Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming

3.57 of 5 stars 3.57 · rating details · 469 ratings · 107 reviews

Bjørn Lomborg is the best-informed & most humane advocate for environmental change in the world today. In contrast to other figures that promote a single issue while ignoring others, he views the globe as a whole, studies all the problems we face, ranks them, & determines how best, & in what order, we should address them. His 1st book, The Skeptical Environment...more Bjørn Lomborg is the best-informed & most humane advocate for environmental change in the world today. In contrast to other figures that promote a single issue while ignoring others, he views the globe as a whole, studies all the problems we face, ranks them, & determines how best, & in what order, we should address them. His 1st book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, established the importance of a fact-based approach. With later books, Global Crises, Global Solutions & How to Spend $50 Billion to Make the World a Better Place, this mild-mannered Danish statistician has steadily gained new converts. Not surprisingly, Time named him one of the 100 most influential people in the world. Cool It will further enhance his reputation for global analysis & thoughtful response. For anyone who wants an overview of the global warming debate from an objective source, this brief text is a perfect place to start. He's only interested in real problems. He's no patience with media fear-mongering. He begins by dispatching the myth of the endangered polar bears, showing that this Disneyesque cartoon has no relevance to the real world where polar bear populations are in fact increasing. He considers the issue in detail, citing sources from Al Gore to the World Wildlife Fund, then demonstrating that polar bear populations have actually increased fivefold since the '60s. He then works his way thru the concerns we hear so much about: higher temperatures, heat deaths, species extinctions, the cost of cutting carbon, the technology to do it. He believes firmly in climate change--despite his critics, he's no denier--but his fact-based approach, grounded in economic analyses, leads him to a different view. He reviews published estimates of the cost of climate change, & the cost of addressing it, & concludes that "we actually end up paying more for a partial solution than the cost of the entire problem. That is a bad deal." In some of the most disturbing chapters, he recounts what leading climate figures have said about anyone who questions the orthodoxy, thus demonstrating the illiberal, antidemocratic tone of the current debate. He himself takes the larger view, explaining in detail why the tone of hysteria is inappropriate to addressing the problems we face. In the end, his concerns embrace the planet. He contrasts our concern for climate with other concerns such as HIV/AIDS, malnutrition & providing clean water. In the end, his ability to put climate in a global perspective is perhaps the book's greatest value. Lomborg & Cool It are our best guides to our shared environmental future.--Michael Crichton (edited)(less)

Hardcover, 352 pages

Published September 11th 2007 by Alfred A. Knopf (NY) (first published January 1st 2007)

more details... edit details

Get a copy:

More…

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

Judge A Book By Its Cover!

466th out of 2,510 books — 5,964 voters

The New Lifetime Reading Plan by Clifton Fadiman

Essentiality Esoteric & Irreverent

2nd out of 18 books — 12 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30 of 986)

filter | sort: default (?) | rating details

Mar 15, 2009 Manny rated it 1 of 5 stars

Shelves: trash, science

Many people have pointed out that the right to free speech doesn't mean that you are allowed to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. I suppose that what Lomborg is doing isn't quite as bad; the theater is on fire, and he's shouting "Sit down, there's nothing to worry about!" That may put him just on the right side of the line, but I still wish he wouldn't do it.

As everyone who's worked with science knows, if you cherry-pick your facts to favor only the most extreme interpretations, you can suppo...more Many people have pointed out that the right to free speech doesn't mean that you are allowed to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. I suppose that what Lomborg is doing isn't quite as bad; the theater is on fire, and he's shouting "Sit down, there's nothing to worry about!" That may put him just on the right side of the line, but I still wish he wouldn't do it.

As everyone who's worked with science knows, if you cherry-pick your facts to favor only the most extreme interpretations, you can support almost any position, and make it sound superficially plausible. That's what Lomborg has done here with the skeptical position on global warming. Unfortunately, it's not easy to refute him out of hand, unless you are yourself an expert; I had a long argument with a friend a couple of years ago, and spent several hours searching the web. The problem is that we don't yet know for sure what's going on, the models are all very complicated, and even the experts disagree. Lomborg is exploiting that disagreement, and making it sound like they think there is room for doubt; it's rather like the way that Intelligent Design people look at disagreements between evolutionary biologists, and then tell you that evolution's just a theory. This is disingenuous. They disagree over many details; they don't disagree about the basic fact of evolution.

The bottom line for me, is simple. Why ever should Lomborg, who has had no formal training in this subject, be able to get it right, when the very responsible IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) are supposed to have got it wrong? They have hundreds of people working for them, they take all the competing viewpoints into consideration, and they are careful to give only the most conservative projections, the ones that everyone is prepared to sign up to. You have to postulate some kind of conspiracy among most of the world's scientists, which is frankly absurd. They don't have sufficient motivation, and science doesn't work that way.

(less)

20 likes · like · see review

Dec 18, 2008 Anthony A rated it 5 of 5 stars

Lomborg looks at global warming and the proposed solutions with the unflinching eye of an economist, and discovers that most of the hype and hysteria is unjustifiable, and that most of the political solutions offered will make things worse for future generations.

Lomborg is not a "climate change denier" - he fully accepts the IPCC consensus that global warming exists and is significantly caused by human activity. But that's where he parts company from most people who discuss global warming in pu...more

5 likes · like · see review

Jan 22, 2008 Scot rated it 1 of 5 stars

A conservative friend gave me this book for Christmas, saying it stimulated her book club to have a thoughtful discussion about the global warming debate.

Not wanting to condemn it without reading Lomborg's position first, I made a valiant effort to read this all the way through, but grew increasingly disturbed at the way he reduces, simplifies, and misrepresents the arguments of many committed environmentalists, as he offers a rather smug economist's reaction to the fact that global warming is...more A conservative friend gave me this book for Christmas, saying it stimulated her book club to have a thoughtful discussion about the global warming debate.

Not wanting to condemn it without reading Lomborg's position first, I made a valiant effort to read this all the way through, but grew increasingly disturbed at the way he reduces, simplifies, and misrepresents the arguments of many committed environmentalists, as he offers a rather smug economist's reaction to the fact that global warming is occurring--"alright already, so what if it is?" this perpsective admonishes, suggesting a range of ways that global warming can be seen as a good thing, and how many people might profit from it in different ways. (Economists are about PROFIT.) Stop worrying about climate change, all your attempts to save the environment, whether individual or collective, are counterproductive, so why not just cool it, he asks.

Why indeed. Arguments presented here are faulty, evidence is highly selective, the opposing side is oversimplified to an extreme and then belittled, and there is no awareness that major lifestyle and behavior changes must occur in a wasteful, self-indulgent consumer society like the United States. I don't trust his "liberal" economic theories at all. Instead of wasting energy on this book, better to use the time to check out a book that documents its facts about how the influence of such economists can be very harmful to societies: see Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine."

Sure, the Kyoto Protocol wasn't perfect, but he argues it was so faulty that we should celebrate that the US has avoided it so far. I'm quite willing to consider alternatives but the US has got to willingly accept that it is consuming too much too fast, and with the rest of the world wanting to emulate us, we're going to clean out that larder SOON. This book is a bad guide to solving social problems, and he seems to leave the concept of or impact on interelated ecosystems out entirely when theorizing how benefits of global warming might accrue. He suggests environmentalists do not support fighting AIDS, hunger, or world poverty. He is, in a word, wrong, and my deepest concern is his argument will be used by Bushniks to keep avoiding dealing with the imperative need to start changing our consumption behaviors and lifestyles. That is a bad thing and a sad thing. (less)

5 likes · like · see review

May 08, 2008 Alice rated it 1 of 5 stars

Shelves: read-in-2008

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here. *INITIAL IMPRESSION*

I'm not even halfway through this book yet, and I'm already ranting about it. Not a good sign.

Look, Mr. Bjorn whatever-your-name-is, I agree with your overall argument. I do, I really do. And I think you make some important points about how to think about solutions to global warming that are worth pursuing.

But if you're going to write a book, FERCHRISSAKES make it interesting. Lord knows I love economists (well, one economist anyway), but they couldn't write an interesting s...more *INITIAL IMPRESSION*

I'm not even halfway through this book yet, and I'm already ranting about it. Not a good sign.

Look, Mr. Bjorn whatever-your-name-is, I agree with your overall argument. I do, I really do. And I think you make some important points about how to think about solutions to global warming that are worth pursuing.

But if you're going to write a book, FERCHRISSAKES make it interesting. Lord knows I love economists (well, one economist anyway), but they couldn't write an interesting sentence if their positive utility depended on it. The writing is as dead as a Dickensian doornail.

Also, where the hell are you getting your numbers from? Fishy fishy fishy, that's all I have to say.

Lord knows how the hell I'm going to finish reading!

*AFTER ACTUALLY FORCING MYSELF TO FINISH THE BOOK*

It took great effort to finish this book. The author's writing is ABSOLUTELY INFURIATING. Not just because it's soporifically boring, as mentioned above, but because he is clearly trying to pull the wool over his readers' eyes via gross gross GROSS oversimplification and wily/selective use of statistics.

By golly, given the dismissive ease with which Lomborg thinks we can eradicate HIV/AIDS and malaria, why do we even HAVE disease on this planet? It's just not that simple, damnit. And god, his statistics. He cites Nobel laureates and says that 'leading climate scientists' support X and Y statement about cold deaths and heat deaths and yadda yadda yadda. It wreaks of rhetorical appeals to authority, to cover up the fundamental weakness (and spuriousness?) of his arguments.

And it's frustrating, because I actually AGREE with some of his major points. (Go ahead, call me anti-green.) I suppose I've been biased by my economist boyfriend, but I do think that more money should be put into R&D, instead of attempting to pursue prohibitively expensive policies that may yet do little toward addressing the global warming problem.

So, fundamentally, it is a testament to the great failure of Bjorn Lomborg that his book, his writing, his fishiness have essentially infuriated the converted! If he can drive away his most receptive audience with his transparently suspicious tactics, then how is he going to convince anyone else?

But perhaps that's the answer - maybe he's not trying to convince anyone. Maybe he's just out to stir up controversy. He's an economist after all, and controversy sells books.(less)

1 like · like · see review

Jan 24, 2008 Chad rated it 1 of 5 stars

Lomborg's case was very poorly argued. He focused on certain things that were insignificant, such as the number of people who will die from heat waves as the climate changes. The fact that he wastes so much space of his small book on such a non-mainstream argument takes away from the validity of his case.

In the end, he claims that something should actually be done about climate change after he spends the whole book downplaying the need to do so.

However, it does teach the problem with people who...more

1 like · like · see review

Jan 20, 2008 Larry rated it 4 of 5 stars

Interesting book. Mr. Lomborg takes the science and applies statistical and economic methodology to it. Bottom line, the scare stories miss the point. Quite often they forget to give the other fact or more embaressing to look at the denominator. For example, about 5 times as many people die from cold than from heat related disease, etc. So warming saves lives. Rain increases so some areas do better others worse, but on the whole the world may do better. The amount of starvation may go up, but fa...more

3 likes · like · see review

Jun 26, 2012 Theron is currently reading it

I've always been a fan of Lomborg's pragmatic approach to world problems, and this promises to be an interesting application of his ideas. The first chapter is about polar bears, and

*spoiler alert* :)

if you think they are drowning because of warming, you are probably wrong. Actually, I already knew this because I looked at the IPCC report section on this earlier on, but it is used as a good example of how emotional appeals get us thinking about the wrong solutions some of the time. Incidentally...more

like · see review

Apr 16, 2012 Erik rated it 1 of 5 stars

I have a fascination with reading what is popular in non-fiction no matter how idiotic the book appears. I have at times been surprised and my intuitions about a book proved completely wrong. That was not the case with this book.

Lomborg, has nothing new to say, he has no specialization in education or experience that is in anyway relevant to the topic he has chose to discuss, and he has no sense of proper scholarship. One would have thought that the fire storm that broke over his last book would...more

4 likes · like · see review

Dec 01, 2011 Michael rated it 5 of 5 stars

Excellent book about climate change, and the choices we face over the next century. Professor Lomborg is not a 'climate change denier' (a disparaging term coined by assholes whose moral vanity is matched only by their self-righteousness. For example of usage, see: Al Gore). Instead, he fully accepts the very clear science that tells us that the earth is warming, that humans bear some of the responsibility, and there will be negative consequences (increased flooding, more frequent and more powerf...more Excellent book about climate change, and the choices we face over the next century. Professor Lomborg is not a 'climate change denier' (a disparaging term coined by assholes whose moral vanity is matched only by their self-righteousness. For example of usage, see: Al Gore). Instead, he fully accepts the very clear science that tells us that the earth is warming, that humans bear some of the responsibility, and there will be negative consequences (increased flooding, more frequent and more powerful storms, more malnutrition, more diseases like malaria, etc.) However, the questions raised by this book are tremendously thought-provoking, and backed up by vast swathes of data. For example...how expensive (not to mention possible) is it to reduce carbon emissions? Even if we do reduce carbon emissions, how much of an impact will it have on global temperature? When? At what price? Are there any positives to global warming (fewer cold related deaths? Longer growing seasons?) Which is more feasible, pursuing some vague international consensus on making one's economy less robust by arbitrarily taxing carbon, or investing in adaptations to help human beings weather (ha!) the inevitable disruptions that will be caused by climate change?

Whichever side of these questions you come down on, Cool It requires the reader to take a long, hard look at some of the statements made about the impact of climate change. As I said in a recent previous review, environmentalists are their own worst enemies. By making every utterance an hyperbolic, breathless prediction of global catastrophe, then calling anyone who questions their prognostications a 'denier,' they have managed to stifle important conversations about how we might best prepare for the changes in our environment. Because--let's face it, people--the United States, China, India, Brazil, and other nations--are not going stop emitting carbon. It's just not going to happen. It makes much more sense for us to be proactive and plan as best we can for what will most likely challenge us as the world gets warmer. The author suggests many excellent areas where we can prepare to protect human beings and property. More lives will be saved by doing these common sense things than by spending trillions of dollars to see a 0.06% drop in global temperatures 100 years from now.

With all of that said, I found one major flaw in Professor Lomborg's arguments. Much of his analysis about how to best help third world nations mitigate the impact of global warming was predicated on developing their economies so that they were richer, with the idea being that the richer a nation is, the more resources they will have to protect themselves against climate related disruptions. I am unconvinced that greater wealth will be possible using fossil fuels as a basis for economic development as we have done in the wealthy west and north. As fossil fuels become more expensive due to increased scarcity, it seems to me that hoping for a healthier, wealthier third-world may not be a sufficient strategy to stave off climate disruption. Likewise, the Professor doesn't talk much about other forms of pollution related to developing (and developed) economies. His idea that growth is the answer seemed a bit overly optimistic, in my opinion. Professor Lomborg rightly points out that we can't simply focus on Co2 reductions as a solution to all of our problems. I would humbly suggest that we can't count on a fossil fuels based economy to grow its way out of danger, either, since fossil fuels are most likely going to become much more expensive in the future. (I loved his suggestion about a globally funded R&D program to find more clean and efficient energy sources. I'd gladly pay a modest carbon tax if it funded something like that!)

All in all, this is an excellent book, honestly written, logically presented, and worthy of a fair hearing in the marketplace of ideas. I came away from reading Cool It knowing much more than when I started, even if I don't agree with every point. Good stuff. If you are interested in the Great Climate Wars, this one is for you. (less)

1 like · like · see review

Aug 30, 2010 Brad rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: politics

It's been a while since I read this book, a couple years now, but I quite enjoyed the read (though I didn't love the book and was nowhere near in full agreement).

I've always appreciated that Lomborg -- despite Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, likening him to Hitler -- was mostly trying to put all of the world's ills in perspective.

For Lomborg, at least back when he was writing Cool It, there were other issues of greater importance to the world than c...more

1 like · like · see review

Feb 05, 2011 Erik Graff rated it 2 of 5 stars Recommends it for: global warming fans

Recommended to Erik by: Kelly Kingdon

Shelves: sciences

I didn't know it until pulling up the Wikipedia profile, but Lomborg is a controversial figure. This book is ostensibly an attempt to put the global warming problem into perspective, doing a cost/benefit analysis of dealing with the human contribution to that against other social and environmental problems. In his opinion, other, more pressing problems can and should be given a higher priority as they can be dealt with much more cost effectively. For now large investments should be made in new t...more I didn't know it until pulling up the Wikipedia profile, but Lomborg is a controversial figure. This book is ostensibly an attempt to put the global warming problem into perspective, doing a cost/benefit analysis of dealing with the human contribution to that against other social and environmental problems. In his opinion, other, more pressing problems can and should be given a higher priority as they can be dealt with much more cost effectively. For now large investments should be made in new technologies which may in the future allow us to cut the human contribution to global warming more cheaply and efficiently.

I am not qualified to deal with Lomberg's treatment of the science involved. Indeed, it is questionable that he is qualified to make the bold assertions he does. His academic background is in political, not environmental, science. That notwithstanding, some of what he claims as fact appears off the wall.

Much of Lomberg's argument is based on the undemonstrated contention that incomes and living standards will rise enormously for third world populations over the remainder of this century (the living standards of others in the rest of the world are not addressed, but implicit is the assumption that they will rise as well). This is important because while he does admit to global warming he believes that the negative externalities of that are easily ameliorated with air conditioning, city planning, coastal management and the like--all things affordable to societies with substantial economic surpluses. I utterly fail to see how this claim can be substantiated. He makes no effort to do so, simply citing a source which does make such an outrageously optimistic assertion. So doing, it makes me wonder if he's being similarly selective about other sources as regards other matters.

Much of the book is a critique of the Kyoto Treaty, the details of which are beyond me and his claims about which are so extreme that I marvel that so many states agreed to it. Surely, the negotiators from at least the economically stronger states had science advisors to guide them. Here I would expect a political scientist to do a better job in explaining how such supposedly bad decisions could be made.

Still, despite these glaring lacunae, a mediocre writing style and too much repetition, there are some bits and pieces which were interesting. I did not know that cities tend to be heat traps to such an extent that New York, for instance, is 7 degrees hotter than the surrounding area--a differential that could be ameliorated if we simply planted more greenery and had lighter streets and buildings (all of which would be easier for a city with a strong tax base than for one with weaker resources). Nor did I know that more deaths are caused by extraordinarily cold weather than by hot, though, of course, that isn't surprising upon reflection.

Personally, I find my own environmental concerns to be substantially unaddressed by this book. These concerns are of a virtually religious nature, at least because to express them I find myself grasping at words with such associations. So it is that I regard the global ecology as a holy, which is to say untouchable, marvel. If you don't know how to fix it, don't break it! This includes the other animals and life forms, all of them holy, sacred in the order of nature. Our blithe acceptance of ever-increasing human encroachments, on the capitalist imperative of growth, is anethema to me. Lomborg leaves these matters unmentioned and I must presume that his own convenient belief in ever-rising living standards is predicated on such growth presuppositions.

Well, tell that to Haiti...(less)

like · see review

Feb 17, 2009 Michelle rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: politics-economics, science-issues

On my "most important reads of 2009" informal list at the moment. This little book is a tour de force of sound reasoning. I'm so glad I found it, as I had been prone to stomping up and down my house muttering "Moby Dick, Moby" Oh, no, wrong life. OK. Muttering "Cost-benefit analysis---why isn't anyone doing global warming cost-benefit analysis? Have we all collectively lost our minds?"
If you've ever been concerned about the environment but secretly been wondering if we are all being stampeded l...more

2 likes · like · see review

Oct 12, 2007 Daniel rated it 2 of 5 stars

Lomborg’s book on climate change is a mixed bag. I heartily agree with his major policy prescriptions: give more aid to alleviate poverty, enact a carbon tax to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and invest massively in low-carbon R&D. The slim book is otherwise disappointing: short on ideas, selective with facts, and cavalierly dismissive that climate change could prove worse than most expect.

1 like · like · see review

Jan 05, 2008 Brian rated it 5 of 5 stars

5 stars, not for the prose, but for Lomborg's presentation of the facts, and a solid analytical argument that cuts through the choreographed screaming to argue that the costs of Kyoto (and this book is about Kyoto, not global warming per se), are excessive, will leave us and future generations worse off, and will have no discernible impact on global climate change or the human condition.

3 likes · like · see review

Jan 10, 2011 Peter Zylstramoore rated it 1 of 5 stars

Shelves: politics-economics-development, environment

His books always appear to be soundly reasoned. He regularly argues along the lines that we have limited resources and governments and institutions need to spend in ways that result in the most good, and many of his prescriptions seem to be well-meaning. However, he has historically spent most of his time undermining responses to environmental issues and very little time encouraging governments to solve global issues in his supposedly more cost-effective ways. He also is incredibly selective in...more

1 like · like · see review

Feb 28, 2012 Nigel rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: climate-change, current-affairs, politics, sustainability

While Lomborg admits that global warming is real he sacrifices any early and deep cuts to fossil fuel emissions as per Kyoto on the cost effectiveness of direct action on the purported consequences of global warming. Essentially he is putting his faith in the prospect of cheaper renewable energy technologies emerging in the future, as a result of increased investment, rather than coordinated policy action today. In short, he has more faith in economists - the dismal science ? - than in climate s...more

like · see review

Oct 08, 2009 Jon Terry rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

the title has two meanings: first, we need to cool the earth down literally (decrease global warming), and second, we're freaking out about it and that's bad. he believes that humanity is largely responsible for the global warming (although doesn't really back that opinion up - just says it's beyond debate), but takes an economist perspective on what we should do about it. his basic argument is that if the point of stopping global warming is to save human lives, then the most popular plans (like...more

like · see review

May 13, 2011 Longfellow rated it 2 of 5 stars

It’s been a long time since I finished a book I enjoyed so little. The truth is, I appreciate much of what Lomborg seems to say and I also appreciate the spirit in which he says it, but much of the time he just doesn’t say it very well. Write it, I should say. Should write.

What he has to share boils down to this: 1) the trend of rising temperatures does not spell the end of the world: the stated effects of global warming are not untrue, but they are much exaggerated: alarmist vocabulary and ske...more It’s been a long time since I finished a book I enjoyed so little. The truth is, I appreciate much of what Lomborg seems to say and I also appreciate the spirit in which he says it, but much of the time he just doesn’t say it very well. Write it, I should say. Should write.

What he has to share boils down to this: 1) the trend of rising temperatures does not spell the end of the world: the stated effects of global warming are not untrue, but they are much exaggerated: alarmist vocabulary and skewed, worst-case-scenario statistics rule the theories that call for drastic action to affect climate change; 2) this strategy lumps nearly all tragedies and catastrophes under the climate change roof: severe weather, disease, future war, etc.; 3) it’s important to consider the climate change issue in terms of economics: in reality, thinking about and investing in worldwide social policies would be a much greater use of money and save and improve a much greater number of lives around the globe than using the same amount of money to slow global warming mostly by attempting to cut carbon emissions.

So his message, the way I read it, is a valuable one. First, because he offers an alternative perspective on the climate change problem, rationally challenging the storm of rhetoric that effectively creates more fear than fixes, and second, because he offers mostly tangible solutions that keep the whole of the world’s population in mind.

As for the style in which his message is relayed, it is nearly the opposite of entertaining, and it is so full of complex statistics as to be perpetually convoluted. Though the stats are relayed quite matter-of-factly, many of his statements are assumptive, at least for the average reader who has not researched or read widely on this topic. Still, when his main ideas leak through, it is enough to show his sincere concern and lend him intellectual credibility.

Ondi Timoner’s documentary of the same title covers the majority of Lomborg’s message in under an hour and a half, and while it’s not a whole lot better at conveying his main points, it does an adequate job. Especially if you’re willing to watch it twice.
(less)

1 like · like · see review

Aug 09, 2008 Jill rated it 2 of 5 stars

An interesting read, which made me question the merits of the global warming hype. Then I learned about how he 'cherry picks' data and is the golden child of the right wing establishment - barf.

1 like · like · see review

Mar 10, 2013 Thom rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: non-fiction

"Cool It" does two things well - criticizes some of the reactionary aspects of Global Warming (statements, media campaigns, and Kyoto), and proposes a method of deciding where money should be spent, based on solid numbers and good estimates of the effects of Global Warming. His point, and I agree with it, is that no matter what you and I do about hybrid vehicles and carbon credits, more people in China are going to want cars over the next 10 years. That is the BIG problem here. If we can provide...more

1 like · like · see review

Jan 21, 2011 Frank Roberts rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: political-science, science

No, the polar bears aren't going to go extinct. No, the seas are not going to rise and flood our cities, coastlands, and small island nations. No, the Gulf Stream is not going to stop and plunge Europe into Siberian cold. No, hurricanes are not getting more frequent or more intense. No, there will not be droughts and famines. Lomborg dispenses with all the hype, hysteria, and doom-saying in this slim volume (1/3 of its pages is bibliography and notes!)

Lomborg, an economist, argues that we need t...more

1 like · like · see review

Jan 08, 2011 Sarah rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: non-fiction

Excellent book! Finally a book that cuts through the rhetoric on both sides of the climate change debate. Lomborg's first premise is that global warming is real and man-made. However, he deconstructs the ominous claims of the immediate consequences of global warming, using balanced research and a clear headed look at all the facts. Lomborg points out that so many have mistaken one proposed means for the end--the exclusive focus on reduction of greenhouse gasses. Our end is "to improve the qualit...more

like · see review

Sep 26, 2009 Logo rated it 4 of 5 stars

For those of us who don't dismiss global warming but feel there is a little more (or less) to it than Al Gore's rhetoric, THIS is the book.

Lomborg's tip for saving polar bears?
How about, if you are really worried about polar bear populations, instead of fretting about the 4 possible drowning deaths that COULD be related tenuously to global warning you get upset about the SIXTY polar bears a year that get shot!

I like his ideas, his suggestions, and his whole approach to the topic. He is level hea...more

like · see review

Dec 06, 2012 Andrew Miller rated it 3 of 5 stars

Lomborg does not ignore global warming, but he clearly has the Kyoto Protocol and Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth in the cross-hairs. He’s not saying there is no climate change, but he does suggest more of a need for openness to solutions. He suggests that technological advancements can help. The ocean has risen a foot over the past 100 and, using the Netherlands as an example, he feels that is something we can deal with slowly with technology. I would recommend the book to anyone whose eyes are ca...more

like · see review

Feb 19, 2012 Bonnie E. rated it 4 of 5 stars

This book provides an interesting perspective on global warming without being shrill or overtly political. It's not an anti-environmental polemic but rather, a thoughtful and logically presented point of view about an issue that has polarized people to such an extent that we sometimes find it difficult to listen to one another. Lomborg's propositions will force you to test your assumptions and broaden your understanding of global warming, and no matter where you fall on the sliding scale of beli...more

1 like · like · see review

Aug 16, 2011 Alan rated it 5 of 5 stars

An intelligent well reasoned book on the complexities of climate change and what to do about it.
As a climate cynic it was a relief to read something that wasn't shrill apocalyptic hysteria. He asks some very challenging questions and puts forward provocative answers. He also shows a genuine concern for the developing world. Lomberg believes that global warming is a real and vital issue. What he doubts is whether most solutions being put forward will actually be acted on let alone work. Maybe th...more

like · see review

Jan 18, 2013 Scott rated it 3 of 5 stars

I'm no expert on global warming, and I'm not saying whether Lomborg is wrong or right. But I will say this: he makes a lot of good points that I think should be and need to be addressed. There is an awful lot we can do to combat global warming, but the costs will, in all likelihood, not be justified by the results. The main thing I agree with Lomborg on is that dealing with global warming will prove to be more of an economic issue than an environmental one. Where should the dollars go? Are there...more

like · see review

Jun 21, 2009 Allison rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

In Cool It, Lomborg points out the use of bad data and exaggerated conclusions in the popular discussion of global warming. While he does not deny that global warming exists, he suggests that the frantic, emotional response may not serve the earth's long term interests. Extensively researched and well-written, Lomborg shows that the world community would be better suited to put resources into other global problems rather than focusing on carbon emissions based resolutions such as those set forth...more

like · see review

Nov 05, 2008 Lostinanovel rated it 3 of 5 stars

I read this because it strikes me as odd how strongly people feel about what I consider to be a scientific problem. Why do average people (non scientists) get so emotional about an issue when he or she is so obviously ignorant about the science behind the theories? Seems like group-think to me so I wanted to explore. This was an interesting read, several ideas that I hadn’t considered. The author stresses that both sides of this debate sound crazy. Global warming isn’t some elaborate hoax but no...more I read this because it strikes me as odd how strongly people feel about what I consider to be a scientific problem. Why do average people (non scientists) get so emotional about an issue when he or she is so obviously ignorant about the science behind the theories? Seems like group-think to me so I wanted to explore. This was an interesting read, several ideas that I hadn’t considered. The author stresses that both sides of this debate sound crazy. Global warming isn’t some elaborate hoax but nor is it the end of the world. Data supports neither side. A few ideas I took away:

1) We need to calm the media hype. For example, parts of glaciers may be shrinking but others are growing and in sum, they are growing. Media hype regarding polar bears is ridiculous. In fact, in areas where the Arctic is getting colder, bear populations are shrinking but in the areas of warming, populations growing. They actually live better in the warmth. Another popular media image is the melting ice caps of Mt. Kilamanjaro where temperatures have actually NOT fallen. The air there is actually just becoming drier and causing evaporation.

2) The author looks at both sides of changes. For example, he calculates that global warming may cause deaths from heat but will be more than offset be fewer deaths from cold.

3) He is big into analyzing costs. Kyoto and other proposals are very expensive and we must ask ourselves what else could we do with the money. We could effectively end malaria or materially reduce malnutrition or perhaps virtually end the AIDS crisis. Are we so confident in our global warming beliefs that we can forego these projects?

4) What would be the actual benefit of Kyoto? Kyoto would be very hard to implement, have enormous costs and without China support, the impact is minimal. Even the UN which supports Kyoto doesn’t believe that its full implementation would be felt for another 112 years.

5) He points out that we no matter what we do, we are going to have to adjust to a warmer planet. Therefore, he believes in direct approaches not expensive CO2 reduction goals which have limited potential. Want to save bears? End hunting which would have a huge immediate. Want to reduce heat in urban areas? Paint streets white.

In the end, he stresses that the goal shouldn't be to reduce co2, but to improve the quality of our lives.
(less)

like · see review

Feb 09, 2013 Danelley rated it 4 of 5 stars

I am reading a selected portion of the book through the google book application. (Google, I love your applications! Keep up the good work.) Usually it's a LARGE selected portion, the first hundred pages or so. So don't worry about only having a chapter or so. Of course, by then you are HOOKED! And I end up buying or checking out the book anyway...

First, the Prologue is great! You can read it using the Google app, but here it some of it if you are feeling a little lazy today:

Basically, Bjorn is a...more I am reading a selected portion of the book through the google book application. (Google, I love your applications! Keep up the good work.) Usually it's a LARGE selected portion, the first hundred pages or so. So don't worry about only having a chapter or so. Of course, by then you are HOOKED! And I end up buying or checking out the book anyway...

First, the Prologue is great! You can read it using the Google app, but here it some of it if you are feeling a little lazy today:

Basically, Bjorn is a dyed-in-the-wool 60's Greenpeace hippee. He reads an article in Wired Magazine by economist Julian Simon, and Simon says (haha) that "much of our traditional knowledge about the environment is quite simply based on preconceptions and poor statistics. Our doomsday conceptions of the environment are not correct." Simon goes on to say that he only uses official statistics to get his findings and make his claims.

So the book's author, Bjorn Lomborg, says that he has been a long-time Greenpeace member, but that he also teaches a statistics class, and he has always told his students how "statistics is one of science's best ways to check whether our venerable social beliefs stand up to scrutiny or turn out to be myths. Yet, I had never really questioned my own belief in an ever deteriorating environment - and here was Simon, telling me to put MY BELIEFS under the statistical microscope."

Oh, it gets better. So in the Fall of 1997, Bjorn and some of his students use some of these official statistics and try to examine Simon's article thoroughly. Guess what happens?? They thought that they would disprove and debunk nearly all of Simon's article. They did find a few problems with what he said, but a surprisingly large amount of Simon's points stood up to scrutiny, and conflicted with Bjorn's previous beliefs, namely that the world was going to Hell in a handbasket, that more people were starving, that the world is becoming more polluted. No.

Bjorn Lomborg found that it was quite the opposite. Statistically speaking, the air in the developed world is becoming less polluted, less starvation, etc. Lomborg goes on to write some articles about our understanding of various environmental problems.

Instead of opening a debate with many environmental groups, the groups just completely deny all of his research. It was almost like people were more comfortable in believing in a doomsday scenario, and that Lomborg had gotten it wrong somewhere.

Anyway, the book is good, not too bogged down with science or technical jargon. I've enjoyed reading it so far, and I feel like I am peering into Bjorn Lomborg's "environmentally betrayed" soul.(less)

like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 32 33 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

topics	posts	views	last activity
Global Warming / Climate Change	6	34	8 de Jun 17:22

combine
Other Editions (11)

More editions...

Genres

Non Fiction

32 users

Science

27 users

Environment

13 users

Politics

6 users

Economics

5 users

Environment > Global Warming

4 users

Book Club

3 users

Environment > Sustainability

3 users

Environment > Climate Change

2 users

See top shelves...

Readers also enjoyed similar books

Books by Bjørn Lomborg

The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World

Smart Solutions to Climate Change: Comparing Costs and Benefits

O Ambientalista Cético: Revelando a Real Situação do Mundo

How To Spend $75 Billion to Make the World A Better Place

More…

Share This Book

Facebook Twitter Your website

Trivia About Cool It: The Skep...

No trivia or quizzes yet. Add some now »

title link	preview: Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming
avg rating	preview: Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming Goodreads rating: 3.57 (469 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/384311.Cool_It?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1266539746l/384311.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/384311.Cool_It?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming by Bjørn Lomborg[/url]

Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topicDiscuss This Book

combineOther Editions (11)

Genres

Readers also enjoyed similar books

Books by Bjørn Lomborg

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About Cool It: The Skep...

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (11)