawning) coverage of the ongoing bruhaha in the Economist, here, here and in conjunction with recent events here. Short version: Lomborg raises important questions about the validity of some research that supports the more extreme conclusions about human impact on climate. However, he commits some of the same errors of ommision and commision as he accuses people of. His macroeconmic analysis is interesting but misses the point in a lot of areas. An important work that should serve as a warning to everyone to "consider the source" of any study on any subject that has political-scientific intersection. It also, IMO pretty much supports the "middle or low-middle" global warming analyses, which are bad enough. Not a deenetive debunking of global warming.