James Kruse fnjjk1 at uaf.edu
Tue Dec 11 14:50:59 EST 2001

on 12/10/01 2:11 PM, Patrick Foley at patfoley at csus.edu wrote:

> The evidence for elevated extinction risks is hardly overstated by most
> ecologists. While one could argue about the exact rate of added extinction
> risk due to human management, the fundamentals are firmly in place for the
> loss of between one fourth and one half of the species on earth.

Yes, but the point was that extrapolations from 50 years worth of data to
1000 years and certainly 6000 years, and assuming that nothing changes
during that time, are bound to be inaccurate.

> And if Lomborg is writing as a scientist, not as a propagandist,
> why did he not have his chapter on biodiversity reviewed by Robert May, E. O.
> Wilson, Peter Raven or some other scientist who is a published scientific
> authority on the subject?  (snip)
> In short, if Lomborg is writing as a scientist, he is poorly trained in the
> fields he critiques and failed to get proper review. If he is merely a
> propagandist, then what he is pushing is not what the world needs.

I don't think it is fair or reasonable to require that all publications
involving biodiversity be filtered through these particular individuals to
qualify as getting a "proper review". 70 pages of bibliography does sound
pretty well researched, more than your average propagandist I suspect. I
have not read the book yet (recently ordered because of all the buzz about
it), and I don't think you have read it either. Here is a clip from an
internet article about the author and the book for those interested:

"In 1997, a young Danish statistician named Bjorn Lomborg read an interview
with Julian Simon, an American economist who argued that much of our
knowledge about the environment was based on preconceptions and poor
statistics," wrote sociologist the Rev. Andrew Greeley in the Chicago
Sun-Times. "According to Simon the doomsday conventional wisdom about the
environment was wrong."

A leftist, vegetarian environmentalist and a onetime Greenpeace member,
Lomberg was determined to prove that Simon was dead wrong. Putting together
a team of the best statistical students at his university, he launched a
massive study designed to disprove Simon's claims and was amazed after
intensive research to discover that he was, for the most part, right on.

In a new 500-page book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist," boasting 70 pages
of bibliography and nearly 3,000 notes, Lomberg and his team "trashes the
conventional wisdom," Greeley wrote.
And another:
"Its importance lies partly in its relentless statistics. With 173 charts,
nine tables and a staggering 2,930 footnotes, The Skeptical Environmentalist
will be a source of reference for years to come. But it is also a readable,
accessible and simple account of the state of the world, told as much in the
illuminating charts as in the text itself. And it is a fascinating polemic,
too. Lomborg exposes the fibs, half-truths and sleights of hand that have
been used to sustain the ultra-pessimism that so effectively gets us all
reaching for our cheque books."
And a long, but even-handed review reminding us that statistics can go both


I'm anxious to read it for myself.

James J. Kruse, Ph.D.
Curator of Entomology
University of Alaska Museum
907 Yukon Drive
Fairbanks, AK, USA 99775-6960
tel 907.474.5579
fax 907.474.1987


   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:


More information about the Leps-l mailing list