2. I Am Legend by Richard Matherson - 180pp [ebook]
3. The Drowned World by JG Ballard - 158pp [ebook]
4. Lord of the Flies by William Golding - 248pp [ebook]
5. Bad Science by Ben Goldacre - 338pp [ebook]
6. Galactic Human Handbook: Entering The New Time: Creating Planetary Groups by Sheldon Nidle and Jose Arguelles - 157pp
7. The Future Eaters by Tim Flannery - 407pp
8. Tasmania; A Natural History by William E. Davies Jr. - 236pp
9. Complexity: A guided tour by Melanie Mitchell - 368pg [ebook]
10. Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency by Douglas Adams - 306pp [ebook]
11. A Study in Scarlet by Arthur Conan Doyle - 108pp [ebook]
12. Free Will by Sam Harris - 66pp
13. Australian Freshwater Ecology: Processes and management by Andrew Boulton and Margaret Brock - 244pp
14. Arguably by Christopher Hitchens - 800pp [ebook]
15. The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature by Matt Ridley - 405pp [ebook]
16. The Godfather by Mario Puzo - 447pp
17. Battle Royale by Koushun Takami - 624pp [ebook]
18. Paranormality: Why we see what isn't there by Richard Wiseman - 341pp [ebbok]
19. Freakonomics: A rouge economist explores the hidden side of everything - revised edition by Steven D. Levitt & Stephen J. Dubner - 242pp
20. Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe - 209pp [ebook]
21. Kafka on the Shore by Haruki Murakami - 467pp [ebook]
22. The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World by Bjorn Lomborg - ~250pp
I was planning on writing a long review of this, but I slashed up one of my fingers with a bread knife last night, so will be briefer
The book is excellent. It's very well referenced, and nearly all the arguments are completely convincing. He demonstrates clearly that on most environmental issues the world isn't just getting better, it's the best it has been in the last 100 years (or longer). Overall the book is just over 500 pages, but half of those are references and notes (there are well over 2000 references). It took me months to read because I checked nearly all of them, mainly because I've read many criticisms of this book (before reading it). Some of the criticisms are fair points, but most are not, and the science the book is based on is fairly clear.
The section that is I think most deserving of criticism is the one on Global Warming. While his approach is mainly good, and some of what he says is good, he makes some fairly telling misunderstandings although I agree with him on two important points - 1. The worst case scenarios are very unlikely to occur, and the middle range scenarios are not catastrophic. 2. It's very unlikely we will keep relying on fossil fuels for energy through to the end of this century. Therefore models that are based on continued indefinite CO2 emissions are probably flawed, and it's also likely that human emissions end up at a net of 0 (or even a reduction from the atmosphere) by the end of the century (the question of "natural" feedbacks to our emissions remains though). I also agree that projections that assume no attempts at adaption by humans (especially in agriculture) will drastically over estimate the risk. On the other hand, I particularly disagree with the way he calculates everything in terms of human standards of living. While I think that's an important measure, there are a number of consequences that I think would be especially tragic, and worth spending money on that could be spent saving lives instead (the argument he puts forward for not spending that money). I also don't think he puts enough thought into the indirect effects of these consequences - the degradation of the Great Barrier Reef, for example, will have a significant impact on the economy in Australia (I think it's worth $4 billion a year) - which will have consequences in terms of money for increasing standards of living. He also doesn't address ocean acidification at all (perhaps because it wasn't well studied when he wrote the book).
Anyway I strongly recommend it, especially to people who are concerned about the environment, and are prepared to evaluate the evidence, rather than dismissing evidence that disagrees with their view (which is what I'd call being open minded).
