JustGeoff said:
OK, some general points.
1) Actually, the burden is on YOU to refute the relevant facts from the article, and you have not done so. All you have done is quote a book which says "there will be no oil crisis". The book is considerably older than the article, and the article is based on up-to-date science and up-to-date politics. Lomborgs book, as well as being out of date, has been well and truly slated by those who really understand the subject :
http://www.gristmagazine.com/books/lomborg121201.asp
2) In short, Lomborgs book isn't worth the paper it is written on, so please try to deal with what is posted in the article without quoting a discredited source like Lomborg.
3) I am not interested in Lomborgs propaganda. Yes, there is still some oil left, yes we aren't going to run out tomorrow. The most conservative realistic estimate for 'peak oil' is about 2015.
4) When oil becomes prohibitively expensive much more use will be made of alternative sources of energy. The problem is that there are very few alternative sources to replace oil as a raw material in plastics, drugs, fertilisers and all of the rest of the things we use it for. It isn't just fuel. Its everything else as well.
5) Eh? So you think the war wasn't about oil? 
6) Well now I have provided a whole page worth of academics who also think Lomborg is talking out of his backside because he has a political agenda. 
7) No, but I have heard nonsense quoted from it from several years now.
8) Scientific American article explaining why the coming Oil Crash is so much worse than the oil crisises of the 1970's.:
http://www.planetforlife.com/End of Cheap Oil.htm
I hope you do not mind that I have added numbers to your post for clarity, but I wanted to discuss each point, I am sure you would agree this is OK.
1) OK, I will try to defend it, although I do not have a week to spend on this, so bear with me.
First, a lot of people claim Lomborg lacks a scientific background on the issues he talks about. If you read his book, he entirely agrees, which is why he had all of the scientific parts written by experts in those specific areas. He only comments on the policies and effects on the public which is his field of expertise, so lets debunk that point right away. (See introduction/chapter 1 of TES.) As for research to date, I have been reading the actual primary sources on climate change and environmental science and hold a degree in that subject from an accredited US university. I also read the criticisms. So far, all the critics have done is to repeat their original points Lomborg has debunked in his book. What up to date information? Your post is a little vague, but I will address the articles you posted as they are numbered.
2) Extinction: Here the same exact argument is being made by the environmentalists. Lomborgs original point, I will repeat: It is not disputed that animal species and other "cute" organisms are going to be lost and have been lost. But to claim that all organisms, ie bacteria, mold, fungus, an insects will also go extinct is totally unproven. So here, the ecologists are making wild claims with absolutely no hard data whatsoever. No quantitative references are made as to how those extinction rates are calculated quantitatively, it is totally qualitative based on a select number of organisms, with no hard data. Lomborg suggests funding more ecology research so we can see just how, quantitatively this issue is progressing. Also, we have only deystroyed about 18% of all rainforests over the past 500 years. The media makes it out to look like there is only a few acres left. Further, managed tree farms in South America can grow all of the export/domestic products while only consuming around 3% of total forest cover preserving the rest of the environment. BTW, the statistics all come from the countries which report them, and or the UN, or the US official statistics. There simply are no other sources available, so pick up the book, and see for yourself. Lomborg only presents facts. Apparently the ecologists do not.
Climate:
Here, the author makes one massive appeal to emotions after another, a typical tactic. He uses the IPCC as the source to claim that Lomborg is wrong. Just to start, the IPCC recommendations to change the United States: swtch to local only economies, abandon all cars, and force people to live in shared community housing. Nazi ghettos anyone? Their recommendations on how humanity should change goes to show just how out of touch with reality they are. The IPCC has come under increased scrutiny lately, as the data they base their calculations on are flawed and incomplete. For example, the July paper in the Harvard Medical School publication reveals how the sun actually fluctuates and cycles over time as to the amount of radiation it emitts towards the earth, greatly effecting GW. This was excluded from the old IPCC estimates. They merely accounted for what they knew, then arbitrarily assigned the rest of warming to human activity without evidence. So in short, Lomborg admitted openly we did not have enough data. The IPCC did not. It is agreed now that we do not know enough amongst climatologists.
Species Diversity:
First, Brown was attacked in TES, and to quote Brown from the article you cited: "As my 1979 book emphasizes, the estimate of 40,000 extinctions per year was strictly a first-cut assessment, preliminary and exploratory, and advanced primarily to get the issue of extinction onto scientific and political agendas." Who has an agenda to push, and openly admits they lied about it? Further, Lomborg criticises this particular paper because it is used most often by environmental groups to get money and or political changes that are not warranted by the facts, in which here, Brown openly admits are false.
Population:
Talk about a diatribe, which is exactly what this author accuses Lomborg of. The author also makes the same claims, once again, which are not at all supported by the facts: "For example, the world's forested area, measured in terms of healthy, productive stands of trees, is shrinking." This is actually totally false, not only is the total forested area larger today than 60 years ago, it is increasing according to the US Dept. of Forestry and the UN official statistics. No source is given by the author. Go figure. He then goes on to say that because he went to a farm in a third world country and did not see a forest that that is the proof. So because some people grew food to combat the undisputed number one killer of humans (malnutrition,) in a small area, therefore all forests around the world are shrinking? Take a look at the official numbers. This guy is out to lunch.
Forests:
Lomborgs main point here was to counteract the litany that total forest cover is declining. It is already known that "original" or "virgin" forest cover has been significantly lost. The point of the book is to counteract groups who claim that TFC is decreasing. It is not, and even this author admits this fact.
Statistics:
One: "global warming is not worth addressing " Never said any such thing. In fact, he deddicated an entire, huge chapter on the subject. Clearly, this author never read the book. Makes me wonder how he can possibly criticise it? Further: "While the tons of fish taken from the sea have indeed doubled, many marine fish stocks are now badly depleted as a result, and harvests of cod, swordfish, halibut, and many other commercially important species have crashed. There are literally hundreds of such misleading statements in the book." Another straw man. Lomborg openly admits that natural fish stocks have plummeted, but that the demand for fish is being matched by fish farms, which he goes into great detail. So here, we see two blatant lies which Lomborg never made, were never in the book.
Human Health:
Another straw man lie: "confesses to having no training in science." Total lie, he has a Ph.D. in statistics and has published peer reviewed papers. Statistics is a science. Further, "He does not show that the incidence of new cases of cancer not known to be linked to smoking has increased, so that young men of Generation X are four times more likely to get cancer than were their grandfathers. " Yes, he does. People are living longer. The chance of a woman dying from breast cancer before age 65, for all causes of death os only 5%. Further, the average age for diagnosis of prostate cancer is 75. We are living longer, so our chances of getting old age diseases such as cancer are higher. Quite simple really. Further, the CDC statistics are clear, cancer is a lifestyle disease overwhelmingly linked to smoking, sunbathing and HIV. The "organic" crowd hates to see this because they are scamming people out of billions of dollars for worthless organic food and other new age products. When Consumer Reports tested organic foods, 70% of the organic crap tested positive for the same chemicals as the "covnventional" food. I have personally tested organic food and have quantitatively measured those compounds where the label on the package specifically said it did not contain. Further, the Organic Rules of the USDA from October 2002 specifically state they can use as much synthetic pesticides (Ivermectin,) and must use antibiotics if animals are sick. Specifically, Bread and Circus denies these policies. Human health is getting better, and people are living longer. This article is nothing short of a straw man designed to support silly new age scams such as organic foods.
Energy:
The author starts out by admitting "We must give Lomborg his due, because he is correct;" Further, Lomborgs point was not to criticise legitimate environmental groups, but to attack the litany that the public is increasingly buying into. Lomborg does not state that everything is fine, don´t worry, but that we are spending precious resources on non-issues such as organic foods, and fringe environmental groups who lie a lot. So the main point is silly, and once again Lomborg says right in the beginning of TES that he is attacking the litanny, not solid research. "A Man Without a Plan" another straw man. Lomborg actually specifically states that wind and solar will be cheaper at current rates by 2035. He also states clearly that reducing GHG emissions will be extremely costly (which is true,) and that we shoud instead spend that money on helping the developing world protect itself from the effects of GW until we can cheaply switch over. Here the author beleives we should instead spend trillions for virtually no benefits whatsoever, and let people in DC die. It is not controversial to say that climate change takes centuries to have an effect, and we are not even sure how much humanity is effecting the climate, so doing a GHG reduction plan is incredibly stupid. I guess this author also did not read the book.
So What?
"his arguments, which weren't peer-reviewed " once again, straw man. They were not only reviewed, but were written by experts in those specific areas, and the references are mostly perer reviewed papers. What a joke. The author goes on to say: "This argument is patently bogus -- Lomborg fails to generate a single example of an environmental organization promoting its own ends at the expense of health, welfare, or education " How about Kyoto? How about The Nature Conservancy? How aboout the IPCC (even mentioned in the other sections of this article??!!?) Just look in the first chapter. Once again, another book reviewer who never read the book.
More straw: "." Furthermore, it "undermines our confidence in our ability to solve our remaining problems. It gives us a feeling of being under siege, constantly having to act with our backs to the wall, and this means that we will often implement unwise decisions based on emotional gut reactions."
That is heavy-duty stuff, but once again (and unsurprisingly), Lomborg cannot generate a single example of anyone, anywhere, who ever committed a rash act based on sheer, uncontrollable terror about the worsening environment."
How about Earth First!? How about Al Gore, who made the law based on the littany? Both mentioned in the book BTW. Again, lies, lies and more lies. Straw everywhere.
2) and 3) Clearly you are interested in him and his work to have devoted so many straw men to defeat him.
4) Chitin: it is extremely abundant and is a good source of plastics.
Manure: The natural fertilizer, which accounts for 60% of all fertilizer used in the USA (USDA statistic.) We can also use compost, sludge etc. There are many sources.
drugs: Huh? Most drugs are manufactured using a whole host of compounds to which there are alternatives in abundance if those few who rely on petrolium were depleted. Its a field called synthetic organic chemistry. Look it up.
5) The war was also about bringing xtianity to islamic countries, and about Bushs own ideas about what the world should be like. Again, the US does not project a great amount of oil imports from Iraq over the next 20 years according to the US government.
6) OK, and I have shown you that few, if any of the academics you listed even read the book for crying out loud. Blatant errors and strawmen.
7) You should read what you are criticising, otherwise you have merely dismissed this work as the others have without any idea about what is actually in it. You clearly would not accept the criticisms in the articles you posted because they are obviously wrong through and through if you had read the book.
8) "THE END OF CHEAP OIL" Oil is getting cheaper and cheaper over time, which is not disputed in the article. To wrap this up, the article once again is thinking statically, and does not believe we will develop cheaper means to produce alternative energy sources. This is like developing a prototype and claiming all such products will cost the millions of dollars as the prototype. Totally bogus. Humanity has throughout history abandoned one thing for another and made it cheaper. If oil goes out, we will develop cheaper alternatives, its obvious, and its how societies work. We will never face a wide scale, disastrous energy crisis barring all out nuclear war in which our society collapses. All I see are logical fallacies here.
I am going to end this post here, as I am consuming a lot of time. My main discovery is that virtually none of the reviewers actually read the book, which is apparent from their responses. Think about it, wont you?
