Often accused Lomborg of bad faith. Can we find a better argument for his book credible. Either he says is silly, unfounded, untrue, inaccurate and that HE PROVES. Either he was not entirely wrong. The merit No. 1 of this book is to open the debate. What TERRIFIED me, it is not the greenhouse effect, rising sea levels, deforestation. In any case much less than the BRAIN WASHING which we are subjected every day on this subject. It is that will make predictions (obviously scientists) .... the most catastrophic: in 100 years, how many additional degrees: 3 °, 5 °, 7 °? Well, why not 15 or 25? When we see week after week inaccuracy "scientific forecast" that we used every night on TV, we should question the climate forecasting. When one takes over the forecasts of 20 years ago, we have fun. The unanimity of aujour'hui is worrying because it leaves no room for debate, no conflict, no questioning. This is why Lomborg's book is interesting and valuable. Beyond the crowd figures it provides (all verifiable sources) it offers an alternative to the single thought, he is intelligent, reasoned and certainly not in bad faith. It forces us to ask ourselves the hidden motives of proponents of catastrophism. Would it not also behind it an ideological struggle against a development model. Ecology she could succeed where communism failed .... ?? Destroy capitalism we call liberalism today. Read it, confront it with other sources, other points of view. Only this approach worthwhile.