ABSTRACT
One may or may not find believable the claim by Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, that, starting out as “an old left-wing Greenpeace member” gloom-and-doom environmentalist (Lomborg, 2001, p. xix) he gradually convinced himself, through the power of statistical analysis, that the environmental conditions upon which humanity depends for its well-being were not getting worse, but were actually getting better. Whether or not Lomborg did undergo a data-induced perceptual transformation, his underlying claim is a familiar and comfortable one. Our commitments to acting in the world must be based on a foundation of fact, and when a conflict arises between the two, then our commitments must accordingly change. Thomas Lovejoy, in a sharply critical review of Lomborg’s book, nevertheless supports a similar view, where appropriate action is determined by scientific inquiry: “researchers identify a potential problem, scientific examination tests the various hypotheses, understanding of the problem often becomes more complex, researchers suggest remedial policies—and then the situation improves” (Lovejoy, 2002, p. 12; emphasis in original). David Pimentel, another Lomborg critic, argues in the same vein: “As an agricultural scientist and ecologist, I wish I could share Lomborg’s optimism, but my investigations and those of countless other scientists lead me to a more wary outlook” (Pimentel, 2002, p. 297).
