About us
Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here?
Let's talk.
The other half of the equation is
blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science,
please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our
Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.
Slevdi Davoteca's comment was hidden down the list of comments, because comments from non-registered readers need to be approved and thus often have several comments above them on the list. Since I am interested in this thread and would be interested in getting Sy Garte to respond, I'm posting this.
By the way, Slevdi Davoteca (and others), you might be interested in my collection of climate book reviews at The Science Shelf, mostly mine but with several guest reviews, including this one.
You and others are welcome to subscribe to my regular updates by sending an e-mail to me at scienceshelf[AT]att.net. I send newsletters about once a month or so.
As for the opening of the review, I don't characterize it as ad hominem, because it is a criticism of the approach, not the person. The approach is not one that most scientists favor, because, as Garte notes, "Lomborg makes a critical error, one that is common to many non scientists writing about scientific issues. He tends to present all of his arguments in defense of a particular conclusion, ignoring the reality (which all scientists are familiar with) that we usually do not have enough information to be able to really know what conclusions we should draw."
As a professional reviewer myself (meaning that I earn money by doing so although my academic training is as a physicist), I would say that Garte qualifies as a reviewer by the approach he takes. He considers the book and its audience, and then he praises its strengths and critiques its weaknesses.
Your comment, "I will read the book and make my own judgment of course," tells me that Garte accomplished precisely what a good reviewer hopes to. He connected the book with readers who would want to engage with it.
That's what I try to do in all my reviews, even critical ones like the one linked here. And that's what I look for in my guest reviews like Garte's review of Cool It!.
Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)