From: Dickey, Michael F (michael_f_dickey@groton.pfizer.com)
Date: Fri Aug 09 2002 - 11:37:48 MDT
"If you really want to debunk Lomborg here's the ultimate resource:
http://info-pollution.com/lomborg.htm"
The first article linked
"Welfare, Growth and Environment: A Sceptical Review of The Skeptical
Environmentalist(Bjørn Lomborg, Cambridge University Press, 2001)"
has this as an abstract
"In his wide ranging attempt to review the literature on economic
development and welfare in relation to the environment, Lomborg claims
balance and objectivity, but actually presents a thoroughly misleading
picture of environmental prospects and research, global economic
development, and the real determinants of human welfare. Statistician
Lomborg blatantly distorts the evidence by systematically selecting
statistics to support his claims that global welfare is generally improving
and environmental policy is unnecessary, while denying catastrophic risks
such as prolonged drought in major food growing areas (though such events
cannot be ruled out by climate models). In spite of its numerous errors and
biases, "the Lomborg scam" (as leading biologist E.O.Wilson aptly calls it)
has been welcomed by gullible or like- minded journalists and politicians."
"claims that global welfare is generally improving and environmental policy
is unnecessary" This is absurd, Lomborg never argues that 'environmental
policy is unnecessary'. And "while denying catastrophic risks such as
prolonged drought in major food growing areas" These are sad strawman
charactherizations of what lomborg says. Did these people ever actually
READ the Skeptical Environmentalist?
"Statistician Lomborg blatantly distorts the evidence"
It is hard to imagine that absolutely EVERYTHING that Lomborg says is a
'blatent distortion' Given the article that I posted on this that shows we
have 23% more forrest cover than doom and gloom howlers have been saying,
its seems reasonable that there may be other good arguments. Reading
through these debates that lomborg has engaged in, its easy to see who is
acting rationally and scientifically and who is not. The above abstract
does not sound 'scientific' in any way shape or form. I have yet to see any
counterargument that does NOT say absolutely everything he says is wrong.
Why is that? Though I will read through what you posted, judging by their
titles I see nothing but entirely negative comments.
Some of those articles.
"Bringing bogus science to book by John Quiggin "
"Lomborg's theoretical shortcomings by Brian M Czech "
"Two economists find that Lomborg's economics are as faulty as his science"
A more accurate description of what lomborg says is feature in the SCI AM
article
"His conclusion, which he writes surprised even him, was that contrary to
the gloomy predictions of degradation he calls "the litany," everything is
getting better. Not that all is rosy, but the future for the environment is
less dire than is supposed. Instead Lomborg accuses a pessimistic and
dishonest cabal of environmental groups, institutions and the media of
distorting scientists' actual findings"
After that the SCI AM article degrades into a disgracefull commentary. Read
Lomborgs points at http://www.greenspirit.com/lomborg/ and see who is
writing and acting more rationally.
He also says
"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. "
Which critics have yet to attack (perhaps because it is actually true?)
Michael Dickey
-----Original Message-----
From: Webb, Steve [mailto:swebb@asce.org]
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 11:42 AM
To: extropians@extropy.org
Subject: RE: Satellites Find Less Deforestation Than Expected, 'But
Still Far Too Much'
If you really want to debunk Lomborg here's the ultimate resource:
http://info-pollution.com/lomborg.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: Dickey, Michael F [mailto:michael_f_dickey@groton.pfizer.com]
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 9:30 AM
To: 'extropians@extropy.org'
Subject: Satellites Find Less Deforestation Than Expected, 'But Still
Far Too Much'
"Satellites Find Less Deforestation Than Expected, 'But Still Far Too Much'"
The relatively liberal US version of SCI AM, which spent months on a Lomborg
Smear Campaign with IMHO a pretty pathetic rebuttal full of ad homimems
reported this in their news section today. Hasnt this always been one of
Lomborg's complaints? "Satellites Find Less Deforestation Than
Expected...researchers have recognized for some time that those figures are
highly inaccurate because they rely on data collected according to a
hodge-podge of different techniques and standards" and importantly "The good
news is that the rates were 23 percent lower than expected"
"The findings could help ecologists balance the carbon books. So far,
investigators have been unable to explain where a significant chunk of the
carbon released by human activities--notably fossil fuel burning and
deforestation--actually goes."
Lomborg and Sci AM <http://www.greenspirit.com/lomborg/> and
<http://www.lomborg.com/critique.htm>
"Curious aside: While the US edition of Scientific American found it
necessary to defend science against my book, the Italian edition of
Scientific American, Le Scienze published a very positive review in November
2001. Click here an extract English translation. [Again, I have removed the
December covers of the Scientific American and Le Scienze due to Scientific
American's threat to sue.] In the February 2002 issue of Le Scienze, they
have included the translated critique of the American Scientific American
January critique."
Michael
Satellites Find Less Deforestation Than Expected, But Still Far Too Much
COURTESY OF HUGH EVA
from -
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0006D63D-CFC7-1D52-90FB809EC58800
00
Estimates of global forest loss typically come from the United Nations' Food
and Agriculture Organization (FAO). But researchers have recognized for some
time that those figures are highly inaccurate because they rely on data
collected according to a hodge-podge of different techniques and standards.
Now the results of a new remote-sensing study, published today in the
journal Science, may help to refine those estimates.
An international team led by Frédéric Achard of the Joint Research Center in
Ispra, Italy, used satellite images to assess deforestation rates between
1990 and 1997, sampling 100 patches representing 6.5 percent of the planet's
humid tropical forests. The good news is that the rates were 23 percent
lower than expected. The bad news is that the losses still amounted to about
5.8 million hectares a year on average-an area almost twice the size of
Belgium.
The findings could help ecologists balance the carbon books. So far,
investigators have been unable to explain where a significant chunk of the
carbon released by human activities--notably fossil fuel burning and
deforestation--actually goes. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, about a quarter of it (2.3 petagrams) is probably soaked up
by temperate forests. Yet scientists haven't actually found enough
vegetation to do that. But if less deforestation has occurred, as Achard and
his collaborators argue, then less carbon has been released, and less
vegetation is required to absorb it. In that case, because climate models
take into account how much carbon plants absorb, global warming predictions
may change.
Only further probing will reveal exactly what is going on. In the meantime,
habitat destruction "costs the human enterprise, in net terms, on the order
of $250 billion that year, and every year into the future," argues another
group of scientists in the same issue. Andrew Balmford of the University of
Cambridge and his colleagues looked at case studies of the economic
productivity of ecosystems before and after they were converted to human
use. They found that in each case the value of the wild land far outweighed
that of its altered counterpart. In fact, the team estimates that global
conservation of the natural habitats that remain would have an overall
benefit to cost ratio of at least 100 to 1.
"People are hearing a message that nature is being eroded, but it takes a
while to sink in, even for me," Balmford remarks. "One third of the world's
wild nature has been lost since I was a child and first heard the word
'conservation'--that's what keeps me awake at night." --Kate Wong
LEGAL NOTICE
Unless expressly stated otherwise, this message is confidential and may be
privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. Access to this E-mail
by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not an addressee, any disclosure
or copying of the contents of this E-mail or any action taken (or not taken)
in reliance on it is unauthorized and may be unlawful. If you are not an
addressee, please inform the sender immediately.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:59 MST