Is It Hot in Here?; A statistician argues that global warming isn't worth all the fuss FINAL Edition

• Published in: The Washington post
• Format: Newspaper Article
• Language: English
• Published: Washington, D.C WP Company LLC d/b/a The Washington Post 09.09.2007
• Subjects: Books-titles; Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming; Global warming; Lomborg, Bjorn; Nonfiction
• ISSN: 0190-8286

In his opening paragraph Lomborg establishes a revealing dichotomy: "In the face of . . . unmitigated despair" about global warming, he intends to write a book that is optimistic about humanity's prospects. It's seductive rhetoric. But is climate change really about unmitigated despair? And can Lomborg's optimistic solutions actually work? It all depends on how well he's read the science. Glib, misleading associations mark Lomborg's style. In his chapter on glaciers, he states that since "we're leaving the Little Ice Age" (which, in fact, we left long ago) it's not surprising that glaciers are dwindling. Remarkably, he believes that is more good news, because "with glacial melting, rivers actually increase their water contents, especially in the summer, providing more water to many of the poorest people in the world." "It boils down to a stark choice," he lectures us. "Would we rather have more water available or less?" Lomborg asserts that "a raft of academic papers have now come out all strongly criticizing [Stern], characterizing his report as a 'political document' and liberally using words such as 'substandard,' 'preposterous,' 'incompetent,' 'deeply flawed,' and 'neither balanced nor credible.' " Such broad accusations are impossible to assess. He further asserts that the Stern report was not peer reviewed (making one wonder whether Cool It or the Internet postings he cites criticizing Stern were), and that it's slanted toward "scary" scenarios. This latter assertion is simply not true. Stern gives a straight reading of the range of possible climate outcomes.