Re: [cdn-nucl-l] The Skeptical Environmentalist - Taken by Storm - Good Environmental Books

[Bill Garland <garlandw@mcmaster.ca>]

Just to throw another opinion into the fray, I am inclined to believe that the issue of global warming and other plausible, but arguable, impacts that we have on the planet are just that:  plausible but arguable.  If the effects were bigger, we would be able to make some definite statements.  Our footprint is certainly detectable and unarguable on the small scale (city pollution, etc), but compared to nature, we are still quite puny and it would not take the earth long to repair any scars that we have made should we vanish.  And who is to say whether it is better or worse, in the long run, that we alter the earth or that we do not.  After all, a missed plane ride may save your life or be the indirect cause of your death (because you drove instead!).  So, maybe if we are more industrialized we will be in a position of power to intervene in some positive way just as the developed nations do less damage to the environment overall than do less developed nations.  Certainly we do much better in medical treatment, human rights, etc. 

So why the big fuss?  Life is uncertain but the alternative is assumed, conservatively, to be worse.  We'd be much better off spending our energy trying to figure out how to help third world companies help themselves rather than this endless and futile pro/anti thing.  Such discussions are the pass times of the elite (us 'haves').  We are so well off that we have the time and where-with-all to fuss and worry about such matters.  Most of the world does not have that luxury.

While I am on a rant, I read about an economist from Mexico or some such place.  His thesis was that the real problem is not lack of wealth or economy per se in the third world (or pollution or global warming etc).  The real problem is that the existing economy is largely an underground one so that the government cannot tap into it (via taxes) to build a better infrastructure (clean water for a starter).  Unfortunately, providing meaningful aid is not as simple as sending in a few dollars to a 'Save the whatever' fund.  Now I DO support these organizations by sending in a few dollars a month but I am under no illusion that it helps all that much.  I even wonder whether is hurts in the long run.  I did hear recently, though, that passing out contraceptives HAS had a definite influence on birth rates.  Empowerment of the individual seems to be a large part of the solution.

Now I have to get back to what I am paid to do.

Onward through the fog,
Bill

At 10:55 AM 1/14/2003 -0500, Duane Pendergast wrote:

I recall the Scientific American's reaction to Lombergs book last January.
They called out a collection of big guns to mount an attack on him. It
seemed an unprecedented to me and very unworthy of a magazine such as the
Scientific American. I have not read the book but have heard Lomberg in a
discussion with Elizabeth May on the climate change issue. He certainly made
more sense than her, but I'm dubious we can get by on renewables as Lomberg
thinks - without some drastic changes to our way of life including major
depopulation.

We have our own Canadian book on climate change, "Taken by Storm", by Essex
and McKitrick. It is excellent.  The authors are not convinced that human
induced climate change is significant. This is very politically incorrect in
Canada right now as we know. (I think it's the book that the Alliance party
supplied to MP's. Likely they ignored it.)It rings very true to me both on
the technical side re modeling climate change and on the political issues
I've been exposed to as a sideline to my involvement in the  "National
Climate Change Process".

It does present a chilling story of the way ENGO's, the media and
governments work to sell their viewpoint on climate change. I feel a little
used by the system myself - particularly after reading the book. It should
be required reading for nuclear proponents as the same techniques are used
to put and keep nuclear down. Maybe there is a lesson to be learned from
Essex, McKitrick - and Lomberg - to counter them.


Duane Pendergast


-----Original Message-----
From: cdn-nucl-l-admin@informer2.cis.McMaster.CA
[mailto:cdn-nucl-l-admin@informer2.cis.McMaster.CA]On Behalf Of
cdn-nucl-l-request@informer2.cis.McMaster.CA
Sent: 2003-01-14 12:13 PM
To: cdn-nucl-l@informer2.cis.McMaster.CA
Subject: cdn-nucl-l digest, Vol 1 #889 - 2 msgs


Send cdn-nucl-l mailing list submissions to
        cdn-nucl-l@mailman.McMaster.CA

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/cdn-nucl-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        cdn-nucl-l-request@mailman.McMaster.CA

You can reach the person managing the list at
        cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman.McMaster.CA

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of cdn-nucl-l digest..."


This is a digest version of the
Canadian Nuclear Discussion List
_______________________________________________

Today's Topics:

   1. Lomborg frenzy takes hold in Denmark, Re: Skeptical Environmentalist
not politically correct (Jerry Cuttler)
   2. Re: [MbrExchange] U.S. Senate Bill Would Cap Greenhouse Gas Emissions
(AtomicRod@aol.com)

--__--__--

Message: 1
Reply-To: "Jerry Cuttler" <jerrycuttler@rogers.com>
From: "Jerry Cuttler" <jerrycuttler@rogers.com>
To: "cdn-nucl-l \(E-mail\)" <cdn-nucl-l@informer2.cis.McMaster.CA>,
   "ANS Member Exchange Listserv" <mbrexchange@list.ans.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 01:42:28 -0500
Subject: [cdn-nucl-l] Lomborg frenzy takes hold in Denmark, Re: Skeptical
Environmentalist not politically correct

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_00C0_01C2B849.88B0B280
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
        boundary="----=_NextPart_001_00C1_01C2B849.88B0B280"


------=_NextPart_001_00C1_01C2B849.88B0B280
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

                  Lomborg Frenzy Takes Hold in Denmark=20

                  COPHENHAGEN, Denmark, January 9, 2003 (ENS) - =
Controversy surrounding author Bjorn Lomborg continued to rage in =
Denmark today following Tuesday's ruling by an official scientific =
ethics panel that he had "perverted the scientific message" in his 2001 =
book "The Sceptical Environmentalist."=20

                  Lomborg contends in the book that claims made by =
environmentalists about global warming, energy, overpopulation, species =
loss, deforestation, water scarcity, and a host of other issues are =
exaggerations that are not supported by a proper analysis of =
environmental data.=20

                  Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen and Environment =
Minister Hans Christian Schmidt said they stand by last year's =
appointment of Lomborg as head of a new Environmental Assessment =
Institute (IMV).=20

                  =20

                  Bjorn Lomborg (Photo courtesy Bjorn Lomborg)
                  They said the government had complete confidence in =
the work of the institute despite the finding by a panel of the Danish =
Committee on Scientific Dishonesty that Lomborg's book was "clearly =
contrary to the standards of good scientific practice."=20
                  Rasmussen said that Lomborg's job would not be a =
matter for discussion when the IMV board meets next Monday to discuss =
its response to the furore. However, the Prime Minister said he is =
considering calling for an investigation by "independent experts" of =
reports previously published by the institute in order to prevent =
critics from dismissing its work in the future.=20

                  In its short life, IMV has produced several =
controversial reports, for example urging maximum use of the Kyoto =
climate protocol's flexible mechanisms in place of domestic greenhouse =
gas emission cuts.=20

                  In another report, Lomborg's institute criticised a =
new deposit system on one-way drinks containers introduced by the =
government to boost recycling, arguing that they imposed excessive =
socio-economic costs for "dubious" environmental benefits.=20

                  The IMV has also challenged WWF, the conservation =
group, over its series of reports assessing the ecological footprint of =
the world economy as substantially exceeding the earth's carrying =
capacity.=20

                  IMV board chairman Ole Kristensen said Lomborg, a =
political scientist with a background in statistics, had been employed =
not only because of his book but also on the basis of his previous work, =
and there was no reason to doubt that his professional qualifications =
were in order. In any case, Kristensen added, the ethics panel was wrong =
to treat "The Sceptical Environmentalist" as a strictly scientific work =
when it was clearly intended to challenge received opinion and provoke =
debate.=20

                  On Tuesday, Lomborg rebutted the Danish Committee on =
Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) in a statement that calls the panel's =
ruling "completely unfounded."=20

                  "The main conclusion by DCSD finds that my book is =
'clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice' because =
of systematically biased selection of data and arguments," wrote =
Lomborg. "But since the DCSD has neglected to take their position on the =
technical scientific disputes their conclusions are completely =
unfounded."=20

                  "The DCSD does not give a single example to =
demonstrate their claim of a biased choice of data and arguments," =
Lomborg wrote. "Consequently, I don't understand this ruling. It equals =
an accusation without defining the crime."=20

                  In its January 2002 issue, "Scientific American" =
published the feature "Misleading Math about the Earth," in which four =
environmental experts - Stephen Schneider, John Holdren, John Bongaarts =
and Thomas Lovejoy - criticized arguments of the "The Skeptical =
Environmentalist" on global warming, energy, overpopulation and =
biodiversity. =20

                  Dr. Thomas Lovejoy, a tropical and conservation =
biologist, has been adviser to three U.S. Presidents and is chief =
biodiversity advisor to the president of the World Bank. (Photo courtesy =
California Biodiversity News)
                  Lomborg is particularly angered by the way the DCSD =
treated the complaints put forth in the "Scientific American" article. =
"This is a one year old discussion, which I participated in at that time =
by writing a 34 page response. But in spite of the fact that the DCSD =
received a copy of my response, they refer to none of my arguments. In =
fact the only thing that the DCSD does is to repeat the "Scientific =
American" arguments over six pages, while only allowing my arguments =
1=BD line. This seems to reflect an extremely biased procedure. On top =
of that the DCSD has failed to evaluate the scientific points in dispute =
outlined in "Scientific American" article."=20

                  Hans Henrik Brydensholt, a High Court judge who is =
chairman of the DCSD, gave weight to the complaints outlined by the four =
scientists writing in "Scientific American."=20

                  Brydensholt wrote in the panel's ruling, "On the basis =
of the material adduced by the complainants, and particularly the =
assessment in "Scientific American," DCSD deems it to have been =
adequately substantiated that the defendant, who has himself insisted on =
presenting his publication in scientific form and not allowing the book =
to assume the appearance of a provocative debate-generating paper, based =
on customary scientific standards and in light of his systematic =
onesidedness in the choice of data and line of argument, has clearly =
acted at variance with good scientific practice."=20

                  The DCSD ruling, in English, is online at: =
http://www.forsk.dk/uvvu/nyt/udtaldebat/bl_decision.htm=20

                  The "Scientific American" controversy is detailed =
here:=20

                  The Skeptical Environmentalist is published by =
Cambridge University Press, 2001=20

                  =20

                  {Published in cooperation with ENDS Environment Daily, =
Europe's choice for environmental news. Environmental Data Services Ltd, =
London. Email: envdaily@ends.co.uk}=20
                =20
          =20
    =20



    =20


Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2002. All Rights Reserved.=20
  ----- Original Message -----=20
  From: Jerry Cuttler=20
  To: cdn-nucl-l (E-mail) ; ANS Member Exchange Listserv=20
  Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 10:46 AM
  Subject: Skeptical Environmentalist not politically correct


  I heard Professor Bjorn Lomborg speak at a joint meeting of the Fraser =
Institute and the Empire Club, at the Toronto Royal York on October 4.  =
It was a remarkable event!  The place was packed.  I saw many U of T =
professors there and many other familiar Who's Who celebrities.  The =
presentation was just stunning!

  It's hard to conceive that Bjorn was once a Greenpeace activist.  He =
stated that his colleagues at the University of Aarhus(Denmark) =
suggested that he look at the data before making judgments.  He did, and =
he changed his attitude.

  I bought the book (515 pages with thousands of references and hundreds =
of figures).  It's really an educational experience! =20
  Unfortunately, the book is not politically correct at the present time =
in Denmark, see below ...

  Jerry


_______________________________________________
cdn-nucl-l mailing list
cdn-nucl-l@mailman.McMaster.CA
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/cdn-nucl-l

Bill Garland  http://engphys.mcmaster.ca/faculty_staff/faculty/garland/
[on leave at UOIT, Oshawa, Ontario 905-721-3176 November 2002-April 2003]