Lomborg article
H. E. Taylor
WRI has put together a press kit regarding Lomborg which you might
find useful &/ interesting.
http://www.wri.org/wri/press/mk_lomborg.html
2001/11/17: WRI: Debunking Pseudo-Scholarship:
Things a journalist should know about The Skeptical Environmentalist
You may recall I posted a bit several months ago about Bullsh*t Detectors
in their various incarnations. Scientific American has been printing
Michael Shermer pieces, in a couple of which he talks about his
boundary detection kit.
http://www.sciam.com/2001/1101issue/1101skeptic.html
2001/11/01: SciAm: Baloney Detection -
How to draw boundaries between science and pseudoscience, Part I
http://www.sciam.com/2001/1201issue/1201skeptic.html
2001/12/01: SciAm: More Baloney Detection -
How to draw boundaries between science and pseudoscience, Part II
<salut>
-het
PS.
How's yer crap detector?
http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/detector.html
--
"Absurdity, n. A statement of belief manifestly inconsistent with
one's own opinion." -Bierce (Devil's Dictionary)
Terror War Links: http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/twartl.html
H.E. Taylor http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/
Andrew Langer
>
>
>PS.
> How's yer crap detector?
Good enough to know that the Scientific American articles demonstrate that your
Lomborg "expose" page is a Grade A example of such.
- Andrew Langer
--
Any posts by Andrew Langer are his own, written by him, for his own
enjoyment (and the education of others). Unless expressly stated,
they represent his own views, and not those of any other individuals
or entities. He is not, nor has he ever been, paid to post here.
Tim Worstall
I've read Lomborg, I've read Erhlich, Lester Brown, Ronald Bailey, Julian
Simon, PJ O'Rourke ( for the prose, not the science ) plus a great deal more
on the subject of environmentalism and ecology as well as how they interact
with economics. I've got a degree in Economics, I'm a multinational
capitalist who makes precursors for fuel cells, and I even ploughed through
the Guardian pieces and the associated sites you mentioned.
The criticisms of Lomborg seem to centre on two things ' We don't believe
that anymore ' from the environmentalists, in which case why aren't they
running around telling us there is no shortage of oil, food, minerals, water
etc ?
Or ' He's relying on Nordhaus ' from the ecologists. OK then, where's the
ecologist's economic model ?
From reading all around the subject, I certainly think Lomborg is more right
than the others.....just as Simon was right in that bet with Erhlich. But
then I would say that wouldn't I ? After all I'm a white male.
Tim Worstall
--
Tim Worstall
Portugal office.
t...@netcabo.pt
t...@2xtreme.net
'Nothing has yet been contrived by man by which so much happiness is
produced as by a good tavern'
Samuel Johnson. 1786.
"H. E. Taylor" <h...@despam.autobahn.mb.ca> escreveu na mensagem
news:3BFA27...@despam.autobahn.mb.ca...
Thomas Palm
> The criticisms of Lomborg seem to centre on two things ' We don't believe
> that anymore ' from the environmentalists, in which case why aren't they
> running around telling us there is no shortage of oil, food, minerals, water
> etc ?
> Or ' He's relying on Nordhaus ' from the ecologists. OK then, where's the
> ecologist's economic model ?
>
> From reading all around the subject, I certainly think Lomborg is more right
> than the others.....just as Simon was right in that bet with Erhlich. But
> then I would say that wouldn't I ? After all I'm a white male.
Both Nature and Science reviewed Lomborgæ„€ book in the beinning of November.
Both were very negative pointing out how Lomberg misrepresented facts. If
you think Lomborg is correct I recommend you read these.
Steve Schulin
<thoma...@chello.se> wrote:
> Tim Worstall wrote:
> > The criticisms of Lomborg seem to centre on two things ' We don't believe
> > that anymore ' from the environmentalists, in which case why aren't they
> > running around telling us there is no shortage of oil, food, minerals, water
> > etc ?
> > Or ' He's relying on Nordhaus ' from the ecologists. OK then, where's the
> > ecologist's economic model ?
> >
> > From reading all around the subject, I certainly think Lomborg is more right
> > than the others.....just as Simon was right in that bet with Erhlich. But
> > then I would say that wouldn't I ? After all I'm a white male.
>
> Both Nature and Science reviewed Lomborg´s book in the beinning of November.
> Both were very negative pointing out how Lomberg misrepresented facts. If
> you think Lomborg is correct I recommend you read these.
I especially liked how Science put the review facing the page showing
William Nordhaus' chart on abatement costs (trillions of dollars) of Kyoto
Protocol. Another thing I liked about the Science review was that the
author at least didn't liken Lomborg to holocaust deniers like the Nature
reviewer did. Sheesh. Pat Michaels has posted an interesting review of the
reviews:
http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/climate/v7n6/hot.htm
World Climate Report, November 19, 2001
Piling On
No doubt, the mavens who run Science and Nature were in cahoots when they
decided to make the days surrounding November 8 "Beat on Bjørn" week.
That's for poor Bjørn Lomborg, who just happens to have a runaway
bestseller, The Skeptical Environmentalist, which pooh-poohs what these
magazines have been editorially pushing for the past few decades, namely
the gloom-and-doom end of the world unless we listen to some greenie
professors.
Now, Bjørn's thesis hardly seems original. But he himself is a greenie
professor, and that makes his apostasy as vile as that of any former
communist. Of course, both World Climate Report and The Satanic Gases,
published two years ago, have said the same things, but neither this rag
nor that book have generated the kind of pile-it-on acrimony that
Lomborg's blockbuster has.
So the reviews are flying. It's hard to decide which review is nastier:
Stuart Pimm's in Science or Michael Grubb's in Nature. But it's easy to
figure out one reason why they're so biting. Both reviewers are authors of
competing books, and Lomborg is wildly outselling them, ranking No. 1 in
amazon.com's "environmental studies" category.
Grubb has written or edited several books, and his most popular, The Kyoto
Protocol: A Guide and Assessment, ranks 573, 757th in sales at the big
online distributor's site. People aren't buying apocalypse and they aren't
buying Kyoto, facts that are disturbing to those like Pimm and Grubb who
are trying to sell both.
Still, the level of attack is truly stunning. Pimm writes that Lomborg
"employs the strategy of those, for example, who argue that gay men aren't
dying of AIDS, that Jews weren't singled out by the Nazis for
extermination, and so on." Discussing global warming, Grubb says Lomborg
sees the issue "through the painfully narrow lens of a well-off
Northerner" (ouch!), and that he has "no appreciation...for the moral
dimension of impacts on potentially billions of people."
Just in case you don't get it, Pimm's insinuation is that anyone who would
agree with Lomborg must want gay people to die of AIDS and is a neo-Nazi,
an exploiter of Africans, and flat-out immoral.
Pimm also argues that the publisher, Cambridge University, is similarly
corrupt. He asks "why Cambridge University would decide to publish a
hastily prepared book on complex scientific issues which disagrees with
the broad scientific consensus." Perhaps because it is so easy to
demonstrate that said "consensus" is full of it?
These reviews are an ugly repeat of what happened more than 20 years ago,
when Julian Simon published a 1980 paper in Science persuasively arguing
that the popular doomsaying mantra about population, resources, and the
environment was dead wrong. Nevermind that Simon turned out to be largely
correct. Most measures of quality of life are now better than they were a
quarter-century ago, and they are much better than they were 100 years
back. As in the case of Lomborg, the vitriol of the green left has
remained consistent for decades.
So might its ignorance. In closing, Grubb writes, "The book reaches its
nadir when Lomborg turns to climate economics and the Kyoto Protocol. He
appears to swallow all the Å’seven myths' peddled by many treaty opponents,
including exaggerations of the economic costs."
Perhaps he should have been privy to Bill Nordhaus' new paper in the same
issue of Science, noted in the article below, which demonstrates that the
Kyoto Protocol will cost a lot and have no effect on climate.
References:
Grubb, M., 2001. Relying on Manna from Heaven? Science, 294, 1285Â86.
Lomborg, B., 2001. The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real
State of the World. Cambridge University Press. 504 pp.
Pimm, S., and J. Harvey, 2001. No Need To Worry About the Future. Nature,
414, 149Â150.
Simon, J., 1980. Resources, Population, Environment: An Over-Supply of
False Bad News. Science, 208, 1431Â37.
David Ball
wrote:
>
>I especially liked how Science put the review facing the page showing
>William Nordhaus' chart on abatement costs (trillions of dollars) of Kyoto
>Protocol. Another thing I liked about the Science review was that the
>author at least didn't liken Lomborg to holocaust deniers like the Nature
>reviewer did. Sheesh. Pat Michaels has posted an interesting review of the
>reviews:
>
>http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/climate/v7n6/hot.htm
Wonderful, Steve! Let's critique bad science with yet more bad
science. Or are you under the impression that two wrongs do indeed
make a right?
BTW, love the way they attempt to make this look like a real
article, quoting references etc.
Steve Schulin
wra...@mb.sympatico.ca wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 15:19:15 -0500, sch...@erols.com (Steve Schulin)
> wrote:
> >
> >I especially liked how Science put the review facing the page showing
> >William Nordhaus' chart on abatement costs (trillions of dollars) of Kyoto
> >Protocol. Another thing I liked about the Science review was that the
> >author at least didn't liken Lomborg to holocaust deniers like the Nature
> >reviewer did. Sheesh. Pat Michaels has posted an interesting review of the
> >reviews:
> >
> >http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/climate/v7n6/hot.htm
>
> Wonderful, Steve! Let's critique bad science with yet more bad
> science. Or are you under the impression that two wrongs do indeed
> make a right?
I gladly admit ignorance as to which publications you're referring to as
bad science.
>
> BTW, love the way they attempt to make this look like a real
> article, quoting references etc.
Hey, maybe the National Academy of Sciences will step in and disavow it.
Nah, that was just when the ex-NAS President published a cool paper. Was
that the one where he described the IPCC SAR process as the most flagrant
abuse of peer review he'd ever seen? Thanks for reminding me of yet
another example of why it's proper to laugh at those who boldly proclaim
that the science is settled.
Andrew Taylor
Tim Worstall <t...@netcabo.pt> wrote:
>I've read Lomborg, I've read Erhlich, Lester Brown, Ronald Bailey, Julian
>Simon, PJ O'Rourke ( for the prose, not the science ) plus a great deal more
>on the subject of environmentalism and ecology as well as how they interact
>with economics. I've got a degree in Economics, I'm a multinational
>capitalist who makes precursors for fuel cells, and I even ploughed through
>the Guardian pieces and the associated sites you mentioned.
>The criticisms of Lomborg seem to centre on two things ' We don't believe
>that anymore ' from the environmentalists, in which case why aren't they
>running around telling us there is no shortage of oil, food, minerals, water
>etc ?
>Or ' He's relying on Nordhaus ' from the ecologists. OK then, where's the
>ecologist's economic model ?
I don't quite understand the connection between ecology and Nordhaus.
Nordhaus researches economics and climate change and doesn't seem to
look at ecology.
If you are interested in comparing what ecologists say versus what
Lombergs claims - I suggest reading "Extinction Rates" ed. by Lawton & May.
I heard a radio interview with Lomberg yesterday - in which he claimed
to be representing the scientific mainstream, but he certainly isn't in
this area.
Andrew Taylor
David Ball
wrote:
>>
>> science. Or are you under the impression that two wrongs do indeed
>> make a right?
>
>I gladly admit ignorance as to which publications you're referring to as
>bad science.
You didn't know the World Climate Report is an offshoot of the
Greening Earth Society. You didn't know that this is not
peer-reviewed? You didn't know that the contents aren't worth any more
than your garden-variety op-ed piece?
>
>>
>> BTW, love the way they attempt to make this look like a real
>> article, quoting references etc.
>
>Hey, maybe the National Academy of Sciences will step in and disavow it.
>Nah, that was just when the ex-NAS President published a cool paper. Was
>that the one where he described the IPCC SAR process as the most flagrant
>abuse of peer review he'd ever seen? Thanks for reminding me of yet
>another example of why it's proper to laugh at those who boldly proclaim
>that the science is settled.
Duck and cover, Steve. Once again, you lob something
unpleasant onto usenet dressed up to look like real science. I daresay
some people would be fooled. You certainly were, and that's why you're
changing the subject.
Steve Schulin
wra...@mb.sympatico.ca wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 16:50:04 -0500, sch...@erols.com (Steve Schulin)
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Wonderful, Steve! Let's critique bad science with yet more bad
> >> science. Or are you under the impression that two wrongs do indeed
> >> make a right?
> >
> >I gladly admit ignorance as to which publications you're referring to as
> >bad science.
>
> You didn't know the World Climate Report is an offshoot of the
> Greening Earth Society. You didn't know that this is not
> peer-reviewed? You didn't know that the contents aren't worth any more
> than your garden-variety op-ed piece?
Oh, gosh. Your opinion on WCR isn't a surprise. I honestly didn't know to
which of the 5 publications you were referring, when you said "critique
bad science with more bad science". The WCR critiqued the hit pieces in
Science and Nature, so maybe you're agreeing that they represent bad
science. No, that would be quite out of character for you, since Grubb in
Science and Pimm & Harvey in Nature sound like they studied the same
propaganda techniques as you (Goebbels would be proud of the four of you).
You badmouthed WCR, so maybe it's your own critique you're calling bad
science. No, that would be out of character, too. I should have known that
your comment was just another example of your amply documented difficulty
in cogently stating a simple idea.
>
> >
> >>
> >> BTW, love the way they attempt to make this look like a real
> >> article, quoting references etc.
> >
> >Hey, maybe the National Academy of Sciences will step in and disavow it.
> >Nah, that was just when the ex-NAS President published a cool paper. Was
> >that the one where he described the IPCC SAR process as the most flagrant
> >abuse of peer review he'd ever seen? Thanks for reminding me of yet
> >another example of why it's proper to laugh at those who boldly proclaim
> >that the science is settled.
>
> Duck and cover, Steve. Once again, you lob something
> unpleasant onto usenet dressed up to look like real science. I daresay
> some people would be fooled. You certainly were, and that's why you're
> changing the subject.
I never imagined that you'd find some reason to begrudge an author
providing citations. As for "lobbing something", I'll merely note that my
post was a direct response to someone's unqualified recommendation of the
Grubb and Pimm & Harvey articles. And appending Michaels' spot on analysis
of those articles was not some subterfuge. As for changing the subject,
what a hoot. I'm just putting your incredibly dumb comment into historical
perspective. As for being fooled, I must disagree. I never thought the
Seitz et al article was from NAS procedings, nor did I confuse Michaels'
article describing the hack reviews in Nature and Science with some
scientific study that underwent peer review.
BTW, are you claiming that even the book reviews in Science and Nature are
peer reviewed? And if not, why don't you express disdain for Grubb? He
included a list of references and notes with his review, you know.
David Ball
wrote:
>
>Oh, gosh. Your opinion on WCR isn't a surprise. I honestly didn't know to
>which of the 5 publications you were referring, when you said "critique
>bad science with more bad science". The WCR critiqued the hit pieces in
>Science and Nature, so maybe you're agreeing that they represent bad
>science. No, that would be quite out of character for you, since Grubb in
>Science and Pimm & Harvey in Nature sound like they studied the same
>propaganda techniques as you (Goebbels would be proud of the four of you).
>You badmouthed WCR, so maybe it's your own critique you're calling bad
>science. No, that would be out of character, too. I should have known that
>your comment was just another example of your amply documented difficulty
>in cogently stating a simple idea.
So that's how you think the science works: by critique. It's a
popularity contest, tried in the popular press by people like yourself
who don't have a clue what's really happening? Tell me, Steve, when
can we expect to read YOUR thoughts on the subject. Not someone elses
tired review, but your own. When are you actually going to READ the
papers you post and vociferously defend. Can we expect to see you find
flaws in them as well. You leap about, much like Morton, from one
thing to another, making bold statements that you don't understand,
then move along to the next silly statement when you get called on
them. BTW, you lose ...
Godwin's Law prov.
[Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a
comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a
tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over,
and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever
argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the
existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However
there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional
triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending
effects will be unsuccessful.
>
>>
>> Duck and cover, Steve. Once again, you lob something
>> unpleasant onto usenet dressed up to look like real science. I daresay
>> some people would be fooled. You certainly were, and that's why you're
>> changing the subject.
>
>I never imagined that you'd find some reason to begrudge an author
>providing citations. As for "lobbing something", I'll merely note that my
>post was a direct response to someone's unqualified recommendation of the
>Grubb and Pimm & Harvey articles. And appending Michaels' spot on analysis
>of those articles was not some subterfuge. As for changing the subject,
>what a hoot. I'm just putting your incredibly dumb comment into historical
>perspective. As for being fooled, I must disagree. I never thought the
>Seitz et al article was from NAS procedings, nor did I confuse Michaels'
>article describing the hack reviews in Nature and Science with some
>scientific study that underwent peer review.
I guess it depends on what you're trying to achieve, Steve. If
the goal is to provide further reference material so that interested
parties can learn more, that's one thing. If, however, you seek to add
credibility to the article in question by making it appear as if it is
something it is not, then that is quite another. You've pulled this
stunt before with the Washington Times: attempting to make an op-ed
piece look like a piece of serious science. I daresay, people who
don't know any better would be fooled, which is after all what you are
after isn't it? At least when Chive posted a news article he doesn't
claim that it is something that it's not. While strident, that is
certainly more honest than you.
Steve Schulin
wra...@mb.sympatico.ca wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 21:45:05 -0500, sch...@erols.com (Steve Schulin)
> wrote:
> >
> >Oh, gosh. Your opinion on WCR isn't a surprise. I honestly didn't know to
> >which of the 5 publications you were referring, when you said "critique
> >bad science with more bad science". The WCR critiqued the hit pieces in
> >Science and Nature, so maybe you're agreeing that they represent bad
> >science. No, that would be quite out of character for you, since Grubb in
> >Science and Pimm & Harvey in Nature sound like they studied the same
> >propaganda techniques as you (Goebbels would be proud of the four of you).
> >You badmouthed WCR, so maybe it's your own critique you're calling bad
> >science. No, that would be out of character, too. I should have known that
> >your comment was just another example of your amply documented difficulty
> >in cogently stating a simple idea.
>
> So that's how you think the science works: by critique. It's a
> popularity contest, tried in the popular press by people like yourself
> who don't have a clue what's really happening? ...
I happily admit to ignorance as to why you think what you just wrote. As
to "how the science works", there are innumerable ways. In the specific
case of the science of climate change, many of these ways have been
documented. And it's often not pretty.
> ... Tell me, Steve, when
> can we expect to read YOUR thoughts on the subject. Not someone elses
> tired review, but your own. When are you actually going to READ the
> papers you post and vociferously defend. ...
You say I lie so much and clearly don't understand the issues. How can it
be that you now say I don't express my thoughts.
> ... Can we expect to see you find
> flaws in them as well. You leap about, much like Morton, from one
> thing to another, making bold statements that you don't understand,
> then move along to the next silly statement when you get called on
> them. BTW, you lose ...
>
> Godwin's Law prov.
>
> [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a
> comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a
> tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over,
> and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever
> argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the
> existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However
> there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional
> triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending
> effects will be unsuccessful.
Surely there's a peer review journal exemption. It was Pimm & Harvey's
review article that actually introduced the Nazi theme, so isn't it those
who support them that lose? I was just following their theme. And I notice
that, although you're still quite vile, you've toned down on the
unequivocally dehumanizing language since I excoriated your practice of
that technique. So while Godwin may think poorly of the general practice,
perhaps you have benefitted from being chastised in this regard.
>
> >
> >>
> >> Duck and cover, Steve. Once again, you lob something
> >> unpleasant onto usenet dressed up to look like real science. I daresay
> >> some people would be fooled. You certainly were, and that's why you're
> >> changing the subject.
> >
> >I never imagined that you'd find some reason to begrudge an author
> >providing citations. As for "lobbing something", I'll merely note that my
> >post was a direct response to someone's unqualified recommendation of the
> >Grubb and Pimm & Harvey articles. And appending Michaels' spot on analysis
> >of those articles was not some subterfuge. As for changing the subject,
> >what a hoot. I'm just putting your incredibly dumb comment into historical
> >perspective. As for being fooled, I must disagree. I never thought the
> >Seitz et al article was from NAS procedings, nor did I confuse Michaels'
> >article describing the hack reviews in Nature and Science with some
> >scientific study that underwent peer review.
>
> I guess it depends on what you're trying to achieve, Steve. If
> the goal is to provide further reference material so that interested
> parties can learn more, that's one thing. If, however, you seek to add
> credibility to the article in question by making it appear as if it is
> something it is not, then that is quite another. You've pulled this
> stunt before with the Washington Times: attempting to make an op-ed
> piece look like a piece of serious science. ...
You've referred to this before. I think it was a message I titled "Op ed
fact check - global warming" that you irrationally viewed as being
disguised.
> ... I daresay, people who
> don't know any better would be fooled, which is after all what you are
> after isn't it? ...
Not at all. I wish some of the professional climate researchers would
speak up to counter you more, though.
> ... At least when Chive posted a news article he doesn't
> claim that it is something that it's not. While strident, that is
> certainly more honest than you.
Chive is at his best when posting articles without comment. Just as you
are most credible when posting abstracts of newly-published articles
(without comment). Maybe you wouldn't feel so ill-willed toward me if you
demonstrated clear errors in my posts instead of all this other stuff you
write.
Don Libby
>(quoth Michaels)
>
>
> Grubb, M., 2001. Relying on Manna from Heaven? Science, 294, 1285Â86.
>
>
> 414, 149Â150.
Is that supposed to be "Stuart Pimm's in Nature or Michael
Grubb's in Science"?
-dl
Steve Schulin
You are correct, as is Michaels' reference list. The text that states
otherwise is a mistake.
Tim Worstall
Great. Now that we've all insulted each other, can we get back to
something interesting. Is Lomborg right or not ? And if he's not, how
about some reasoned argument as to why not ? The book convinced me (
although I found it disturbingly trivial about overfishing ) and it's
going to require discussion of both economics and ecology in similar
levels of detail to overturn that conviction. Anyone want to start ?
Tim Worstall
David Ball
wrote:
>Chive is at his best when posting articles without comment. Just as you
>are most credible when posting abstracts of newly-published articles
>(without comment). Maybe you wouldn't feel so ill-willed toward me if you
>demonstrated clear errors in my posts instead of all this other stuff you
>write.
You're at your best, Steve, when you don't post at all. I'm
tired of posting your many and varied errors - both in judgement and
in the science.
Lloyd R. Parker
: In article <3bfafb61...@news.mb.sympatico.ca>,
What an idiot. A peer-reviewed scientific journal like Science or Nature
is suspect, yet something written in a right-wing publication is great
science? Come on, Steve, not even you can be this dumb.
Tim Worstall
> In article <9tdrql$5je$1...@venus.telepac.pt>,
> Tim Worstall <t...@netcabo.pt> wrote:
> >I've read Lomborg, I've read Erhlich, Lester Brown, Ronald Bailey, Julian
> >Simon, PJ O'Rourke ( for the prose, not the science ) plus a great deal more
> >on the subject of environmentalism and ecology as well as how they interact
> >with economics. I've got a degree in Economics, I'm a multinational
> >capitalist who makes precursors for fuel cells, and I even ploughed through
> >the Guardian pieces and the associated sites you mentioned.
> >The criticisms of Lomborg seem to centre on two things ' We don't believe
> >that anymore ' from the environmentalists, in which case why aren't they
> >running around telling us there is no shortage of oil, food, minerals, water
> >etc ?
> >Or ' He's relying on Nordhaus ' from the ecologists. OK then, where's the
> >ecologist's economic model ?
>
> I don't quite understand the connection between ecology and Nordhaus.
> Nordhaus researches economics and climate change and doesn't seem to
> look at ecology.
´The connection is not too difficult.
Let us assume, for the moment, that we do indeed have a global problem
with global warming. Even if we accept Erhlich or Rifkin, and the '
we're all going to die tomorrow ' argument.
So, what should we do about it ? We face a series of choices, all of
them to do with money and resources. What resources should we devote
to solving the problem ? What methods should we use so that we can
maximise the total resources we have in order to try and solve other
problems as well as this one ?
This is properly the realm of economics. Thus what Nordhaus is trying
to do. And exactly what anyone else looking at the problem should also
be trying to do.
We could ban the use of oil tomorrow. And this would cost more in lost
lives and lost resources than global warming will. So that's out. We
could do nothing and let our great grandchildren drown or choke to
death. Also not something most would recommend.
So somewhere between these two . But where ? Accountancy and Economics
can help you work out where.
>
> If you are interested in comparing what ecologists say versus what
> Lombergs claims - I suggest reading "Extinction Rates" ed. by Lawton & May.
Unfortunately, in a non English speaking country. Anything on the web
?
>
> I heard a radio interview with Lomberg yesterday - in which he claimed
> to be representing the scientific mainstream, but he certainly isn't in
> this area.
Depends which area of science you are talking about. Few economists
would argue with his basic thesis.
Tim Worstall
>
> Andrew Taylor
Vito De Lucia
Centre for Social Science Research on the Environment in Aahrus, before
the book was translated into english. I though it might be interesting.
http://www.au.dk/~cesamat/debate.html
ciao
Vito
--
------------------------------------
"Doctrine is like a raft, when you have crossed the river leave it on
the bank."
Buddha
------------------------------------
Don Libby
>
<...>
> something interesting. Is Lomborg right or not ? And if he's not, how
> about some reasoned argument as to why not ? The book convinced me (
> although I found it disturbingly trivial about overfishing ) and it's
> going to require discussion of both economics and ecology in similar
> levels of detail to overturn that conviction. Anyone want to start ?
>
> Tim Worstall
I think the place to start for reasoned argument is with the
views of respected biologists about what Lomborg, a
political scientist just eight years post-doctorate with a
talent for self-promotion, has to say. (Note: while IMO
"environmental" problems are *social* problems and therefore
fair game for social science, social scientists are
generally not qualified to perform biological science,
except to study the social and political ramifications
thereof, and are generally better qualified than biologists
to perform the latter).
I refer to reviews in _Science_ and _Nature_
No Need to worry about the future
Review by Stuart Pimm and Jeff Harvey
Nature 414:149 150 8 Nov 2001
Relying on Manna from Heaven?
Review by Michael Grubb
Science 294:1285-1287 9 Nov 2001
More discussion (courtesy of "Dunk" in sci.bio.ecology):
***begin quote***
There are already some web sites devoted to debunking the
book:
http://www.anti-lomborg.com
http://www.au.dk/~cesamat/debate.html
and for the answers, Lomborg has his own site:
http://www.lomborg.com/
***end quote***
-dl
H. E. Taylor
In article <iytK7.31471$xS6....@www.newsranger.com>,
<Lan...@aol.com> Andrew Langer wrote:
> In article <3BFA27...@despam.autobahn.mb.ca>, H. E. Taylor says...
>>
> [<http://www.wri.org/wri/press/mk_lomborg.html>]
>>PS.
>> How's yer crap detector?
>
> Good enough to know that the Scientific American articles demonstrate
> that your Lomborg "expose" page is a Grade A example of such.
>
Hi Andrew,
I recognize that you are of the endless usenet bickering school,
which I am not, however you made me curious. I decide to score
the web page using the Shermer baloney detector, to see how it
scored.
Shermer's questions are:
1. How reliable is the source of the claim?
2. Does this source often make similar claims?
3. Have the claims been verified by another source?
4. How does the claim fit with what we know about how the world works?
5. Has anyone gone out of the way to disprove the claim, or has only
supportive evidence been sought?
6. Does the preponderance of evidence point to the claimant's
conclusion or to a different one?
7. Is the claimant employing the accepted rules of reason and tools
of research, or have these been abandoned in favor of others that
lead to the desired conclusion?
8. Is the claimant providing an explanation for the observed phenomena
or merely denying the existing explanation?
9. If the claimant proffers a new explanation, does it account for as
many phenomena as the old explanation did?
10. Do the claimant's personal beliefs and biases drive the
conclusions, or vice versa?
There are further explanations of the questions here:
http://www.sciam.com/2001/1101issue/1101skeptic.html
http://www.sciam.com/2001/1201issue/1201skeptic.html
So to generate a measure, I thought perhaps something like +1 for tends
to science, -1 for tends to baloney and 0 (zero) for unknown or not
applicable. This would leave one with a number [-10 <= S <= 10].
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Question Score Comment
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1 0 Respected institution, but no specific claim made
2 0 No specific claim made
3 0 ""
4 0 ""
5 0 ""
6 0 Not applicable, no specific claim made
7 0 ""
8 0 ""
9 0 ""
10 0 ""
---------------------------------------------------------------------
You see the problem. Beware of Lomborg is not a claim about the world.
Without a specific thesis and person against which to apply the
questions, it is all rather meaningless. Still the method may have
some merit in evaluating specific assertions made in
news:alt.global-warming from time to time.
However, this does mean that your comment above is sheer rhetoric,
as no such demonstration can arise from the Shermer Baloney Detector.
<fwiw>
-het
PS.
Global warming links up the yin yang:
http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/globalwarming.html
--
"Europe subsidises farmers, as does the United States. We are told
to practice free market policies while they put barriers up."
-Alejandro Toledo [Peruvian President]
Tim Worstall
Yup, I've seen these. I've also read Erhlich's review, where he lies
outrageously, plus many others.
I've even read the book itself, as I have Simon, Erhlich,Bailey and
others.
None of the anti reviews seem to me to hold water. As I said in
another thread, they seem to come in two flavours ' We don't believe
that anymore, so why is he attacking us ' and ' He's relying on
Nordhaus '.
What I am very interested in is someone willing to talk about his
basic thesis.....not someone attacking him for being young, or a
statistician not a biologist, or trying to avoid the actual points he
is talking about.
Are we running out of oil ? water ? food ? farmland ? Are there too
many people ? If so , why ? Global Warming....what should we be doing
about it ?
And the most fun of all, of course....Lester Brown and Erhlich....full
of shit or what ?
Now, having read the book, I'd love to see someone actually try to
take apart Lomborg's answers to these questions. I don't think I will
see it, as he has been quite competent in his answers and presenting
the eveidence leadng to them.
>
> More discussion (courtesy of "Dunk" in sci.bio.ecology):
>
> ***begin quote***
> There are already some web sites devoted to debunking the
> book:
> http://www.anti-lomborg.com
> http://www.au.dk/~cesamat/debate.html
> and for the answers, Lomborg has his own site:
> http://www.lomborg.com/
> ***end quote***
I've also looked at these sites....none of them land a killer blow to
Lomborg in my opinion.
So, would anyone who has actually read the book like to comment ?
Anyone point to a few erroros of fact ?
Tim Worstall
>
> -dl
Don Libby
>
> What I am very interested in is someone willing to talk about his
> basic thesis.....not someone attacking him for being young, or a
> statistician not a biologist, or trying to avoid the actual points he
> is talking about.
On credentials & credibility: He is a relatively
inexperienced professor with degrees in political science,
not statistics, although he does teach statistics in a
Political Science department. I was chagrined to find that
he is indeed a political scientist, since he had been sold
in the pre-release hype as a statistician. As a political
scientist, he would have greater credibility to write a
critique of environmental policy and regulations, rather
than environmental science.
> Anyone point to a few erroros of fact ?
>
On errors of fact:
***begin quote***
Factual errors:
· Benzene is not a pesticide but a solvent and an ingredient
in gasoline/petrol.
· Aflatoxin is not a pesticide. Aflatoxins are toxins
produced by moulds and they
contaminate food products (peanuts are called ‘earth nuts’
in Danish). The main problems
in moist cereals are caused by ochratroxins.
· Lomborg’s translation of the English word ‘arsenic’ is
wrong. He uses a trivial name for the
compound arsentrioxide.
· Arsenic compounds have not been used as herbicides, but
rather in wood preservatives.
***end quote*** Pesticides: "Associate Professor always gets
the last word" Allan Astrup Jensen, Research Director,
DK-Teknik.
http://www.au.dk/~cesamat/debate.Astrup%20Jensen.pdf
Andrew Taylor
Tim Worstall <t...@2xtreme.net> wrote:
>The connection is not too difficult.
>Let us assume, for the moment, that we do indeed have a global problem
You've missed my point - none of this is directly concerned with ecology.
Basically, ecologists study the relationships of individal organisms
with other organisms or the relationships with their environment.
Hence, I don't understand why you would like economists and Nordhaus,
who studies the economics of climate change - a valid area of
research but with no direct connection to ecology.
>Depends which area of science you are talking about. Few economists
>would argue with his basic thesis.
I would hope most economists would be more sensible than Lomberg and
not make claims in areas outside their expertise, such as conservation
biology.
>Unfortunately, in a non English speaking country. Anything on the web
You've paid to read an economist write about biology, why not pay to
read what biologists write about biology?
Andrew Taylor
Tim Worstall
> n article <825e2890.01112...@posting.google.com>,
> Tim Worstall <t...@2xtreme.net> wrote:
> >The connection is not too difficult.
> >Let us assume, for the moment, that we do indeed have a global problem
> >with global warming. ...
>
> You've missed my point - none of this is directly concerned with ecology.
> Basically, ecologists study the relationships of individal organisms
> with other organisms or the relationships with their environment.
> Hence, I don't understand why you would like economists and Nordhaus,
> who studies the economics of climate change - a valid area of
> research but with no direct connection to ecology.
OK, this is depending on your definition of ecology...and for all I
know it could even be the correct one.
My desire is to find out whether certain predictions of impending doom
( what Lomborg calls the ' litany ' ) are in fact correct. Are we
actually running out of oil, water, food, farmland etc.
The answer seems to be no. Global warming however seems to be true, if
not quite as extreme nor imminent as the headlines would have us
believe. We therefore need to work out what we are going to do about
it. This is properly an area where we should employ economics.
My conflating this with ' ecology ' was perhaps wrong of me. For that
apologies.
Yet I would stil like to know the answer.....what shoud we be doing
about it all ?
>
> >Depends which area of science you are talking about. Few economists
> >would argue with his basic thesis.
>
> I would hope most economists would be more sensible than Lomberg and
> not make claims in areas outside their expertise, such as conservation
> biology.
I'm not that sure that he makes many claims himself. He simply reads
what others have written, and then explains what it actually means. An
example would be his uncovering the beginning of the claim that there
are 40,000 extinctions a year. It was actually a supposition by a
writer, ( if we have 1 million extinctions over 25 years, then we will
have 40,000 a year sort of thing ) rather than an attempt to work out
how many are actually happening.
>
> >Unfortunately, in a non English speaking country. Anything on the web
>
> You've paid to read an economist write about biology, why not pay to
> read what biologists write about biology?
I don't think that Lomborg is writing about biology....he's writing
about human stupidity, a vastly more enthralling subject. I also
waited 6 weeks for the book. If I wait another 6 weeks for the biology
then this thread will be dead and buried and much of the fun will have
gone.
"On errors of fact:
***begin quote***
Factual errors:
· Benzene is not a pesticide but a solvent and an ingredient
in gasoline/petrol.
· Aflatoxin is not a pesticide. Aflatoxins are toxins
produced by moulds and they
contaminate food products (peanuts are called ‘earth nuts’
in Danish). The main problems
in moist cereals are caused by ochratroxins.
· Lomborg’s translation of the English word
‘arsenic’ is
wrong. He uses a trivial name for the
compound arsentrioxide.
( Should be arsenic trioxide ).
· Arsenic compounds have not been used as herbicides, but
rather in wood preservatives.
***end quote*** Pesticides: "Associate Professor always gets
the last word" Allan Astrup Jensen, Research Director,
DK-Teknik. "
As for these errors of fact. I'm not sure that these are all in the
English version....certainly the aflatoxins were correctly described
as by products of moulds, especially in nuts.
I also think they are not that important. The scale of his claims,
that we are not running out of oil, water, farmland, food, are such
that counter claims must be similarly large.
Which of these larger questions is he wrong on ?
Tim Worstall
>
> Andrew Taylor
w...@bas.ac.uk
>What I am very interested in is someone willing to talk about his
>basic thesis...
>...Global Warming...
OK, I'll try. What does L have to say about GW?
-W.
--
William M Connolley | w...@bas.ac.uk | http://www.nerc-bas.ac.uk/icd/wmc/
Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | Disclaimer: I speak for myself
I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file & help me spread!
Tim Worstall
> Tim Worstall <t...@2xtreme.net> wrote:
> >What I am very interested in is someone willing to talk about his
> >basic thesis...
>
> >...Global Warming...
>
> OK, I'll try. What does L have to say about GW?
I'll have to try and abbreviate his argument as it is several chapters
long.
After a brief run through the IPCC works, some sniping at the way in
which certain of the results seem to have pre ordained etc ( not that
I'm that worried about either the pre ordained bit or the sniping ) he
then gives what seems, from the writings of others here, to be a
reasonable prediction.
By 2100 world temperatures will be up by 1.5 - 3 oC. ( There is a lot
more detail, about night and day, regional variations etc but
essentially he takes the IPCC middle of the road estimation as likely
). The proliferation of IPCC models sometimes confuses me, although he
seems to be thinking that A1F1 or A1B1 are likely to happen.
There's also loads about sulfates ( lowering temps ? ) , conversion of
all GHG's to cabon dioxide equivalents etc, cloud cover .....
It is from here on in that I think the book gets more
interesting.....as above he seems to accept the reality of the warming
happening, and while he half heartedly argues that it's not only human
beings ( sun activity etc ) he does accept that human CO2, methane and
NOx emissions are part of it.
The basic thrust is that global warming is not the only problem we
face ( the rest of the book pretty much demolishes the oil, food,
water, farmland shortages beloved of Brown and Erhlich ) . We also
need to feed, educate, water and generally take care of the 9 billion
or so people there will be by that date.
So now we need to have a debate on exactly what we want to do about
it. Which problems are we actually going to try and solve, which
ameliorate and which just put up with.
First up is Kyoto...it won't do much for the problem ( delay warming
by 6 years is one figure he uses ) will cost a fortune ( not so much
in actual costs, but in wealth foregone, wealth that could be used to
solve other problems ) and should therefore be rejected.
He doesn't really come to any final conclusion about what should be
done...rather says that now I've shown what is not the problem, and
what is, now we all need to think about the best thing to do from
here.
One side argument that he uses, and one with which I have a certain
sympathy, is that technology and economics will come riding to the
rescue.
( as an aside, I do actually work in part in the fuel cell industry.
We supply one of the proposed components for solid oxide fuel cells. I
don't claim any great scientific knowledge on this, but much of my
working day is taken up with communicating with engineers about this
and other similar low or no pollution energy generation methods ).
Solar power has been coming down in price by 50 % a decade for the
past 30 odd years. There seems to be no technological barrier to it
continuing to do so until at 2030 we will see solar being cheaper than
fossil. Add in a transition time period and by 2060 the emission of
CO2 as part of energy generation should have stopped. ( I can also see
fuel cells being in general use by 2006 \ 7 . Two of our customers are
already ordering supplies to go into full production in 2005 . I know
that fuel cells that use methane \ gas \ LPG are not non
polluting....but they are less so than gasoline , and if and when
solar becomes economically viable, using it to crack water, and thus
have pure hydrogen powered fuel cells seems a possible technology road
map. Possible, not certain ).
So, if solar does continus to fall in price relative to oil, then by
2060 the problem will be largely gone. No more CO2 emissions, no more
NOx. CFC's have already stopped. Methane will still be there, but that
is a minor part of the problem.
If the above were true, we would get a 1 oC or so temperature rise,
somethingthat would fall back again as CO2 levels fell.
I can think of a few reasons why this is not going to
happen.......steel production requires coal, not just energy. I'm not
sure if cement production releases CO2 by the energy required or for
some other reason.
What I'd really like to know is whether there are other reasons why it
won't happen this way ?
Another way of phrasing my question. If we cut CO2 and NOx emmissions
from energy and transport to almost nothing,starting in say 2030, can
we say that we have solved the problem ? That GW will therefore not
happen ? or not badly enough that it becomes a real problem ?
And if that is true, then wouldn't the cheapest method of doing so be
simply to pour money into solar energy research ? ( whether cells,
satellites, whatever ).
>
Tim Worstall
> -W.
w...@bas.ac.uk
>After a brief run through the IPCC works, some sniping at the way in
>which certain of the results seem to have pre ordained etc ( not that
>I'm that worried about either the pre ordained bit or the sniping ) he
I skimmed his book. The sniping put me off. But to continue...
>then gives what seems, from the writings of others here, to be a
>reasonable prediction.
>By 2100 world temperatures will be up by 1.5 - 3 oC. ( There is a lot
>more detail, about night and day, regional variations etc but
>essentially he takes the IPCC middle of the road estimation as likely
>).
That seems reasonable for discussion. Higher is possible, strongly dependent
on CO2 levels.
>The proliferation of IPCC models sometimes confuses me, although he
>seems to be thinking that A1F1 or A1B1 are likely to happen.
Essentially, people are trying to guess future emissions (difficult) and
then proportion of CO2 that stays in the atmos (most assume 50%). There
are a huge range of scenarios for this, of course.
My Top Tip (based on actually looking at some results) is that rather
than looking at T-in-2100 you should look at T-at-CO2-doubling, because the
latter is fairly insensitive to exact CO2 pathway to get there, and you can
then scale it to your own favourite scenario.
>There's also loads about sulfates ( lowering temps ? ) , conversion of
>all GHG's to cabon dioxide equivalents etc, cloud cover .....
Sulphates matter... you can lower the estimates of T change if you guess
that there will be a lot of sulphates... but given the way CO2 is
predictefd to rise, ,we'd all better hope the proportion of sulphates goes
down!
>It is from here on in that I think the book gets more
>interesting.....as above he seems to accept the reality of the warming
>happening, and while he half heartedly argues that it's not only human
>beings ( sun activity etc ) he does accept that human CO2, methane and
>NOx emissions are part of it.
This is more that put me off... vague sniping.
>The basic thrust is that global warming is not the only problem we
>face ( the rest of the book pretty much demolishes the oil, food,
>water, farmland shortages beloved of Brown and Erhlich ).
I agree that there are other problems. I think he would make a more
interesting case but giving up the vague sniping, and go for "OK, if we
just take IPCC straight, we see that even then..."
>First up is Kyoto...it won't do much for the problem ( delay warming
>by 6 years is one figure he uses ) will cost a fortune ( not so much
>in actual costs, but in wealth foregone, wealth that could be used to
>solve other problems ) and should therefore be rejected.
This I consider dubious. Essentially, I argue that if it won't do much,
it won't hurt much either. It will "cost" various amounts (pick your
own figure out of a hat) but while these numbers sound enormous, they
probably amount in proportion to CO2 forgone (or less).
I also consider that economic forecasts are unreliable. Does Lomberg
anywhere discuss the reliability of his forecasts? If not, contrast
with IPCC which does, for climate.
>He doesn't really come to any final conclusion about what should be
>done...rather says that now I've shown what is not the problem, and
>what is, now we all need to think about the best thing to do from
>here.
So... he is saying that climate change is not the problem? Or that
cl ch *is* a problem but others are more serious? This is the heart
of the matter, and your summary has become vague at this point...
does that reflect L?
>One side argument that he uses, and one with which I have a certain
>sympathy, is that technology and economics will come riding to the
>rescue.
Possibly, but this is indistinguishable from saying that Magic will save
you.
>So, if solar does continus to fall in price relative to oil, then by
>2060 the problem will be largely gone. No more CO2 emissions, no more
>NOx. CFC's have already stopped. Methane will still be there, but that
>is a minor part of the problem.
>If the above were true, we would get a 1 oC or so temperature rise,
>somethingthat would fall back again as CO2 levels fell.
If that happens, then thats fine. Yes.
>I can think of a few reasons why this is not going to
>happen.......steel production requires coal, not just energy. I'm not
>sure if cement production releases CO2 by the energy required or for
>some other reason.
I don't think you need to worry about those. The bulk of CO2
emissions are energy-related (I assert; anyone care to disagree?)
>What I'd really like to know is whether there are other reasons why it
>won't happen this way ?
Thats attempting to predict the future of technology. I don't do that ;-)
Vito De Lucia
outlook 2000. You can find there a good deal of information.
I quote:
"If present consumption patterns continue, two out of every three
persons on Earth will live in water-stressed conditions by the year
2025."
"Some 20 per cent of the world's susceptible drylands are affected by
human-induced soil degradation, putting the livelihoods of more than
1000 million people at risk."
About oil, I found data going from BP energy report to hubbertpeak.org,
I really don't know what is the real situation. But I am sure that as
oil gets scarcer geopolitics will be badly unsettled, as one might say
it is already.
In all reports I have read about renewables, it is clearly stated that
no matter how fast the substitue technology are being developed there is
no one able to substitute oil fully. Also, I keep reading that many of
the renewables have side-problems to be dealt with, for example the
amount of land that would be needed for biomass to be a viable substitue
for engine fuel (also, that would create a competition between fuel crop
and food crop). Moreover, the energy net balance of renewables. It seems
they all need oil one way or another.
The economics of renewables are also complex. One of the ancillary aims
of Kyoto protocol is exactly to promote on the one hand elimination of
market imperfection, subsidies and tax breaks now available to the
oil/energy industry, on the other promote investments in cleaner,
renewable tehcnologies.
As for Kyoto, I do believe it is not worthless. I see potential
loopholes (the "hot air" affair, and the CDM question...), but all in
all seems to be a major first step towards curbing emissions, allowing
for least-cost options thru the MBIs, promoting technology transfer, a
major instrument to prevent developing countries to smoke up the planet
in the near future. It is a major international treaty, with enormous
importante within the international community, despite the fact that US
withdrew from it. The protocol is not only a 4 year C02 curb, that is
only the first step. It does not involve only developed countries, that
is only the first step. It is a first step that had to be done if you
ask me.A first step that will act on GW without be too radical (both for
political consensus and for economies), and that while taking action
will allow time for further research.
The costs of it.
Well there the question is rather complicated.
Obviously there is an actual cost to be born, and there are opportunity
costs.
Here I would invoke the precautionary principle. We are facing a problem
which is potentially irreversible. Which is potentially catastrophic, we
don't know. What do you do? You get yourself an insurance policy. You
spend money to avoid a risk. The PP is basically this, you forgo
possible gains in order to eliminate the risk.
Well, very briefly, my opinion. I'd like to discuss that further.
Don Libby
> Tim Worstall wrote:
<...>
> >by 6 years is one figure he uses ) will cost a fortune ( not so much
> >in actual costs, but in wealth foregone, wealth that could be used to
> >solve other problems ) and should therefore be rejected.
>
> This I consider dubious. Essentially, I argue that if it won't do much,
> it won't hurt much either. It will "cost" various amounts (pick your
> own figure out of a hat) but while these numbers sound enormous, they
> probably amount in proportion to CO2 forgone (or less).
Lomborg shares your doubts, to a point. The point is that
the money could be spent (resources used) more wisely where
the welfare of future human generations is concerned, in his
opinion.
On p.323 he pegs the cost: "if we implement Kyoto poorly (by
this he means without global emissions permit trading, since
the cost of implementing Kyoto falls from a net benefit of
$61B with global trading to a net cost of $893B without
trading -dl) or engage in more inclusive mitigation like
stabilization (i.e. 80% reduction from 1990 annual CO2
emission levels to stabilize at 2x pre-industrial
concentration by 2100 -dl), the price will easily be 2
percent or more of world GDP towards the middle of the
century." (This compares with IPCC SAR WGIII p.301 "Given
rising baseline emissions over the longer term, however,
many top-down studies suggest that the annual costs of
stabilizing emissions may ultimately exceed 1%-2% of GDP".
Lomborg p. 323 "...there is no way the cost will send us to
the poorhouse. Global warming is in this respect still a
limited and manageable problem." p. 324 "... one could be
tempted to suggest that we are actually so rich we can
afford both to pay a partial insurance premium against
global warming (at 2-4 percent of GDP), and to help the
developing world (a further 2 percent), because doing so
would only offset growth by 2-3 years. And that is true. I
am still not convinced that there is any point in spending
2-4 percent on a pretty insignificant insurance policy, when
we and our descendants could benefit far more from the same
investment placed elsewhere. But it is correct that we are
actually wealthy enough to do so. And this is one of the
main points of this book".
Where I depart is when considering the effects of climate
change on wildlife, which is enough to convince me that
there is a point to spending on a GHG mitigation policy:
the point is wildlife conservation. Whether the price tag
is worth it depends on one's subjective valuation of
wildlife. I would not be willing to trade major declines in
human life chances for wildlife conservation, but I would be
willing to trade minor declines in living standards for it
(if the subjective rise in quality of life due to wildlife
conservation offsets the subjective decline in quality of
life due to lower average material standards of living).
Oh, yes, and to possibly prevent 60 meter sea level rise on
a multi-century-scale time frame. And to keep the world fit
for skiers and ice-climbers ;-)
>
> I also consider that economic forecasts are unreliable. Does Lomberg
> anywhere discuss the reliability of his forecasts? If not, contrast
> with IPCC which does, for climate.
Lomborg's numbers agree with IPCC numbers as noted above.
Lomborg is a political scientist, and the more interesting
observation he makes in this section is on the political
institutions most likely to improve the human prospect,
contrasting the IPCC with the WTO.
What would he rather spend the GHG mitigation money on? p.
324 "... if we want to leave a planet with the most
possibilities for our descendants, in both the developing
and the developed world, it is imperative that we focus
primarily on the economy and solving our problems in a
global context..." "...this puts the spotlight on securing
economic growth, especially in the third world, while
ensuring a global economy, both tasks which the world has
set itself within the framework of the World Trade
Organization (WTO)." ... "To put it squarely, what matters
to our and our children's future is not primarily decided
within the IPCC framework but within the WTO framework". (He
gives numbers of $107-$274 trillion return on investment in
WTO, vs. $0.245 trillion return on investment in IPCC "if we
achieve the absolutely most efficient global warming policy"
-dl)
>
> >He doesn't really come to any final conclusion about what should be
> >done...rather says that now I've shown what is not the problem, and
> >what is, now we all need to think about the best thing to do from
> >here.
>
> So... he is saying that climate change is not the problem? Or that
> cl ch *is* a problem but others are more serious? This is the heart
> of the matter, and your summary has become vague at this point...
> does that reflect L?
<...>
> -W.
He's saying that climate change *is* a problem but others
are more serious. p. 323 "... _global warming is not
anywhere near the most important problem facing the world_.
(emphasis in original -dl) What matters is making the
developing countries rich and giving the citizens of
developed countries even greater opportunities."
-dl
(for details see chapter 24 "Global Warming" pp 258-324 in
Lomborg _The Skeptical Environmentalist_)
Phil Hays
> Tim Worstall <t...@2xtreme.net> wrote:
> >I can think of a few reasons why this is not going to
> >happen.......steel production requires coal, not just energy. I'm not
> >sure if cement production releases CO2 by the energy required or for
> >some other reason.
>
> I don't think you need to worry about those. The bulk of CO2
> emissions are energy-related (I assert; anyone care to disagree?)
Cement production releases CO2 as cement is produced by converting carbonates to
silicates. Release of CO2 from this process is an order of magnitude smaller
than from fossil fuel usage, but still larger than the geologic carbon cycle.
If cement production was the only factor, it would take on the order of a
thousand years at current rate of production to double atmospheric CO2. I don't
think that growth rates of cement usage can be reasonably predicted for a tenth
of that time. So on this subject I don't disagree.
Steel production uses about 17% of world hard coal production. As coal is
currently less than half of total carbon usage, and hard coal is a fraction of
total coal usage, this source of CO2 would be seem to be smaller than cement
production. Again I don't disagree.
The remaining issue is CO2 release from land use change. This source isn't as
easy to estimate or to predict, so I pass. The future of land use might double
atmospheric CO2 in a hundred years or might never double CO2, depending on
things that I don't know.
--
Phil Hays
Tim Worstall
> Maybe you can take a look at www.unep.org and its global environmental
> outlook 2000. You can find there a good deal of information.
>
> I quote:
>
> "If present consumption patterns continue, two out of every three
> persons on Earth will live in water-stressed conditions by the year
> 2025."
I'm not sure where these figures are coming from......' water stressed
conditions ' are when available water drops below 4,660 litres per
person per day. The WRI estimates that in 2025 this will be true for
8.6 % of the people on the planet. 8.6 % is still too high, but it
ain't 66 %.
To desalinate sea water is about 50 cents a m3. ( I think a m3 is
1,000 litres ? )....so $ 2 a day per head to solve this problem.
The problem is poverty, not shortage of water.
>
> "Some 20 per cent of the world's susceptible drylands are affected by
> human-induced soil degradation, putting the livelihoods of more than
> 1000 million people at risk."
From the UNEP report and Lomborg.
17 percent of all land is degraded to some extent.....only 0.07
percent is strongly degraded.
In total this erosion has cost a cumulative loss of 5 percent of
agricultural production over the 45 years from the end of WWII, or
about 0.1 %per year.
We have also had annual productivity increases of 1 - 2 % over the
same period.
' Compared to this productivity increase, the effect of soil erosion
is so small that it often cannot justify an extra effort to combat
it.'
>
> About oil, I found data going from BP energy report to hubbertpeak.org,
> I really don't know what is the real situation. But I am sure that as
> oil gets scarcer geopolitics will be badly unsettled, as one might say
> it is already.
> In all reports I have read about renewables, it is clearly stated that
> no matter how fast the substitue technology are being developed there is
> no one able to substitute oil fully.
I agree .....we can replace oil as fuel in transport, but it is more
difficult re lubrication. Also we don't really have a substitute as a
chemical feedstock.
But as Yamani has pointed out, the stone age didn't end because of a
shortage of stones, nor will the oil age end for a shortage of oil.
Also, I keep reading that many of
> the renewables have side-problems to be dealt with, for example the
> amount of land that would be needed for biomass to be a viable substitue
> for engine fuel (also, that would create a competition between fuel crop
> and food crop). Moreover, the energy net balance of renewables. It seems
> they all need oil one way or another.
I don't think the numbers add up for biomass....but that is perhaps a
prejudice rather than reason talking.
Solar will get there.....another few decades.
> The economics of renewables are also complex. One of the ancillary aims
> of Kyoto protocol is exactly to promote on the one hand elimination of
> market imperfection, subsidies and tax breaks now available to the
> oil/energy industry, on the other promote investments in cleaner,
> renewable tehcnologies.
>
> As for Kyoto, I do believe it is not worthless. I see potential
> loopholes (the "hot air" affair, and the CDM question...), but all in
> all seems to be a major first step towards curbing emissions, allowing
> for least-cost options thru the MBIs, promoting technology transfer, a
> major instrument to prevent developing countries to smoke up the planet
> in the near future. It is a major international treaty, with enormous
> importante within the international community, despite the fact that US
> withdrew from it. The protocol is not only a 4 year C02 curb, that is
> only the first step. It does not involve only developed countries, that
> is only the first step. It is a first step that had to be done if you
> ask me.A first step that will act on GW without be too radical (both for
> political consensus and for economies), and that while taking action
> will allow time for further research.
My objection to it is that it seems to have been written by economic
morons. As it stands it will cost trillions of dollars in lost output
and delay warming temperatures by 6 years. Just not worth it. There
are other things we could spend the money on ( clean drinking water
for the world ? ) that would benefit humanity more.
I also think that it is unnecessary.....the advance of technology is
going to take care of the problem on its own. ( I've put my reasoning
for this belief into another post a couple of days ago. )
> The costs of it.
> Well there the question is rather complicated.
> Obviously there is an actual cost to be born, and there are opportunity
> costs.
> Here I would invoke the precautionary principle. We are facing a problem
> which is potentially irreversible. Which is potentially catastrophic, we
> don't know. What do you do? You get yourself an insurance policy. You
> spend money to avoid a risk. The PP is basically this, you forgo
> possible gains in order to eliminate the risk.
You can never eliminate risks....you can only reduce them. To what
level should we reduce the risk ? 1 %? 10 % ? 0.0001 % ?
An economists answer woud be that you reduce the risk to where the
cost of the expected problems from the thing happening are equal to
the costs of reducing that risk. ( I think that's right ).
By analogy it's crazy to spend $ 1 million to reduce a risk that will
cost $ 100,000 if it does happen.
Humans really aren't that good at understanding these sorts of
risks....an example from the UK.....Local Authorities sort out a road
or junction if it costs 100,000 pounds per life saved. On the trains,
ATP will cost 5 million per life saved. The rational thing to do would
be to spend all the money sorting out the 100,000 pound problems, and
ignore the more expensive one. You'll save more lives that way, which
is supposedly what we want to do.
Similarly with Kyoto. We could and should be using those resources in
other ways, and as we are not, many people will die....more than would
do if we had not signed it.
Tim Worstall
Andrew Taylor
Tim Worstall <t...@2xtreme.net> wrote:
>I'm not that sure that he makes many claims himself. He simply reads
>what others have written, and then explains what it actually means.
Thats not true. In the Economist, Lomborg writes:
"Third, that threat of biodiversity loss is real, but exaggerated. Most
early estimates used simple island models that linked a loss in habitat
with a loss of biodiversity. ... However, the data simply does not bear
out these predictions. In the eastern United States, forests were reduced
over two centuries to fragments totaling just 1-2% of their original area,
yet this resulted in the extinction of only one forest bird"
This comes from a throwaway example in the conclusion of [1]. Simberloff
explains why he thinks this example is not inconsistent with species-area
based prediction - the reasons include that there was insufficient time
for relaxation to equilibrium and most of the species having large ranges
extending well outside the area.
In "explaining" what Simberloff means, Lombord contradicts Simberloff.
Simberloff is a very well-known conservation biologist who has worked
in this area since his PhD in the 1960s. Personally, I doubt Lomborg
is deliberately misleading, just incompetant.
Lomborg also misquotes the example - Simberloff nominates three not one
extinctions. Its a very flimsy example anyway. I assume Simberloff
introduced it to raise factors that can confound species-area prediction.
>example would be his uncovering the beginning of the claim that there
>are 40,000 extinctions a year. It was actually a supposition by a
>writer, ( if we have 1 million extinctions over 25 years, then we will
>have 40,000 a year sort of thing ) rather than an attempt to work out
If you read the first chapter of the book I recommended (Extinction
Rates) - you'll discover this isn't true.
Andrew Taylor
[1] Daniel Simberloff, "Do species-area curves predict extinction in
fragmented forest?", in Tropical deforestation and species extinction,
ed. Whitmore and Sayer, 1992.
Tim Worstall
This isn't quite true. Soemthing can cost an awful lot and not help
very much at all. Consider Danny de Vito in an expensive suit. He's
spent a lot, but he's still short and fat ( not really a serious
comment ).
>
> I also consider that economic forecasts are unreliable. Does Lomberg
> anywhere discuss the reliability of his forecasts? If not, contrast
> with IPCC which does, for climate.
Most of his economic foreceasts are based on what IPCC assumes.
There's certainly no ' US will grow at 2 % in 2035 ' or such nonsense.
Just a general assumption that over the long term, theglobal economy
will grow at 1-2 %. Not unreasonable.
>
> >He doesn't really come to any final conclusion about what should be
> >done...rather says that now I've shown what is not the problem, and
> >what is, now we all need to think about the best thing to do from
> >here.
>
> So... he is saying that climate change is not the problem? Or that
> cl ch *is* a problem but others are more serious? This is the heart
> of the matter, and your summary has become vague at this point...
> does that reflect L?
Me rather than Lomborg. Cl ch is a problem. We should attempt to head
it off, but in a rational manner, using the minimum of resources
necessary. That's basically L's position. And mine.
>
> >One side argument that he uses, and one with which I have a certain
> >sympathy, is that technology and economics will come riding to the
> >rescue.
>
> Possibly, but this is indistinguishable from saying that Magic will save
> you.
Not quite....magic is just magic, while certian predictions about
technology can be made. While solar cell and silicon chip technologies
are different, Moore's Law can be assumed to hold for both ( indeed,
it is at the heart of my assumption about future solar prices that
this is true.)
>
> >So, if solar does continus to fall in price relative to oil, then by
> >2060 the problem will be largely gone. No more CO2 emissions, no more
> >NOx. CFC's have already stopped. Methane will still be there, but that
> >is a minor part of the problem.
>
> >If the above were true, we would get a 1 oC or so temperature rise,
> >somethingthat would fall back again as CO2 levels fell.
>
> If that happens, then thats fine. Yes.
OK, that's really what I was looking for. So now , to my mind, is what
do we do to make it happen ? From my analysis (flawed though it may be
) the ' asnwer ' would seem to be getting the cost of non polluting
energy production down below that of fossil fuels. That seems much
more acheivable than getting 190 sovereign nations to agree on
anything. As soon as the price is right everyone will start using it.
>
> >I can think of a few reasons why this is not going to
> >happen.......steel production requires coal, not just energy. I'm not
> >sure if cement production releases CO2 by the energy required or for
> >some other reason.
>
> I don't think you need to worry about those. The bulk of CO2
> emissions are energy-related (I assert; anyone care to disagree?)
>
> >What I'd really like to know is whether there are other reasons why it
> >won't happen this way ?
>
> Thats attempting to predict the future of technology. I don't do that ;-)
Perhaps more foolhardy than you....but I do believe i nthe march of
technology. As an example from my own working life.....we supply one
of the precursors to make a certain type of fuel cell. We have a new
factory being planned at the moment....it will increase worldwide
production of the element necessary by two orders of magnitude, and
decrease the cost by 75 %. This will make fuel cells for static power
generation just a bit more affordable....and from what I see in the
industry there are hundreds of such small incremental advances going
on all the time. We will get there.
Tim Worstall
>
> -W.
w...@bas.ac.uk
>w...@bas.ac.uk wrote in message news:<3c02...@news.nwl.ac.uk>...
>> >First up is Kyoto...it won't do much for the problem ( delay warming
>> >by 6 years is one figure he uses ) will cost a fortune ( not so much
>> >in actual costs, but in wealth foregone, wealth that could be used to
>> >solve other problems ) and should therefore be rejected.
>>
>> This I consider dubious. Essentially, I argue that if it won't do much,
>> it won't hurt much either. It will "cost" various amounts (pick your
>> own figure out of a hat) but while these numbers sound enormous, they
>> probably amount in proportion to CO2 forgone (or less).
>This isn't quite true. Soemthing can cost an awful lot and not help
>very much at all. Consider Danny de Vito in an expensive suit. He's
>spent a lot, but he's still short and fat ( not really a serious
>comment ).
OK, but still: in this case the costs and effects are directly linked.
Also, this is an important issue: I would have expected L to have
some serious discussion in his book. What does he say? Does he merely
assert the costs are enormous?
>> I also consider that economic forecasts are unreliable. Does Lomberg
>> anywhere discuss the reliability of his forecasts? If not, contrast
>> with IPCC which does, for climate.
>> So... he is saying that climate change is not the problem? Or that
>> cl ch *is* a problem but others are more serious? This is the heart
>> of the matter, and your summary has become vague at this point...
>> does that reflect L?
>Me rather than Lomborg. Cl ch is a problem. We should attempt to head
>it off, but in a rational manner, using the minimum of resources
>necessary. That's basically L's position. And mine.
Well, you can't argue too strongly with the idea that a rational
response is the best idea. But if thats the end summaryu of L's
response to Cl Ch, I'm not impressed ;-)
Nor (I hope) would anyone argue that we'll be lucky to get a
pure rational response to any international problem: self interest,
politics, etc etc intervenes.
So far, the end summary of your summary of L's position on Cl Ch
is that he accepts IPCC, with sniping, and hopes for a rational
response. So far so dull. What opinion on acceptable CO2 levels
does L offer?
w...@bas.ac.uk
>w...@bas.ac.uk wrote:
>> Tim Worstall wrote:
>> >First up is Kyoto...it won't do much for the problem ( delay warming
>> >by 6 years is one figure he uses ) will cost a fortune ( not so much
>> >in actual costs, but in wealth foregone, wealth that could be used to
>> >solve other problems ) and should therefore be rejected.
>>
>> This I consider dubious. Essentially, I argue that if it won't do much,
>> it won't hurt much either. It will "cost" various amounts (pick your
>> own figure out of a hat) but while these numbers sound enormous, they
>> probably amount in proportion to CO2 forgone (or less).
>Lomborg shares your doubts, to a point. The point is that
>the money could be spent (resources used) more wisely where
>the welfare of future human generations is concerned, in his
>opinion.
Ah, but isn't that always true? (partial answer to the end of your post,
snipped)
>On p.323 he pegs the cost: "if we implement Kyoto poorly (by
>this he means without global emissions permit trading, since
>the cost of implementing Kyoto falls from a net benefit of
>$61B with global trading to a net cost of $893B without
>trading
Are these figures reliable? Whose are they?
>...IPCC SAR WGIII p.301 "Given
>rising baseline emissions over the longer term, however,
>many top-down studies suggest that the annual costs of
>stabilizing emissions may ultimately exceed 1%-2% of GDP".
Ah.
>Where I depart is when considering the effects of climate
>change on wildlife...
Which L ignores?
>And to keep the world fit for skiers and ice-climbers ;-)
I'll vote for that (with my wallet if necessary).
Tim Worstall
> In article <825e2890.01112...@posting.google.com>,
> Tim Worstall <t...@2xtreme.net> wrote:
> >I'm not that sure that he makes many claims himself. He simply reads
> >what others have written, and then explains what it actually means.
>
> Thats not true. In the Economist, Lomborg writes:
>
> "Third, that threat of biodiversity loss is real, but exaggerated. Most
> early estimates used simple island models that linked a loss in habitat
> with a loss of biodiversity. ... However, the data simply does not bear
> out these predictions. In the eastern United States, forests were reduced
> over two centuries to fragments totaling just 1-2% of their original area,
> yet this resulted in the extinction of only one forest bird"
>
> This comes from a throwaway example in the conclusion of [1]. Simberloff
> explains why he thinks this example is not inconsistent with species-area
> based prediction - the reasons include that there was insufficient time
> for relaxation to equilibrium and most of the species having large ranges
> extending well outside the area.
>
> In "explaining" what Simberloff means, Lombord contradicts Simberloff.
> Simberloff is a very well-known conservation biologist who has worked
> in this area since his PhD in the 1960s. Personally, I doubt Lomborg
> is deliberately misleading, just incompetant.
>
> Lomborg also misquotes the example - Simberloff nominates three not one
> extinctions. Its a very flimsy example anyway. I assume Simberloff
> introduced it to raise factors that can confound species-area prediction.
The book seems to cover more than the Economist article.
In the notes ...." Simberloff writes here that three species of bird
became extinct, but that forest clearance was probably not responsible
in two of these cases."
A number of other sources are discussed ......Jared Diamond, EO
Wilson, Erhlich ( again !! ) and so on. ......At the end of it his
best guess is 0.7 % over 50 years....which agrees with Mawdsley and
Stork, the UN Global BioDiversity Assessment and various others
mentioned.
>
> >example would be his uncovering the beginning of the claim that there
> >are 40,000 extinctions a year. It was actually a supposition by a
> >writer, ( if we have 1 million extinctions over 25 years, then we will
> >have 40,000 a year sort of thing ) rather than an attempt to work out
>
> If you read the first chapter of the book I recommended (Extinction
> Rates) - you'll discover this isn't true.
The direct quote from Lomborg, who is quoting Myers from 1979.
" Yet even this figure seems low....Let us suppose that, as a
consequence of this man-handling of natural environments ( the
clearing of tropical forest ), the final one-quarter of this century
witnesses the elimination of 1 million species- a far from unlikely
prospect. This would work out , during the course of 25 years, at an
average extinction rate of 40,000 species per year, or rather over 100
species per day."
Later in the next paragraph, Lomborg directly this time :
" This assertion is 40,000 times greater than his own data, 10,000
times the latest observed rate and 400 times the maximum guess ...."
Just as a question.....did we actually lose 1 million species since
Myers wrote in the 1970's ?
>
Tim Worstall
Tim Worstall
> Tim Worstall <t...@2xtreme.net> wrote:
> >w...@bas.ac.uk wrote in message news:<3c02...@news.nwl.ac.uk>...
> >>tw:
> >> >First up is Kyoto...it won't do much for the problem ( delay warming
> >> >by 6 years is one figure he uses ) will cost a fortune ( not so much
> >> >in actual costs, but in wealth foregone, wealth that could be used to
> >> >solve other problems ) and should therefore be rejected.
> >>
> >> This I consider dubious. Essentially, I argue that if it won't do much,
> >> it won't hurt much either. It will "cost" various amounts (pick your
> >> own figure out of a hat) but while these numbers sound enormous, they
> >> probably amount in proportion to CO2 forgone (or less).
>
> >This isn't quite true. Soemthing can cost an awful lot and not help
> >very much at all. Consider Danny de Vito in an expensive suit. He's
> >spent a lot, but he's still short and fat ( not really a serious
> >comment ).
>
> OK, but still: in this case the costs and effects are directly linked.
> Also, this is an important issue: I would have expected L to have
> some serious discussion in his book. What does he say? Does he merely
> assert the costs are enormous?
This is the bulk of what he writes on GW etc ( after he's been through
the supporting evidence ).....a discussion of the economic effects of
the different possible solutions.(He uses many of the IPCC economic
projections as background here.....quite carefully not putting up his
own ) He also is aware of the political difficulties.
Another writer here put up his responses to emissions trading....one
of the cornerstones of his argument is that if we have global trading
of such then the economic effects of Kyoto will be as trivial as the
GW effects. And if we don't have global trading, then the economic
effects will dwarf any good that Kyoto might do. And then goes on to
point out that global trading is unlikely as how can you get 190
countries to agree on the division of trillions of $ ?
>
> >> I also consider that economic forecasts are unreliable. Does Lomberg
> >> anywhere discuss the reliability of his forecasts? If not, contrast
> >> with IPCC which does, for climate.
>
> >> So... he is saying that climate change is not the problem? Or that
> >> cl ch *is* a problem but others are more serious? This is the heart
> >> of the matter, and your summary has become vague at this point...
> >> does that reflect L?
>
> >Me rather than Lomborg. Cl ch is a problem. We should attempt to head
> >it off, but in a rational manner, using the minimum of resources
> >necessary. That's basically L's position. And mine.
>
> Well, you can't argue too strongly with the idea that a rational
> response is the best idea. But if thats the end summaryu of L's
> response to Cl Ch, I'm not impressed ;-)
It's possible to pick through the book and come to a contrary
view.....but this is the way I read it :
"We are told that there are all these problems . Here's the evidence
used to back each of them up . On food, farmland, water, biodiversity,
forests, blah blah, the evidence used for these claims does not
support the claims of impending doom.
On GW there seems to be a persistent bias to make the figures worse
than they are, yet GW and Cl Ch are happening and could ( not will be,
could ) be a serious problem.
Here are a number of alternative scenarios in which our actions change
these possible futures, with an attempt at defining costs and
benefits, always acknowledging that any forecast out 100 years is
likely to be flawed. "
He really doesn't come to stronger conclusion on GW than that....we
could afford the changes in the economy to slow it, and perhaps we
ought to. And perhaps technology will make it unnecessary. And if we
do decide to spend the money, there are rational and irrational ways
to do it. ( The usual bureacracy versus free market options ).
>
> Nor (I hope) would anyone argue that we'll be lucky to get a
> pure rational response to any international problem: self interest,
> politics, etc etc intervenes.
Ain't that the truth. Perhaps part of his argument is that only when
we have actually looked at the larger picture can we workout what we
ought to be doing.
I guess my point on this would be it's great for a climate modeller (
you ) to tell us what is happening, as it is for a biologist to tell
us what is happening on extinctions, but perhaps we also ought to have
the input of economists on how to change the economy to stop these
things ? And economists always talk about these pesky opportunity
costs, .....
>
> So far, the end summary of your summary of L's position on Cl Ch
> is that he accepts IPCC, with sniping, and hopes for a rational
> response. So far so dull. What opinion on acceptable CO2 levels
> does L offer?
I agree that L 's position on GW is fairly dull....no durm und strang,
no gotterdamerung....when someone is talking about ' the end of the
world ' that's rather the way I like it.
I actually do believe what he says was the impetus behind the book. He
set out to disprove Simon, and found that Simon was largely correct,
thus dishing the alarmists on all of these subjects, with the caveat
that GW is not a complete crock of shit, and that the major costs are
likely to come from a ham fisted attempt to fix it, rather than either
the effects of it or the costs of fixing it in a rational manner.
Over the very long term he seems to assume that non CO2 methods of
energy generation will arrive, solar cells, space based solar, fusion,
something. Over the next couple of centuries, I don't think that is
unreasonable.
I don't think he actually does give an ' acceptable ' CO2 level.
But then we in the UK know all about those sorts of bad laws....David
Blunkett wants to preserve the ancient liberties and freedoms of the
English by suspending Habeus Corpus, euro warrants for extradition to
Greece on charges of xenophobia, and Baker brought in the Dangerous
Dogs Act.
Tim Worstall
>
> -W.
Andrew Taylor
Tim Worstall <t...@2xtreme.net> wrote:
>In the notes ...." Simberloff writes here that three species of bird
>became extinct, but that forest clearance was probably not responsible
>in two of these cases."
Not exactly. Simberloff actually writes that deforestation "certainly
contributed to the decline of all three species but probably was not
critical [in two cases]". I don't believe the proximate cause of the
extinctions is necessarily relevant to species-area-based predictions
and his is not a useful example anyway. But the real question is why
Lomborg has ignored the text that immediately follows which begins:
"Why, then, would one predict massive extinctions from similar destruction
of tropical forest? The answer to this question ...."
An unkind person would assume Lomborg is trawling the data for points
that support his preconceived position - and ignoring anything
contradictory. My guess is that he just doesn't have the background
to synthesise the literature.
>...At the end of it his
>best guess is 0.7 % over 50 years....which agrees with Mawdsley and
>Stork, the UN Global BioDiversity Assessment and various others
>mentioned.
An economist's guesses about extinction rates are no more
interesting than mine. Stork certainly doesn't agree with Lomborg.
He writes (with Lawton and May):
"... for the comparatively well-studied birds and mammals, rates of
documented extinction over the past century correspond to species life
spans of around 10^4 years. And three altogether different methods
for projecting impending extinctions - each one of which has serious
shortcomings - concur in suggesting a lifespan for bird and mammal
species around 200-400 years, if current trends continue. These numbers
are likely to be broadly representative of plants and other groups of
animals; impending extinction rates are at least 4 orders-of magnitude
faster than the background rates seen in the fossil record"
Bob May has a stronh background in maths and biology
>Just as a question.....did we actually lose 1 million species since
>Myers wrote in the 1970's ?
Its not an easy question to answer. It would be an order of magnitude higher
than some estimates.
>The direct quote from Lomborg, who is quoting Myers from 1979.
Perhaps, but biologists have been attempting to estimate global extinction
rates by various means rather than "supposing" since at least the orignal
Biodiversity volume and conference in 1986.
Andrew Taylor
w...@bas.ac.uk
my original interest was what L had to say about the science of GW, and
that you've answered, thanks. If anyone else wants to take over on the
economics, feel free...
Tim Worstall <t...@2xtreme.net> wrote:
> wmc:
>And then goes on to
>point out that global trading is unlikely as how can you get 190
>countries to agree on the division of trillions of $ ?
Indeed.
>> Well, you can't argue too strongly with the idea that a rational
>> response is the best idea. But if thats the end summaryu of L's
>> response to Cl Ch, I'm not impressed ;-)
>It's possible to pick through the book and come to a contrary
>view.....but this is the way I read it :
...
>On GW there seems to be a persistent bias to make the figures worse
>than they are, yet GW and Cl Ch are happening and could ( not will be,
?I'd say that there is about equal efforts from pro and anti to spin their
own positions.
>could ) be a serious problem.
OK.
>> Nor (I hope) would anyone argue that we'll be lucky to get a
>> pure rational response to any international problem: self interest,
>> politics, etc etc intervenes.
>Ain't that the truth. Perhaps part of his argument is that only when
>we have actually looked at the larger picture can we workout what we
>ought to be doing.
Well, I'd definitely support finding out the truth in these things.
Tim Worstall
> In article <825e2890.01112...@posting.google.com>,
> Tim Worstall <t...@2xtreme.net> wrote:
> >In the notes ...." Simberloff writes here that three species of bird
> >became extinct, but that forest clearance was probably not responsible
> >in two of these cases."
>
> Not exactly. Simberloff actually writes that deforestation "certainly
> contributed to the decline of all three species but probably was not
> critical [in two cases]". I don't believe the proximate cause of the
> extinctions is necessarily relevant to species-area-based predictions
> and his is not a useful example anyway. But the real question is why
> Lomborg has ignored the text that immediately follows which begins:
>
> "Why, then, would one predict massive extinctions from similar destruction
> of tropical forest? The answer to this question ...."
OK, what did he go on to say here ? Lomborg looks at three separate
cases.....Brazilian Coastal, Puerto Rico and East Coast USA.
Definately been large scale forest clearance, and regrowth in two of
the areas, but no large scale extinctions.
>
> An unkind person would assume Lomborg is trawling the data for points
> that support his preconceived position - and ignoring anything
> contradictory. My guess is that he just doesn't have the background
> to synthesise the literature.
>
> >...At the end of it his
> >best guess is 0.7 % over 50 years....which agrees with Mawdsley and
> >Stork, the UN Global BioDiversity Assessment and various others
> >mentioned.
>
> An economist's guesses about extinction rates are no more
> interesting than mine.
Sorry, not Lomborg's guess.....but from reading what every biologist
is writing, the one that seems to be supported by the biological
science.
Stork certainly doesn't agree with Lomborg.
> He writes (with Lawton and May):
>
> "... for the comparatively well-studied birds and mammals, rates of
> documented extinction over the past century correspond to species life
> spans of around 10^4 years.
If species normally last 1 - 10 million years, ( May 1995 ) and now
they seem to be lasting 100,000 years, that is 2 orders of magnitude.(
or one ? )
And three altogether different methods
> for projecting impending extinctions - each one of which has serious
> shortcomings - concur in suggesting a lifespan for bird and mammal
> species around 200-400 years, if current trends continue.
Which trends ?
These numbers
> are likely to be broadly representative of plants and other groups of
> animals; impending extinction rates are at least 4 orders-of magnitude
> faster than the background rates seen in the fossil record"
Background extinction rates in the fossil record are 2 per decade (
Erhlich and Wilson, 1991 ).
Four orders of magnitude greater is 2x10x10x10x10, or 20,000 per
decade, or 2,000 per year.
To do the calculation around the other way.....
If average existence of a species is coming down from 5 million years
to 500 years (just to help the maths, you understand ) then this is
indeed four oders of magnitude.....or 2,000 extinctions a year, based
on 1.6 million species ( Baillie and Groombridge 1997 ).
Now it is also true that we don't actually know thenumber of
species....10 - 80 million maybe ? ( Erwin ).
But OK, let's take your quote from Stork. This gives us an IMPENDING
extinction rate of 2,000 a year, if current trends continue.
So this is a future projection, by a variety of methods all of which
are acknowledged to have serious faults, and it is still more than an
order of magnitude short of what Myers has been telling us has been
happening for the past 25 years.
Some error in there, surely ?
And if we take Stork at face value with this 10 4 life span of a
species currently ? A reduction of two orders of magnitude from the
fossil record ? So multiply the fossil record rate by 100 to get what
he thinks is actually currently happening. I mean that maths is OK
isn't it ?
Fossil record two per decade. Current rate two orders of magnitude
higher ? 200 per decade, or 20 a year.
Still not 40,000 a year, is it ?
>
> Bob May has a stronh background in maths and biology
>
> >Just as a question.....did we actually lose 1 million species since
> >Myers wrote in the 1970's ?
>
> Its not an easy question to answer. It would be an order of magnitude higher
> than some estimates.
>
> >The direct quote from Lomborg, who is quoting Myers from 1979.
>
> Perhaps, but biologists have been attempting to estimate global extinction
> rates by various means rather than "supposing" since at least the orignal
> Biodiversity volume and conference in 1986.
You misunderstood this quote. This is not Lomborg speaking. It is
Myers. This is the only supporting evidence Myers ever gave for his
figure of 40,000.
With all these different estimates, 0.7 % in 50 years, 40,000 a year,
Stork's implication of 20 a year currently, rising to 2,000 a year.
Someone, somewhere, is blowing smoke. And I certianly don't claim that
it cannot be me, if only unintentionally. But I got to a figure of 20
a year by floowing Stork's own maths.....
Just how many species are going extinct each year ? Certainly more
than background, sure.
Just as an aside, if we take the higher figure for the number of
extant species, 80 million, then 40,000 a year dying out is 0.05 % a
year, or 2.5 % over 50 years. Not neglible. Also three orders of
magnitude higher than background ( average species life of 5 million
years, 80 million species, should be 16 going each year as
background..16,000 a year ? )
The only way I can see the extinction figures being very high in terms
of the number of species is that there are lots and lots of species to
start with. And we know roughly the number of birds and mammals, while
we have no idea at all about the number of worms, bugs, viri,
bacteria, insects and beetles ( Can't remember who said he thought
creation showed that God had an inordinate fondness for
beetles....Haldane ? ).
Whether I'm a biologist or not, doesn't there seem to be something of
a problem with these figures ?
Tim Worstall
>
> Andrew Taylor
goldfish
Don Libby wrote:
> Where I depart is when considering the effects of climate
> change on wildlife, which is enough to convince me that
> there is a point to spending on a GHG mitigation policy:
> the point is wildlife conservation. Whether the price tag
> is worth it depends on one's subjective valuation of
> wildlife. I would not be willing to trade major declines in
> human life chances for wildlife conservation, but I would be
> willing to trade minor declines in living standards for it
> (if the subjective rise in quality of life due to wildlife
> conservation offsets the subjective decline in quality of
> life due to lower average material standards of living).
> Oh, yes, and to possibly prevent 60 meter sea level rise on
> a multi-century-scale time frame. And to keep the world fit
> for skiers and ice-climbers ;-)
Don,
If wildlife is your concern, wouldn't the money
be spent more effectively if it went directly to habitat
conservation? Wildlife will readily adapt to a large
rise in the sea level, so long as the wetlands are unperturbed
throughout the gradual rise -- but building seawalls and
condos on the frontage will certainly cause a decline.
Spending money on GHG mitigation, instead of preserving
wetlands, will increase the likelihood of those condos appearing;
whereas if the money was spent on wetlands, the sealevel
may rise, but the wildlife will remain in place.
Regards,
Peter Mott
w...@bas.ac.uk
>OK, what did he go on to say here ? Lomborg looks at three separate
>cases.....Brazilian Coastal, Puerto Rico and East Coast USA.
>Definately been large scale forest clearance, and regrowth in two of
>the areas, but no large scale extinctions.
My understanding is that most of the predicted extinctions are beetles
and the like. Which is why L's statement that "X extinctions were
predicted but only 1 *bird* species became extinct" seems... odd.
But this is definitely outside my area!
Don Libby
>
> Don Libby wrote:
>
> > Where I depart is when considering the effects of climate
> > change on wildlife, which is enough to convince me that
> > there is a point to spending on a GHG mitigation policy:
> > the point is wildlife conservation.
>
>
> If wildlife is your concern, wouldn't the money
> be spent more effectively if it went directly to habitat
> conservation? Wildlife will readily adapt to a large
> rise in the sea level, so long as the wetlands are unperturbed
> throughout the gradual rise -- but building seawalls and
> condos on the frontage will certainly cause a decline.
> Spending money on GHG mitigation, instead of preserving
> wetlands, will increase the likelihood of those condos appearing;
> whereas if the money was spent on wetlands, the sealevel
> may rise, but the wildlife will remain in place.
>
> Regards,
> Peter Mott
I base my opinion on the high probability that warming will
be greatest near the poles, thus threatening the whole
arctic ecosystem. Furthermore, rapid shifts in climate
zones may occur faster than vegetation can migrate, thus
threatening primary producers in unpredictable ways. (All
this surmised from the IPCC SAR WGII).
I agree that in this century, direct wildlife habitat
protection is needed, but if no action is taken in this
century to stabilize CO2 concentrations, the chances
increase that rapid and large climate changes in the next
several centuries can have catastrophic consequences for
wildlife. Humans would probably be better able to adapt, so
a major benefit of GHG mitigation is long-run biodiversity
conservation.
-dl
Don Libby
>
> I've rather got in over my head on the economics of this, sucked in...
> my original interest was what L had to say about the science of GW, and
> that you've answered, thanks. If anyone else wants to take over on the
> economics, feel free...
If anyone cares to wade in deeper, Lomborg's ammunition for
the economic argument is to be found in Nordhaus and Boyer's
description of the "DICE" and "RICE" Integrated Assessment
Models in their (forthcoming?) book, table of contents and
index available for on-line viewing at
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0262140713/glance/104-8266030-4541560
Now I notice a subtle error in Lomborg: the critique of
global warming policy on economic grounds should properly be
aimed at the *political* process called the UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change, rather than at the
*scientific* process called the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. In the end, he basically *agrees* with
IPCC, but *disagrees* on economic grounds with the policies
developed under the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCC.
This distinction should have been made more clear, since
Lomborg, as a professional Political Scientist would be on
somewhat firmer ground if he restricted his focus to the
UNFCCC political process, rather than confusing the issue by
sniping at the IPCC scientific reports, with which he
fundamentally agrees set forth the facts as best we know
them.
-dl
Andrew Taylor
Tim Worstall <t...@2xtreme.net> wrote:
>Background extinction rates in the fossil record are 2 per decade (
>Erhlich and Wilson, 1991 ).
This paper does not make that claim. What they actually say is:
"The overall natural extinction rate (at times other than mass
extinctions episodes) estimated from fossil data to the nearest
order of magnitude is 10^-7 species per species year."
Its bad practice to cite papers you haven't read. Errors like this
creep in very easily. Incidentally, I'd also chastise a student for
citing a paper titled "Biodiversity Studies: Science and Policy" for
fossil extinction rates. Only a few more minutes in the library and
they could read what the palaeotologists wrote. And, not to harp,
but the book I recomended ("Extinction Rates") has a nice chapter on
extinction in the fossil record by Jablonski.
>> "... for the comparatively well-studied birds and mammals, rates of
>> documented extinction over the past century correspond to species life
>> spans of around 10^4 years.
>If species normally last 1 - 10 million years, ( May 1995 ) and now
>they seem to be lasting 100,000 years, that is 2 orders of magnitude.
10^4 is 10000 not 100000 so its 2-3 orders of magnitude.
>But OK, let's take your quote from Stork. This gives us an IMPENDING
>extinction rate of 2,000 a year, if current trends continue.
If you assume the number of species is in the range 10^7 - 10^8, then
May, Lawton & Storks estimated future species lifetimes of 200-400
years would result in extinction rates in the range 25000-500000/year.
>So this is a future projection, by a variety of methods all of which
>are acknowledged to have serious faults, and it is still more than an
>order of magnitude short of what Myers has been telling us has been
>happening for the past 25 years.
Untrue, see the calculations above, I also disagree with your
characterization of Myers's statements. His paper on extinction due to
tropical deforestation in the original Biodiversity volume (198)
makes no such claim. He discusses instead three tropical forest areas
and suggests that the deforestation of the last 35 years will result in
the eventual extinction of 50,000 species when equilibrium is reached.
He says this is consistant with a global estimate by Wilson that 10,000
extinctions/year will result from current tropical deforestation rates.
Note, in both cases these are not prompt extinctions but consequent
extinctions occurring as equilibrium is reached.
>OK, what did he go on to say here ?
Simerloff nominates insufficient time to obtain equilibrium and large
geographic ranges of nearctic birds. Personally, I'd suggest the (never
quantified) number of candidate species was very small - and the figure
for minimum habitat reduction is implausible. It does not seem a useful
example to me.
Lomborg also mentions avian extinctions in Puerto Rico. This is used as
an example by Lugo in the original Biodiversity volume, stemming
from a paper by Brash - which you can bet Lomborg never bothered to
look at. Lugo and Brash venture several explanations for Puerto Rico's
apparrently depressed avian extinction rate.
a) As Puerto Rico is an oceanic island over 700 km from the nearest
mainland and a result avian species that reach there may end up occupying
wide niches.
b) The few remaining forest fragments were very suitable as refugia
and some of the conversion was to coffee plantations with trees from
original forest left in situ to provide a shading canopy. These coffee
planations combined with secondary forest ensured total forest cover
was never less than 10-15%. Coffee planations offer suitable habitat
for about half of Puerto Rico's bird species.
c) Extinction lag - some of the extinctions are yet to occur or at least
would be except for extensive forest regrowth following the collapse of
the sugar cane industry in the 1940s and more recently intervention.
d) Puerto Rico's avifauna may be pre-adapted to disturbance due to
its hurricane regime.
I'd note that that Puerto Rico's avifauna did not escape unscathed with
4 of 17 endemic species lost and at least one more endemic species only
saved by intervention and ex situ conservation. It would more enlightening
to see data form other taxa, less mobile than birds.
Andrew Taylor
Joshua Halpern
> Tim Worstall <t...@2xtreme.net> wrote:
Massive SNIP....
> >> Nor (I hope) would anyone argue that we'll be lucky to get a
> >> pure rational response to any international problem: self interest,
> >> politics, etc etc intervenes.
>
> >Ain't that the truth. Perhaps part of his argument is that only when
> >we have actually looked at the larger picture can we workout what we
> >ought to be doing.
>
> Well, I'd definitely support finding out the truth in these things.
I think there are two reasons not to take this appeal
to rationality as anything but a call for delay.
First, as Keynes pointed out, in the long run we are
all dead. Delay can have interesting consequences.
Second, how many spending decisions are
truly rational, in the sense that all alternatives
are carefully weighted, and if they were we would
all get underwear for Christmas. People tend
to demand total rationality for decisions they
do not want to take. OTOH, they just go ahead
and do stuff they want to do.
josh halpern
Joshua Halpern
> w...@bas.ac.uk wrote in message news:<3c03...@news.nwl.ac.uk>...
> > Tim Worstall <t...@2xtreme.net> wrote:
> > >w...@bas.ac.uk wrote in message news:<3c02...@news.nwl.ac.uk>...
> > >>tw:
> This is the bulk of what he writes on GW etc ( after he's been through
> the supporting evidence ).....a discussion of the economic effects of
> the different possible solutions.(He uses many of the IPCC economic
> projections as background here.....quite carefully not putting up his
> own ) He also is aware of the political difficulties.
> Another writer here put up his responses to emissions trading....one
> of the cornerstones of his argument is that if we have global trading
> of such then the economic effects of Kyoto will be as trivial as the
> GW effects. And if we don't have global trading, then the economic
> effects will dwarf any good that Kyoto might do. And then goes on to
> point out that global trading is unlikely as how can you get 190
> countries to agree on the division of trillions of $ ?
We have global trading, regulated by the ITO treaty. If
emission trading were incorporated into the ITO regime, it
would willy-nilly be enforced. The 190 countries thing is a
sham. For all practical purposes there are two blocks
of countries that have to sign on: the European Community
and NAFTA. NAFTA is totally dominated by the US anyhow.
If those two blocks decided that they would ding any country
who tried to mess around with the emissions trading regime.
China, Russia, and India would follow, because their
economies depend on maintaining trade and good relations
with the first world, and so on.
SNIP.....
> It's possible to pick through the book and come to a contrary
> view.....but this is the way I read it :
> "We are told that there are all these problems . Here's the evidence
> used to back each of them up . On food, farmland, water, biodiversity,
> forests, blah blah, the evidence used for these claims does not
> support the claims of impending doom.
Lombergs presentation of the evidence is pretty much the
same as card forcing. He shows you the things that support
his arguments. In the case where reviews by experts in
various fields were done, they essentially said that
Lomberg presents a carefully selected set of facts which
butress his argument and ignores much of the rest. This
is quite similar to a lot of the argumentation here. The
problem in reviewing the book is that it is so broad that
no one person can evaluate all of the issues discussed.
Of course in English one has the saying "A mile wide and
an inch deep".
http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/scienceandnature/0,6121,544861,00.html
is one example, although I recall reading others, I just
was able to find this one on the web.
If you doubt me, consider the difficulty that a couple of
hundred experts had over several years in summarizing the
science behind climate change. Lomborg does it in a
chapter. Right.
SNIP....
> I agree that L 's position on GW is fairly dull....no durm und strang,
> no gotterdamerung....when someone is talking about ' the end of the
> world ' that's rather the way I like it.
> I actually do believe what he says was the impetus behind the book. He
> set out to disprove Simon, and found that Simon was largely correct,
The problem with Simon is the problem with Hooke's law. It
works until the spring snaps. However, this is the problem
with all kinds of linear models. I think also that both Simon
and his opponents did not realize how fungible things are,
and the extent that interchangeability exerts downward price
pressure across the board.
josh halpern
Don Libby
> read what biologists write about biology?
>
> Andrew Taylor
Good advice. While in the bookstore shopping for Lomborg, I also
purchased _The World According to Pimm_ and Ehrlich's _Human Natures_.
Pimm's is the more interesting (and most readable) of the three, IMO.
There is definitely a call for dialog between biologists and
economists where environmental policy is concerned. The temptation
for biologists to write about economics seems irresistable to some
(e.g. Ehrlich, Hardin), and has not been very fruitful. I suppose we
could not expect much good to come from economists writing about
biology either. An example of the "Peter Principle" in action: we
rise to our maximum level of incompetence.
However, there are subspecialists in the more traditional Agricultural
Economics, Resource Economics, Environmental Economics and the nacent
Ecological Economics who make it their business to study "the
resilience of ecosystems on which our economy depends", and the
resilience of economic systems that depend on ecosystems
(traditionally forestry, fisheries, and agriculture; more recently
tourism, recreation, and I suppose, conservation biology).
Among the many areas of economic research Nordhaus is actively engaged
in is the development of "Integrated Assessment Models" for climate
policy research. These attempt to reconcile the environmental
parameters modeled by environmental scientists, with the economic
parameters modeled by economists, to develop a meaningful quantitative
foundation from which to make better informed environmental policy.
I would not say this work is wholly unrelated to matters ecological:
observing the "ecological complex" contributed to the literature in
1961 by the (famous) human ecologist Otis Dudley Duncan, the human
population is related to its environment by technology and
organisation.
-dl
Tim Worstall
> In article <825e2890.01112...@posting.google.com>,
> Tim Worstall <t...@2xtreme.net> wrote:
> >Background extinction rates in the fossil record are 2 per decade (
> >Erhlich and Wilson, 1991 ).
>
> This paper does not make that claim. What they actually say is:
> "The overall natural extinction rate (at times other than mass
> extinctions episodes) estimated from fossil data to the nearest
> order of magnitude is 10^-7 species per species year."
I have to admit my maths is not up to understanding that comment.
>
> Its bad practice to cite papers you haven't read. Errors like this
> creep in very easily. Incidentally, I'd also chastise a student for
> citing a paper titled "Biodiversity Studies: Science and Policy" for
> fossil extinction rates. Only a few more minutes in the library and
> they could read what the palaeotologists wrote. And, not to harp,
> but the book I recomended ("Extinction Rates") has a nice chapter on
> extinction in the fossil record by Jablonski.
>
> >> "... for the comparatively well-studied birds and mammals, rates of
> >> documented extinction over the past century correspond to species life
> >> spans of around 10^4 years.
> >If species normally last 1 - 10 million years, ( May 1995 ) and now
> >they seem to be lasting 100,000 years, that is 2 orders of magnitude.
>
> 10^4 is 10000 not 100000 so its 2-3 orders of magnitude.
As above, sorry for themaths.....but I did ask in the original whether
I had got it right, didn't I ?
>
> >But OK, let's take your quote from Stork. This gives us an IMPENDING
> >extinction rate of 2,000 a year, if current trends continue.
>
> If you assume the number of species is in the range 10^7 - 10^8, then
> May, Lawton & Storks estimated future species lifetimes of 200-400
> years would result in extinction rates in the range 25000-500000/year.
OK, but this is suture, right, not now ? And certainly not what Myers
said has been going on since 1975 ?
>
> >So this is a future projection, by a variety of methods all of which
> >are acknowledged to have serious faults, and it is still more than an
> >order of magnitude short of what Myers has been telling us has been
> >happening for the past 25 years.
>
> Untrue, see the calculations above, I also disagree with your
> characterization of Myers's statements. His paper on extinction due to
> tropical deforestation in the original Biodiversity volume (198)
> makes no such claim. He discusses instead three tropical forest areas
> and suggests that the deforestation of the last 35 years will result in
> the eventual extinction of 50,000 species when equilibrium is reached.
> He says this is consistant with a global estimate by Wilson that 10,000
> extinctions/year will result from current tropical deforestation rates.
> Note, in both cases these are not prompt extinctions but consequent
> extinctions occurring as equilibrium is reached.
>
But this still seems to be in the future, if current forestry
clearance continues. This, I submit, is different from stating that it
has already been happening forthe past 25 years.
> >OK, what did he go on to say here ?
>
> Simerloff nominates insufficient time to obtain equilibrium and large
> geographic ranges of nearctic birds. Personally, I'd suggest the (never
> quantified) number of candidate species was very small - and the figure
> for minimum habitat reduction is implausible. It does not seem a useful
> example to me.
>
> Lomborg also mentions avian extinctions in Puerto Rico. This is used as
> an example by Lugo in the original Biodiversity volume, stemming
> from a paper by Brash - which you can bet Lomborg never bothered to
> look at. Lugo and Brash venture several explanations for Puerto Rico's
> apparrently depressed avian extinction rate.
>
> a) As Puerto Rico is an oceanic island over 700 km from the nearest
> mainland and a result avian species that reach there may end up occupying
> wide niches.
Didn't mention this, no.
>
> b) The few remaining forest fragments were very suitable as refugia
> and some of the conversion was to coffee plantations with trees from
> original forest left in situ to provide a shading canopy. These coffee
> planations combined with secondary forest ensured total forest cover
> was never less than 10-15%. Coffee planations offer suitable habitat
> for about half of Puerto Rico's bird species.
This he does mention. While 99% of the original primary forest was
cut, total at any one time never fell below 10 - 15 %.
>
> c) Extinction lag - some of the extinctions are yet to occur or at least
> would be except for extensive forest regrowth following the collapse of
> the sugar cane industry in the 1940s and more recently intervention.
>
> d) Puerto Rico's avifauna may be pre-adapted to disturbance due to
> its hurricane regime.
>
> I'd note that that Puerto Rico's avifauna did not escape unscathed with
> 4 of 17 endemic species lost and at least one more endemic species only
> saved by intervention and ex situ conservation. It would more enlightening
> to see data form other taxa, less mobile than birds.
I agree with those numbers. The whole thing is actually mentioned as a
counterpoint to other's insistence, that by ctting forest you
inevitable lead to a decline in biodiversity. While true ( 4 out of 17
) this is not the same as others seem to assume ( 17 out of 17 ) which
is what gives us estimates of 25,000 a year.
As you have probably realised, I am not a biologist, nor a student,
nor someone with access to a research library.
Just your average concerned citizen trying to make sense of the
conflicting claims around me.
You are obviously better informed than I on this issue. Could you tell
me.....how many species are there ? How many are going extinct
annually ? ( that doesn't read quite right but you know what I mean ).
And is there any connection between this number and Myers claim of
40,000 a year ?
Alternatively, what percentage of species are we losing annually ?
Serious question, I really would like to know. Not future, not ' if
current practises continue ', but what is actually happening now ?
Tim Worstall
>
> Andrew Taylor
Tim Worstall
Broadly I agree with you. His argument on GW is not that it is not
happening, but that what we are attempting to do about it is wrong.
He does take issue with IPCC on several issues. Most notably on the
issue of changing technology. None of the IPCC models assume that
technology will change over time, making renewables cheaper than
fossil. A cursory glance at the history of technology would show that
changes in it are the one constant feature of our economic system. And
thus should be modelled.
Tim Worstall
> -dl
Don Libby
> > global warming policy on economic grounds should properly be
> > aimed at the *political* process called the UN Framework
> > Convention on Climate Change, rather than at the
> > *scientific* process called the Intergovernmental Panel on
> > Climate Change. In the end, he basically *agrees* with
> > IPCC, but *disagrees* on economic grounds with the policies
> > developed under the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCC.
>
> issue of changing technology. None of the IPCC models assume that
> technology will change over time, making renewables cheaper than
> fossil.
One of the broad themes of Lomborg's book is that
"environmentalist values" taint "environmental science". In
keeping with this theme, his global warming chapter aims to
discredit the IPCC as the principal scientific body for
global climate change research.
Yes, his major point of disagreement with IPCC is with the
emissions scenarios as detailed in the _Special Report on
Emissions Scenarios_ (SRES), and the suffusion of alarmist
environmentalist value judgements during the (unscientific)
editorial process for the "Summary for Policy Makers" in the
IPCC Assessment Reports. No, it is not true that the
emissions scenarios assume no price-lowering changes in
energy technology. For details on the scenarios see
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/emission/index.htm
Unfortunately, by criticising the emissions scenarios and
repeatedly referring to them as the "IPCC scenarios", he
tars the scientific authority with overly broad brushes.
The SRES scenarios were developed by an open process under
the auspices of the IPCC Working Group III (essentially the
social science committee), but they were not developed by
the IPCC. They were published in an IPCC report but the
IPCC does not endorse any particular scenario (as far as I
can tell).
Lomborg blames IPCC for making a strong endorsement of SRES
"Scenario B1", which has a decidedly "greener" flavor than
the equally effective "Scenario A1T", which accomplishes
emission reductions primarily through means of technical and
economic efficiencies. I haven't found such an endorsement
in the IPCC literature. I'll take a closer look to see if
Lomborg's charges are valid.
-dl
goldfish
Joshua Halpern wrote:
> The problem with Simon is the problem with Hooke's law. It
> works until the spring snaps. However, this is the problem
> with all kinds of linear models.
Most linear systems do not fail without warning,
catastrophically. (You forgot about plastic deformation,
and/or the reduced spring stiffness that accompanies crack
growth.) In fact, I would say that such a failure is the
exception, not the rule.
Regards,
Peter Mott
Joshua Halpern
Hookes law does not contain anything about formation of
cracks or shattering of springs. Maybe I was being too
simple in my choice of example, fair enough, you are the
expert in plastic properties, but I thought that crack
formation was not a linear process?
In any case, perhaps a better example is the failure of
bond market models to account for rare, large negative
changes in price. There is no coming back from zero.
josh halpern
goldfish
Joshua Halpern wrote:
> goldfish <p...@xbt.nrl.navy.mil> wrote in message news:<3C0686E4...@xbt.nrl.navy.mil>...
> > Joshua Halpern wrote:
> >
> > > The problem with Simon is the problem with Hooke's law. It
> > > works until the spring snaps. However, this is the problem
> > > with all kinds of linear models.
> >
> > Most linear systems do not fail without warning,
> > catastrophically. (You forgot about plastic deformation,
> > and/or the reduced spring stiffness that accompanies crack
> > growth.) In fact, I would say that such a failure is the
> > exception, not the rule.
>
> Hookes law does not contain anything about formation of
> cracks or shattering of springs. Maybe I was being too
> simple in my choice of example, fair enough, you are the
> expert in plastic properties, but I thought that crack
> formation was not a linear process?
I was thinking less about the physical mechanisms
of cracks and/or plasticity, which is obviously not linear,
and more simple-mindedly about what happens when one
pulls a spring too much. That is, the load-deflection
behavior departs from linearity, which serves as a strong
warning that "something has gone wrong." Springs usually
do not break before that. Most other linear things -- such
as applying increasing amounts of voltage to a resistor --
behave likewise. That is, before it fails, it goes
non-linear.
> In any case, perhaps a better example is the failure of
> bond market models to account for rare, large negative
> changes in price. There is no coming back from zero.
>
It did not know that investment markets were
ever linear...
Regards,
Peter Mott
Byron Bodo
>
>
>
>Joshua Halpern wrote:
>
>> goldfish <p...@xbt.nrl.navy.mil> wrote in message news:<3C0686E4.D5CFBD2B@xb
Warning or not, don't count on having much lead or response time.
The steel in the WTC going plastic is an immediate example, but
the engineering hall of shame is littered with cases of structures
collapsing with little or no warning.
-bb
goldfish
Byron Bodo wrote:
It depend if you are looking or not. Most cases,
the catastrophe was because nobody was looking.
In the case of the WTC, there was indeed plenty of
warning that the structure was compromised, and
that processes were at work to further degrade it.
Most people were well aware that something had gone
wrong, and that they took these warnings to heart, and ran
away as fast as they could.
Keep in mind the original context, that increasing
the CO2 will lead to the end of the world. I dare
say that we have been forewarned, and the system
will be closely watched for any indication of
non linearity -- whatever that means, in regard to the
world climate. ;-)
Peter Mott
Byron Bodo
>
>
>
>Byron Bodo wrote:
>>
>> Warning or not, don't count on having much lead or response time.
>> The steel in the WTC going plastic is an immediate example, but
>> the engineering hall of shame is littered with cases of structures
>> collapsing with little or no warning.
>
>It depend if you are looking or not. Most cases,
>the catastrophe was because nobody was looking.
>In the case of the WTC, there was indeed plenty of
>warning that the structure was compromised, and
>that processes were at work to further degrade it.
>Most people were well aware that something had gone
>wrong, and that they took these warnings to heart, and ran
>away as fast as they could.
Unfortunately, the emergency response teams seemed
to be oblivious of the 1 hr or so time-limit they had to work
with [as specified in building codes] before potential failure.
>Keep in mind the original context, that increasing
>the CO2 will lead to the end of the world.
as we know it.
> I dare
>say that we have been forewarned, and the system
>will be closely watched for any indication of
>non linearity -- whatever that means, in regard to the
>world climate. ;-)
Even if it goes "non-linear" in some obviously catastrophic
way, it's a safe bet that a significant fraction of Yanks
in their armour-plated SUVs will deny it to the very end.
Since 911, demand for armour-plated SUVs has supposedly
sky-rocketed in the US. Expect gas mileage to drop
down to levels not seen since the good old glory days of
Detroit's rolling battleships of the late 60s and early 70s, i.e.,
5 mpg on city streets.
-bb
Joshua Halpern
> Joshua Halpern wrote:
>
> > goldfish <p...@xbt.nrl.navy.mil> wrote in message news:<3C0686E4...@xbt.nrl.navy.mil>...
> > > Joshua Halpern wrote:
> > In any case, perhaps a better example is the failure of
> > bond market models to account for rare, large negative
> > changes in price. There is no coming back from zero.
> >
>
> It did not know that investment markets were
> ever linear...
>
Regards
Josh Halpern
Andrew Taylor
>You are obviously better informed than I on this issue. Could you tell
>me.....how many species are there ? How many are going extinct
>annually ?
The short answer is no and no. Also, you are better off reading what
Bob May writes than asking me - he knows far more about biology and
maths than I do.
There are plausible, but not conclusive, estimates mainly based on
studies of tropical arthropods, that the number of terrestrial animal
species exceeds 10^7. It is not impossible that the number of terrestrial
animal species exceeds 10^8. There is also speculation that there
could be very large numbers of microbial species in soil and also that
abyssal species diversity could be very high.
The uncertainty of the composition of global species diversity makes
estimating the current global extinction rate intractable. If, for
example, 90% of all species are abyssal nematodes, global figures may be
less than enlightening. We instead need to look at what is happening
to particular taxonomic groups and in particular geographic regions.
I don't think you can go further than the statement I quoted from May,
Lawton & Stork which boils down to a current extinction rate of 0.01%
to 0.1% for some groups which may be typical.
Lomberg's rejection of species-area-based predictions is unjustified.
Its a principled way to get first-order estimates of contingent
extinction. Its particularly useful because changes to habitat area can
be estimated from remoted-sensed data. However it is much less useful
if you want to know current extinction rates, due to the time lag for
the contingent extinctions. Given the pace of anthropogenic activities
such calculations are also inherently hypothetical.
As to whether this is consistent with Myers 1979 prediction - I don't have
time to get the library and read what he said. It is certainly consistant
with what he wrote in 1988. Stork surveys predictions of species loss
in the second Biodiversity volume. Myers seem to be the first to point
out that tropical deforestation will entail a large number of extinctions.
>As you have probably realised, I am not a biologist, nor a student,
>nor someone with access to a research library.
>Just your average concerned citizen trying to make sense of the
>conflicting claims around me.
I'd recommend not getting your information about biology from an
economist. The reverse applies too - Paul Ehrlich is an eminent
biologist, but he has made quite a few rash claims outside his area of
expertise which are best ignored.
Andrew Taylor
goldfish
Byron Bodo wrote:
> In article <3C07E326...@xbt.nrl.navy.mil>, p...@xbt.nrl.navy.mil says...
> >
> >
> >
> >Byron Bodo wrote:
> >>
> >> Warning or not, don't count on having much lead or response time.
> >> The steel in the WTC going plastic is an immediate example, but
> >> the engineering hall of shame is littered with cases of structures
> >> collapsing with little or no warning.
> >
> >It depend if you are looking or not. Most cases,
> >the catastrophe was because nobody was looking.
> >In the case of the WTC, there was indeed plenty of
> >warning that the structure was compromised, and
> >that processes were at work to further degrade it.
> >Most people were well aware that something had gone
> >wrong, and that they took these warnings to heart, and ran
> >away as fast as they could.
>
> Unfortunately, the emergency response teams seemed
> to be oblivious of the 1 hr or so time-limit they had to work
> with [as specified in building codes] before potential failure.
After the behavior of the structure transitions to
nonlinear, and thus less familiar behavior, the
response becomes correspondingly less predictable.
Firefighters knowingly take this risk, to their (and my)
regret inside the WTC; civilians generally do not.
> >Keep in mind the original context, that increasing
> >the CO2 will lead to the end of the world.
>
> as we know it.
Well, on the one hand, the world is continuously
ending as we know it, because the economic, political,
and environmental situation is always changing, and
moving into unknown territory. On the other hand,
the new territory is not that much different from the
old.
Thought experiment: would Darwin recognize
today's world?
This implies that you consider the new territory
to be so different that those in the present would not
recognize it, and therefore, that the doomsday predictions
are tenable ... true?
> > I dare
> >say that we have been forewarned, and the system
> >will be closely watched for any indication of
> >non linearity -- whatever that means, in regard to the
> >world climate. ;-)
>
> Even if it goes "non-linear" in some obviously catastrophic
> way, it's a safe bet that a significant fraction of Yanks
> in their armour-plated SUVs will deny it to the very end.
> Since 911, demand for armour-plated SUVs has supposedly
> sky-rocketed in the US. Expect gas mileage to drop
> down to levels not seen since the good old glory days of
> Detroit's rolling battleships of the late 60s and early 70s, i.e.,
> 5 mpg on city streets.
Ah yes, and as we go down, there
will be no shortage of overblown accusations
based on stereotypes.
Regards,
Peter Mott
Byron Bodo
>
>
>
>Byron Bodo wrote:
>> Unfortunately, the emergency response teams seemed
>> to be oblivious of the 1 hr or so time-limit they had to work
>> with [as specified in building codes] before potential failure.
>
>After the behavior of the structure transitions to
>nonlinear, and thus less familiar behavior, the
>response becomes correspondingly less predictable.
>Firefighters knowingly take this risk, to their (and my)
>regret inside the WTC; civilians generally do not.
So you're certain they were sent in deliberately knowing
the risks involved. Questions about whether NYC had official
policies on such matters and whether there were knowledgeable
officials responsible for making such calls as to when to pull
rescue teams from potentially catastrophic situations surfaced
early after 911 in engineering discussions, but the answers
were beyond knowing by design engineers. Perhaps answers
will ultimately come out in whatever formal inquiries ensue.
>> >Keep in mind the original context, that increasing
>> >the CO2 will lead to the end of the world.
>>
>> as we know it.
>
>Well, on the one hand, the world is continuously
>ending as we know it, because the economic, political,
>and environmental situation is always changing, and
>moving into unknown territory. On the other hand,
>the new territory is not that much different from the
>old.
>
>Thought experiment: would Darwin recognize
>today's world?
>
>This implies that you consider the new territory
>to be so different that those in the present would not
>recognize it, and therefore, that the doomsday predictions
>are tenable ... true?
Huh?
>
>
>> > I dare
>> >say that we have been forewarned, and the system
>> >will be closely watched for any indication of
>> >non linearity -- whatever that means, in regard to the
>> >world climate. ;-)
>>
>> Even if it goes "non-linear" in some obviously catastrophic
>> way, it's a safe bet that a significant fraction of Yanks
>> in their armour-plated SUVs will deny it to the very end.
>> Since 911, demand for armour-plated SUVs has supposedly
>> sky-rocketed in the US. Expect gas mileage to drop
>> down to levels not seen since the good old glory days of
>> Detroit's rolling battleships of the late 60s and early 70s, i.e.,
>> 5 mpg on city streets.
>
>Ah yes, and as we go down, there
>will be no shortage of overblown accusations
>based on stereotypes.
Since 911, firearm sales have reportedly enjoyed a big boost as well.
Between the guns and the armour-plated SUVs, it's not at all obvious
what/who Yanks expect to shoot or why/how they expect their personal
vehicles to be attacked. Perhaps it has something to do with that
scurrilous rumour that bin Laden has actually been holed up somewhere
in the USA working quietly in a Walmart.
-bb
Tim Worstall
> Tim Worstall <t...@2xtreme.net> wrote:
> >You are obviously better informed than I on this issue. Could you tell
> >me.....how many species are there ? How many are going extinct
> >annually ?
>
> The short answer is no and no. Also, you are better off reading what
> Bob May writes than asking me - he knows far more about biology and
> maths than I do.
>
> There are plausible, but not conclusive, estimates mainly based on
> studies of tropical arthropods, that the number of terrestrial animal
> species exceeds 10^7. It is not impossible that the number of terrestrial
> animal species exceeds 10^8. There is also speculation that there
> could be very large numbers of microbial species in soil and also that
> abyssal species diversity could be very high.
>
> The uncertainty of the composition of global species diversity makes
> estimating the current global extinction rate intractable. If, for
> example, 90% of all species are abyssal nematodes, global figures may be
> less than enlightening. We instead need to look at what is happening
> to particular taxonomic groups and in particular geographic regions.
>
> I don't think you can go further than the statement I quoted from May,
> Lawton & Stork which boils down to a current extinction rate of 0.01%
> to 0.1% for some groups which may be typical.
>
OK, thank you for this. It would seem to confirm the actual estimate
that Lomborg uses....which I would suggest is not bad for a political
scientist writing about biology.
0.01 % a year would be 0.1 % a decade, or 0.5 % over 50 years.
Lomborg uses an estimate of 0.7 % over 50 years.
The differences in the actual number of species going extinct each
year comes from the different assumptions about how many there
actually are. Lomborg uses a figure of 1.6 million extant. As above
you say 10 million to 100 million. As Lomborg actually points out,
this difficulty of knowing how many species there actually are makes
using a percentage a better option, and the one he uses seems to tally
with the one that the biologists provide.
I'm not actually in favour of cutting down tropical forests myself
anyway. As we all know, they are not being cut down to make beef for
MacDonalds. They-re being cut down by poor people who want to have a
little slah and burn agriculture. How do we stop this ? Make 'em rich.
That's what stopped us cutting down ours.
What do we know about making people rich ? Property rights , rule of
law, free markets and free speech seem to work well. An abscence of
idiot dictators also seems to help.
So, how to save tropical forests ? and thus biodiversity ? WTO,
Globalisation and capitalism .
Tim Worstall
w...@bas.ac.uk
>I'm not actually in favour of cutting down tropical forests myself
>anyway.
A good start.
>As we all know, they are not being cut down to make beef for
>MacDonalds. They-re being cut down by poor people who want to have a
>little slah and burn agriculture.
But a poor continuation. You seem to have decided to replace one
myth with another... your myth seems constructed to fit your
solution.
-W
goldfish
Byron Bodo wrote:
> In article <3C0C0748...@xbt.nrl.navy.mil>, p...@xbt.nrl.navy.mil says...
> >
> >
> >
> >Byron Bodo wrote:
>
> >> Unfortunately, the emergency response teams seemed
> >> to be oblivious of the 1 hr or so time-limit they had to work
> >> with [as specified in building codes] before potential failure.
> >
> >After the behavior of the structure transitions to
> >nonlinear, and thus less familiar behavior, the
> >response becomes correspondingly less predictable.
> >Firefighters knowingly take this risk, to their (and my)
> >regret inside the WTC; civilians generally do not.
>
> So you're certain they were sent in deliberately knowing
> the risks involved.
Use some common sense: anybody that enters
a burning building knows there are risks. But I
think you are reading too much into what I wrote.
> Questions about whether NYC had official
> policies on such matters and whether there were knowledgeable
> officials responsible for making such calls as to when to pull
> rescue teams from potentially catastrophic situations surfaced
> early after 911 in engineering discussions, but the answers
> were beyond knowing by design engineers. Perhaps answers
> will ultimately come out in whatever formal inquiries ensue.
I have read many discussions since, and
most structural engineers could not have predicted
what happened. But there was an interesting
interview with a demolition engineer, of the type
that strategically places dynamite, causing structures
to immediately collapse. He knew that the world trade
center buildings would implode catastrophically. Reportedly
he tried to reach those involved by telephone, without
success. The telephones were knock out with the disaster.
Structural engineers are not invested in failure;
they have safety factors to make sure that they don't.
> >> >Keep in mind the original context, that increasing
> >> >the CO2 will lead to the end of the world.
> >>
> >> as we know it.
> >
> >Well, on the one hand, the world is continuously
> >ending as we know it, because the economic, political,
> >and environmental situation is always changing, and
> >moving into unknown territory. On the other hand,
> >the new territory is not that much different from the
> >old.
> >
> >Thought experiment: would Darwin recognize
> >today's world?
> >
> >This implies that you consider the new territory
> >to be so different that those in the present would not
> >recognize it, and therefore, that the doomsday predictions
> >are tenable ... true?
>
> Huh?
Would Darwin recognize the social, political, and
economic world today, given the effect such has had
with the environment? Would you recognize the new
world after the climate changes have taken hold?
> >> > I dare
> >> >say that we have been forewarned, and the system
> >> >will be closely watched for any indication of
> >> >non linearity -- whatever that means, in regard to the
> >> >world climate. ;-)
> >>
> >> Even if it goes "non-linear" in some obviously catastrophic
> >> way, it's a safe bet that a significant fraction of Yanks
> >> in their armour-plated SUVs will deny it to the very end.
> >> Since 911, demand for armour-plated SUVs has supposedly
> >> sky-rocketed in the US. Expect gas mileage to drop
> >> down to levels not seen since the good old glory days of
> >> Detroit's rolling battleships of the late 60s and early 70s, i.e.,
> >> 5 mpg on city streets.
> >
> >Ah yes, and as we go down, there
> >will be no shortage of overblown accusations
> >based on stereotypes.
>
> Since 911, firearm sales have reportedly enjoyed a big boost as well.
> Between the guns and the armour-plated SUVs, it's not at all obvious
> what/who Yanks expect to shoot or why/how they expect their personal
> vehicles to be attacked. Perhaps it has something to do with that
> scurrilous rumour that bin Laden has actually been holed up somewhere
> in the USA working quietly in a Walmart.
I see that you are stuck in your stereotypes,
and further, your language is divisive. Stereotypes
result in fuzzy and uninsightful thinking. Such
thinking lack genuine insight into the underlying issues.
Divisiveness is a social shortcoming that works
against consensus, and a consensus is essential
to address this world-wide problem. Inaction on
the climate treaties is partly due to divisiveness.
Regards,
Peter Mott
Don Libby
>
> Divisiveness is a social shortcoming that works
> against consensus, and a consensus is essential
> to address this world-wide problem. Inaction on
> the climate treaties is partly due to divisiveness.
>
Sometimes divisiveness good, consensus bad: consider "group
think" and "premature closure", not to mention "mob rule".
Case in point. There are two emissions scenarios that are
about equally effective at reducing co2 emissions, dubbed
"A1T" and "B1". The former uses high tech fuel switching
(read nuclear power) with global trade, while the latter
uses more regionalized development strategies with greater
reliance on non-nuclear sustainable energy.
In so far as the Kyoto Protocol was tilted toward "B1" and
away from "A1T" (which is the point Lomborg is trying to
make in the final pages of his global warming chapter), they
are endorsing values, tastes, and preferences that may
contradict, rather than complement, the co2 emission
reduction efforts of those who favor the "A1T" approach.
That kind of divisiveness is not good, neither is consesus
that "B1" is best: let a thousand flowers bloom, sez I.
The consensus should have been to reduce co2 by any and all
effective means, rather than to rule out some of the most
effective means.
-dl
goldfish
Don Libby wrote:
> goldfish wrote:
> >
> > Divisiveness is a social shortcoming that works
> > against consensus, and a consensus is essential
> > to address this world-wide problem. Inaction on
> > the climate treaties is partly due to divisiveness.
> >
>
> Sometimes divisiveness good, consensus bad: consider "group
> think" and "premature closure", not to mention "mob rule".
>
> Case in point. There are two emissions scenarios that are
> about equally effective at reducing co2 emissions, dubbed
> "A1T" and "B1". The former uses high tech fuel switching
> (read nuclear power) with global trade, while the latter
> uses more regionalized development strategies with greater
> reliance on non-nuclear sustainable energy.
>
> In so far as the Kyoto Protocol was tilted toward "B1" and
> away from "A1T" (which is the point Lomborg is trying to
> make in the final pages of his global warming chapter), they
> are endorsing values, tastes, and preferences that may
> contradict, rather than complement, the co2 emission
> reduction efforts of those who favor the "A1T" approach.
I wouldn't call that divisive, if there are no penalties for
carrying out the spirit of the accord in a different way.
My intention was to point out the "us vs. them, and
it's their fault" kind of thinking, and why that is
counterproductive.
> That kind of divisiveness is not good, neither is consesus
> that "B1" is best: let a thousand flowers bloom, sez I.
> The consensus should have been to reduce co2 by any and all
> effective means, rather than to rule out some of the most
> effective means.
I take your point.
Regards,
Peter Mott
Byron Bodo
Without knowing the precise wording of NY state codes, design
standards specify withstanding X hrs fire [1 hr maybe, but you
can look it up if you like]. At that point, everyone should be out or risk the
consequences of the steel going plastic. It's legitmate to ask whether
those in charge of emergency rescue operations knew & understood
this. Like it nor not, the impression exists that they did not.
>
>Structural engineers are not invested in failure;
>they have safety factors to make sure that they don't.
>
>
>> >> >Keep in mind the original context, that increasing
>> >> >the CO2 will lead to the end of the world.
>> >>
>> >> as we know it.
>> >
>> >Well, on the one hand, the world is continuously
>> >ending as we know it, because the economic, political,
>> >and environmental situation is always changing, and
>> >moving into unknown territory. On the other hand,
>> >the new territory is not that much different from the
>> >old.
>> >
>> >Thought experiment: would Darwin recognize
>> >today's world?
>> >
>> >This implies that you consider the new territory
>> >to be so different that those in the present would not
>> >recognize it, and therefore, that the doomsday predictions
>> >are tenable ... true?
>>
>> Huh?
>
>Would Darwin recognize the social, political, and
>economic world today, given the effect such has had
>with the environment? Would you recognize the new
>world after the climate changes have taken hold?
So survivors born post-apocalypse won't know what
came before unless someone remembers & tells them.
Wasn't that a sub-theme of Mad Max 3 & a dozen
other bad sci-fi flics. And the point is?
>> >> > I dare
>> >> >say that we have been forewarned, and the system
>> >> >will be closely watched for any indication of
>> >> >non linearity -- whatever that means, in regard to the
>> >> >world climate. ;-)
>> >>
>> >> Even if it goes "non-linear" in some obviously catastrophic
>> >> way, it's a safe bet that a significant fraction of Yanks
>> >> in their armour-plated SUVs will deny it to the very end.
>> >> Since 911, demand for armour-plated SUVs has supposedly
>> >> sky-rocketed in the US. Expect gas mileage to drop
>> >> down to levels not seen since the good old glory days of
>> >> Detroit's rolling battleships of the late 60s and early 70s, i.e.,
>> >> 5 mpg on city streets.
>> >
>> >Ah yes, and as we go down, there
>> >will be no shortage of overblown accusations
>> >based on stereotypes.
>>
>> Since 911, firearm sales have reportedly enjoyed a big boost as well.
>> Between the guns and the armour-plated SUVs, it's not at all obvious
>> what/who Yanks expect to shoot or why/how they expect their personal
>> vehicles to be attacked. Perhaps it has something to do with that
>> scurrilous rumour that bin Laden has actually been holed up somewhere
>> in the USA working quietly in a Walmart.
>
>I see that you are stuck in your stereotypes,
>and further, your language is divisive.
These "stereotypes" were reported by US news media.
In neither case, did/could the reporters give any sense of
what the purchasers were expecting to achieve. Uncle
Duke provides a clue. Hunter Thomspon claimed he shot one
of his peacocks dead when he mistook it in the dark for an
evil-doer stealing his gasoline. He probably didn't need any new
weapons, but he may have splurged on a new armour-plated SUV.
As for being divisive, when everyone starts mindlessly goose-stepping
to the same tune, I get the chills.
-bb
goldfish
Byron Bodo wrote:
X hours in what temperature?
I rather liked the Road Warrier (Mad Max 2).
But the question was put to you, and you
chose not to answer.
Well I think you are smart enough to realize that these stories
are not a valid distillation of the behavior all US citizens.
> As for being divisive, when everyone starts mindlessly goose-stepping
> to the same tune, I get the chills.
Godwin.
Regards,
Peter Mott
Andrew Taylor
Tim Worstall <t...@2xtreme.net> wrote:
>I'm not actually in favour of cutting down tropical forests myself
>anyway. As we all know, they are not being cut down to make beef for
>MacDonalds. They-re being cut down by poor people who want to have a
>little slah and burn agriculture. How do we stop this ? Make 'em rich.
>That's what stopped us cutting down ours.
>What do we know about making people rich ? Property rights , rule of
>law, free markets and free speech seem to work well. An abscence of
>idiot dictators also seems to help.
>So, how to save tropical forests ? and thus biodiversity ? WTO,
>Globalisation and capitalism .
I've seen tropical forest cleared for cattle farming, so we all don't
"know" this. Tropical rainforests occur in 50+ countries and there are
cleared for multiple reasons. One of the main threats in many countries
is logging. Now poor third-world farmers, don't buy many wood products -
we in the developed world do. Much of the logging is for international
markets and often by multi-national companies. And these companies
are not above corrputing government officials and propping up directly
or indirectly, "idiot dictators" who wish to shift the assets of their
country into swiss bank accounts as quickly as possible.
Certainly, the Penan fighting to prevent logging companies destroying
their forests, might dispute that globalisation and capitalism are
saviours of tropical forests. The actions of Japanes logging companies
around the Pacific and European logging companies in west Africa also
suggest that globalisation and capitalism can be potent threats to
tropical biodiversity.
If you want another example where globalisation and capitalism has a
negative effect on biodiversity, look to the damage to coral reefs around
Asia by cyanide fishing to capture live fish for restaurants in Hong
Kong and other rich parts of SE Asia.
Improving the life of people in many of these poor countries will
certainly assist in preserving biodiversity, and obviously we should
be doing it anyway. Improving health and education are the most
important goals but stable government and trade are certainly essential.
Andrew Taylor
Byron Bodo
>
>
>
>Byron Bodo wrote:
>
>> In article <3C0CFAAE...@xbt.nrl.navy.mil>, p...@xbt.nrl.navy.mil says.
That's in the codes. Look it up.
I've never read On the Origin of Species, much less anything
else Darwin wrote. I've no idea whatsoever how he thought
about things in general, or what he thought about the social,
political, and economic world of his own times. Ergo, I'm
at loss to speculate, and mystified at the point of such
speculation.
Probably, but my exposure to Yanks is limited mostly to the incessant
barrage of execrable, mostly violent mass entertainments, and news
media that I rarely read/watch/listen anymore due to the dismal calibre
of international reporting.
-bb
Andrew Taylor
Tim Worstall <t...@2xtreme.net> wrote:
>OK, thank you for this. It would seem to confirm the actual estimate
>that Lomborg uses....which I would suggest is not bad for a political
>scientist writing about biology.
>0.01 % a year would be 0.1 % a decade, or 0.5 % over 50 years.
>Lomborg uses an estimate of 0.7 % over 50 years.
I forgot to add to my previous post, this isn't true. Lomborg's
prediction of the future extinction rates is consistant with May, Lawton &
Stork estimates of the current extinction rate. It is not consistent with
May, Lawton & Stork say about the future. They point to data suggesting
species life times for some groups may drop by almost another two orders
of magnitudes if current trends continue. They say species life spans
for some, perhaps many, groups could fall to 200-400 years.
I don't think it will get that bad because of the future conservation
actions we'll take - but we don't take those actions if too many people
believe Lomberg when he says loss of biodiversity is a minor problem.
Andrew Taylor
Tim Worstall
OK, next question.
What do we do about it ?
Throughout this you ( and the biologists themselves I think ) have
been saying that preservation of tropical forests is the key to the
preservation of biodiversity. What to do ?
As an economist ( well, trained as one, anyway ) I would note that the
rich world is adding forest cover, the poor one reducing it. For
firewood, farmland, whatever.
Make the poor rich so they no longer do this ?
Tim Worstall
Andrew Taylor
The FAO's "Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000" giving correlations
between change in national forest cover and several variables. The
correlation between per capita GNP and forest area change rate is weak
(r=0.21).
Economic improvement is desirable but may do little for the forests.
The FAO report is at http://www.fao.org/forestry/fo/fra/main/index.jsp
The table is on p15 of chapter 1.
Andrew Taylor
Tim Worstall
From the conclusion :
" ....suggesting a positive link between development and the
capability of a country to maintain or regain forest cover ".
Also :
" ..demand for agricultural land remains the major driving force
leading to deforestation."
I know I shouldn't take selective quotes like this but it's just too
temtping .
The FAO seems to be saying that having more development will increase
either the amount of forest kept, or will increase the speed at which
it is regained. Not too different from my contention that they way to
save the forests is to make ' em rich, as fast as possible. Thus
globalisation, free trade, property rights, free speech, capitalism ,
all that boring right wing shit, this is the way to save the forests,
and thus biodiversity.
The second quote is even more interesting, from my rather twisted
viewpoint. How to decrease the pressure for more farm land ? Make what
we have more productive, thus lowering food prices and the push into
converting forest land ? Sounds good to me. How do we do that ? GM,
pesticides, herbicides, the whole gamut of industrial farming.
So, according to the FAO, or more accurately, the implications of
their research, all those in favour of biodiveristy, and thus in
favour of saving the tropical forests, should therefore be in favour
of GM.
Anyone want to tell Greenpeace ?
Tim Worstall
>
> Andrew Taylor
Thomas Palm
> From the conclusion :
> " ....suggesting a positive link between development and the
> capability of a country to maintain or regain forest cover ".
> I know I shouldn't take selective quotes like this but it's just too
> temtping .
> The FAO seems to be saying that having more development will increase
> either the amount of forest kept, or will increase the speed at which
> it is regained. Not too different from my contention that they way to
> save the forests is to make ' em rich, as fast as possible. Thus
> globalisation, free trade, property rights, free speech, capitalism ,
> all that boring right wing shit, this is the way to save the forests,
> and thus biodiversity.
You are here equaling forest cover with biodiversity, which I think
is a big mistake. Much of the forests in the richer parts of the world
are intensely farmed ones, not primary forests with large biodiversity.
Make developing countries rich and they may get more forests, but what
kind of forests? Diverse rainforests or monocultures to provide
paper?
> The second quote is even more interesting, from my rather twisted
> viewpoint. How to decrease the pressure for more farm land ? Make what
> we have more productive, thus lowering food prices and the push into
> converting forest land ? Sounds good to me. How do we do that ? GM,
> pesticides, herbicides, the whole gamut of industrial farming.
> So, according to the FAO, or more accurately, the implications of
> their research, all those in favour of biodiveristy, and thus in
> favour of saving the tropical forests, should therefore be in favour
> of GM.
> Anyone want to tell Greenpeace ?
If you look around most gains made has nothing to do with GM despite
the hype. In Africa there has been a lot of success uing traditional
methods more intensely. Make sure all animal dung is used as fertilizer,
building terrasses, simple things like that. They can't afford much in
the way of fertilizers and pesticides.
A further boost can be gained by combining different plants, for example
by combining a sparse cover of trees with farming, or mixing different
plants to keep pests avay (Some plants contain natural substances to
keep insects away).
The advantage with GM is that it can be patented and is a lot more
"sexy" than other methods, but it is far from obvious that it is
at this time any better. It is just that it is much harder to get
money to research whether a certain mix of plants can give a higher
yield than planting them separate because you can't patent that
discovery and thus companies don't care.
Tim Worstall
> Tim Worstall wrote:
> > From the conclusion :
> > " ....suggesting a positive link between development and the
> > capability of a country to maintain or regain forest cover ".
>
> > I know I shouldn't take selective quotes like this but it's just too
> > temtping .
> > The FAO seems to be saying that having more development will increase
> > either the amount of forest kept, or will increase the speed at which
> > it is regained. Not too different from my contention that they way to
> > save the forests is to make ' em rich, as fast as possible. Thus
> > globalisation, free trade, property rights, free speech, capitalism ,
> > all that boring right wing shit, this is the way to save the forests,
> > and thus biodiversity.
>
> You are here equaling forest cover with biodiversity, which I think
> is a big mistake. Much of the forests in the richer parts of the world
> are intensely farmed ones, not primary forests with large biodiversity.
This subject is covered earlier in the thread.....by reading through
the whole thing you will see that I acccept tropical forests as the
key to biodiversity.At least for the sake of this argument.
>
> Make developing countries rich and they may get more forests, but what
> kind of forests? Diverse rainforests or monocultures to provide
> paper?
>
> > The second quote is even more interesting, from my rather twisted
> > viewpoint. How to decrease the pressure for more farm land ? Make what
> > we have more productive, thus lowering food prices and the push into
> > converting forest land ? Sounds good to me. How do we do that ? GM,
> > pesticides, herbicides, the whole gamut of industrial farming.
> > So, according to the FAO, or more accurately, the implications of
> > their research, all those in favour of biodiveristy, and thus in
> > favour of saving the tropical forests, should therefore be in favour
> > of GM.
> > Anyone want to tell Greenpeace ?
>
> If you look around most gains made has nothing to do with GM despite
> the hype. In Africa there has been a lot of success uing traditional
> methods more intensely. Make sure all animal dung is used as fertilizer,
> building terrasses, simple things like that. They can't afford much in
> the way of fertilizers and pesticides.
GM is so new that of course the gains are not from that. Also, we
continue to have tropical forest voer declinging, despite thegains you
mention here. What is at issue is how do we make the next level of
gains, thus preserving tropical forests and thus biodiversity.
I'm only arguiing from what FAO says in its report after all.
Tim Worstall
Andrew Taylor
Tim Worstall <t...@2xtreme.net> wrote:
>From the conclusion :
>" ....suggesting a positive link between development and the
>capability of a country to maintain or regain forest cover ".
This doesn't stand out in a superficial analysis of the data but I don't
doubt economic develoment can assist biodiversity conservation - and
its a good idea anyway. Other factors mentioned in the conclusions of
the FAO report, and woth considering are: population density & growth,
urbanization, government policy and legislation, culture and tradition.
>So, according to the FAO, or more accurately, the implications of
>their research, all those in favour of biodiveristy, and thus in
>favour of saving the tropical forests, should therefore be in favour
>of GM. Anyone want to tell Greenpeace ?
One of the most potent threats to global biodiversity in the last few
centuries has been artificial introduction of species to new regions.
GMO's add a very worrying dimension to this threat. If GMOs do indeed
offer significant productivity gains, I'd support their cautious use -
Greenpeace may not. The Ecological Society of America position statement
on GMOs is worth reading at: http://esa.sdsc.edu/statement0601.htm
Andrew Taylor
Tim Worstall
> In article <825e2890.01121...@posting.google.com>,
> Tim Worstall <t...@2xtreme.net> wrote:
> >From the conclusion :
> >" ....suggesting a positive link between development and the
> >capability of a country to maintain or regain forest cover ".
>
> This doesn't stand out in a superficial analysis of the data but I don't
> doubt economic develoment can assist biodiversity conservation - and
> its a good idea anyway. Other factors mentioned in the conclusions of
> the FAO report, and woth considering are: population density & growth,
> urbanization, government policy and legislation, culture and tradition.
>
> >So, according to the FAO, or more accurately, the implications of
> >their research, all those in favour of biodiveristy, and thus in
> >favour of saving the tropical forests, should therefore be in favour
> >of GM. Anyone want to tell Greenpeace ?
>
> One of the most potent threats to global biodiversity in the last few
> centuries has been artificial introduction of species to new regions.
But I do accept the point. Zebra mussels, Rabbits in Australia etc
etc.
> GMO's add a very worrying dimension to this threat. If GMOs do indeed
> offer significant productivity gains, I'd support their cautious use -
> Greenpeace may not. The Ecological Society of America position statement
> on GMOs is worth reading at: http://esa.sdsc.edu/statement0601.htm
>
> Andrew Taylor
Had a look at the link. Makes sense to me. Just depends on how '
caution ' is interpreted.No use until we are 100 % certain there will
be no damage means we never will use it. We can't prove a negative. GM
corn pollen kill Monarch butterfly caterpillars, well when the
research came in, yes it does, but in wild conditions not enough to
make any difference. I'd go with the latter interpretation of '
caution '. Because by using GM we will be lifting the pressure of
forest / farmland conversion, thus saving more biodiversity than we
will be losing by using it. Or at least I think that's a position that
should be studied.
Tim Worstall