The Skeptical Environmentalist
Global Warming
Congress, on this date, under leadership of Rep. Ed Whitfield (R- KY) , Chairman of the Energy Subcommitte on Oversight & Investigations, is wasting time pretending it is the body that will determine if the already overwhelming scientific consensus on Global Warming should be accepted as scientifically valid.
Democrats Jan Schakowsky, Jay Inslee, Bart Stupak, and Henry Waxman accept the peer-reviewed findings of 298 scientific studies by climatologists that, without exception, agree the human caused global warming is real and presents serious threats to life on earth.
Whitfield and literally every Republican demonstrated they preferred to accept (non-science based) energy industry testimony over highly respected, world renowned climate change scientists.
The Republican behavior would be laughable if were not so gut wrenchingly depressing.
What makes this situation so gut wrenching is that the Republicans, no matter how ignorant and/or uncaring about the rigidity of science, at the end of the day hold the majority in both the House and Senate.
It is clear, the world's greatest problem will go ignored by our government as long as Republicans (and certain Democrats) occupy their offices.
The following was written and originally disseminated on Aug 20, 2002 by me, Duane Short.
==========
The Union of Concerned Scientists produced a great response to the Global Warming Skeptic, Bjørn Lomborg, but it is necessary here to introduce and discuss the importance of nature's “Threshold Dynamics.” Nature’s thresholds are values that, if exceeded, result in actions similar to what happens when water level exceeds the height of a levy. On the dry side of the levy all may seem well when, in reality, only inches are the difference between well-being and catastrophe. Just as earthen levies often disintegrate, once breached, natural thresholds likewise fail and allow a flood of otherwise contained actions and reactions to occur. [ Post Script: Given 2005’s Katrina catastrophe, could I have chosen a better analogy back in 2002? ]
The skeptic is quite possibly as well informed as you or I regarding the nature of threshold dynamics. Their obstacle, if not purely politically in nature, is their failure to apply rather basic physical and life science principles, such as threshold dynamics, to the notion of global warming. Sadly, tunnel vision and hawk-eyed ambitions and agendas obscure reality i.e., the big picture.
Literally millions of biological functions, in as many living organisms, depend on critical threshold values. Because examples are so plentiful and so well understood it would be an injustice and insult, to the busy reader, to address them here.
Complicating threshold dynamics is the common biological (and chemical) fact: Breaching one threshold can trigger one or more violent reactions and these, in turn, can cause one or many other thresholds to be met or exceeded, producing the proverbial domino effect.
This natural process is carried out to infinity every day in the universe, but according to nature’s balanced processes. These processes did not originate and evolve independently or in separate vacuums, so to speak. These processes originated and evolved as part of one common universe and, in our particular case, one biosphere that is clearly a dependent variable (or set of variables) in that universe.
Only in human and computer operated laboratories, here on earth (as far as we know), are nature’s chemical and biological thresholds and, subsequently, their processes artificially and forcefully interrupted and manipulated. Catalysts are used to facilitate desired chemical and/or biological actions and reactions.
Catalysts are any class of molecules or compounds that function to speed naturally slow and measured chemical and biological reactions by breaching threshold(s) and thereby creating an exacerbation, if not outright explosion, of activity. Threshold values are often the difference in “all or none” chemical or biological reactions. The simple nerve cell action potential is one good example (Feel free to email me if interested in learning more about this particular example).
Only in these labs are nature’s processes interrupted and manipulated to specifically accommodate one species, Homo sapiens. Yes, even fertilizers are created for the specific benefit of Homo sapiens, not the various species of oats and beans and barley nor the carrots, lettuce, turnips, and tomatoes that receive them. Basically all we do, we’re ultimately doing it for us.
Only in the laboratory do processes occur in a form of isolation to the whole of the natural universe. Then, when we are satisfied “our creation” produces “our” desired result(s) we eagerly break the laboratory seal, and begin pouring it onto the universal salad. If the salad remains palatable we assume “no negative effects” or at least the salad tastes the same.
As far as we humans know, many of our own laboratory “creations” serve us well and “cause no harm” to the earth, much less the universe.... as far as we know.
Many of our creations we label, because of their seemingly wonderful benefits to one species (Homo sapiens) as “worth their rather minor negative effects on the earths biosphere.” We rationalize our creations to be worth the costs (known and unknown...and there are always unknowns) and characterize (spin) them as... “Wise Use and/or Worth the Tradeoff” and for “The Greater Good.”
In terms of global warming, when unnatural sources such as our manmade Green House Gases (GHGs) cause temperature values to exceed any of nature’s thresholds unnatural chain reactions leading to biological chaos are to be expected. Natural cycles of increased global temperatures certainly occur...but remember, nature brought man this far into time. It is likely, nature will continue to allow our survival but only if we recognize and respect nature’s power, timing, and unforgiving laws.
Concern for global warming and its effects on nature’s thresholds is not some science fiction doomsday concept. It is real and scientifically predictable.
Ask any [independent] physicist or chemist. Heat is nature’s most reliable and often most potent catalyst. Heat speeds things up (atoms, molecules, solutions, substances, processes, and thereby encourages entropy (the separation of matter) and the result is more exceeded thresholds.
Living organisms slowly evolve and adapt to ever-changing threshold values. Humans and large vertebrates in general are among the slowest organisms in terms of natural evolutionary adaptability.
One very important fact that an adolescence society (biologically speaking) misses is that all living organisms on earth are what they are physically and functionally as a result of millions of generations of slow, natural selection which in turn produces change.
In little more than one century (just a few human generations) and since the advent of the internal combustion engine and other machines designed to convert various forms of potential energy into kinetic (mechanical) energy, human technology has functioned as a catalyst being thrust upon our natural world. In this context, GHGs are the collective manifestations of various technologies and serve to catalyze the breakdown of ozone in the earth’s stratosphere.
Metaphorically, GHGs are the acid rain that eventually dissolves an ever expanding hole in our beach front umbrella while we sleep. Ever had one of those “I fell asleep sunburns?”
Humans, with our machines, are catalyzing global warming. The cause for alarm lies not, necessarily, in the warming itself but in the millions upon millions of unknown and potentially deadly biological thresholds that will be exceeded. The explosion of reactions we humans and all other living organisms will have to face will be unforgiving. Remember, living organisms require many millennia to adapt to the smallest selective pressures nature offers.
Heat is NOT a small selective pressure. All the A/C units mankind can produce cannot save a brown, wilting planet. [ Post Script (added Aug. 7, 2006): In fact, the energy required to operate A/C units ultimately create more heat energy than cooling effect. Don't believe it? Just go outside and stand next to you A/c unit while it is running.]
Life on earth is fragile in the face of rapid change. When our greatest scientific minds cannot begin to predict the dire consequences of breaching many unknown thresholds, the wise and most practical preventative measure is to allow nature to cycle naturally. How more logical can the human mind be than to accept natures wonderful dynamics? We did not create ourselves. Nature created us and will care for us if we just give her one thing, TIME.
If we reduce GHG emissions, with the long term goal of eliminating their production entirely, our descendants will be spared the dire consequences of our present negligence. How civilized are we?
I know, some of us really do care.
Duane Short
Aug. 20, 2002
-----------------
The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) is a nonprofit partnership of scientists and citizens combining rigorous scientific analysis, innovative policy development and effective citizen advocacy to achieve practical environmental solutions.
UCS examines The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjørn Lomborg
A lie gets halfway around the world before
the truth has a chance to get its pants on.
-- Winston Churchill
A new book by Bjørn Lomborg, a political scientist and professor of statistics at the University of Aarhus in Denmark, has created quite a stir in recent months. Lomborg accuses scientists and environmental organizations of making false and exaggerated claims about the world’s environmental problems. He concludes that population growth is not a problem, that there is plenty of freshwater around, that deforestation rates and species extinctions are grossly exaggerated, that the pollution battle has been won, and that global warming is too expensive to fix. A self-proclaimed environmentalist and skeptic, he claims that his reanalysis of environmental data measures "the real state of the world."
Peter Gleick's review (PDF)
Jerry D. Mahlman's review (PDF)
E.O. Wilson et al's review (PDF)
WRI debunks Lomborg
The heavily promoted book, published in September by Cambridge University Press, has received significant attention from the media and praise from commentators writing in The Economist, The New York Times, and Washington Post. For example, the Post’s reviewer (a philosophy professor from New Zealand) concluded that it was "a magnificent achievement," and "the most significant work on the environment since the appearance of its polar opposite, Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, in 1962." Meanwhile, groups with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo are using the book to promote their "no need to take action to address global environmental problems" agenda. For example, the "Cooler Heads Coalition" -- formed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute and others to "dispel the myths of global warming" -- recently featured Lomborg in a Capitol Hill briefing on global warming.
Does this book merit such positive attention? Does Lomborg provide new insights? Are his claims supported by the data? A healthy skepticism towards the claims of others is, after all, one of the hallmarks of good science. And, at first glance, Lomborg’s book appears to be an objective and rigorous scientific analysis. It is published by a leading academic press, and contains an extensive bibliography and nearly 3,000 footnotes.
To answer these questions, UCS invited several of the world's leading experts on water resources, biodiversity, and climate change to carefully review the sections in Lomborg's book that address their areas of expertise. We asked them to evaluate whether Lomborg’s skepticism is coupled with the other hallmarks of good science – namely, objectivity, understanding of the underlying concepts, appropriate statistical methods and careful peer review. Reviewing Lomborg’s claims are Dr. Peter Gleick, an internationally recognized expert on the state of freshwater resources; Dr. Jerry Mahlman, one of the most highly regarded atmospheric scientists and climate modelers; and top biologists and biodiversity experts Dr.’s Edward O. Wilson, Thomas Lovejoy, Norman Myers, Jeffrey Harvey and Stuart Pimm.
These separately written expert reviews unequivocally demonstrate that on closer inspection, Lomborg’s book is seriously flawed and fails to meet basic standards of credible scientific analysis. The authors note how Lomborg consistently misuses, misrepresents or misinterprets data to greatly underestimate rates of species extinction, ignore evidence that billions of people lack access to clean water and sanitation, and minimize the extent and impacts of global warming due to the burning of fossil fuels and other human-caused emissions of heat-trapping gases. Time and again, these experts find that Lomborg’s assertions and analyses are marred by flawed logic, inappropriate use of statistics and hidden value judgments. He uncritically and selectively cites literature -- often not peer-reviewed -- that supports his assertions, while ignoring or misinterpreting scientific evidence that does not. His consistently flawed use of scientific data is, in Peter Gleick’s words "unexpected and disturbing in a statistician".
These reviews show that The Skeptical Environmentalist fits squarely in a tradition of contrarian works on the environment that may gain temporary prominence but ultimately fail to stand up to scientific scrutiny. Others, such as Julian Simon and Gregg Easterbrook, have come before him, and others no doubt will follow. Correcting the misperceptions these works foster is an essential task, for, as noted above, groups with anti-environmental agendas use these works to promote their objectives. It is also an unfortunate, time-consuming distraction, for it pulls talented scientists away from the pressing research needed to help us understand the environmental challenges we face and their prospective solutions.
Winston Churchill’s quote reminds us of the parable of the Tortoise and the Hare. Like the Hare, Lomborg’s lie has raced out in front of the truth. With the help of these careful scientific peer reviews, UCS hopes that the truth, like the Tortoise, will catch up and emerge the ultimate victor.
Editor’s note: In addition to these UCS-solicited reviews, critiques of Lomborg’s book have also been published in Scientific American, Nature, Science, and other scientific journals, as well as on several web sites (see Related Links).
UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
2 Brattle Square
Cambridge, MA 02238
617-547-5552
Contact us at ucs@ucsusa.org
© 2001 Union of Concerned Scientists
Congress, on this date, under leadership of Rep. Ed Whitfield (R- KY) , Chairman of the Energy Subcommitte on Oversight & Investigations, is wasting time pretending it is the body that will determine if the already overwhelming scientific consensus on Global Warming should be accepted as scientifically valid.
Democrats Jan Schakowsky, Jay Inslee, Bart Stupak, and Henry Waxman accept the peer-reviewed findings of 298 scientific studies by climatologists that, without exception, agree the human caused global warming is real and presents serious threats to life on earth.
Whitfield and literally every Republican demonstrated they preferred to accept (non-science based) energy industry testimony over highly respected, world renowned climate change scientists.
The Republican behavior would be laughable if were not so gut wrenchingly depressing.
What makes this situation so gut wrenching is that the Republicans, no matter how ignorant and/or uncaring about the rigidity of science, at the end of the day hold the majority in both the House and Senate.
It is clear, the world's greatest problem will go ignored by our government as long as Republicans (and certain Democrats) occupy their offices.
The following was written and originally disseminated on Aug 20, 2002 by me, Duane Short.
==========
The Union of Concerned Scientists produced a great response to the Global Warming Skeptic, Bjørn Lomborg, but it is necessary here to introduce and discuss the importance of nature's “Threshold Dynamics.” Nature’s thresholds are values that, if exceeded, result in actions similar to what happens when water level exceeds the height of a levy. On the dry side of the levy all may seem well when, in reality, only inches are the difference between well-being and catastrophe. Just as earthen levies often disintegrate, once breached, natural thresholds likewise fail and allow a flood of otherwise contained actions and reactions to occur. [ Post Script: Given 2005’s Katrina catastrophe, could I have chosen a better analogy back in 2002? ]
The skeptic is quite possibly as well informed as you or I regarding the nature of threshold dynamics. Their obstacle, if not purely politically in nature, is their failure to apply rather basic physical and life science principles, such as threshold dynamics, to the notion of global warming. Sadly, tunnel vision and hawk-eyed ambitions and agendas obscure reality i.e., the big picture.
Literally millions of biological functions, in as many living organisms, depend on critical threshold values. Because examples are so plentiful and so well understood it would be an injustice and insult, to the busy reader, to address them here.
Complicating threshold dynamics is the common biological (and chemical) fact: Breaching one threshold can trigger one or more violent reactions and these, in turn, can cause one or many other thresholds to be met or exceeded, producing the proverbial domino effect.
This natural process is carried out to infinity every day in the universe, but according to nature’s balanced processes. These processes did not originate and evolve independently or in separate vacuums, so to speak. These processes originated and evolved as part of one common universe and, in our particular case, one biosphere that is clearly a dependent variable (or set of variables) in that universe.
Only in human and computer operated laboratories, here on earth (as far as we know), are nature’s chemical and biological thresholds and, subsequently, their processes artificially and forcefully interrupted and manipulated. Catalysts are used to facilitate desired chemical and/or biological actions and reactions.
Catalysts are any class of molecules or compounds that function to speed naturally slow and measured chemical and biological reactions by breaching threshold(s) and thereby creating an exacerbation, if not outright explosion, of activity. Threshold values are often the difference in “all or none” chemical or biological reactions. The simple nerve cell action potential is one good example (Feel free to email me if interested in learning more about this particular example).
Only in these labs are nature’s processes interrupted and manipulated to specifically accommodate one species, Homo sapiens. Yes, even fertilizers are created for the specific benefit of Homo sapiens, not the various species of oats and beans and barley nor the carrots, lettuce, turnips, and tomatoes that receive them. Basically all we do, we’re ultimately doing it for us.
Only in the laboratory do processes occur in a form of isolation to the whole of the natural universe. Then, when we are satisfied “our creation” produces “our” desired result(s) we eagerly break the laboratory seal, and begin pouring it onto the universal salad. If the salad remains palatable we assume “no negative effects” or at least the salad tastes the same.
As far as we humans know, many of our own laboratory “creations” serve us well and “cause no harm” to the earth, much less the universe.... as far as we know.
Many of our creations we label, because of their seemingly wonderful benefits to one species (Homo sapiens) as “worth their rather minor negative effects on the earths biosphere.” We rationalize our creations to be worth the costs (known and unknown...and there are always unknowns) and characterize (spin) them as... “Wise Use and/or Worth the Tradeoff” and for “The Greater Good.”
In terms of global warming, when unnatural sources such as our manmade Green House Gases (GHGs) cause temperature values to exceed any of nature’s thresholds unnatural chain reactions leading to biological chaos are to be expected. Natural cycles of increased global temperatures certainly occur...but remember, nature brought man this far into time. It is likely, nature will continue to allow our survival but only if we recognize and respect nature’s power, timing, and unforgiving laws.
Concern for global warming and its effects on nature’s thresholds is not some science fiction doomsday concept. It is real and scientifically predictable.
Ask any [independent] physicist or chemist. Heat is nature’s most reliable and often most potent catalyst. Heat speeds things up (atoms, molecules, solutions, substances, processes, and thereby encourages entropy (the separation of matter) and the result is more exceeded thresholds.
Living organisms slowly evolve and adapt to ever-changing threshold values. Humans and large vertebrates in general are among the slowest organisms in terms of natural evolutionary adaptability.
One very important fact that an adolescence society (biologically speaking) misses is that all living organisms on earth are what they are physically and functionally as a result of millions of generations of slow, natural selection which in turn produces change.
In little more than one century (just a few human generations) and since the advent of the internal combustion engine and other machines designed to convert various forms of potential energy into kinetic (mechanical) energy, human technology has functioned as a catalyst being thrust upon our natural world. In this context, GHGs are the collective manifestations of various technologies and serve to catalyze the breakdown of ozone in the earth’s stratosphere.
Metaphorically, GHGs are the acid rain that eventually dissolves an ever expanding hole in our beach front umbrella while we sleep. Ever had one of those “I fell asleep sunburns?”
Humans, with our machines, are catalyzing global warming. The cause for alarm lies not, necessarily, in the warming itself but in the millions upon millions of unknown and potentially deadly biological thresholds that will be exceeded. The explosion of reactions we humans and all other living organisms will have to face will be unforgiving. Remember, living organisms require many millennia to adapt to the smallest selective pressures nature offers.
Heat is NOT a small selective pressure. All the A/C units mankind can produce cannot save a brown, wilting planet. [ Post Script (added Aug. 7, 2006): In fact, the energy required to operate A/C units ultimately create more heat energy than cooling effect. Don't believe it? Just go outside and stand next to you A/c unit while it is running.]
Life on earth is fragile in the face of rapid change. When our greatest scientific minds cannot begin to predict the dire consequences of breaching many unknown thresholds, the wise and most practical preventative measure is to allow nature to cycle naturally. How more logical can the human mind be than to accept natures wonderful dynamics? We did not create ourselves. Nature created us and will care for us if we just give her one thing, TIME.
If we reduce GHG emissions, with the long term goal of eliminating their production entirely, our descendants will be spared the dire consequences of our present negligence. How civilized are we?
I know, some of us really do care.
Duane Short
Aug. 20, 2002
-----------------
The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) is a nonprofit partnership of scientists and citizens combining rigorous scientific analysis, innovative policy development and effective citizen advocacy to achieve practical environmental solutions.
UCS examines The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjørn Lomborg
A lie gets halfway around the world before
the truth has a chance to get its pants on.
-- Winston Churchill
A new book by Bjørn Lomborg, a political scientist and professor of statistics at the University of Aarhus in Denmark, has created quite a stir in recent months. Lomborg accuses scientists and environmental organizations of making false and exaggerated claims about the world’s environmental problems. He concludes that population growth is not a problem, that there is plenty of freshwater around, that deforestation rates and species extinctions are grossly exaggerated, that the pollution battle has been won, and that global warming is too expensive to fix. A self-proclaimed environmentalist and skeptic, he claims that his reanalysis of environmental data measures "the real state of the world."
Peter Gleick's review (PDF)
Jerry D. Mahlman's review (PDF)
E.O. Wilson et al's review (PDF)
WRI debunks Lomborg
Skeptics of the Skeptical Environmentalist
The World Resources Institute (WRI) is urging journalists to exercise caution in reporting on the new book by Bj�rn Lomborg, The Skeptical Environmentalist. The book, which has been heavily publicized, makes extraordinary claims: that environmental quality is improving around the world, and that the environmental community is not telling the truth for its own cynical reasons. WRI's media kit, "Debunking Pseudo-Scholarship: Things a Journalist Should Know About The Skeptical Environmentalist," now available on-line, debunks these claims and includes links to other sites, including one created by Lomborg's Danish colleagues to refute his conclusions. The Skeptical Environmentalist also received a scathing review in the November 9, 2001 issue of Science Magazine.
The heavily promoted book, published in September by Cambridge University Press, has received significant attention from the media and praise from commentators writing in The Economist, The New York Times, and Washington Post. For example, the Post’s reviewer (a philosophy professor from New Zealand) concluded that it was "a magnificent achievement," and "the most significant work on the environment since the appearance of its polar opposite, Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, in 1962." Meanwhile, groups with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo are using the book to promote their "no need to take action to address global environmental problems" agenda. For example, the "Cooler Heads Coalition" -- formed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute and others to "dispel the myths of global warming" -- recently featured Lomborg in a Capitol Hill briefing on global warming.
Does this book merit such positive attention? Does Lomborg provide new insights? Are his claims supported by the data? A healthy skepticism towards the claims of others is, after all, one of the hallmarks of good science. And, at first glance, Lomborg’s book appears to be an objective and rigorous scientific analysis. It is published by a leading academic press, and contains an extensive bibliography and nearly 3,000 footnotes.
To answer these questions, UCS invited several of the world's leading experts on water resources, biodiversity, and climate change to carefully review the sections in Lomborg's book that address their areas of expertise. We asked them to evaluate whether Lomborg’s skepticism is coupled with the other hallmarks of good science – namely, objectivity, understanding of the underlying concepts, appropriate statistical methods and careful peer review. Reviewing Lomborg’s claims are Dr. Peter Gleick, an internationally recognized expert on the state of freshwater resources; Dr. Jerry Mahlman, one of the most highly regarded atmospheric scientists and climate modelers; and top biologists and biodiversity experts Dr.’s Edward O. Wilson, Thomas Lovejoy, Norman Myers, Jeffrey Harvey and Stuart Pimm.
These separately written expert reviews unequivocally demonstrate that on closer inspection, Lomborg’s book is seriously flawed and fails to meet basic standards of credible scientific analysis. The authors note how Lomborg consistently misuses, misrepresents or misinterprets data to greatly underestimate rates of species extinction, ignore evidence that billions of people lack access to clean water and sanitation, and minimize the extent and impacts of global warming due to the burning of fossil fuels and other human-caused emissions of heat-trapping gases. Time and again, these experts find that Lomborg’s assertions and analyses are marred by flawed logic, inappropriate use of statistics and hidden value judgments. He uncritically and selectively cites literature -- often not peer-reviewed -- that supports his assertions, while ignoring or misinterpreting scientific evidence that does not. His consistently flawed use of scientific data is, in Peter Gleick’s words "unexpected and disturbing in a statistician".
These reviews show that The Skeptical Environmentalist fits squarely in a tradition of contrarian works on the environment that may gain temporary prominence but ultimately fail to stand up to scientific scrutiny. Others, such as Julian Simon and Gregg Easterbrook, have come before him, and others no doubt will follow. Correcting the misperceptions these works foster is an essential task, for, as noted above, groups with anti-environmental agendas use these works to promote their objectives. It is also an unfortunate, time-consuming distraction, for it pulls talented scientists away from the pressing research needed to help us understand the environmental challenges we face and their prospective solutions.
Winston Churchill’s quote reminds us of the parable of the Tortoise and the Hare. Like the Hare, Lomborg’s lie has raced out in front of the truth. With the help of these careful scientific peer reviews, UCS hopes that the truth, like the Tortoise, will catch up and emerge the ultimate victor.
Editor’s note: In addition to these UCS-solicited reviews, critiques of Lomborg’s book have also been published in Scientific American, Nature, Science, and other scientific journals, as well as on several web sites (see Related Links).
UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
2 Brattle Square
Cambridge, MA 02238
617-547-5552
Contact us at ucs@ucsusa.org
© 2001 Union of Concerned Scientists
posted by Duane Short | 8/07/2006 02:53:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home