----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Crystall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: Bjorn Lomborg: A Chipper Environmentalist (The New York Times,
Aug 07, 2001)
> On 7 Aug 2001, at 13:54, Ronn Blankenship wrote:
>
> > Bjorn Lomborg: A Chipper Environmentalist
>
> This guy is generally regarded as a total and utter lunatic among
> basically the entire environmentalist spectrum, Greenpeace slung
> him out in disgust, I believe...
>
You have data to prove this? Or was he slung out after he wrote things that
were not PC. Name calling is not an argument.
> Stress on "calls himself", we disown him. He's a capitalist
> mouthpeace, however he got there.
>
Again, this is not an argument.
> Well sorry, deforrestation might not be happening in OVERALL
> AREA, and it's not, but comparing trash forrests to tropical
> rainforrest is laughable. Species vanish every DAY, before we even
> learn of them, and global warming, whole debated, is a real threat.
>
Well, the article questioned the number of species being lost and one of the
people who was quoted on that, as far as the article goes, basically
admitted to pulling numbers out of the air.
>
> Actually, we chide those organisations for not taking our data
> seriously enough, for UNDERSTATING the cause. That he calls it
> the "Litany" is funny, especially when they're often using different
> data to make the same calls.
>
> > But in his book, Dr. Lomborg cites figures from the United States
> > Census Bureau, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the
> > European Environment Agency to show that the rate of world population
>
> Oh, such hotbeds of pro-environmentalist feeling THEY are!
> Geez..all those organisations, except the EPA which is commonly
> regarded as well meaning but clueless, are capitalist in the
> extreme!
Science is not a matter of feeling. It is a matter of data. If the data ar
e that good, then it needs to be shown.
>
> > Dr. Lomborg has also been unable to find strong support in the
> > official statistics for the regular predictions of disaster from Dr.
> > Ehrlich. "In the course of the 1970's," Dr. Ehrlich wrote in "The
> > Population Bomb," published in 1968, "the world will experience
> > starvation of tragic proportions - hundreds of millions of people will
> > starve to death."
>
> Official? Of course not...governments don't publish bad news, the
> public tends to shoot the messenger...
So, there are hundreds of millions of deaths due to starvation that are
cleverly being hidden. Where?
>
> We dodged the population bullet, somewhat - I'd still like to see
> less Humans, mind you - but the poloution bullet is right on course
> to smack us right between the eyes.
How? While I'll agree that pollution is horrid in poorer nations, it poses
a far lower health risk than poor sanitation.
>
> > He contends that the internationally agreed Kyoto targets for reducing
> > carbon dioxide emissions will impose vast costs for little result. A
>
> True, for little more cost we could achieve far BIGGER decreases
> in emissions, but they don't want to see that, they'd rather the
> figures rounded nicely on the treaty...
>
A lot more for little cost? As it stands, agreeing to Kyoto would probably
produce a massive long term recession in the US. Unless you are arguing for
switching to conventional nuclear and breeder reactors. That might be doable
technically, but it is blocked politically by the environmental movement.
> > more effective approach, according to Dr. Lomborg, would be to
> > increase research on alternative sources of energy, like solar and
> > fusion.
>
> Fusion? He's going off in this dream where theortical technologies
> will save us...
Fusion is about as likely as cheap solar power. I don't mean to be rude,
but it appears to me that you do tend to argue for or against technical
solutions based on how you feel. For example, space is viewed in a very
generous light. I like space, but my engineering sense indicates that we've
made very little progress in 40 years and are not likely to make much more
in the next 40.
> > Writing about environmentalists, he says, "The worse they can portray
> > the environment, the easier it is for them to convince us that we need
> > to spend more money on the environment rather than on hospitals, child
> > day care, etc."
>
> Yes, and rightly so..we're heading for disaster.
What data backs that up? I know in the US, things are far better than they
were 40 years ago. Rivers that were unswimmable are now in great shape,
eagles have come back to the point where our suburban neighborhood has a
pair, etc. You may call the regrown forests trash, but I'm sure you have
not been in areas like Northern Minnesota where forests are approaching the
old growth conditions.
>
> > view, tell a far brighter story than the Litany. Thomas Malthus argued
> > in 1798 that population growth was certain to outrun food supply. As
> > Dr. Lomborg sees it, Malthus's gloomy predictions still hold an iron
> > grip over many minds, and are still wrong.
>
> Malthus made certain assumptions about populations..which no
> longer hold true. We don't need to make assumptions, we can see
> in the data we gather that this world is falling appart ever faster.
>
Well, I don't see it in the data. Andy, before you made the claim that we
have biological weapons that can destroy all life on earth. When questioned
about data, none was forthcoming. Now again there is a very strong claim,
yet no data.
Science is not about good feelings, faith, etc. Its is about arguing hard
over the data and finding whether one's hypothesis is validated or
falsified. The reason that the cigarette companies research was dismissed
is that it wouldn't stand up to analysis.
One thing a scientist doesn't want to do is lose his reputation for
capacity. Falsification of data or even bad technique in articles submitted
to peer review journals will cause a total loss (falsification) or partial
loss (bad technique) of one's reputation. Without a rep., a scientist is
nothing.
Some do, indeed, sell their reputation for money. But, they are not well
respected. Others, as Bob has pointed out, do careful work, but are still
subjected to the normal human influences and biases. What is critical in
science is that there are bounds beyond which one cannot go in advocating an
idea without having one's technique questioned.
A good example of this is the global warming debate. When one cuts through
the politics, one finds a narrow range of scientific disagreement. The
"hawks" argue for about 4.5-5 C of warming while the "doves" argue for
1-1.5C of warming. That is about the range of uncertainty in the science.
What to do now given that uncertainty is a political question. But, the
facts to base those decisions on is generally agreed upon. The hawks and
doves agree that the other's position is certainly possible, just not
likely.
I've seen no good science that argues for massive human extinction based on
pollution. In the absence of such, arguments for such an occurrence simply
decrease the credibility of the person or organization that makes that
argument. The difficulty of claiming non-existent dangers is has been known
for centuries and is well documented in folk literature.
Dan M.
