On 9 Aug 2001, at 12:43, Dan Minette 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.
PC? Bah..the guy turned round and said what Green[eace was
pushing was a pack of lies..you think they wanted him in the
organisation after that?
> > > 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.
Yes, but you can use data to make your point by being..selective
what you analyse, and what data you deem acceptable. If you're
saying that the World Bank or the IMF are known to support
anything but raw capitalism..well...
> > 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?
No...they tend to try to bury things. Look at the early stages of foot
and mouth in the UK, or the start of the BSE scare. Hardly unusual
- the government tries to show the problem as minimal until it
explodes out of control.
> > 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.
Not to us. To the enviroment...
> > > 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.
The "environmental movement". Oh, you mean the loonie greens..
*I* am Eco-Realist, and I support just what you said, nuclear
power. Yes, that IS exactly what I want to see..although I don't
think it'll happen...
> > 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.
Fusion is a theortical technology a LOT of money is wasted on. I'd
rather see attempts to be made at plasma power, which we KNOW
works, but needs serious refinement, fex.
Space based technologies ARE feasuble given our current tech
base, IF they were invested in (and I certainly argue they should
be). It's NASA's go-slow, penny pinching approach which has
slowed us right down in terms of space. When commercial
interests hit space, things should speed up...
(remind me exactly WHY they dump the main space shuttle tanks
into thr atmosphere to burn up with a special manover instead of
taking them into orbit and building with them..)
> > 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.
Sure, on the forrest side, not all the regrown forrest is trash forrest,
but MOST is, and frankly reintroduction programs are a gnats bite
to the massive extinctions happening in the Amazon where the
loggers are destroying rainforrest and species..
> > 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.
I am TRYING to obtain the data so I can distribute it to the list. I
don't have permission to share said data at the moment... (It's data
generated by a company run by the university).
When I say falling appart, I'm not refering to social conditions
(which I do believe are detoriating, but that's my anti-capitalist bias
talking..), but to the ecoweb.
Oh, and eh, read up on bioweapons sometime...
> 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.
I care too much about the environment to ever publish work in it
which isn't influence by what I believe, yes. But, my scientific
talents (such as the are...I have resits in under a month and I do
*NOT* believe I'm going to pass them :( )lie more in human
genetics rather than enviromental studies.
> 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.
Yes..and it's about 3.5C IMHO, from reading the same data.
> 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.
Human? who said Human...what about all the OTHER species.
And who said poloution was the problem...it's things like logging
the Amazon which we CAN take action on, but do not.
Andy
Dawn Falcon
