Most books that I read are from airport bookstores, as waiting for a plane is one of those rare moments that I have absolutely nothing to do. Some airports have really good bookstores, but Helsinki, unfortunately, does not. Last week I ended up buying a book by Bjorn Lomborg, called Cool it - the sceptical environmentalist's guide to global warming.

I am usually sceptical of book titles that have a tagline including the words "guide" or "how to". This time I didn't listen to the warning bells, because I was enchanted by the idea that for once I am bold enough to read something that does not support my current thinking, but looks to include facts and ideas that are opposite to mine.  (sometimes I get these growth spurts and step outside of my comfie bubble - they usually don't last long, though).

Lomborg's idea is to show that the discussion on global warming has been polluted by extremists on both sides, the s.c. "global warming deniers" and populists who spread unforeseen hysteria backed up by unreliable scientists. This sounds good. "Brimming with useful facts and common sense ... analysis is smart and refreshing, and it may bridge at least one divide in our too divided culture" praises WSJ. I start reading with excitement.

The first part of the book is used for analysing and calculated deaths of humans and polar bears. The numbers under dispute are 49 saved polar bears vs. 0.06 saved polar bears, and 84,000 more or less human deaths. The rationale behind polar bears is that 49 are shot to death each year, and implementing Kyoto CO2 protocol will only save 0.06 bears per year, ergo stop shooting polar bears His thesis on human death is that cold kills more than heat, therefore global warming will actually save lifes and not destroy. He also proves that by investing money directly on Malaria, we will save more lifes than by reducing CO2 emissions, and restricting Malaria's spreding by this measure. Well that's quite obvious isn't it.

His point is that cutting CO2 emission should not the number one priority, because we can do much more for the world by directing our resources into healthcare etc. That sounds like a good idea. Then, I am stunned when I come to the end of the book where I am presented with the ideal proposal: spend more on R&D so that we can have technology that won't emit CO2. I love the idea, but what happened to focusing on healthcare.

Much of the book is about saying how expensive fighting CO2 is. Throughout the book the reader is shown uncomprehensive dollar figures, billions and trillions, talks about spending and saving, but there are no facts. For example, many sentences start with "we spend", but it is not defined who "we" are. Also the time span of these numbers is left unknown. Are we talking about one year, or hundred years of spending. There was a weak description of how the cost has been calculated, but a deeper analysis on what this means for economies would have been nice. After all, when someone is paying, someone else is receiving.

There is one very very interesting mention, that I'd like to know more about. In one of the calculations he is proving how many days we postpone global warming, if introduing certain CO2 cutting measures. The answer is 5 days. The references to sources of more information are so general that I don't know how he ended up the with 5 days. There is a longer version of the book available, perhaps the answers could be found there.

I hate to be bashing someone's work, but all in all it seems like the whole book is a personal revenge against the "people spreading hysteria". There is no criticism to the other camp, unlike was promised on the cover and in the Preface. As I was reading this on the plane, I had time to list all the people that Lomborg is bad-mouthing:

George Monbiot
Nicholas Stern
R K Pachauri
Tim Higham
Stephen Schneider
Mark Lynas (who threw a cake in Lomborg's face)
David Roberts
Tony Blair
Sir David King
Sir David Attenborough
Masamori Shishido
James Lovelock
Bill McKibben
Ross Gelbspan
Jacques Chirac
Gerhard Schröder
William Calvin
Kofi Annan
Arnold Schwartzenegger
Angela Merkel
Hillary Clinton
Romano Prodi
John McCain
...and of course Al Gore with 32 mentions.

Other people mentioned in the book are only a handful, and presented in a neutral way.

As so happens there was an interview of James Lovelock, one of the baddies in the book, in the Independent on Monday. The exact same quote appeared on the book and in the newspaper. Lovelock has written:"billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in Arctic, where the climate remains tolerable". He appears to be a scientist nering his 90th birthday, who is a strong proponent for nuclear energy, and doesn't see alternative energy sources as an option for Europe. He thinks that "most arguments agains nuclear energy are propaganda", and that "renewable energy  and win power has become, through the abuse of subsidies by the greedy, scum".

Now there's the kind of opponent I was looking for. Just too bad I wasted my money on Lomborg's book first.