The Skeptical Enviromentalist Replies

Scientific American Web Site ^ | May 2002 | Bjorn Lomborn/John Rennie

[realpatriot71]

The Skeptical Environmentalist Replies Recently Scientific American published "Misleading Math about the Earth," a series of essays that critized Bj¿rn Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist. Here Lomborg offers his rebuttal. After Scientific American published an 11-page critique of my book The Skeptical Environmentalist in January, IÕve now been allowed a one-page reply. Naturally, this leaves little space to comment on particulars, and I refer to my 32-page article-for-article, point-for-point reply at www.lomborg.org and on the Scientific American Web site (www.sciam.com). I believe many readers will have shared my surprise at the choice of four reviewers so closely identified with environmental advocacy. The Economist summarized their pieces as Òstrong on contempt and sneering, but weak on substance.Ó The book was fundamentally misrepresented to the readers of Scientific American. I would therefore like to use this opportunity to stake out some of the basic arguments. I take the best information on the state of the world that we have from the top international organizations and document that generally things are getting better. This does not mean that there are no problems and that this is the best of all possible worlds, but rather that we should not act on myths of gloom and doom. Indeed, if we want to leave the best possible world for our children, we must make sure we first handle the problems where we can do the most good. Take global warming, where Stephen Schneider berates me for neglecting and misunderstanding science and failing to support the Kyoto Protocol. But in my book I clearly use the U.N.Õs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as key documentation, and all the uncertainties notwithstanding, I accept that science points to anthropogenic global warming. (This is in contrast to the contrarians who deny global warming or indeed to early work of Schneider, who suggested that we could be heading for a new ice age.) Schneider claims that I donÕt understand the research in studies by Richard S. Lindzen and by the Danish solar scientists. Yet Lindzen replies: Ò... at one fell swoop, Schneider misrepresents both the book he is attacking and the science that he is allegedly representing.Ó And the solar scientists: ÒIt is ironic that Stephen Schneider accuses Lomborg of not reading the original literature, when in his own arguments against Lomborg he becomes liable to similar criticism.Ó With global warming our intuition says we should do something about it. While this intuition is laudable, it is not necessarily correctÑit depends on comparing the cost of action to the cost of inaction and the alternative good we could do with our resources. We should not pay for cures that cost us more than the original ailment. The Kyoto Protocol will do very little goodÑit will postpone warming for six years in 2100. Yet the cost will be $150 billion to $350 billion annually. Because global warming will primarily hurt Third World countries, we have to ask if Kyoto is the best way to help them. The answer is no. For the cost of Kyoto in just 2010, we could once and for all solve the single biggest problem on earth: We could give clean drinking water and sanitation to every single human being on the planet. This would save two million lives and avoid half a billion severe illnesses every year. And for every following year we could then do something equally good. Schneider tells us that we need to do much more than Kyoto but does not tell us that this will be phenomenally more expensive. His attitude is the sympathetic reaction of a traditional environmentalist: solve the problem, no matter the cost. But using resources to solve one problem means fewer resources for all the others. We still need the best information on science, costs and benefits. We have a world in which we live longer and are healthier, with more food, fewer starving, better education, higher standards of living, less poverty, less inequality, more leisure time and fewer risks. Take biodiversity. Thomas Lovejoy scolds me for ignoring loss of species. But no. I refer to the best possible U.N. data, and I accept that we are causing species extinction at probably about 1,500 times the natural rate. But unlike the traditional environmentalist who feels we have to do whatever is needed to stop it, I also ask how big this means the problem is. Answer: Over the next 50 years we might lose 0.7 percent of all species. (This contrasts both to contrarians who deny species extinction and to LovejoyÕs wildly excessive warning from 1979 of a 20 percent species loss from 1980 to 2000.) By the end of this century the U.N. expects we will have more forests, simply because even inhabitants in the developing countries will be much richer than we are now. Thus, the species loss caused by the real reduction in tropical forest (which I acknowledge in the book) will probably not continue beyond 2100. Take all the issues the critics did not even mention (about half my book). We have a world in which we live longer and are healthier, with more food, fewer starving, better education, higher standards of living, less poverty, less inequality, more leisure time and fewer risks. And this is true for both the developed and the developing world (although getting better, some regions start off with very little, and in my book I draw special attention to the relatively poorer situation in Africa). Moreover, the best models predict that trends will continue. Take air pollution, the most important social environmental indicator. In the developed world, the air has been getting cleaner throughout the centuryÑin London, the air is cleaner today than at any time since 1585! And for the developing countries, where urban air pollution undeniably is a problem, air pollution will likewise decline when they (as we did) get sufficiently rich to stop worrying about hunger and start caring for the environment. While I understand the traditional environmentalistÕs intuitive abhorrence of prioritization, I believe that the cause of environmentalism is not well served by the Scientific American feature, clearly trying to rubbish the whole project. If we want to build an even better tomorrow, we need to know both the actual state of the world and where we can do the most good. I have made an honest effort to provide such an overview, based on science and with all the references clearly cited. John Rennie, editor in chief of Scientific American, replies: Disappointingly, Lomborg has chosen to fill his print response with half-truths and misdirection. Perhaps in this brief space he felt that he could do no better, but critics of The Skeptical Environmentalist also find such tactics to be common in his book. He implies that he has been wronged in getting so little space; our 11-page set of articles is a response to the 515-page volume in which he made his case, and which was widely and uncritically touted in the popular media. (Long before our article, for instance, The Economist gave him four unanswered pages for an essay.) So far it is the scientists who are having a harder time getting equal space for their side. Anyone still interested in this controversy will find on www.sciam.com our original articles and LomborgÕs detailed rebuttal of them, along with refutations to his rebuttal. Lomborg and The Economist may call them Òweak on substance,Ó but our pieces echo identical criticisms that have been made in reviews published by Nature, Science, American Scientist, and a wide variety of other scientific sourcesÑnot venues where insubstantial criticisms would hold up. LomborgÕs stated proof that he understands the climate science is that he relies on the IPCCÕs report, but the argument of Schneider (and other climatologists) is of course that Lomborg picks and chooses aspects of that report that he wants to embrace and disregards the rest. Lomborg boasts that he isnÕt a global-warming denier, but how is that relevant? The criticism against him is not that he denies global warming but that he oversimplifies the case for it and minimizes what its consequences could be. The reference to SchneiderÕs theories about global cooling reaches back three decades; all good researchers change their views as new facts emerge. How does this bear on the current debate except as personal innuendo? Moreover, one problem of LomborgÕs statistical methodology is that it tends to equate all items within a category regardless of how valuable or different the individual elements are. As in his book, Lomborg repeats that the Kyoto Protocol would postpone global warming for only six years. This is an empty, deceptive argument because the Kyoto Protocol isnÕt meant to solve the problem by itself; it is a first step that establishes a framework for getting countries to cooperate on additional measures over time. The cost projections Lomborg uses represent one set of estimates, but far more favorable ones exist, too. Given that the additional antiwarming steps that might be taken arenÕt yet knownÑand so their net costs are impossible to stateÑit is premature to dismiss them as Òphenomenally more expensive.Ó As LovejoyÕs article and others have noted, LomborgÕs simplistic treatments of biodiversity loss and deforestation are inappropriately dismissive of well-grounded concerns that those numbers could range far higher. (And why resurrect a claim in a paper that Lovejoy wrote 23 years ago when he and others have far more recent estimates?) Moreover, one problem of LomborgÕs statistical methodology is that it tends to equate all items within a category regardless of how valuable or different the individual elements are. For example, there may be more forest in 2100 than there is today, but much of that will be newly planted forest, which is ecologically different (and less biodiverse) than old forest. When Lomborg restates the number of lost species as a percentage of total species, is he simply showing the true size of the problem or is he perhaps also trying to trivialize it? By analogy, in 2001 AIDS killed three million people, with devastating effects on societies in Africa and elsewhere. But that was only 0.05 percent of all humans. Which number is more helpful in setting a public health agenda for AIDS? The answer is neither, because numbers must be understood in context; Lomborg creates a context for belittling extinction problems. Lomborg is being disingenuous when he protests that our authors did not even mention half his book. As our preface to the feature stated, we asked the authors to comment specifically on just four chapters. The flaws in those sections alone discredit his argument. Environmental scientists are all in favor of setting priorities for action; Lomborg pretends otherwise because he disagrees with the priorities they set. Even if his effort to describe the Òactual state of the worldÓ (a naive goal, given the worldÕs complexity and the ambiguity of even the best evidence) is honest, his argument is not credible. And by sowing distrust of the environmental science community with his rhetoric, Lomborg has done a severe disservice not only to those scientists but also to the public he has misinformed.

[realpatriot71]

Some of you may remember this guy. This is a response to the criticism of his work debunking eviromentalist myths, and then a response to his respons by a foaming at the mouth enviromentalist. It's a religion man.

[realpatriot71]

Thought you guys might find this interesting . . .

[Joe Brower]

Well, once again, those of us who don't buy the junk science BS are up against those who buy ink by the barrelful. Let's face it, too many of these so-called "scientists" are simply out to protect their tenures and research grants, the facts be damned.

John Rennie is a leftist shill who already has his mind made up -- don't attempt to confuse him with facts. Some "scientist". I've subscribed to Scientific American for almost twenty years, and in that time I've seen their slant become more and more socialist with every passing year. Not a good thing.

The highest purpose of true science is to find the Truth, no matter what that truth may be, no matter where it leads. When "science" is perverted by politics and self-interest, it takes on a form that is uniquely grotesque.

[Maceman]

By analogy, in 2001 AIDS killed three million people, with devastating effects on societies in Africa and elsewhere. But that was only 0.05 percent of all humans. Which number is more helpful in setting a public health agenda for AIDS?

I would be inclined to say that the latter number is more helpful, if one is talking about a world-wide effort.

[Free the USA]

Check the Bump List folders for articles related to and descriptions of the above topic(s) or for other topics of interest.

[Cincinatus]

Scientific American has become the house organ for leftist, academic propaganda. It has long ceased to be a legimate scientifc journal.

In the old days, the editor of this Sci Am wouldn't have dreamed of taking a position on such a contentious issue, one that is essentially political, rather than scientific. He would have allowed both sides to have their scientific debate in print, with reasoned rebuttal and discussion. This piece merely continues Sci Am's earlier hatchet job on Lomborg.

[realpatriot71]

The highest purpose of true science is to find the Truth, no matter what that truth may be, no matter where it leads. When "science" is perverted by politics and self-interest, it takes on a form that is uniquely grotesque.

I absolutely agree. I worked in the biggest money making Unversity lab in the state where I went to school as an undergrad (actually the 2nd biggest money maker for the school after the footbal team), and the professor who ran the lab said he was more of a politician than a scientist now that he was in charge. It was kind of sad. He spent more time on the phone than in the lab. I could tell he missed the lab.

[Gorjus]

John Rennie, editor in chief of Scientific American, replies:

"Lomborg picks and chooses aspects of that report that he wants to embrace and disregards the rest."

"[W]e asked the authors to comment specifically on just four chapters."

I suppose three whole paragraphs before introducing such a galloping hypocrisy is about as much as one could expect from the pseudo-scientists at 'Scientific' American.

A simple test is this: Name one model which, applied to the conditions in 1902, correctly predicts conditions in 2002.
Hint: You'll have to look a long time to find one. It hasn't been invented yet.

[realpatriot71]

I still read Scientific American on a regular basis, but I am continually amazed by the amount of politics and bad science that is being let into the journal these days. Sad.

[realpatriot71]

A simple test is this: Name one model which, applied to the conditions in 1902, correctly predicts conditions in 2002

I'm going to have remember that one. Mind if I use it? :-)

[Paradox]

Lomborg comes across like some guy who was looking for "his" truth, but then came across the REAL truth. He is still an environmentalist, but he seems like an HONEST one. As another poster has put it, its a Religion man. There will be cognitive dissonance running rampant.

As for the science magazines, I have noticed over the last 15 years or so, that they have gone more and more "leftist". SciAm, Science, Nature, and now, the new one "New Scientist" to which I subscribe (No, its not nearly in the same league, but it is interesting nonetheless), comes across as a euroweenie whine-athon sometimes (Last month, they were advocating an affirmative action in the sciences). A sad state of affairs indeed... whatever happened to just printing the FACTS.

[CapandBall]

bump, been reading his book

[monkey]

By analogy, in 2001 AIDS killed three million people, with devastating effects on societies in Africa and elsewhere. But that was only 0.05 percent of all humans. Which number is more helpful in setting a public health agenda for AIDS?

I haven't read the book, but it's clear this critic is missing the boat. Lomborg is looking at the big picture; the proper analogy would be setting a public health agenda, not a public health agenda for AIDS.

[SierraWasp]

"It's a religion man."

Could it be... BORN AGAIN PAGANS?

[borkrules]

Excellent point that just demolishes the environazi's point.

[KC Burke]

Have you read this guys book yet? Can you give an opinion?

[chimera]

Some of you may remember this guy. This is a response to the criticism of his work debunking eviromentalist myths, and then a response to his respons by a foaming at the mouth enviromentalist. It's a religion man.

You're right about that. Environmentalism is the supreme Sacred Cow of the scientific realm. Any criticism of it as a science, or the positions of its self-appointed fuhrers, is not tolerated. It has become the scientific equivalent of the NAACP or the Revs. JJ and Sharpton, you can't touch that!

Opposing viewpoints need not apply. A few years ago I and some of the other oldsters helped our local student group set up a display at the annual Earth Day celebration about the environmental advantages of nuclear energy, and the beneficial uses of nuclear materials in general. The booth was quite popular among the passersby. We had a nice videotape of the transport cask testing done at Sandia with its rather spectacular crash tests that the casual viewers thought was pretty cool, seeing those trains smashing into semitrucks, and aircraft disappearing into simulated containment walls as they blasted themselves to pieces without a dent in the concrete. Next year the same group applied for a spot in the display area, and were turned down. The reason? "Nuclear energy is incompatible with the goals of Earth Day". So, what about "diversity", or "open debate", of "exchange of ideas and concern for opposing points of view"? We were told, in so many words, that those ideals were supported, except in our case...

[Mr. Peabody]

There is more. When Lomberg posted the Scientific American article on his website with a point-by-point rebuttal they threatened to sue unless he took it down.

Go here.

[chimera]

Add to that list, sadly, American Scientist, which I get since I am still in Sigma Xi, but am thinking about dropping because of the apparent change in editorial policy. I cannot help but think that the more blatant politicization of scientific inquiry we have seen in recent years is yet another indicator of the decline of western culture. Maybe politics has always been a component, but as I get closer to calling it a career it has become more obvious to me. The undertow is very strong to keep everyone on the plantation, at least on the environmental sciences side. Perhaps that is because, as a science, it has always been more manipulated (perhaps willingly so) by the politicians. It has an emotional appeal to the sheeple and various and sundry idiots and hangers-on, that is irresistible.

[Stand Watch Listen]

Related Articles

Homegrown Terrorism
Source: Ayn Rand Institute; Published: April 16, 2002;
Author: Elan Journo

The Good News About Bad Green Lies
Source: CNSNews.com commentary from the Nation Anxiety Center; Published: April 8, 2002
Author: Alan Caruba

The Terrorist Tactics of Radical Environmentalists
Source: INSIGHT magazine: Published: April 1, 2002;
Author: Sean Higgins

ENTER THE JAGUAR - THE LATEST SONORAN DESERT CONSERVATION GAMBIT
Source: AZCorruption.comPublished: March 5, 2002;
Author: Tim Serey, PhD.

PETA Under Attack for Funding Alleged Eco-Terrorists
Source: CNSNews.com; published March 8, 2002;
Author: Jason Pierce

Wake Up, America
[re:Huntingdon Life Sciences/SHAC/ Animal Liberation Front (ALF), Earth Lib FR- ELF]
Source: Consumer FReedom.com; Published: March 4, 2002;

The Terrorists You Don't Hear About [re: Animal Liberation Front (ALF), Earth Liberation Front (ELF)]
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: March 04, 2002
Author: Tom DeWeese

Biologists conspired to submit fake {LYNX} fur
Source: Elko Daily FREE Press; Published: March 3, 2002:
Author: JEFFRY MULLINS

Cabin owners 'deeply alarmed' by forest plan
Source: The Sacramento Bee; Published: March 1, 2002;
Author: Evelyn de Ghetaldi and Liz Arnold

Skeptics denounce climate science 'lie'
Source: BBC News; Published: February 25, 2002;
Author: Alex Kirby

New Research Indicates the Earth May Be Cooling
Source:: The National Center for Public Policy Research; Published: February 2002:
Author: Amy Ridenour President of The National Center for Public Policy Research

FBI: Left Wing Green Terrorists the most active terror organization in the U.S
Source: The Sierra Times; Published: February 13, 2002;
Author: J.J. Johnson

Newfangled 'Fish Protection' Religion Debunked --"Greens" Motive To Bankrupt Oregon Farmers
Source: Toogood reports: Published: February 11, 2002:
Author: Vin Suprynowicz

Connecting the Dots in the Case of the Missing Canadian Lynx
Source: NewsMax.com: Published: Feb. 7, 2002;
Author: Diane Alden

Scientific findings run counter to theory of global warming
Source: San Diego Union Tribune; Published 1/25/2002;
Author: Joseph Perkins

Senate Betrayal Creates “Son of CARA” Monster (re: Conservation and Reinvestment Act )
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: January 29, 2002:
Author: Tom DeWeese

Naked Greens
Source: FrontPageMag.com Published: January 23, 2002;
Author: Lowell Ponte

The US Does Not Need a “National Climate Service”
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: January 16, 2002
Author: Alan Caruba

Environmental Corruption: A Cascade of Lies
Source: Commentary from the National Anxiety Center; Published: January 07, 2002;
Author: Alan Caruba

Feds help fund green activists
Source: The Elko Daily Free Press; Published: 8 January, 2002 |
Author: JEFFRY MULLINS

"Findings" vs. "Facts" In Washington (re: Global Climate Change Act of 2001/2)
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: December 12, 2001
Author: Patrick J. Michaels

The Heart of Amazonia
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: November 29, 2001
Author: Marc Morano

Timber Industry Warns of 'Eco-Dictatorship'
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: November 27, 2001
Author: Marc Morano

Collectivist Greens Must Use Coercion Enforced By The Central State
Source: Toogood Reports; Published: November 20, 2001
Author: Vin Suprynowicz

Don't forget to attack domestic terrorism, too
Source: The Oregonian; Published: 11/19/01
Author: Nick Nichols

Environmental Terrorists Also Oppose Civilization
Source: Banner of Liberty; Published: November 13, 2001
Author: Mary Mostert

The Something Undermining Our Nation
Source: WorldNetDaily; Published: March 19, 1999
Author: Holly Swanson

The Last Word : “environmentalist”; saboteurs
Source: INSIGHT magazine; Published: November 9, 2001
Author: Ralph de Toledano

Have the Muslim Terrorists Merged with Environmental Terrorists?
Source: Banner of Liberty; Published: November 9, 2001
Author: Mary Mostert

Radical Environmentalists Eyed After Discovery Of Bombs On Michigan Campus...
Source: DrudgeReport;
Author: Paul Perterson

Environmental Radicals Not Slowed
Source: AP via The New York Times; Published: November 6, 2001

Environmental Terrorists Deserve No Special Treatment
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: October 26, 2001
Author: Christopher C. Horner

The EcoTerrorist Anthrax Connection
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: October 23, 2001;
Author: Tom DeWeese

New Breed of Environmental Activists has Research Officials Bracing for Vandalism
Source: Pesticide Education Program at Penn State; Published: July 16, 2000
Author: St. Louis Post-Dispatch

The Reality of 'Global Warming'
Source: NewsMax.com; Published: June 13, 2001
Author: Rep. Dana Rohrabacher