“The Skeptical Environmentalist”

“I'M AFRAID there isn't much scientific controversy about Mr Lomborg. He occupies a very junior position in Denmark (an ‘associate professor' does not exactly mean the same thing that it does in the United States), he has one possibly very flawed paper in an international journal on game theory, no publications on environmental issues, and yet manages to dismiss the science of dozens of the world's best scientists, including Nobel laureates, Japan and Crawford prize-winners and the like. As any sensible person would expect, his facts are usually fallacies and his analysis is largely non-existent.”

Those contemptuous words from Stuart Pimm, a professor of conservation biology at Columbia University, are fairly representative of the response from many environmental scientists and activists to Bjorn Lomborg's recent book, “The Skeptical Environmentalist”. In the weeks since the book's release, virtually every large environmental group has weighed in with a denunciation. Numerous heavyweights of science have penned damning articles and reviews in leading journals. Dr Pimm, for one, railed against Dr Lomborg in Nature, while Scientific American recently devoted 11 pages to attacks from scientists known for their environmental activism.

Dr Lomborg's critics protest too much. They are rattled not because, as they endlessly insist, Dr Lomborg lacks credentials as an environmental scientist and is of no account, but because his book is such a powerful and persuasive assault on the central tenets of the modern environmental movement.

Curious about the true state of the planet, the author—who makes no claims to expertise in environmental science, only to statistical expertise—has scrutinised reams of official data on everything from air pollution to energy availability to climate change. As an instinctive green and a former member of Greenpeace, he was surprised to find that the world's environment is not, in fact, getting ever worse. Rather, he shows, most environmental indicators are stable or improving.

One by one, he goes through the “litany”, as he calls it, of four big environmental fears:

• Species are becoming rapidly extinct, forests are vanishing and fish stocks are collapsing.

In each case, he demonstrated that the doom and gloom is wildly exaggerated. Known reserves of fossil fuels and most metals have risen. Agricultural production per head has risen; the numbers facing starvation have declined. The threat of biodiversity loss is real but exaggerated, as is the problem of tropical deforestation. And pollution diminishes as countries grow richer and tackle it energetically.

In other words, the planet is not in peril. There are problems, and they deserve attention, but nothing remotely so dire as most of the green movement keeps saying.

Nor is that all he shows. The book exposes—through hundreds of detailed, meticulously footnoted examples—a pattern of exaggeration and statistical manipulation, used by green groups to advance their pet causes, and obligingly echoed through the media. Bizarrely, one of Dr Lomborg's critics in Scientific American criticises as an affectation the book's insistence on documenting every statistic and every quotation with a reference to a published source. But the complaint is not so bizarre when one works through the references, because they so frequently expose careless reporting and environmentalists' abuse of scientific research.

The replies to Dr Lomborg in Scientific American and elsewhere score remarkably few points of substance*. His large factual claims about the current state of the world do not appear to be under challenge—which is unsurprising since they draw on official data. What is under challenge, chiefly, is his outrageous presumption in starting a much-needed debate.

Some argue that scientists who favour stronger policies to improve the environment must use the same tactics as any other political lobby—from steel companies fighting for tariffs on imports to farmers demanding more subsidies. The aim, after all, is to win public favour and government support. Whether such a view is consistent with the obligation science owes to the truth is debatable, at best. If scientists want their views to be accorded the respect due to science, then they must speak as scientists, not as lobbyists.

Dr Lomborg's work has its flaws. He has made some errors in his statistical analysis, as he acknowledges on his website. And there are broader issues, especially to do with the aggregation of data and the handling of uncertainty, where his book is open to challenge. For instance, his approach of examining data at a global level, while statistically sound, tends to mask local environmental trends. Global marine productivity has indeed risen, as he says—but this disguises collapses in particular species in particular places. Dr Lomborg argues that such losses, seen in a long-term perspective, do not matter much. Many would disagree, not least the fishermen in the areas affected.

Allen Hammond of the World Resources Institute (WRI) makes a related point. He accepts Dr Lomborg's optimistic assessment of the environment, but says it holds only for the developed world. The aggregate figures offered in the book mask worsening pollution in the mega-cities of the poor world. Dr Lomborg agrees that there are local and regional environmental pressures, and that these matter a lot, but it is fair to point out that the book has little to say about them, except to argue that rising incomes will help.

The book gives little credit to environmental policy as a cause of environmental improvement. That is a defensible position, in fact, but the book does not trouble to make the case. And another important question is somewhat skated over: the possibility that some environmental processes involve irreversible “triggers”, which, once pulled, lead to sudden and disastrous deterioration. Climate scientists believe, and Dr Lomborg does not deny, that too much warming could lead to irreversible bad outcomes such as the collapse of the mid-Atlantic “conveyor belt” (an ocean current that warms Europe). The science here is thin: nobody knows what level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would trigger such a calamity. But the risk argues for caution.

Dr Lomborg's assessment of the science in this area leads him to venture that warming is more likely to be at the low end of the range expected by leading experts than at the high end. He argues that the most-cited climate models misjudge factors such as the effects of clouds, aerosols and the solar cycle. That is plausible, and there is science to support it, but the conclusion is far from certain. Again, it is reasonable to argue that such uncertainty makes it better to err on the side of caution.

Sensible people will disagree about the course that policy should take. Dr Lomborg—a courteous fellow—seems willing to talk calmly to his opponents. For the most part, while claiming in some cases to be men of science, his opponents do not return the compliment.

Despite its limitations, “The Skeptical Environmentalist” delivers a salutary warning to conventional thinking. Dr Lomborg reminds militant greens, and the media that hang on their every exaggerated word about environmental calamity, that environmental policy should be judged against the same criteria as other kinds of policy. Is there a problem? How bad is it? What will it cost to fix? Is that the best way to spend those resources?

This is exactly what Tom Burke, a leading British environmentalist, denied in a debate he had with Dr Lomborg in Prospect, a British magazine. “What I find most egregious [in] your climate-change argument, however, is the proposition that the world faces a choice between spending money on mitigating climate change, and providing access to clean drinking water and sanitation in the developing world. We must and can do both. Such artificial choices may be possible in an academic ivory tower where ideas can be arranged to suit the prejudices of the occupant, but they are not available in the real world and it is dishonest to suggest that they are.”

On the contrary, Mr Burke. Only in an ivory tower could choices such as these be called “artificial”. Democratic politics is about nothing but choices of that sort. Green politics needs to learn that resources are not unlimited.

Dr Lomborg's assessment of the science in this area leads him to venture that warming is more likely to be at the low end of the range expected by leading experts than at the high end.

I would assess the exaggerations as much worse than that. The IPCC is "predicting" a range from 2.5-10 rise in tempreture over the next 100 years. Realistically the range should be -1.0 to +1.0 degrees over the next hundred years. There is no way in heck we are gonna see anywhere close to even a 2.5 degree rise.

I recommend that everyone here read the book, and post a review at amazon.com.

Also, if you know any environmentalists, especially young teenagers who are just getting started into the movement, the book can make a great gift.

The only thing that Lomborg really does in the book is to explain that the past predictions of doomsayers like Paul Ehrlich, Lester Brown, the Club of Rome, Earth Day, etc., were wrong. Lomborg has the facts and evidence to back up his claims that the doomsayers were wrong. Lomborg's book simply tells the real world truth, and that's why the doomsayers hate him so much. Since they can't really attack Lomborg's claims, they have resorted to waging personal attacks on him instead. Just because Lomborg doesn't have a PhD in Environmental Doomology doesn't mean that he isn't capable of researching the facts.

This is not a good time to be a "global warming" advocate. And as Enron proves, It's not a good time to put all your resource "eggs" in the global warming basket. Enron needed zKyoto to be enforced so that they could become the middleman in swapping air pollution credits between countries and between electrical power generators.

Perhaps their collapse is one of the larger "signs" that global warming is in its death throes.

In other words, the planet is not in peril.

What a waste of time. Disproving leftist assertions with Facts

Liberal Pathos has no use for Facts

Owl _ Eagle
“Guns before butter.”

I don't know how many actually read the reviews in Scientific American of Mr Lomborg's book. I did. They split it up in a three way tag team. One went so far as to admit that his was a hostile review. This coming from SciAm didn't sit well with me. They attacked two or three specifics in his book out of thousands. The language of their articles were not what I would consider scientific or objective, more the harumphs and hisses of people who have had their unquestionable knowledge questioned. If anything, in my view, they added credence to the author's work.

I thought that the reviews in "Scientific American" were hatchet jobs. They bring in outsiders (with large vested interests) to swing the hatchet.

I put a previous post up about the book. Get it or go to a library and read it. I was stunned at the amound of info and data that Bjorn Lomborg had included. The ISBN for the paperback version of his book is 0 521 01068 3.

As you page thru the book, you can tell that Bjorn did a lot of work before reaching his conclusions.

Many of the environmetal predictions in the past were ridiculous. As as example; climatic predictions for centuries in advance when we don't have numerical models which can predict the state of the atmosphere (a turbulent fluid) for 72 hours in advance.

Read the book, make up your own mind.

I've read most of it, learning numerous facts and gaining an appreciation of Lomborg's method. I found this article a pretty balanced look at the book and the attendant controversy except on one point. This writer's strawman argument saying criticism concerning Lomborg's treatment of global warming is justifed by caution in the face of uncertainty is BS. Uncertainty would justify orderly research, not the hysterical, scientifically unsound, and economically devastating proposals of the true believers.

I still prefer Julian Simon's Ultimate Resource 2. His charm and optimism come through as does his delight at defeating the fallacious arguments of Paul Ehrlich and his ilk. Simon has particularly interesting common terms examples of the nuclear waste and landfill space non-problems. These two are worth the price of the book.

I don't know how many actually read ... Scientific American ... in the past, but the radical change in loss of factual data from just the '70's is astounding. They are no longer 'scientific' but rather scaremongers; they are not 'American', as they no longer provide the balanced approach that we have traditionally stood for. The socialists are not knocking at the door, they're in the house and attacking the foundations.

I vaguely remember a story some years ago of Scientific American firing a staff=member, a specialist in physics, because he was also a creationist although that had no direct impact on his work.

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.