Eco-warriors of the science labs can't see the truth

Last December 17, the Guardian published its Eco gongs. The author of The Sceptical Environmentalist, Bjørn Lomborg, won an award that cited his "scientific dishonesty" and described his book as "not comprehending science". That citation came from a report on Lomborg's book by the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD). Their condemnation followed an 11-page trashing of Lomborg's book in the influential Scientific American.

In one of those coincidences that all journalists dread, the Guardian published its put-down of Lomborg on the very day that the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation heavily criticised the DCSD's negative verdict as "completely void of argumentation". Unsurprisingly, the Guardian did not publish the news of Lomborg's reprieve.

Some topics leave readers somnambulant. Environmentalism is one such topic for me although nature is not. The disappearance of hedgerows has left a permanent sense of loss, a chronic pain as acute as an old bereavement. A field of wild flowers with crimson poppies, or a solitary walk in winter woods, are oxygen for the soul. Without some perfect peace, the best part of oneself dies. But environmentalism, by and large, has nothing to do with the science or aesthetics of nature any more. It has been elevated to a faith. You either recite the creed or are excommunicated.

Lomborg's book analysed the science on which such articles of faith as the dangers of global warming are based. He questioned the value of the Kyoto treaty. He had come to these issues originally not as a critic but as a believer. His motive was to understand environmental issues all the better to see off their critics. But, he had found the critics more often right than wrong.

In writing his book, Lomborg, a paid-up Left-winger and member of Greenpeace, committed a heresy and was duly apostatised by the environmentalist movement. There is little doubt that factors such as human population growth and industrialisation harm the natural environment in which all living beings have to exist.

Concern about this is totally legitimate, but by the time this concern became a "movement", its issues had already been hijacked by socio-political ideologies. These ideologies ranged from Leftist and anti-capitalist to the anti-humanist (people in the extremes of the animal rights movement for whom making our own species the measure and pinnacle of creation is seen as a fundamental error). It is no coincidence that when one collides with committed environmentalists they very often wear anti-war buttons, for saving Saddam's regime has featured as prominently in their agendas, if not more so, than the saving of rainforests.

From the beginning, the environmentalist movement attracted the sort of people who preferred a Marxist or in any event a dirigiste system. They are instinctive commissars, which made the UN their natural ally. They want to tell you how to organise your rubbish, what to consume and which aesthetic responses are correct. They see nothing wrong in the belief that your lifestyle choices should correspond with theirs. Many of the American Sierra Club's various campaigns to stop snowmobiles or cross-country motor bikes from having trails in the huge American wilderness, even when all precautions are taken, seem based only on the notion that another person's concept of outdoor enjoyment would interfere with the Sierra member's idea of the correct outdoor experience.

In order to legitimise far-reaching socio-political agendas (including transfer of financial resources to the Third World and the weakening of capitalism) the Environmental Movement needed to be based on an apocalyptic vision. Doomsday scenarios were the natural route. In a classic of its sort, Leonardo DiCaprio's interview with President Clinton, just after Earth Day 2000, summed up the environmental movement's line on what would occur if we did not all change our ways according to their vision. Said Clinton: "...The polar ice caps will melt more rapidly; sea levels will rise; you will have the danger of flooding in places like... the sugar cane fields of Louisiana; island nations could literally be buried,... there will be a lot of very bad, more dramatic weather events... there will be more public health crisis...".

Doubtless President Clinton believed what he was saying. He must have heard it from scientists with very genuine qualifications. The scientists that dismissed Lomborg's book had qualifications, too. The editor-in-chief of Scientific American has a science degree, but he continues to give speeches on "the carefully packaged misrepesentations of real science (like global warming scepticism)".

This may make one wonder: how can the hard facts of science be distorted to feed an ideology? And why? There is no Stalin to hand out an Order of Lenin to today's Lysenko.

But if scientists are only human, so is science. In his book The Act of Creation, Arthur Koestler argues that our belief that scientists proceed from hard figures and measurements and are therefore free from prejudice and emotion is a "blatant, popular fallacy... No discovery has ever been made by logical deduction... the emotive game of the unconscious" plays its role. The scientific mind, he contends, has "the unavoidable component of competitiveness, jealousy, and self-righteousness in its complex motivational drive."

Science and its practitioners can be as selective as history and historians. This applies not only to the environmental scientists, of course, but to their scientific critics as well. Each may try to support their positions with bits of scientific scaffolding. But once you realise the need to bring the same scepticism to science as to a political or theological argument, you are halfway to a more informed decision.

Koestler raises another problem: the impenetrability of today's scientific papers and reasoning. Who can actually read the evidence about global warming and make an informed judgment? We live in a world of "two cultures". The ordinary man is reluctant to admit that a work of art is beyond his comprehension but proud to assert his complete inability to understand the forces that make the stars go around or the principles behind the turning on of a light switch. "By being entirely dependent on science, yet closing his mind to it," Koestler writes, man "leads the life of an urban barbarian."

In part this is because the current fashion is deliberately to make science as dry, difficult and in-grown as possible. Galileo, Kepler, Pasteur and Darwin were accomplished stylists who wanted the world to read their treatises. Today's scientists have no such ambitions. The more technical the jargon, the more accomplished they appear. Add the insanely torturous language of the bureaucrat and schemes such as the Kyoto Protocol are unreadable. It is no wonder that most people judge the value of Kyoto not on its merits but according to their feelings about George Bush.

"I wandered lonely as a cloud," wrote Wordsworth. Not if he were a modern environmentalist. He'd wander through his modalities and processes pertinent, to find his daffodils figuring out their systematic response strategies in Annexe Five. And then he'd get a rotten review in Scientific American.

Didn't see this one posted yet, and I thought it an excellent commentary on the matter.

As the environmentalist movement attempts to replace religion with their own faith-based world view, and what's more to legislate our obedience to it, this sort of opinion is being seen more often.

These Guys Don't Want You To Donate!

Tick them off! Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-
It is in the breaking news sidebar!

2 posted on 01/05/2004 5:42:52 PM PST by Support Free Republic (I'd rather be sleeping. Let's get this over with so I can go back to sleep!)

I agree that saving an obscure species of snails over human need is complete idiocy, I can say - as a northeast fisherman that I applaud the clean air and clean water act.

20 years ago it was life-threatening to eat your catch from the headwaters of the Connecticut, now it's lemon herb shad every fall

I am a firm supporter of reasonable environmental regulations, clean air, clean water, preservation of natural beauty, etc., etc.

The thing is, Kyoto would end up costing America hundreds of billions of dollars and it would accomplish nothing.

I've said it many times, but it can't be said too often. Conservatives should NOT come out against rational conservation of nature. They should take it back from the leftist lunatics who have perverted and distorted it.

Nit.

In writing his book, Lomborg, a paid-up Left-winger and member of Greenpeace, committed a heresy and was duly apostatised by the environmentalist movement.

Actually, Lomborg apostatised. For which he was duly excommunicated, pilloried or some other verb by the enviros.

Conservatives should NOT come out against rational conservation of nature. They should take it back from the leftist lunatics who have perverted and distorted it.

Absolutely. What could possibly be more conservative than preserving our ecosystem?

I've said it many times, but it can't be said too often. Conservatives should NOT come out against rational conservation of nature. They should take it back from the leftist lunatics who have perverted and distorted it.

Agreed. Given Teddy Roosevelt style conservation, versus eco-whacko stuff, rational human beings will overwhelmingly choose the former.

You are right again. I was a conservationist and environmentalist before it became fashionable, and I still feel that way even tho' disgusted by the Green movement. There is an extrememly wasteful streak in this country which is an affront to me, but the global-warming nuts and the folks who want to drive farmers off their land to make life easy for some fish are beyond the pale.

On the suggestion of another freeper on another thread a few weeks ago, I got a book called Hard Green by Peter Huber. I just started it and looks very good so. So far the premise has been that the Teddy Roosevelt style of enviromentalism (Hard Green) has morphed into a religious-like fervor of todays brand that always demands action based on the benefit of the doubt (If B follows A then A must have caused B).

I'll report back on another enviro thread when I am finished.

I'd like to hear. One of the most bizarre conversations I have ever had was with a person who, save for environmentalism, is a natural conservative. But he has definitely been taken by the religious strain.

We had a long conversation that eventually came down to his refusal to accept that humans ordering the environment for their greatest benefit - including as benefit the aesthetic, nature loving part of man - was totally unacceptable. Unless we made decisions for two-toed, midget, burrowing frogs from the frogs' point of view, we were arrogant and anti-nature.

Rights, farms, environment ping.

Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.