"Skeptical Environmentalist" Rebuked

mpsmps writes "The "Skeptical Environmentalist", reviewed in slashdot here has been rebuked by the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty for shoddy, politically motivated science. Are they being valuable watchdogs, or are both sides driven by politics rather than science?"

Comments

Pot Calling the Kettle......

[jeramybsmith]

The Skeptical Environmentalist has been debated in Skeptic magazines and the author of the book was allowed to respond to the critiques. Simply put, the detractors of this book point out very few flaws and don't debate the majority of the content. We have to fight pseudo-science and outright lies in the name of science where they occur. The Skeptical Environmentalist does this. The author however, is not a scientist per se but a statistician and it seems that has ruffled some feathers. If you are wondering what all the hubbub is about, read the book and make up your mind for yourself.

Re:Pot Calling the Kettle......

[bcboy]

> If you are wondering what all the hubbub is about, read the book and make up your mind for yourself.

Uh, NO. Read the book, AND read the critics, and read their sources if there is dispute about them, and then make up your mind for yourself.

Unfortunately, your technique (read authors that affirm your political position, and then decide that you're done) seems to be quite popular.

Re:Pot Calling the Kettle......

[jeramybsmith]

The book is pretty much self explanatory. The majoroity of the content is _not_ in dispute. The critics of the book that I found most provocative were is a skeptic magazine. I read them and Lomborg's response. Most critics can only find a few cases in the book where they challenge Lomborg's methods. In other words, just read the fricken book. If someone does faulty research, and someone else points it out, then someone else points out that person who pointed out said errors didnt consider another study, doesn't make the study in question any less faulty.

Some links

[Otter]

Are they being valuable watchdogs, or are both sides driven by politics rather than science?

I'm not sure how those are the two alternatives. My impression is that the indictment of Lomborg contains no substantive scientific criticism, just an accusation of partisanship. Both sides are trying to argue a point of view; one is doing it with facts and one by issuing a fatwa and what one may or may not think. (I'm talking here about this specific ruling. I'm sure there are factually-based objections to Lomborg, although I haven't seen one that impressed me, and I'm a Sierra Club member.)

Instapundit has a bunch of links, the most prominent being the Economist calling the ruling "incompetent and shameful".

The panel's ruling is incompetent and shameful.

[Evan Vetere]

So says the Economist.

Lomberg has responded, in initial brief, to the fraud charges. And, according to Glenn Reynolds, most of the panel's complaints seem to be directed at Lomberg's response to the initial SciAm critique (PDF).

The sheer complexity of this issue makes soapboxing inappropriate. I'm an early poster, but it's already begun. Please try to refrain from making fools of yourselves.

Are they?

[elmegil]

or are both sides driven by politics rather than science?

Figure the odds.

DCSD's ruling

[Col. Klink (retired)]

Their full ruling is here. As other articles have pointed out, the only evidence they used against him was from the Scientific American articles. Even then, the working group never bothered to consider his responses because, in their own words, "...his rebuttals are not accepted by the complainants."

Apparently, if you make file a complaint with the DCSD, they don't have to listen to rebuttals unless the rebuttals have already convinced those filing the complaint...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:No Big Surprise

[Arthur Dent]

I don't have time to give a lengthy rebuttal and offer this instead.

In brief:

Forests: The FAO data series is the only long run series available.

Fisheries

Lomborg's deceptive "doubling" is based on the fact that fishing operations now rely heavily on landing species that were considered "trash" in the 1970s, and on landing juveniles because the full-sized fish are now increasingly scarce.

So you admit that Lomborg is right and fishery catches have actually doubled? Does it matter that fish eating habbits have changed or been forced to change? As for landing juvenilles, that's just evolution in action.

Biodiversity: The largest tropical study of the correlation between rainforest and the extinction of species was carried out in Puerto Rico by Ariel Lugo of the United States Department of Agriculture. He found that the primary forest had been reduced by 99 percent over a period of 400 years. 'Only' seven out of 60 species of birds had become extinct although the island today is home to 97 species of birds.

Global Warming: Are you sure Lomborg's position is a straw man? He never says that the Kyoto accord is a 100 year treaty but merely quotes the IPCC numbers and says that if the Kyoto accord is implemented in full, the IPCC projections will only be delayed by 6 years.

Water: Quite right that the plant has not yet been built -- there's no pressing need for it! Throughout history, humans have demonstrated a lot of intelligence and ingenuity. I have absolutely no doubts that when a large scale desalination plant is required, my guess is that the prices will be close to what Lomborg predicts (higher than what Lomborg predicts, but much, much lower than current rates).

Two points before I end this:

1. Lomborg does not claim to be a scientist. He has merely placed an alternative interpretation on existing data.

2. This quote from one of his critics Stephen Schneider:

"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand,
we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this
context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some
broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to
offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This
'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right
balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both." (Quoted in Discover, pp. 45-48, Oct. 1989,
see also American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996, http://cyclotron.aps.org/apsnews/0896/11592.html).

You've missed the boat.

[JMZero]

It really shouldn't surprise anyone that The Skeptical Environmentalist was rebuked and most of what the guy had to say was bogus.

No, it wasn't "rebuked". I've seen very little in the way of substantive criticism, and what little there is has been responded to in a responsible way. I'd be happy to see actual debate about this.

This issue is how bad are things going to get, how much will we loose and what can and should we be doing to stop or slow it down

This is exactly what Lomborg is talking about. He simply gives an overview of accepted work, and puts forth the idea that "it's not as bad as some people have said". That's really about it. Have you read the book? Do you know of any of his facts that are wrong? Of course you didn't, and I'm guessing you don't. You're as bad as the idiots who made the ruling - basically on the basis of "He's going against the dogma, must be wrong".

The question "How bad are things?" is a valid one to ask. The person who does the research and comes back with "Not as bad as some people say" doesn't need to get shot. Engaged and debated with? Of course. But in a reasonable way.

But the "scientists" who are most mad at him are the ones that are embarrassed - the one's who he quotes making wacky predictions in the 80's that didn't come true.

Science and politics

[n1ywb]

Is science ever NOT driven by politics? Lets face it, politics is about power and money, and power and money are given to scientists so they can produce more power and money. If the research won't produce power or money, it's unlikely to get a lot of funding or attention.

The best example I have is nuclear energy. There are only TWO good applications for nuclear energy, one is powering vehicles in extreme environments (submarines and spacecraft), and the other is BLOWING YOU THE FUCK UP (I was told that by a retired nuclear engineer, BTW.) But in the 1950's everyone thought they'd be getting nuclear cars and nuclear home heating and hell they even tried to build a nuclear airplane which was a complete debocle (Uranium, lead, concrete, all pretty heavy materials.) Why did so much money get dumped into a stupid technology? It produced a lot of POWER, and I don't just mean electricity.

Bottom line, science is a power struggle. It sucks, but it's true.

Re:No Big Surprise

[dschl]

Wow. Thanks for regurgitating the SciAm article about the Skeptical environmentalist.

Please reconfirm your "facts" on desalination. There is not a lot of info online, but I managed to scrape up a few costs.

• In the Sept 14, 1999 Trinidad Express, they refer to two bids at US$0.536 and US$0.736 per m3 of industrial water (water for drinking is a tiny proportion of what we actually use)
• In Cyprus in 2000, desalination unit costs were 0.997 USD (0.54 Cyprus pound, which is divided into cents, not pence)

Membrane technology is still improving significantly. While there is a thermodynamic limit to efficiency, there is still a lot of room to lower unit costs by producing reverse osmosis (RO) membranes with a longer life, lower cost, greater tolerance for contaminants (ie, less pre-treatment before hitting the RO membrane), less frequent backwash cycles, and so on. As for "well out of reach of most water users", well, whatever. A person drinks 1-4 litres of water a day, which is around $2 / year, even with your gloomy estimates.

FYI, Peter Gleick is the President of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security, which "strives to improve policy through science-based research and dialogue with action-oriented groups from the international to local level"They claim to be non-partisan, but he appears to have a radical green bias. Let's look at what else Gleick says about desalination:

But desalination cannot yet be considered a reasonable solution to domestic water shortages in most regions, even wealthy ones. Whether it will eventually become sufficiently cheap for large-scale use remains uncertain.( Gleick, 2000)

Hmmm, not quite as gloomy - just uncertain. Given that most domestic water gets flushed, high quality desalination is not even required for your toilet or shower - leaving some residual salt makes desalinated water cheaper to produce. But for drinking water, it is still inexpensive enough - you'll spend more money on distribution than on production.

kuro5hin had a better article on Lomborg a while ago. The Economist just had another one as well. And of course, you should read Lomborgs response to SciAm , which is posted in it's entirety on Patrick Moore's website. SciAm threatened legal action if Lomborg included their article in his line-by-line response, although they felt free to include Lomborg's response on their website with more SciAm comments - hypocrisy worthy of RIAA or MPAA. So, Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace posted Lomborgs response to SciAm, with the following comment:

"Scientific American did not give Lomborg any opportunity to respond to his critics, even though they gave him a copy of the editorial before it went to press. They said they would give Lomborg one page in a future edition to reply to 11 pages of full-on attack. Lomborg's response was to publish the text of the Scientific American article on his own website and to intersperse it with a detailed response to every point raised by his critics. Scientific American then threatened to sue Lomborg over copyright. In response to my complaint Scientific American wrote "This is an infringement of our copyright and interferes with our business of selling the article." Does Scientific American really think that they will lose readership because Lomborg has posted a response to a publication that is already off the newsstands? I believe they acted out of political motivation and are purposefully stifling Lomborg's efforts to defend himself. And I don't blame Lomborg for giving in to such a huge organization when threatened with legal action. (If you go to Lomborg's website www.lomborg.com and look under Critiques you will find he has removed the offending text, thus gutting the effectiveness of his response.)

" I think we should defy Scientific American's blatant attempt to muzzle Lomborg. Anyone who reads his response to the Scientific American attack will have to agree that it is thoughtful and thorough. Here is a link to the entire response complete with Lomborg's comments."

People like you will eventually make me buy Lomborg's book, just so I can bitchslap you properly.

dschl

If you think hunting is barbaric, you should visit a chicken farm someday

Re:Rebuking the rebuker's rebukers

[neocon]

Well, as I have read the book through, and found it to be entirely a presentation of statistics which no one is contesting, and a reasoned interpretation thereof, I would be very interested to hear any examples of where you believe it is `biased' and `a crock'.

Simply throwing around such charges without backing them up suggests that you are condemning the book merely for not agreeing with your politics -- in which case you are the one deserving rebuke for unscientific conduct...