Editing The Skeptical Environmentalist (section)

== Media coverage ==
The book was widely cited in [[Conservatism|conservative]] media and groups who oppose environmental regulations.<ref name=":5" /> 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."<ref>{{Cite news |date=6 September 2001 |title=Doomsday postponed |url=https://www.economist.com/books-and-arts/2001/09/06/doomsday-postponed |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210507190413/https://www.economist.com/books-and-arts/2001/09/06/doomsday-postponed |archive-date=7 May 2021 |access-date=2022-09-13 |newspaper=The Economist |issn=0013-0613}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=31 January 2002 |title=Defending science |url=https://www.economist.com/leaders/2002/01/31/defending-science |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220913215426/https://www.economist.com/leaders/2002/01/31/defending-science |archive-date=13 September 2022 |access-date=2022-09-13 |newspaper=The Economist |issn=0013-0613}}</ref>

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]]."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Wade |first=Nicholas |date=7 August 2001 |title=Bjorn Lomborg; From an Unlikely Quarter, Eco-Optimism |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/07/science/scientist-at-work-bjorn-lomborg-from-an-unlikely-quarter-eco-optimism.html |website=[[The New York Times]] |access-date=3 April 2024 |archive-date=5 December 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231205061041/https://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/07/science/scientist-at-work-bjorn-lomborg-from-an-unlikely-quarter-eco-optimism.html |url-status=live }}</ref> 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".<ref>{{Cite web |last=Lomborg |first=Bjorn |author-link=Bjørn Lomborg |date=15 August 2001 |title=Yes, it looks bad, but... |url=https://www.theguardian.com/education/2001/aug/15/highereducation.climatechange |access-date=30 April 2024 |website=[[The Guardian]] |archive-date=30 April 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240430215450/https://www.theguardian.com/education/2001/aug/15/highereducation.climatechange |url-status=live }}</ref> The ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'' deemed Lomborg's work "a superbly documented and readable book."<ref>{{Cite news |last=Bailey |first=Ronald |date=2 October 2001 |title=Why All Those Dire Predictions Have No Future |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1001976791758229400 |access-date=2024-04-03 |work=[[The Wall Street Journal]] |language=en-US |archive-date=3 April 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240403201318/https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1001976791758229400 |url-status=live }}</ref> In ''[[The Washington Post]],'' [[Denis Dutton]] claimed that "Bjørn Lomborg's good news about the environment is bad news for [[Green politics|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."<ref>{{Cite news |last=Dutton |first=Denis |author-link=Denis Dutton |date=20 October 2001 |title=Greener Than You Think |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/entertainment/books/2001/10/21/greener-than-you-think/67184d01-7bac-40ce-985f-9c8b5637f1e1/ |newspaper=[[Washington Post]] |access-date=3 April 2024 |archive-date=14 March 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210314061442/https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/entertainment/books/2001/10/21/greener-than-you-think/67184d01-7bac-40ce-985f-9c8b5637f1e1/ |url-status=live }}</ref> ''[[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."<ref name=":9" />[[File:Long-term-forest-loss-–-Marimekko.png|thumb|300x300px|In his review, [[Chris Lavers]] took issue with Lomborg's characterisation of [[deforestation]], saying "The area of land covered with trees may not have changed much in the last 50 years, but this is mostly because [[Temperate forest|northern forests]] have increased in area while the biologically richer [[Tropical rainforest|tropical]] ones have declined."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Lavers |first=Chris |date=2001-09-01 |title=Review: The Skeptical Environmentalist |url=http://www.theguardian.com/books/2001/sep/01/scienceandnature.highereducation1 |access-date=2022-09-17 |website=the Guardian |language=en |archive-date=22 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220922021903/https://www.theguardian.com/books/2001/sep/01/scienceandnature.highereducation1 |url-status=live}}</ref>]]
[[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 [[Paul R. Ehrlich|Ehrlich]], whom professionals have been ignoring for decades" and criticising his framing of deforestation.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Lavers |first=Chris |date=2001-09-01 |title=Review: The Skeptical Environmentalist |url=http://www.theguardian.com/books/2001/sep/01/scienceandnature.highereducation1 |access-date=2022-09-17 |website=the Guardian |language=en |archive-date=22 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220922021903/https://www.theguardian.com/books/2001/sep/01/scienceandnature.highereducation1 |url-status=live}}</ref>

In a [[BBC]] column from 23 August 2001, veteran BBC environmental correspondent [[Alex Kirby (journalist)|Alex Kirby]] wrote:<ref name=":4">{{Cite news |date=2001-08-23 |title=Bjorn Lomborg's wonderful world |language=en-GB |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1502076.stm |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920170814/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1502076.stm |url-status=live}}</ref>
:I am neither a statistician nor a scientist, and I lack the skill to judge Lomborg's reworkings of the statistics of conventional wisdom. But I am worried that on virtually every topic he touches, he reaches conclusions radically different from almost everybody else. That seems to suggest that most scientists are wrong, short-sighted, naïve, interested only in securing research funds, or deliberately dancing to the campaigners' tune. Most I know are honest, intelligent and competent. So it beggars belief to suppose that Professor Lomborg is the only one in step, every single time.<ref name=":4" />

Kirby's first concern was not with the extensive research and statistical analysis, but the conclusions drawn from them, concluding: "In the rational world that Bjørn Lomborg thinks we all inhabit, we would manage problems sensibly, one by one. But the real world is messier, more unpredictable—and more impatient."<ref name=":4" />

=== Reception of media coverage ===
Shortly after its release, the [[World Resources Institute]] and [[World Wide Fund for Nature]] published a nine-point critique of Lomborg's work and credentials specifically targeted at journalists, advising them to "proceed with caution" in their coverage of the book.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2001 |title=Nine things journalists should know about The Skeptical Environmentalist |url=http://pubs.wri.org/pubs_content_text.cfm?ContentID=697 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070704002947/http://pubs.wri.org/pubs_content_text.cfm?ContentID=697 |archive-date=4 July 2007 |access-date=2024-04-30 |website=[[World Resources Institute]]}}</ref> One critical article, "The Skeptical Environmentalist: A Case Study in the Manufacture of News", attributes the book's media success to its initial, influential supporters, who linked its message to a European visit from United States president [[George W. Bush]].<ref name=":3">{{Cite web |last=Kreidler |first=Marc |date=2003-01-23 |title=The Skeptical Environmentalist: A Case Study in the Manufacture of News |url=https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/skeptical-environmentalist-a-case-study-in-the-manufacture-of-news/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210510142440/https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/skeptical-environmentalist-a-case-study-in-the-manufacture-of-news/ |archive-date=10 May 2021 |access-date=2022-09-13 |website=[[Skeptical Inquirer]] |language=en-US}}</ref>

{{Quote box
| quote = News of the pending book first appeared in the UK in early June of 2001 when a ''[[The Sunday Times|Sunday Times]]'' article by Nayab Chohan featured an advanced report of claims made by Lomborg that [[Air pollution in the United Kingdom|London's air]] was cleaner than at any time since 1585. Headlined "Cleanest London Air for 400 Years," the publicity hook was both local and timely, as the tail end of the article linked the book's questioning of the [[Kyoto Protocol|Kyoto climate change protocol]] to U.S. president [[George W. Bush]]'s visit the same week to Europe, and Bush's controversial opposition to the treaty. The'' [[The Times|Times]] ''followed up the report the next day with a news article further detailing the book's Kyoto protocol angle. With ''The Times'' reports, Lomborg and his claims had made the Anglo media agenda. As is typically the case, other media outlets followed the reporting of the elite newspaper. Articles pegging the claims of ''The Skeptical Environmentalist'' to Bush's European visit ran later that week in the U.K's ''[[Daily Express|The Express]]'' and ''[[The Daily Telegraph|Daily Telegraph]]'', and Canada's ''[[Toronto Star]]''.<ref name=":3" />
| author = Marc Kreider
| source = ''[[Skeptical Inquirer]]''
| align = right
}}

Richard C. Bell, writing for [[Worldwatch Institute|Worldwatch]] argued that many reviews in prominent publications were written by individuals with prior association with Lomborg, "instead of seeking scientists with a critical perspective." In ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'', a review was published by the [[Competitive Enterprise Institute]]'s [[Ronald Bailey]], someone "who had earlier written a book called The True State of the World, from which much of Lomborg's claims were taken." Bell also criticized the ''[[The Washington Post|Washington Post]]'', whose Sunday Book World assigned the book review to [[Denis Dutton]], identified as "a professor of philosophy who lectures on the dangers of pseudoscience at the science faculties of the [[University of Canterbury]] in New Zealand", and the editor of the web site [[Arts and Letters Daily]]. Bell noted that "The ''Post'' did not tell its readers that Dutton's web site features links to the [[Global Climate Coalition]], an anti-Kyoto consortium of [[Energy Lobby|oil and coal businesses]], and to the messages of Julian Simon—the man whose [[climate change denial|denial]] that global warming was occurring apparently gave Lomborg the idea for his book in the first place."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Bell |first=Richard C. |date=15 February 2002 |title=Commentary: Media Sheep |url=http://www.worldwatch.org/node/538 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100802101431/http://www.worldwatch.org/node/538 |archive-date=2010-08-02 |access-date=2010-09-07 |website=[[Worldwatch Institute]]}}</ref>