Deathray 6

I have a few questions about the environmental debates and what the general scientific concensus is on them. I'm really concerned about environmental issues, but there has been some debate on another message board I frequent (Penn & Teller's "Bullshit" MB).

1. Is there really a global warming trend? I remember hearing about research several decades ago pointing towards "global cooling." If global warming is the trend, are humans or natural processes the main cause of it?

2. Are humans mainly responsible for ozone depletion? Also, why is the ozone hole above unpopluated Antarctica rather than above densely populated urban/industrialised areas?

3. Are the figures for modern-day species extinctions truly reliable, or is the "man-made mass extinction" concept mostly conjecture?

4. Does recycling really help?

5. According to recent research, the population explosion is ending and that the Earth's population will top off at between 8 to 12 billion humans. Is this true, and if so, is it a good thing?

6. Is Bjorn Lomborg's controversial work "The Skeptical Environmentalist" taken seriously by most ecologists, or is it considered to be bunk? I do understand that Lomborg is not an ecologist, but rather a statitician (did I spell that right?), but I am still curious as the level of validity of his studies.

7. There's been many criticisms, mostly emotional in nature, against genetically engineered foodstuffs (specifically crops). I've always thought that GE crops would be very beneficial to the people of the world and could solve or at least alleviate the problems of starvation, etc. Are GE crops really bad, or is this just people being worrisome about something they don't know much about? Such criticisms seem to be coming almost solely from strict advocates of organic foods.

8. What's the deal with vegans, raw fooders, etc.? Humans are by their own nature omnivores. Is the choice to not eat meat simply a political/cultural statement? Also, isn't it generally unhealthy?

There were some other questions, but I forgot. Any input (preferably from an unbiased source) would help me a lot in my debates with people I know. Thanks.

jayh

These are quick and dirty answers, for more information do more research.

probably.
Neither is really proven, though enough man made components have been introduced into the atmosphere to alter the temperature according to the better climate models.

It seems so.

The effects of ODCs are fairly slow. Air circulation causes the accumulation at the southern pole.

There is no way to actually count how many species have been lost, because it's something that can't be observed. The figures are estimates based on habitat loss, which is measurable.

Depends what figures you trust. Certain kinds probably do help, but a lot of others are of questionable value.

That is still conjecture. I would suggest that it is already overpopulated, so 8-12B is not a good thing. The only things that would cause it to level off are massive use of birth control (hardly likely--even in the 'advanced' nations populations continue to grow). The other population levelling factors are starvation and disease, not good things.

He raises some valid points, but many scientifc ecologists (not counting ideological environmentalists) seem to disagree with many of his conclusions. Scientific American has had an ongoing point and counterpoint with him.

GE can be good, or bad. Personally the biggest problem is the legal component, where the manufacturers have locked up rights to grow future generations using patent law. This is a substantial distortion of thousands of years of tradition.

These are generally outside of scientific basis, generally ideologically based.

theyeti

Yes, there is a global warming trend. That much is true regardless of what one believes the cause is.

The claims about a "global cooling" trend a few decades ago are a red herring. While there were some researchers who warned back in the 70's about the possibility of a new ice age, there was never anything approaching a consensus on the matter. The idea was quickly abandoned, and the whole issue doesn't really deserve to be brought up in the context of today's global warming debate.

Are human beings responsible for the warming trend? Highly likely. Current climatological models cannot account for the increase in temperature without anthropogenic CO2 as a forcing agent. We know that CO2 traps heat, and we know that the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased a great deal since the industrial revolution. That makes the lines of cause and effect pretty clear.

There is still debate over how much warming is due to human activity, and what the effects of that warming will be. From a policy standpoint, the idea is that it's better to be safe than sorry. Here is an FAQ from NOAA, a reputable source:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

When looking for information on this subject, I suggest sticking to well-known scientific organizations, like NOAA, NASA, the NSA, and others. There is a sizable lobby of global warming denialists, mostly funded by the coal and oil industries, that consists of dozens of groups with impressive sounding names and lots of money. Most of what they say is complete bullshit, so ignore them. (Or better yet, refute them.) I would ignore the environmentalists too and stick to the reputable scientific groups.

Humans were mainly responsible for ozone depletion until CFCs were banned. Since then, the ozone layer has been making a comeback. The scientists who discovered the relationship between CFCs and ozone depletion have since been awarded the Nobel Prize. It's just not a debatable issue in the scientific community anymore.

The hole's position over the Antarctic is explained here.

The remainder of the Robert Parson FAQ is here. Supposedly it's the best all-around on the web -- even NASA talks about it.

That would depend on what the figures are you're talking about. I assume that the figures provided by reputable researchers are reliable, but I don't know what those figures are. I will have to look into this one more when I have time.

That's a good question. It probably helps, but it's definitely not all it's cracked up to be. It's better to say that it has good potential. Given that recycling isn't hard to do, I don't see any rational reason not to do it. But anyway, here's a good brief article: Is recycling worth it?

Yes, it's true. (At least it's true that this is what the research says; I don't know if it will actually happen or not.) Whether or not it's a good thing depends on what you think the ideal global population should be, and what you think the ideal growth rate should be. Supposedly, world population will level off at around 10 billion in the year 2050. That's a lot of growth in a short period of time. There is also the issue of whether these extra people will be able to live like us in the West, or whether they'll be in perpetual poverty.

Lomborg's work is considered to be bunk. It is considered to be a highly deceptive polemic and not at all a serious piece of environmental research.
At least that's the reaction from the environmental sciences community (which includes ecologists, demographers, health experts, etc.). I haven't read Lomborg's book, but I've read some of his other work and have seen how he distorts his sources. Some of his claims might be valid, but you should never believe anything he says without independent verification.

That's a good question. IMO, I think that there are many legitimate concerns about GE crops, mostly as pertains to the ability for implanted genes to find their way into other organisms. But on the whole, I think that GE crops will be highly beneficial to people and the environment, if we do it right. I would like to see tighter regulations and more testing, but I definitely don't want to see the research stopped.

You can be a vegetarian and be quite healthy. But you can also be an unhealthy vegetarian if you don't get the right amount of protein. I think that most people would benefit from heavily reducing their meat intake, but there's no reason to believe that completely removing meat from the diet is going to be of major benefit. And it could even be harmful. There is no environmentally sound reason to switch to vegetarianism that I know of, because although it allows us to use less land for the same amount of food, the difference is negated by a few years of population growth. Ultimately it comes down to whether you think it's morally sound to kill animals for food.

Hope that helps.

theyeti

Corona688

This is a particular beef of mine... people seem to think genetic engineering's just evil to the bone... it's not like we haven't been doing it since the dawn of civillization with selective breeding anyway. The problem, I think, is the way genetic engineering's being USED...

1) Patents. Just think how much back-pay we'd be paying the Sumerians if they'd invented the patenting system along with agriculture. ( Only half-joking. )
2) Subversion of agriculture. To avoid problems like, well, farmers being able to actually grow this stuff without paying through the nose, some companies have been attempting to engineer so called 'terminator seeds'. The plants grown from them produce sterile seeds. This is abominable - stealing the *ONE* thing from farmers that allows them to be self-sufficient. This, imho, is tantamount to slavery.
3) Misapplication. Are we seeing wheat with 20% more protein, oats with vitamin D, or anything like that? No. We get abominations like Roundup Ready Canola, a breed engineered to flourish under intense concentrations of pesticide.

It's things like this, that make me want to jump on the anti-GE bandwagon, sometimes; but there is a lot of good it's done as well...

In poor growing seasons in Africa, there is one crop a lot of people depend on for food in adversity.. can't find the article, but it's similar to the chick-pea. It can grow in nearly any conditions. The problem is, it's not very healthy to eat - the toxins in it slowly, permanently damange your nervous system the more you eat it. A strain of it was engineered to produce MUCH less toxin, and has enjoyed great success.

echidna

Further to what's already been posted, recycling is only the last option of the 3 R's. In minimising our environmental footprint, re-cycling will always come thirdplace to re-ducing and re-using.

echidna

Lomborg is widely unpopular in the environmental science fields, but with such a wide-ranging commentary it would be naïve to dismiss him out of hand. Many of the points he raises are valid & much of the raucous objection to his work is simply to obscure his valid points simply by muddying his name.

For instance, if implemented, the Kyoto Protocols would have delayed the Greenhouse Effect by 6 years over the next 100, and at significant cost. Yes, his costs are in dispute, but aside from that the point is that Kyoto only delays Greenhouse & does not halt it, this is not in dispute. His question, are the costs best allocated here, or would they be better channelled towards say, clean water or sanitation, improved medical facilities in developing nations. Rather than imitating King Canute by vainly trying to command the tide to stop, should resources be better spent, even in part, by dealing with the consequences of Greenhouse. This is a debate which apparently the majority of the scientific community would rather not occur. Because, having made up their own minds that Greenhouse must be stopped at all costs, they have effectively closed off this political course of action, which ultimately should be debated more widely than it has been. There is a public perception amongst many that Kyoto was the answer to our Greenhouse worries. But there remains the strong possibility that Greenhouse cannot be avoided unless by Draconian measures, and as such he argues that not enough is being done to address the consequences of Greenhouse, that all efforts are being channelled into a doomed effort to prevent it. I think his argument warrants discussion rather than the scorn it has.

I also think that his criticisms of some of his detractors are valid observations as well. Scientific American has been particularly disappointing in this field with its clumsy bullying bordering on scientific censorship. For instance he has support from Patrick Moore (not the astronomer) …

http://www.greenspirit.com/lomborg/ Further, Lomborg's comments on several of SciAm’s chosen critics are valid. From the same site … Yes, Lomborg is a political scientist, not an environmental scientist. The point he makes, is that in the past, political scientists and economists have trumped many of the doomsday predictions of environmentalists, indeed even the same environmentalists as criticise him today. No it doesn’t address the specific science yet, but it’s a valid point to be aware of in the debate. (emphasis mine) Another of SciAm’s chosen scientists Stephen Schneider is on the record as saying that it’s morally OK for “scientists” to embellish the truth in order to support a political course of action, that presumably they have decided on. While overly truthful in itself, it also says a lot about any scientific comments which Schneider may make.

Schneider’s defence is that Lomborg is quoting out of context, but having read the entire context, I don’t find Schneider’s complete words any more defensible.

Look, I haven’t read enough to be a complete authority on the debate around Lomborg, but from what I have read, I am extremely sceptical of those who try to dismiss everything he has written as wrong.

Jesse

From a slashdot story about Lomborg, here's a plausible-sounding evaluation of his work (although I haven't looked into this controversy too closely):

theyeti

Echidna, if you read the original article where Schneider made that comment, you'll see that he's been taken grossly out of context by Lomborg and other anti-environmentalists. What Schneider actually said isn't (or shouldn't be) controversial at all. In fact, I think that the Sci-Am response to Lomborg makes a point of this. This is a perfect example of Lomborg's mendacity; you could hardly have found a better one.

theyeti

ps418

Yes, there is a 20th century warming trend. Both anthropogenic and natural causes are likely contributing to it, though its proved incredibly difficult to pin down how signficant a contribution is being made by each.

A Skeptical Environmentalist would probably not deny a warming trend, and may not even deny a partial anthropogenic contribution to that trend. They'd probably say something like "Well, the earth is cooler now than it was at the height of the last interglacial (3-4°C) and is experiencing lower sea levels (~6 meters), and warming is a good thing anyways, especially if you like forests, etc."

I don't know much about global warming, beyond what I've seen in the IPCC reports and so forth. I do know that the global climate system is unstable over long time periods, even with zero anthropogenic contribution, and subject to rapid climate changes (e.g. +/- 5°C in 20-30yrs) that would be absolutely devastating economically if were they to occur right now. For instance, Britain would be in very deep trouble if the Atlantic thermohaline circulation, which brings warm air north, were to slow or stop - which has happened many times in the past. Climate will change dramatically in the future, regardless of what we do. I'm not saying at all that we shouldn't do anything about global warming, because our impact may make things even worse, just that our ability to control the climate is meagre indeed, and we'll still have to deal with the consequences of rapid climate change no matter what we do. Its a matter of when, not if.

Patrick

echidna

Well then, how about we check Schneider’s text … 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

Actually I think Schneider's full words are even more damning. Grossly out of context ? You’re kidding, right ? And how exactly does this not read as a moral obligation to distort the truth ? You mean his last sentence ? He goes to the trouble of writing a 170 word paragraph saying one thing & then in the last 5 words tries to erase it with some kind of disclaimer ? I don’t think so.

But maybe I misunderstand you. Is it OK for scientists to distort the scientific truth to get their moral message accross ? Personally I no would longer view that individual as a scientist, but a campaigner with a scientific background. This is exactly what Moore is complaining about, that the environmental sciences have been hijacked by political campaigners disguised as scientists.

Scneider's own defence is ... Well AFAIC, his squirming is ineffective. Not the last line, nor the "double ethical bind", nor his "solutions" can change what in the end is a very damagingly honest statement which I'm sure he'll regret for the rest of his life.