Okay. And after I asked myself, I answered back with the following. It’s simple. Car manufacturers found it cheaper to use other materials, so they started using them. That’s it. Nothing nefarious like running out of steel or anything like that, simple economics. Make it more cheaply, sell it for the same or more, make more $$$.
Actually, it was the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty that rebuked Lomborg. Here is the story.
Of course jshore, the good thing about science is that it doesn’t matte how many scientists take him to task, the facts still remain.
Could you perhaps present some of these innaccuracies that these scientists have tken him to task over.
From what I’ve seen there aren’t any innaccuracies as such, just a lot of cries of ‘he didn’t present enough detail on all of the possible arguments used by all the various oponent groups’. This is certainly the thrust of the Danish commitee. They had no specific ccomplaints of the work being unscientific, dishonest or inaccurate.
Well, to be honest, I am not sure I have the time to devote to this right now in the sense of actually reading and presenting the critiques here. But here are some links: Scientific American (see also his reply), Grist Magazine, and the Union of Concerned Scientists published some rebuttals to the book from scientists. It was also reviewed in Science and Nature.
While some of the complaints may be that he presents only one side or very selective studies, I think other complaints go further than that: that he often misinterpretted the conclusions of studies or presented studies whose results were clearly shown to be wrong in later studies. Things like this.
Other complaints included that in some cases he presented straw men…i.e., he refuted claims that were already known to be wrong and made it sounds as though this was still part of what he would call “the litany” when that is not in fact that case. And, also, that he failed to give adequate attention to the evidence (or even the very idea) that in cases where things have improved (like polluted air), the important role that has been played here by environmental regulation.
I don’t think that any such complaints exist, or at least not valid ones. I have never seen any such thing, and you have not been able to produce any evidence of such.
I am well aware they were known to be wrong, as was Lomborg.
As was Greenpeace when they published these things.
That is what Lomborg was criticising. The very fact that they were known to be wrong when publicised makes the crime worse rather than better, doesn’t it?
Again, we have no evidence that he did any such thing. If you have any evidence of same I would love to see it. All of ‘the litany’ he presents is taken from publications and presentations in the ten years prior to the book being written. That makes them still part of the litany doesn’t it?
How is that a valid criticism?
The litany being criticised was that the situation is terrible and was getting worse now, today: that the situation was continuing to deteriorate. The criticism was that in too many cases this was untrue and ignorant.
The facts show that things are not as bad as is claimed.
Are you implying that the role that has been played by environmental regulation means that things are as bad as are claimed, and that the facts are wrong. Or are you claiming that the role that has been played by environmental regulation means that promoting ignorance and untruths is acceptable, and that Lomborg shouldn’t have challenged this practice?
If you aren’t, then how exactly does this make Lomborg’s work inaccurate?
I’ll start with a quote-
“Global Warming is not controversial among scientists” Climatologist Stephen Schneider (Discover Magazine).
Similarly, another Climatologist was interviewed by Discover, one Ken Caldiera. It is printed in part in the April 2003 issue, and in full at www.discover.com. Among his points are that it isn’t the change itself that is the problem-its the rate of change, and that change can be laid at our doorstep. The extant flora and fauna will not have the chance to evolve in concert with the change, and will thus, die out.
Sure, the world will survive without us-that isn’t the concern. Its whether we can extend our own time on Earth without turning it into hell.
And, for anyone who cares to look, another attack on Lomborg appeared in either the Skeptical Inquirer or Skeptic Magazine (I don’t recall which at this point). It was pretty much a point-by-point attack, with cites.
MrBoy1967 is there any reason why you posted that comment about global warming? Does anyting in this thread or the column lead you to believe that anyone doubts global warming?
What leads you to believe that in a world with longer life expectancies and more leisure time than ever before and a population that is due to start falling within 50 years that the world is likely to become a hell, rather than continuing to get better?
Someone cited a reduction in Rainforest coverage of over 50% (15% of toal land coverage to 7%). Presumably, most of this has occurred with the traditional slash and burn model, where farmers burn trees and grow crops until the land is sterile. Modern farming techniques has made this model obsolete, thus making it possible to maintain forests and farmland. The best way to prevent the destruction of rainforests then would be to increase industrialisation so that farmers can afford to use these methods (thus reusing land rather than moving to new plots). And in instances where the trees are used for fule, moving to sources like OIL and Natural Gas (its all about oil!) will prevent further destruction of the rainforests, while actually increasing energy efficiency.
Wait. Carbon Dioxide. This is what plants need to survive, right? And then they produce Oxygen that we need to survive, right? It’s all a cycle. Maybe that is why Earth is greener today than 20 years ago.
Also. Crude oil from the earth is a naturally forming substance. We all cringe when a tanker goes down, but I’m sure that underwater earthquakes and the like spill more oil into the water than we could ever imagine. What happens to this oil?
And. Climate changes are universal and standard for Earth. It’s part of the reason that there is life on Earth in the first place. Where London is today, 50,000 years ago laid a vast desert.
Plus. The one hundred years or so that we have been keeping measurements of weather and temperature is hardly scientific enough to form a trend for the future.
Before humans ever existed there were 12 mass exinctions, and I-can’t-even-wager-a-guess to how many ice ages, and tropical ages, there were. All before humans were even here.
Blake, baby!
Where is all this coming from?
For starters, since you love to demand citations, let’s see some for ALL of these.
Hoo-boy. While you’re providing citations, show me the one that says water is cycled and purified faster the more of it we use all at one time.
Even if everything is cycled, we are still in an essentially closed system. If you have cause to disbelieve this, show your facts on just what is providng replacement-rate additions to world resources. I’ve never heard a soul argue that there isn’t SOME kind of limit on our resources.
Okay. Caveman Economics 101:
Demand go up, Supply go down: price go UP.
Demand go down, Supply go up: price go DOWN.
If your historical revision held even a shred of truth, the price of lumber would have gone down. The truth of the matter is, lumber supplies began to fall, increasing the price, which led plastics manufacturers to simulate wood products more cheaply with plastics, increasing demand for the new products.
Since this quote is the only thing you provided a cite for, I’ll start by pointing out that 1969 was 34 years ago, not 20 (“Math is hard!” - Barbie Doll, mid- 80s)
It’s not just a simple quibble with numbers, it deals a span of time when there were significant and effective efforts to educate the world public about pollution and overpopulation.
A Wall Street Journal Publication of the late 1960s (“Here Comes Tomorrow”, 1967) cites pollution statistics ONLY as a means of measuring the productivity of the nations factories. The smell of monoxide was considered the smell of progress, and the landscape was the poorer for it. I don’t need a cite for that part, I SAW it with my own eyes.
Your Erlich quote was made BEFORE any of these efforts got underway, so claiming that history has not borne him out is without merit.
So what is the truth in the global warming debate? What will insure the survival of mankind and society as we know it for many centuries into the future? The answer is the common sense application of sustainable development. How does this relate to global warming? In February, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), stated in Paris that “the objectives of sustainable development are largely convergent with actions required in mitigating and adapting to the onset of climate change”. The UN, which helped establish the IPCC, seems to have recognized the great potential that threats of catastrophic climate change have in furthering their goal of a bureaucratically engineered future.
The IPCC is using global warming as a springboard for promoting a political agenda. As Bjorn Lomborg points out, IPCC’s 2001 report tells us that we should build cars and trains with lower top speed and, in order to avoid demand for transport, we should obtain a regionalized economy and avoid international travel. The IPCC wants to move away from consumption and have individuals choose free time instead of wealth. The report calls for help from the media in “shaping lifestyles and aspirations” of individuals. A central authority whose goal is to control the aspirations of myself and the inhabitants of Third World countries? I don’t think so!
A recent example of the political agenda involved occurred when Greenpeace blocked a pilot program for geologic carbon sequestration, which is endorsed by the Union of Concerned Scientist. The storing of carbon underground to reduce the carbon dioxide that is released into the atmosphere does not fall into the category of restricting human activities so many in the global warming community will not support it.
Well, you might want to actually give us some sort of cite rather than tell us how “sure” you are. You may also want to consider the difference that might occur between oil leaking out deep under the ocean and leaking out on the surface, near sensitive ecological areas. Are you denying that the ecological effects associated with spills are real?
Yes, but as other pointed out, it is the rate of change that is important here. Besides which, these changes you point out no doubt resulted in severe disruptions…less so in cases when they occurred gradually but still some.
Science works by the accumulation of evidence from a lot of different sources. The temperature record from the last 100 years is just one piece in the whole edifice. We also understand why and how a buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will lead to climate change (and that such a buildup is occuring is undeniable).
So, what is your point exactly? If you think that the earth will survive just fine without us and that life will go on and probably blossom again in (just to throw something out) a few tens of millions of years, I won’t disagree.
The point is that in the “geological short term” (which is long on human time scales), there will be extreme disruption to humans and to the ecosystem. Is that so minor to you that you’d rather have your Ford Excursion and gas prices subsidized to help you run it than do something about it?
Yes, it’s all some big international socialist plot and the amazing thing is that most publishing scientists, the National Academy of Sciences, … are in on it! :rolleyes:
By the way, to the extent that this is evolving into a debate over global warming, here are 4 Great Debate threads on that subject over the last few years (from most ancient to most recent) for your reading pleasure:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=104877
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=134552
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=136373
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=183320
I don’t have time to answer your questions about what the complaints are with Lomborg. But, I have provided plenty of cites where you can read it yourself.
So…I’ll just stick to this one point:
My point is that it is true that there have been some environmental successes. For example, in declining air pollutants of many kinds in the U.S., in the reduction in blood lead levels following the phase out of leaded gasoline and lead paint, etc.
However (and I don’t know if this is a problem with Lomborg’s book per-say or the use of his book by all these libertarian types), one has to look at why these things happen because people often try to use these successes as justifying a more laissez-faire approach to the environment. Yet, there is little evidence that such a laissez-faire approach works. The evidence is that these successes come about because of exactly the sort of environmental regulation that the Lomborg proponents are trying to scuttle.
Like I said, I don’t know if this is so much a criticism of Lomborg’s book because I don’t know how much it deals with these issues, but it certainly is a criticism of how it is being used by others…and Lomborg doesn’t exactly seem to be stepping in to stop them from misusing his “evidence” in this way.
At any rate, this is just one small point. The larger point is that the picture he paints is apparently far too rosy overall.
I don’t have time to answer your questions about what the complaints are with Lomborg. But, I have provided plenty of cites where you can read it yourself.
So…I’ll just stick to this one point:
My point is that it is true that there have been some environmental successes. For example, in declining air pollutants of many kinds in the U.S., in the reduction in blood lead levels following the phase out of leaded gasoline and lead paint, etc.
However (and I don’t know if this is a problem with Lomborg’s book per-say or the use of his book by all these libertarian types), one has to look at why these things happen because people often try to use these successes as justifying a more laissez-faire approach to the environment. Yet, there is little evidence that such a laissez-faire approach works. The evidence is that these successes come about because of exactly the sort of environmental regulation that the Lomborg proponents are trying to scuttle.
Like I said, I don’t know if this is so much a criticism of Lomborg’s book because I don’t know how much it deals with these issues, but it certainly is a criticism of how it is being used by others…and Lomborg doesn’t exactly seem to be stepping in to stop them from misusing his “evidence” in this way.
At any rate, this is just one small point. The larger point is that the picture he paints is apparently far too rosy overall.
I don’t have time to answer your questions about what the complaints are with Lomborg. But, I have provided plenty of cites where you can read it yourself.
So…I’ll just stick to this one point:
My point is that it is true that there have been some environmental successes. For example, in declining air pollutants of many kinds in the U.S., in the reduction in blood lead levels following the phase out of leaded gasoline and lead paint, etc.
However (and I don’t know if this is a problem with Lomborg’s book per-say or the use of his book by all these libertarian types), one has to look at why these things happen because people often try to use these successes as justifying a more laissez-faire approach to the environment. Yet, there is little evidence that such a laissez-faire approach works. The evidence is that these successes come about because of exactly the sort of environmental regulation that the Lomborg proponents are trying to scuttle.
Like I said, I don’t know if this is so much a criticism of Lomborg’s book because I don’t know how much it deals with these issues, but it certainly is a criticism of how it is being used by others…and Lomborg doesn’t exactly seem to be stepping in to stop them from misusing his “evidence” in this way.
At any rate, this is just one small point. The larger point is that the picture he paints is apparently far too rosy overall.
You seem to be asking me to prove a negative?
this is pre school stuff. http://www-k12.atmos.washington.edu/k12/pilot/water_cycle/grabber2.html
You haven’t herd avery wide range of opinions then.
If you are interested, try this one: http://www.atse.org.au/publications/focus/focus-ridley.htm
How are the flaws in they reasoning? Let me count the ways.
Perhaps I could solve it easily by asking why it costs more to hire a blacksmith now than it did in 1925? When you have worked that out then you will have the answer.
You’re right, it is caveman economics, and it only applies in caveman society. Once we have a situation where people and equipment provide a large part of our capital outlay, and capital can be invested it all falls to pieces.
Anything else you want a cite for, just ask. Always happy to oblige.
Where did I say otherwise? Do you know what parody means?
Jshore
Aaargh. You did it again.
I won’t dispute what you say about laissez far systems probably not working. That isn’t the point. The point is that ‘The Litany’ Lomborg criticises is largely untrue, and that is the criticism he levels. It is not a valid criticism to say that he doesn’t address the benefits of environmental legislation. That was never his point.
Again, this isn’t a valid criticism. Lomborg has no legal. moral or scientific obligation to do so.
You are using the same criticism levelled at Einstein when his work contributed to the nuclear bomb. IMO it was never Einstein’s job to step in and stop the US government misusing his evidence, and yet you seem to be implying that it is the job of every researcher to do exactly that.
Anybody know how to prevent this automatic re-submissions or whatever happens? I tried looking in my Netscape preferences but couldn’t see where I could change a setting to prevent this.
Well, the answer to these arguments that I have seen is
(1) The “litany” is not largely untrue.
(2) In the cases where things have gotten better [and one can argue about whether this goes against “the litany”], they have often gotten better because people have recognized the problems and taken action to make them better. They have not generally gotten better just through the magic of the market (which generally does not correctly internalize environmental costs into the costs of the products that produce these costs).
(1) Einstein and many of the other scientists spoke out vociferously on the subject of the use of nuclear technology and nuclear weapons. They felt a moral responsibility to do so.
(2) Let’s not be naive here. Lomborg’s book has become part of a rather massive effort on the part of conservative and libertarian groups and some of the corporate interests that help fund them to discredit the environmental movement and to try to get more laissez-faire policies adopted. I am not sure how much of this philosophy appears in Lomborg’s book…apparently some does…but even if it doesn’t, shouldn’t he speak out against it if he believes that this would take things in the wrong direction? It is quite clear to me that his whole “I am a liberal environmentalist who just happened upon the truth” shtick is B.S. Maybe he was a liberal at one time (hell, apparently Bork was practically a socialist at one point) but it is rather clear to me that this is not the case now. And, he hasn’t happened upon the truth; rather, he has happened upon one side of many arguments … often the side that has been discredited in the peer-reviewed scientific community.
Can you show some examples of where ‘The Litany’ as presented by Lomborg is not largely untrue?
Which is simply restating the same point. How is it this in any way a criticism of Lomborg? Are you implying that he controls ‘the market’?
Which in no way addresses whether the criticism that they had an obligation to do so. People feel they have a responsibility to do all sort of things. That does not oblige anyone else to do so does it?
I would think that most people in western democracies would fel that he has the right to do so or not as he sees fit. You seem to be implying that he does not have this right. If he does have this right, then you are in fact criticising him simply for exercising it. Freedom of speech is also freedom to not speak isn’t it?
And the rest of you post I am afraid is simply baseless ad hominem attacks. It isn’t in any way criticism of Lomborg’s work.
jshore said:
Blake said:
[quote]
How are the flaws in they reasoning? Let me count the ways.
Perhaps I could solve it easily by asking why it costs more to hire a blacksmith now than it did in 1925? When you have worked that out then you will have the answer.
You’re right, it is caveman economics, and it only applies in caveman society. Once we have a situation where people and equipment provide a large part of our capital outlay, and capital can be invested it all falls to pieces. **
If you’d both stop trying to be smart-alecks and explain in simple terms the point you’re trying to make, you would get a lot farther.
jshore, Blake was saying that because the cheap plastic alternatives took the profit margin out of lumber, the lumber companies stopped providing lumber, which drove the prices up.
He may or may not be correct in his cause and effect, but smart-mouthing his statement with “Caveman Economics 101” loses you points.
Blake, if you’d actually spell out your point instead of hint at it maybe people wouldn’t misunderstand you so often.