Lomborg on polar bears - refocus or distraction?

So Lomborg's once again slipped his scepticism into something of a void. This time in his book 'Cool it - is global warming a myth?', reviewed here, claiming that polar bears are more at risk from hunting than climate change. Once again he focuses on flaws in supporting data regarding climate change. In some ways any time data are presented uncritically as facts I think this kind of reaction is inevitable and Lomborg's contributions should help others to sharpen the arguments he opposes. I don't think environmental values should be beyond reproach. I get the impression Lomborg's more trying to refocus the debate about carbon emissions ...than deny that our activities contribute to global warming. But I don't yet see how his refocusing will improve the challenges we're facing. As with his 2001 book 'The Sceptical Environmentalist' I think many environmental writers and presenters leave themselves open to this kind of challenge. I think questioning and checking whether we're focused on the 'right' actions regarding climate change is important so value Lomborg's contribution in that way. But I share Porritt's concern that there's already widespread scientific consensus about the effects of people's activities on climate change in spite of many people in the UK believing otherwise according to this year's Ipsos MORI opionion poll which could do a lot of harm in terms of people sitting on the fence rather than taking environmental action. There's an unhelpful element of distraction from action, in arguing about the detail in Lomborg's approach. Not perhaps denying that the iconic polar bear will die out because of people's activities but just how and when.