Debunk this Cornicopian

[SandWriter]

Hey All,

I received the following e-mail message

Coloring the Data
Greens get caught red-handed committing scientific fraud.

BY PETE DU PONT
Wednesday, March 27, 2002 12:01 a.m. EST

So many federal agencies have been exposed falsifying environmental data that you have to wonder how many other frauds remain undetected. First came the December revelation that employees of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service had planted fake wild lynx hair in states where there were no lynx, so that the areas could be labeled critical habitat, and thus off limits to human use.

[remainder deleted, see below]

I feel in my gut that Mr. du Pont is using selected statistics to paint a picture of a future Cornicopian Utopia, and not to worry about cutting down all the trees, over fishing the oceans, turning farms into residential housing etc.

Am I right? What are the facts?

Thanks,
-Sandwriter.

p.s. Cornicopians believe that science will invent techniques/technologies to provide for ever increasing population growth.

p.p.s. Malthusians believe that eventually the earth will run out of resources and there is a limit to the number of people the Earth will support.

[postcards]

And your question would be…?

[racinchikki]

*Originally posted by postcards *
**And your question would be…? **

I should think the question would be

What are the facts?

I thought it was pretty clearly stated what the question was. I’m sorry I can’t help answer it.

[Kamandi]

How timely!

Outside magazine has an article just this month debunking “LynxGate”.

It’s all pretty rousing stuff, but the real untold story is that the great lynx biofraud is baloney. Outside interviewed 25 scientists, investigators, and policy makers familiar with the incident, and reviewed all the relevant reports. What emerges is not a scientific scandal but a case study in media-amplified demagoguery. There is no evidence whatsoever to support either a conspiracy or a cover-up. The scientists didn’t “plant” lynx fur in the forests. They didn’t plot to invoke the Endangered Species Act through falsified data. And even if they had, it wouldn’t have worked, because any evidence of lynx would have to be confirmed with further research before new management decisions could be made.

The current issue of Skeptic magazine happens to have a cover article contrasting Bjorn Lomborg’s “everything’s a-okay” environmental position with a counterpoint by E.O. Wilson. As I have yet to read the articles, I can’t provide any details.

[SandWriter]

Thanks for the support Racinchikki.

Is the article a fraud?

Is the article based on faulty science?

Is the article true in every detail?

If it is false, as I suspect, what sources can I site that support the claims that the article is fraudulent?

Thanks Kamandi!

[Ringo]

From The Christian Science Monitor:
Catfight ensues over case of lynx fur planted in forests

and from The Seattle Times:
Lynx-fur furor focuses on science role

The whole lynx affair boils down to what you want to believe. One side is that the researchers cited submitted samples they knew to be false outside of the research protocals, protocols they were aware of. The other side is that they wanted control samples to verify the validity of their results. That’s what I’d say were I in their position.

From Kamandi’s link:

When presented with this fact, Marnie Funk, a spokeswoman for Hansen’s committee, would only refer back to the private investigator’s findings. “There is clearly no smoking gun in that report,” she allows. “But there are unanswered questions.” She declined to elaborate, citing the pending congressional investigation, except to add that the biologists’ use of unauthorized control samples was “a questionable way to conduct a study.” Wainwright acknowledges that he erred by not following the chain of command. “We did things wrong,” he says, citing their failure to clear the control samples with the head of the lynx program.

From the National Acadamies News:
Higher Water Levels Not Scientifically Justified To Protect Fish in Klamath Lake and River

From The Outdoor Network:
U.S. Forest Service Grossly Overstated Visitor Statistics

From the Washington Times:
Owl data knowingly faulty

From a site at Slippery Rock University:
World Per Capita Grain Production 1950-1999

From something called Agrevo:
Calorie Consumption now, and projected

That’s a lot of stuff to research, and I’m not going to get through it all. For energy info you can browse around at the Energy Information Administration website and find a lot. It’s hard to find some info without getting someone’s agenda with it.

[Popup]

*Originally posted by SandWriter *
**p.s. Cornicopians believe that science will invent techniques/technologies to provide for ever increasing population growth.
**

Don’t you mean cornucopian?

I cannot shed any light over the OP, though.

[Kamandi]

From the Pete DuPont article in the OP:

And the population explosion? Well, the threat is not of escalating birthrates but that in many countries–Italy, Russia and Germany, to name a few–they have fallen so far below the replacement rate that there soon won’t be enough workers to support their economies and welfare programs.

(Emphasis added)

Nice dig at the liberals and their e-vil welfare programs, there.

The U.N. reports that as of 2000, “44 percent of the world’s population now lives in countries where the birth rate was below the death rate.” It is below the replacement rate in others, so within a few decades the world’s population will be in decline.

Woah! That’s quite an unfounded leap! It also contradicts the US Census Bureau’s figures. The fact that some of the industrialized nations have birth rates below their death rates does not mean that the tremendous birth rate in most of the developing world (well above the death rate) will change any time soon.

In any case, the entire population of the world could fit in Texas, with each person enjoying 1,200 square feet of individual space.

The land area of Texas is 261,797 square miles. With a world population of 6.2 billion, this means 1177 square feet per person, or a 34 ft by 34 ft square. Too bad this grossly underestimates the actual land area required to feed, house and support a population. “Enjoy” is hardly the word I’d use.

Subterfuge and misrepresentation are thus left to energize the greens’ antiprosperity cause.

The greens aren’t the only ones using these tools, Mr DuPont.

[Colibri]

Man, that’s a laugh. Du Pont’s article is, mostly, a farrago of misinterpretation, misrepresentation, and pure nonsense. And he’s claiming environmentalists are dishonest?

For detailed rebuttals to “The Skeptical Environmentalist,” check out this site. The various articles there will also serve to refute many of du Pont’s points as well.

This paragraph in du Pont’s article is particularly specious:

Consider fossil fuel consumption and its resulting pollution. The Cato Institute recently reported that since the first Earth Day, in 1970, “energy consumption has risen 41 percent, most of it from fossil fuels. But during that same period sulfur-dioxide emissions . . . have dropped by 39 percent . . .; volatile organic compounds . . . by 42 percent; carbon monoxide emissions . . . have dropped by 28 percent; and large particulate-matter emissions . . . by 75 percent.” Not much of an environmental crisis in these data.

:rolleyes:

I haven’t tried to check out these figures in detail, but of course the reductions in pollution can largely be attributed to the efforts of environmentalists and to the Clean Air Act. Is du Pont contending that the air quality would have improved despite the increase in fossil fuel consumption even if nothing had been done?

It is true that in some cases the most dire predictions of environmentalists have not come to pass. This is often because the warnings were heeded, and something was done to improve the situation.

[FriendRob]

There is also a recent (Jan 2002) Scientific American article answering The Sceptical Environmentalist*.

[Kamandi]

It seems deceit is the only way the greens can advance their Luddite agenda. They are ideologically inspired to try to limit, slow and if possible stop economic growth, for they believe that prosperity is harmful to the environment.

Ooh, nice brush.

Also, note the fallacy of excluding the middle.

Some people believe that there is room in the world for economic growth and environmental protection. We take the long-term view of preserving our resources for the future, rather than the short-term view of maximizing profits now without regard for how damage done now will affect future prosperity.

History has taught us that economic growth without regard for environmental protection is a recipe for disaster. Think of the damage done to the American Southwest by unrestricted cattle farming (turned tallgrass prarie into desert) and the massive clearcutting in the forests of the Northwest caused by the railroad barons, both in the nineteenth century. And how about the legacy left to us in the form of all those Superfund cleanup sites? Uncounted tons of poisons dumped into lakes, rivers and the ground by companies with more interest in their balance sheets than the damage they were doing to the environment.

[Colibri]

Thanks, FriendRob, I was going to mention the Scientific American article as well but it isn’t posted at Sci-Am’s website. The article is:

**Misleading Math about the Earth
ESSAYS BY STEPHEN SCHNEIDER, JOHN P. HOLDREN, JOHN BONGAARTS AND THOMAS LOVEJOY

The book The Skeptical Environmentalist uses statistics to dismiss warnings about peril for the planet. But the science suggests that it’s the author who is out of touch with the facts.**

[bibliophage]

SandWriter, I have deleted the bulk of the article. Quoting more than a paragraph or two of a copyrighted work is too much. The rest of the article can be found at http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=105001823

bibliophage
moderator GQ

[SandWriter]

Sorry,

Won’t post whole articles again. I thought it was important to see the entire article to see all the statements of opinion as fact.

Thanks,
-Sandwriter

[Measure_for_Measure]

Bjorn Lomborg, IMHO, is not a nut. He replies to his critics at his website. As for the 4-part Scientific American series, I thought that Schneider destroyed Lomborg, but that the next 2 parts were much more dubious. (I was undecided on #4). There was a GD on this topic some time ago.

Pete DuPont, former Governor of Delaware, is another kettle of fish.