Edited sentence: Because Lomborg's book is largely a critique of The Population Bomb by Paul Ehrlich, it could be argued that Lomborg's critics are defending Ehrlich's book, which predicted worldwide famine and depletion of all major natural resources by the end of the 20th century.Because there was no worldwide famine or depletion of major natural resources at the end of the 20th century, any objective comparison shows that Lomborg is more accurate than Ehrlich.Furthermore, Lomborg's critics have never criticized Ehrlich, which suggests that their motivations are based on politics, not science.Thus, Lomborg's critics don't have any legitimate case against him