FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-09-2003, 11:37 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 20
Default Questions about the environment/environmentalism.

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.
Deathray 6 is offline  
Old 05-09-2003, 07:38 PM   #2
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,606
Default Re: Questions about the environment/environmentalism.

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Deathray 6

1. Is there really a global warming trend?
probably.
Quote:

If global warming is the trend, are humans or natural processes the main cause of it?
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.

Quote:

2. Are humans mainly responsible for ozone depletion?
It seems so.

Quote:

Also, why is the ozone hole above unpopluated Antarctica rather than above densely populated urban/industrialised areas?
The effects of ODCs are fairly slow. Air circulation causes the accumulation at the southern pole.

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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?
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.

Quote:

6. Is Bjorn Lomborg's controversial work "The Skeptical Environmentalist" taken seriously by most ecologists, or is it considered to be bunk?
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.

Quote:

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.
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.

Quote:

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?
These are generally outside of scientific basis, generally ideologically based.
jayh is offline  
Old 05-10-2003, 01:30 PM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 9,747
Default Re: Questions about the environment/environmentalism.

Quote:
Originally posted by Deathray 6

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?
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.

Quote:
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?
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.

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

Quote:
4. Does recycling really help?
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?

Quote:
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?
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.

Quote:
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.
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.

Quote:
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.
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.

Quote:
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?
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
theyeti is offline  
Old 05-11-2003, 11:51 AM   #4
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Hiding from Julian ;)
Posts: 5,368
Default Re: Questions about the environment/environmentalism.

Quote:
Originally posted by Deathray 6
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.
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.
Corona688 is offline  
Old 05-11-2003, 04:37 PM   #5
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,832
Default Re: Questions about the environment/environmentalism.

Quote:
Originally posted by Deathray 6
4. Does recycling really help?
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 is offline  
Old 05-12-2003, 12:58 AM   #6
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,832
Default Re: Questions about the environment/environmentalism.

Quote:
Originally posted by Deathray 6
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.
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/
Quote:
I call on all scientists, organizations, and citizens to publish this document on their websites. I do not believe Scientific American can prevent this legitimate right of free speech. The entire editorial was an attack on Bjorn Lomborg. Surely he has a perfect right to defend himself on his own website. I am willing to bring this to the test. Please help with this effort. If you do not have a website then send the document to someone who does.

(snip)

I don't necessarily agree with every word of Lomborg's impressive book, but that is not the issue here. The environmental movement has become riddled with extremism, misinformation, misguided priorities and downright deception. It is wonderful that this dogmatic conceit is now being effectively challenged. Let's put some wind in Lomborg's sails!
Further, Lomborg's comments on several of SciAm’s chosen critics are valid. From the same site …
Quote:
Notice that these four experts have certainly not been chosen randomly – two of the four reviewers are actually directly criticized in my book. Lovejoy predicted back in 1980, that 15-20 percent of all species on earth would have died by the year 2000 (1980:331, SE:252), a prediction which clearly did not hold true and this is pointed out in the book. Holdren back in 1980 also clearly thought that many resources were running out. Along with Ehrlich and Holdren, he bet on this belief with Julian Simon:

“Frustrated with the incessant claims that the Earth would run out of oil, food and raw materials, the economist Julian Simon in 1980 challenged the established beliefs with a bet. He offered to bet $10,000 that any given raw material – to be picked by his opponents – would have dropped in price at least one year later. The environmentalists Ehrlich, Harte and Holdren, all of Stanford University, accepted the challenge, stating that “the lure of easy money can be irresistible.” The environmentalists staked their bets on chromium, copper, nickel, tin and tungsten, and they picked a time frame of ten years. The bet was to be determined ten years later, assessing whether the real (inflation-adjusted) prices had gone up or down. In September 1990 not only had the total basket of raw materials but also each individual raw material dropped in price. Chromium had dropped 5 percent, tin a whopping 74 percent. The doomsayers had lost.

Truth is they could not have won. Ehrlich and Co. would have lost no matter whether they had staked their money on petroleum, foodstuffs, sugar, coffee, cotton, wool, minerals or phosphates. They had all become cheaper.” (SE:137). Since 1990 the price of raw materials has declined another third (Economist industrial price index, SE:138).
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.
Quote:
However, one of its contributors, Stephen Schneider, has on a former occasion made a suggestion that might throw some light on the curious imbalance of the Feature under consideration.

Schneider considers the ”ethical double bind” that might occur to the scientist who is also concerned to contribute to a better world. As a scientist he focuses on truth. As a concerned citizen he must take an interest in political efficiency. Quite obviously, Schneider finds that this presents a delicate dilemma and he expresses the hope that one might be both honest and effective. However, as Schneider agonizes over this dilemma he does offer the following bit of unambiguous advice “So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.” 1 Could John Rennie have taken this as editorial advice? I don’t know, but I feel that it would account for the tone and the lack of balance of the Feature considered as a whole. Unfortunately, this tone and lack of balance also seem to represent a disappointing and painful abandonment of the long proud tradition of enlightenment and rationality for which Scientific American has been respected in the past.
(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.
echidna is offline  
Old 05-12-2003, 01:40 AM   #7
Moderator - Science Discussions
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Providence, RI, USA
Posts: 9,908
Default

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):

Quote:
I thought that S.E. was a funny mix of two things. For many of the chapters (Measuring human welfare, Life expectancy and health, Food and hunger, Prosperity... basically all of Part II, and parts of Part III and IV) he makes good arguments. But they're not new, and he's setting up straw men to knock them down--no scientists, for example, are out there arguing that we're running out of space to store our garbage. So he picks on groups like WorldWatch Institute. Fair enough, in my opinion--there's no question that many environmental groups, like any dependent on direct mail and memberships contribubtions, tend to benefit from a sense of crisis. But this argument has been made before, and much more eloquently, by Greg Easterbrook in his book "The Skeptical Environmentalist." If you haven't read it, do; it's much more readable than Mr. Lomborg's tome and its 3000 footnotes.

However, in a number of the chapters, S.E. is totally different. It has to be: while issues like biodiversity and global warming are tricky and complex, there *is* a scientific consensus here that is at odds with Mr. Lomborg's thesis (the Julian Simon most-people-are-getting-better-most-of-the-time one, extended to these topics). So he changes tactics, and the book becomes much more deceptive, in my opinion. Given that there is a broad scientific consensus (e.g., IPCC 2001 for global climate change), Lomborg has to become much more highly selective in his sources and assumptions; it's this selectivity that was noted most frequently by those critics in Scientific American.

One final note: the Economist is an excellent magazine, but it's not unbiased. I was surprised to read their claim that no evidence has been adduced against the book. Well, no, no one that I've read has found that S.E. said 1 when in reallity it's 2; but again, selectivity of sources and presentation is everything.
Jesse is offline  
Old 05-12-2003, 08:45 AM   #8
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 9,747
Default Re: Re: Questions about the environment/environmentalism.

Quote:
Originally posted by echidna
(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.
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
theyeti is offline  
Old 05-12-2003, 10:29 AM   #9
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Louisville, KY, USA
Posts: 1,840
Default

Quote:
Deathray:
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?
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
ps418 is offline  
Old 05-12-2003, 03:31 PM   #10
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,832
Default Re: Re: Re: Questions about the environment/environmentalism.

Quote:
Originally posted by 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.
Well then, how about we check Schneider’s text …
Quote:
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 make the world a better place, which in this context translates in our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails gaining 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 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

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 ...
Quote:
Vested interests have repeatedly claimed I advocate exaggerating threats. Their "evidence" comes from partially quoting my Discover interview, almost always -like Simon - omitting the last line and the phrase "double ethical bind." They also omit my solutions to the double ethical bind: (1) use metaphors that succinctly convey both urgency and uncertainty (pg. xi of Ref. 3) and (2) produce an inventory of written products from editorials to articles to books, so that those who want to know more about an author's views on both the caveats and the risks have a hierarchy of detailed written sources to which they can turn.3,4,5 What I was telling the Discover interviewer, of course, was my disdain for a soundbite-communications process that imposes the double ethical bind on all who venture into the popular media. To twist my openly stated and serious objections to the soundbite process into some kind of advocacy of exaggeration is a clear distortion. Moreover, not only do I disapprove of the "ends justify the means" philosophy of which I am accused, but, in fact have actively campaigned against it in myriad speeches and writings. Instead, I repeatedly advocate that scientists explicitly warn their audiences that "what to do" is a value choice as opposed to "what can happen" and "what are the odds," which are scientific issues (e.g. p. 213 of Ref. 3). I also urge that scientists, when they offer probabilities, work hard to distinguish which are objective and which are subjective, as well as what is the scientific basis for any probability offered. For such reasons I was honored to receive, in 1991, the AAAS/Westinghouse Award for the Public Understanding of Science.
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.
echidna is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:36 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.