Editing The Skeptical Environmentalist (section)

== Reception ==
{{Multiple image
| image1            = Plos wilson.jpg
| image2            = Tom Lovejoy.jpg
| image3            = Dr. Peter Gleick, Boston Museum of Science, April 2014.jpg
| footer            = [[Edward O. Wilson]], [[Thomas Lovejoy]] and [[Peter Gleick]] were among the scientists that criticized the book upon release.
| total_width       = 400
}}
The book generally received negative reviews from the [[scientific community]],<ref name=":2" /> focusing on the author's methodology, data issues, theories and concepts. The most common critiques were the [[Cherry picking|selective use of data]], followed by [[Citation|referencing]], and lack of focus on the [[environmental movement]].<ref name=":2" /> Most [[environmental scientists]] argued that the book was deeply flawed, and that the state of the environment was not clearly represented.<ref name=":5" /> In some cases, reviews were harsh in both content and tone.<ref name=":2" />

The Danish Ecological Council, an advisory committee on environmental issues, published a "counter-publication" which criticised Lomborg's methods and approach in his book. The publication was released in 1999 as ''Fremtidens Pris'' (''The Price of the Future''), written by 18 contributors of various disciplines.<ref name=":2" /> 

{{Quote box
| quote = I would fail one of my undergraduate students if they were to write such trash.
| author = [[Jeffrey Harvey (biologist)|Jeffrey Harvey]] on ''The Skeptical Environmentalist''<ref name=":2"></ref>
}}

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 (biologist)|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.<ref>{{Cite web |title=UCS Examines 'The Skeptical Environmentalist' {{!}} Union of Concerned Scientists |url=https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/ucs-examines-skeptical-environmentalist |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100401025937/http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/ucs-examines-the-skeptical.html |archive-date=1 April 2010 |access-date=2022-09-13 |website=www.ucsusa.org |language=en}}</ref> Harvey compared the book unfavourably to University [[Undergraduate research|undergraduate]] quality, and added "[[ecology]] is the most complex of sciences and Lomborg has never done a shred of work in the field".<ref name=":2" /> In a letter, Wilson said that the greatest regret he had about the book was "the time wasted by scientists correcting the misinformation created."<ref name=":2" />

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.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Misleading Math about the Earth |url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/misleading-math-about-the/ |access-date=2022-09-13 |website=Scientific American |date=January 2002 |language=en |archive-date=27 April 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210427193218/https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/misleading-math-about-the/ |url-status=live}}</ref> The journal also refused Lomborg's request of publishing a defense print of 32 pages,<ref name=":2" /> rather a page in the later May issue in 2002.<ref>{{Cite journal |title=The Skeptical Environmentalist Replies |url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-skeptical-environment/ |access-date=2022-09-13 |journal=Scientific American |year=2002 |volume=286 |issue=5 |pages=14–15 |doi=10.1038/scientificamerican0502-14 |bibcode=2002SciAm.286e..14. |language=en |archive-date=5 October 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221005204444/https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-skeptical-environment/ |url-status=live}}</ref> The magazine later published his complete rebuttal on its website,<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.sciam.com/media/pdf/lomborgrebuttal.pdf |title=ScientificAmerican+BL for SA.PDF<!-- Bot generated title --> |access-date=15 August 2005 |archive-date=5 September 2005 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050905070212/http://www.sciam.com/media/pdf/lomborgrebuttal.pdf |url-status=live}}</ref> along with the counter rebuttals of [[John Rennie (editor)|John Rennie]]<ref>{{Cite web |last=Rennie |first=John |title=A Response to Lomborg's Rebuttal |url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-response-to-lomborgs-re/ |access-date=2022-09-13 |website=Scientific American |language=en |archive-date=13 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220913215426/https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-response-to-lomborgs-re/ |url-status=live}}</ref> and [[John Holdren|John P. Holdren]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Holdren |first=John P. |title=A Response to Bj¿rn Lomborg¿s Response to My Critique of His Energy Chapter |url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-response-to-bjrn-lombor/ |access-date=2022-09-13 |website=Scientific American |language=en |archive-date=13 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220913215439/https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-response-to-bjrn-lombor/ |url-status=live}}</ref>

''[[Nature (journal)|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 [[Jeffrey Harvey (biologist)|Jeff Harvey]] of the Netherlands Institute of Ecology wrote: "Like bad [[Term paper|term papers]], Lomborg's text relies heavily on [[secondary source]]s. Out of around 2,000 references, about 5% come from news sources and 30% from web downloads — readily accessible, therefore, but frequently not [[peer review]]ed." They continued that "the text employs the strategy of those who, for example, argue that [[HIV/AIDS denialism|gay men aren't dying of AIDS]], that Jews [[Holocaust denial|weren't singled out by the Nazis for extermination]], and so on."<ref>{{cite journal |author1=Stuart Pimm |author2=Jeff Harvey |title=No need to worry about the future |journal=Nature |volume=414 |date=8 November 2001 |doi=10.1038/35102629 |page=149 |issue=6860 |bibcode=2001Natur.414..149P |s2cid=205022759}}</ref>

[[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."<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/ecology/gleick.pdf |title=Where's Waldo? A Review of The Skeptical Environmentalist (Bjorn Lomborg) |work=Union of Concerned Scientists |author=Peter H Gleick |date=2001-11-06 |access-date=2016-08-17 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160829042627/http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/ecology/gleick.pdf |archive-date=2016-08-29}}</ref> [[David Pimentel (scientist)|David Pimentel]] wrote a critical review in ''[[Population and Environment]]'', particularly taking issue with Lomborg's argument on [[soil erosion]], [[pesticide]]s, 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."<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Pimentel |first=David |date=2002-03-01 |title=Book Review: The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World. Bjorn Lomborg. Cambridge U.K.: Cambridge University Press |url=https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014528920090 |journal=Population and Environment |language=en |volume=23 |issue=4 |pages=419–428 |doi=10.1023/A:1014528920090 |bibcode=2002PopEn..23..419P |s2cid=150485996 |issn=1573-7810 |access-date=17 September 2022 |archive-date=20 March 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230320222408/https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1014528920090 |url-status=live}}</ref> [[Roger A. Pielke]], meanwhile, defended Lomborg and the book, describing the debate as an example of [[Politicization of science|politicising science]].<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Pielke |first=Roger A. |date=2004-10-01 |title=When scientists politicize science: making sense of controversy over The Skeptical Environmentalist |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901104000668 |journal=Environmental Science & Policy |series=Science, Policy, and Politics: Learning from Controversy Over The Skeptical Environmentalist |language=en |volume=7 |issue=5 |pages=405–417 |doi=10.1016/j.envsci.2004.06.004 |bibcode=2004ESPol...7..405P |issn=1462-9011}}</ref>

The 12 December 2001 issue of ''[[Grist Magazine|Grist]]'' devoted an issue to ''The Skeptical Environmentalist'',<ref name="GristSkepticalLook" /> 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?".<ref>{{cite web |author=Schulz, Kathryn |date=12 December 2001 |title=Let Us Not Praise Infamous Men |url=http://grist.org/advice/books/2001/12/12/infamous/index.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050308021710/http://www.grist.org/advice/books/2001/12/12/infamous/index.html |archive-date=8 March 2005 |access-date=4 May 2005 |work=Grist Magazine}}</ref>

Legal scholar [[David Schoenbrod|David Shoenbrod]] was one of the defenders of Lomborg.<ref name=":2" /> In March 2003, the ''[[New York Law School Law Review]]'' published<ref name=":1">{{cite journal |year=2003 |title=What Happened to the Skeptical Environmentalist |url=http://www.nyls.edu/pdfs/v46n3-4p581-614.pdf |url-status=dead |journal=New York Law School Law Review |volume=46 |issue=3 |pages=581–614 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080626022030/http://www.nyls.edu/pdfs/v46n3-4p581-614.pdf |archive-date=26 June 2008}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2" />