Others, such as Julian Simon and Gregg Easterbrook, have come before him, and others no doubt will follow. Conversely, the publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice.
While Lomborg admits that extinctions are a problem, he asserts that they are not the catastrophe claimed by some, and have little effect on human prosperity.
He concludes that population growth is not a problem, that there is plenty of freshwater around, that deforestation rates and species extinctions are grossly exaggerated, that the pollution battle has been won, and that global warming is too expensive to fix.
Some critics[ who? Like the Hare, Lomborg's lie has raced out in front of the truth. He points to improvements in education, safety, leisure, and ever more widespread access to consumer goods as signs that prosperity is increasing in most parts of the world.
Much of the book's methodology and integrity have been subject to criticism which argue that Lomborg distorted the fields of research he covers.
In a busy and under funded world, few people have the time or background knowledge to plow though 3, footnotes checking his sources.
As a partial solution, Lomborg presents fish farms, which cause a less disruptive impact on the world's oceans. In every case, his calculations find that the claim is not substantiated, and is either an exaggeration, or a completely reversed portrayal of an improving situation, rather than a deteriorating one.
Richard C. The author suggested that environmentalists diverted potentially beneficial resources to less deserving environmental issues in ways that were economically damaging. Since it examines the costs and benefits of its many topics, it could be considered a work in economics, as categorized by its publisher.
By tying themselves to politics, rather than policy, scientists necessarily restrict their value and the value of their science.