Another good review

It's fascinating how, when one turns to the actual scientific literature, one finds reviews of Lomborg's work that may be very critical, but are not flat out dishonest (unlike the mainstream media that certain people seem to prefer...).

  This is a very good example of how to write an honest review:

Undeniably, we would see more immediate tangible benefits from preventing mass starvation than by cutting atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. And from a moral standpoint, it is more compelling to alleviate immediate suffering than potential future suffering. But there is also a moral imperative to avoid the more wide-reaching and irreversible consequences of global warming. As Sir Nicholas Stern pointed out in his report on the economics of climate change, "what we do in the next 10 or 20 years can have a profound effect on the climate in the second half of this century and in the next".

That both acknowledges Lomborg's point, does not try to imply the worst possible motivations, and is still critical.  A good example of how to write.