---
title: "The Skeptical Environmentalist"
chunk: 3/5
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skeptical_Environmentalist"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:18:21.336470+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

The Union of Concerned Scientists published a critique of the book, highlighting reviews by Peter Gleick, Jerry D. Mahlman, Thomas Lovejoy, Norman Myers, Jeffrey Harvey, E. O. Wilson and Stuart Pimm. They concluded that the book fits squarely in a tradition of contrarian environmental works, which may gain temporary prominence but ultimately fail to stand up to scientific scrutiny. Harvey compared the book unfavourably to University undergraduate quality, and added "ecology is the most complex of sciences and Lomborg has never done a shred of work in the field". In a letter, Wilson said that the greatest regret he had about the book was "the time wasted by scientists correcting the misinformation created."
In January 2002, a heading from Scientific American read, "Misleading Math about the Earth" and contained set of essays written by scientists on the book. The article concluded that The Skeptical Environmentalist misrepresented both scientific evidence and opinion. The journal also refused Lomborg's request of publishing a defense print of 32 pages, rather a page in the later May issue in 2002. The magazine later published his complete rebuttal on its website, along with the counter rebuttals of John Rennie and John P. Holdren.
Nature also published a harsh review of Lomborg's book, in which Stuart Pimm of the Center for Environmental Research and Conservation at Columbia University and Jeff Harvey of the Netherlands Institute of Ecology wrote: "Like bad term papers, Lomborg's text relies heavily on secondary sources. Out of around 2,000 references, about 5% come from news sources and 30% from web downloads — readily accessible, therefore, but frequently not peer reviewed." They continued that "the text employs the strategy of those who, for example, argue that gay men aren't dying of AIDS, that Jews weren't singled out by the Nazis for extermination, and so on."
Peter Gleick was also highly critical, stating "there is nothing original or unique in Lomborg's book. Many of his criticisms have appeared in... previous works—and even in the work of environmental scientists themselves. What is new, perhaps, is the scope and variety of the errors he makes." David Pimentel wrote a critical review in Population and Environment, particularly taking issue with Lomborg's argument on soil erosion, pesticides, deforestation and water resources. He concluded that "as an agricultural scientist and ecologist, I wish I could share Lomborg's optimistic views, but my investigations and that of countless scientists leads me to a more conservative outlook." Roger A. Pielke, meanwhile, defended Lomborg and the book, describing the debate as an example of politicising science.
The 12 December 2001 issue of Grist devoted an issue to The Skeptical Environmentalist, with a series of essays from various scientists challenging individual sections. A separate article examining the book's overall approach by Kathryn Schulz took issue with the framing of Lomborg's conclusions, asking "[why] does he weigh the environment only against hospitals and childcare, rather than against, say, industry subsidies and defense spending?".
Legal scholar David Shoenbrod was one of the defenders of Lomborg. In March 2003, the New York Law School Law Review published an examination of the critical reviews of Skeptical Environmentalist from the Scientific American, Nature and Science magazines by Shoenbrod and then-Senior Law Student Christi Wilson of New York Law School. The authors defend Lomborg, say that the book is "largely free from factual errors", and characterise the scientific community's response to the book as a "disingenuous attack", using legal arguments that a court should accept Lomborg as a credible expert witness in the field of statistics, given that his testimony would be appropriately restricted to his area of expertise.

== Media coverage ==
The book was widely cited in conservative media and groups who oppose environmental regulations. Influential UK newsweekly The Economist supported Lomborg's views, publishing an advance essay by Lomborg in which he detailed his "litany", and following up with a highly favorable review and supportive coverage. It stated that "This is one of the most valuable books on public policy—not merely environmental policy—to have been written for the intelligent general reader in the past ten years...The Skeptical Environmentalist is a triumph."

In a profile of Lomborg preceding the book's publication The New York Times stated that "The primary target of the book, a substantial work of analysis with almost 3,000 footnotes, are statements made by environmental organizations like the Worldwatch Institute, the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace." In August 2001, The Guardian published three exclusive essays by Lomborg and hosted an online debate with him, describing him as "Europe's most controversial environmental thinker". The Wall Street Journal deemed Lomborg's work "a superbly documented and readable book." In The Washington Post, Denis Dutton claimed that "Bjørn Lomborg's good news about the environment is bad news for Green ideologues. His richly informative, lucid book is now the place from which environmental policy decisions must be argued. In fact, The Skeptical Environmentalist is the most significant work on the environment since the appearance of its polar opposite, Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, in 1962. It's a magnificent achievement." Rolling Stone wrote that "Lomborg pulls off the remarkable feat of welding the techno-optimism of the Internet age with a lefty's concern for the fate of the planet."
Chris Lavers gave a mixed review in The Guardian, saying Lomborg "is clearly committed to rubbishing the views of hand-picked environmentalists, frequently the very silly ones such as Ehrlich, whom professionals have been ignoring for decades" and criticising his framing of deforestation.
In a BBC column from 23 August 2001, veteran BBC environmental correspondent Alex Kirby wrote: