Reply to comment

Thanks for the review. I will certainly buy the book.

A couple of things about your review didn't gel with me though.

For example, Lomborg (in other interviews such as the senate hearings) seems to adhere strictly to the conclusions of the IPCC, so he is using 4.7 degrees rise as the current IPCC evaluation of the probable rise. He doesn't seem to speculate on mega (or miniscule) rises like others on both sides of this issue, leaving this sort of thing to the climate scientists. Why would you criticize him for sticking to the accepted scientific figures and not using extremes like 9-10 degrees which aren't supported in any of the scientific literature?

Also, at the end, you say as your final sentence

'He should have followed his own advice on this one'

which infers that he has written a book containing 'irrational and politically based over-reactions'. Previously in the same paragraph you say

'...Lomborg makes a valuable and well reasoned argument for increased investment in alternative energy sources'

which certainly sounds like you think he is being rational and not over-reactionary at all. You don't mention any instances of irrational and politically based over reactions in other contexts to back up you final sentence.

Also you say '...try to fix the problem as best we can, in this case by limiting emissions, improving efficiency and reducing use of fossil fuels'. Lumping these 3 things together is exactly what Lomborg is advising against. The last 2 items are common sense irrespective of man-made global warming, but the first - he argues - is not. Surely, a review shouldn't start from the basis that the author is wrong, but simply comment on the quality of the arguments?

I will read the book and make my own judgment of course, but I would be interested in your comments on these apparently inconsistent statements in your review. They make it look like you dislike what he stands for, but can't actually fault much of what he writes.

I would also mention that ad hom attacks like your first sentence aren't great reviewing (or any other writing) techniques. What if I had started my comment in the same way:

"While a respected scholar in his field, Garte is not a book reviewer, something that was clear from this review."

See how insulting that was? Shame on you to both start and end with derogatory remarks based on your apparent dislike of the man.