Jonathon, as far as Lomborg goes I'm only qualified to discuss his conclusions regarding biodiversity (unlike Lomborg himself - a political scientist - or the Economist - written by journalists - I'm aware of and openly admit to having limited expertise in the subjects covered by his book).
But E.O. Wilson - considered by most professionals to be the leading biologist of our time - knows a hell of a lot more about the subject than I do, so I'll satisfy myself with a link to a piece he and a few colleagues wrote in response to Lomborg's analysis.
Much as I state above ... on what basis should I assume that the writers of the Economist, or a Danish political scientist, know more about biodiversity than a man like E.O. Wilson?
On what rational basis would I choose to believe that? I'm always amazed by how willingly people are to dismiss principles of science established by decades of peer-reviewed research after they read a popular book written by a non-scientist.
If there are bits of E.O. Wilson's rebuttal you don't understand feel free to post questions here and I'll do my best to clarify (I have no idea if you have a background in biology).
