A Few Commentaries on Lomborg Debate
July 12th, 2005Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
Last year I co-guest edited a special issue of Environmental Science and Policy on various dimensions of the debate over The Skeptical Environmentalist. Several comments responding to papers in that special issue have now been published, and we have set up a special WWW page for them:
1. Peter Dougherty, an editor at Princeton University Press, provides a commentary (PDF) on Chris Harrison’s paper (Chris edited TSE) Dougherty writes,
“The major point Chris Harrison makes in his account of the publication of Lomborg is that the reaction on the part of the book’s fiercest critics “went beyond the usual unpicking of a thesis and concentrated instead on the role of the publisher in publishing the book at all.” This is a highly unusual, but not unheard of, state of affairs in university press publishing. It invites a publisher to explore the considerations leading up to the publishing decision, and in this case the same publisher’s actions in defending its decision after the book’s publication. In both cases, Harrison’s account reflects a high degree of professionalism on the part of Cambridge University Press.”
2. Eva Lövbrand and Gunilla Öberg comment on papers by Dan Sarewitz and one that I wrote. They write (PDF),
“We agree that the linear model of science policy interplay is sadly outdated and in need of replacement, but fear that a renewed demarcation between the realms of facts and value conflicts rather will reinforce than challenge the logic that it rests upon. In order to move forward, we argue that it is necessary to instigate a reflexive and philosophically informed discussion about the situated and provisional nature of scientific advice in environmental policy-making among scientists themselves and those making use of scientific results.”
Dan and I write a response (PDF),
“But okay, let us imagine a world in which this ideal discussion between natural scientists and decision makers is actually taking place, with the result that all participants in the conversation understand that knowledge is “situated and provisional,” and that facts and values, science and notscience, are not clearly delineated. In this world, are we to expect that the newly enlightened scientists would then initiate “a public discussion about the limits to scientific inquiry and hence [open] up for social monitoring and scrutiny of scientific results [sic]“? Presumably, these enlightened scientists would no longer worry about where their funding will come from, and they would, moreover, be willing to cede their considerable authority to a bunch of social scientists.”
You can find the whole series here.
July 12th, 2005 at 11:07 am
“A proliferation of nongovernmental
organizations and scientific bodies repeatedly invoke science to warn us of the potential for irreversible and, possibly, catastrophic environmental decline, unless people on the planet mend their ways. Powerful interests resist this message, increasingly by attacking the science that informs it.”
I attack the PSEUDOscience that “informs the message” that CO2 emissions are a significant environmental problem. Just like I attack the pseudoscience that “informs the message” of books like “Limits to Growth” and “Beyond the Limits.”
I attack pseudoscience, as should every person who claims to be a “scientist.”
July 12th, 2005 at 5:59 pm
Mark, just as climate models need to be checked with regard to how well they work when applied to past climate, I’m curious how you would apply your approach to science to the most recent similar scientific controversy, to wit the one over the health effects of tobacco. I ask this because I noticed you’re happy to quote Fred Singer and junkscience.com in support of your stance on climate.
Also, what is your view on all the recent science on the health effects of fine particulates? Is that also “pseudoscience”?
July 12th, 2005 at 8:13 pm
Mark, just as climate models need to be checked with regard to how well they work when applied to past climate, I’m curious how you would apply your approach to science to the most recent similar scientific controversy, to wit the one over the health effects of tobacco.”
1) When you refer to the “health effects of tobacco,” are you referring to “second hand smoke” or the health effects to actual smokers? (Or don’t you think it makes any difference?)
2) How are the projections in the IPCC TAR in any way scientifically similar to debates about the health effects of tobacco smoke (primary or secondary)?
“I ask this because I noticed you’re happy to quote Fred Singer and junkscience.com in support of your stance on climate.”
1) Where and when have I *ever* quoted Fred Singer on climate change, Steve?
2) The only time I ever recall quoting the junkscience.com website was concerning the (ridiculous) methane projections in the IPCC TAR versus the actual methane concentrations experienced since 1990. Do you disagree with my assessment that the IPCC TAR’s methane projections are ridiculously high?
“Also, what is your view on all the recent science on the health effects of fine particulates?”
I don’t have opinions on “all the recent science” of any subject. I sometimes have opinions about specific documents or claims in documents. (Such as my opinion that the projections for methane atmospheric concentrations, CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations, and resultant temperature increases in the IPCC TAR constitute the greatest fraud in the history of environmental science.)
Mark Bahner (environmental engineer)
July 13th, 2005 at 9:58 am
Mark – in your short (first) comment above you either have a problem with the science itself or the people (i.e. enviros) that are using science incorrectly. If it’s the latter, that isn’t the fault of the scientists and their research. But I think you imply that it is the former, in which case you need to back up your claims of ‘pseudoscience’ with solid science research of your own. If the former, you’re also saying that either:
1- all climate science and/or any research on links between CO2 and altered climate is ‘pseudoscience,’ or
2- any research that shows that rising CO2 levels might have deleterious effects on climate is ‘pseudoscience,’ or
3- any research saying that CO2 is a big environmental problem *right now* is ‘pseudoscience.’
Which is it? If it’s 1, then you’ve got issues with science in general and your comments aren’t worth discussing.
If it’s 2, combining paleoclimatological indicators that infer past relationships between climate system components with GCM studies to make best educated guesses about the future is not pseudoscience, it is what it is: a best guess. This ‘best guess’ (nobody can really know about the future, can they?) points to a risk, but risk implies both knowledge and uncertainty. No climate researcher is claiming otherwise in any published study that I’ve seen. Where’s the ‘pseudo’ then? Unless you’re calling publishing on model results itself ‘pseudoscience?’ If so, refer to comment 1 above.
If it’s 3, which scientists besides Paul Epstein (and he’s not a climate scientist, no matter how much he wants to be or calls himself as) are claiming – or better yet, actually publishing research – that shows that CO2 is a current environmental problem?
July 13th, 2005 at 3:35 pm
To move on, Lomborg is pushing a rather familiar fallacy, to wit, examine a problem, find another, claim that the one you found is more important and should be dealt with first. Then fund neither.
This is quite separate from the fact that his science is mostly pop fiction.
July 16th, 2005 at 8:33 am
I tried to respond to Kevin Vranes comments and questions of July 13, 9:58 am on this weblog. But apparently there were some technical problems (my response was blocked, apparently because I included a URL).
So I responded to Keven Vranes’ comments and questions on my own weblog (see the website hyperlinked to my signature).
Kevin Vranes also came to my weblog with further comments and questions, and I responded to his additional comments and questions.
P.S. To bring this back to the discussion at hand, what I was originally (and still am) objecting to was the statement that, “Powerful interests resist this message, increasingly by attacking the science that informs it.”
This was an especially objectionable statement, because it was used in the discussion of Bjorn Lomborg’s book, and because of the farcical Scientific American issue in which “science” purported to “defend itself against The Skeptical Environmentalist.”
First, no one I’m aware of has ever made any claim that Bjorn Lomborg was “representing powerful interests.” By his own account, Lomborg was a man who set out to prove that Julian Simon was wrong, and instead found that most of what Julian Simon wrote was right. To my knowledge, no one has ever disputed this account (i.e. shown that Lomborg was funded by “powerful interests,” to reach a conclusion desired by these “powerful interests”).
Second, Bjorn Lomborg did NOT, in general, “attack the science” of the issues he addressed. For example, regarding global warming, Bjorn Lomborg assumed that the world was going to warm by 2-2.5 degrees Celsius from 1990 to 2100. That estimate, in my opinion, is too high…but there is no way it can be characterized as “attacking the science” of global warming.
As I remember The Skeptical Environmentalist (it’s been a few years since I read it), it made two basic points:
1) The public has a far more negative opinion of the “state of the planet” than is justified by objective scientific data. The excessively negative opinion is fostered by a prediliction towards negative stories in the media, and
2) Some genuinely significant environmental problems (e.g. clean drinking water in developing countries) are underemphasized.
That’s why the Scientific American piece was such a farce. First off, the Scientific American piece did not bring in even ONE scientist to support The Skeptical Environmentalist in any way. Second, the quality of the “defense” was abysmal…I’m thinking specifically of Stephen Schneider’s comments on global warming.
July 19th, 2005 at 11:29 am
As Prof. Pielke pointed out about two weeks ago, climate change is a big deal. But Lomborg claims it is not, at least not enough that significant resources should be devoted to dealing with it.
Mark Bahner is clearly in Lomborg;s corner, not so much because he believes that other things are big deals, but because he thinks that he knows better on climate change and it ain’t no big deal. Therefore supporting Lomborg advances his ideas.
We have three positions:
1. Climate change is a big deal and we have to spend time and effort on remediation starting now (the IPCC consensus position).
2. Climate change is a big (medium) deal but there are other things we need to concentrate on first (the Lomborg position ).
3. Climate change is no big deal (the SEPP position).
Inquiring minds ask where does Prof. Pielke stand.
July 19th, 2005 at 12:10 pm
Thanks Eli for your question. Here you go:
Pielke, Jr., R. A., 1998: Rethinking the Role of Adaptation in Climate Policy. Global Environmental Change, 8(2), 159-170.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resourse-161-1998.13.pdf
Sarewitz, D., R. A. Pielke, Jr., 2000: Breaking the Global-Warming Gridlock. The Atlantic Monthly, 286(1), 55-64.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resourse-69-2000.18.pdf
Pielke, Jr., R.A., 2002: Statement of Dr. Roger A. Pielke, Jr. to the Committee on Environment and Public Works if the United States Senate, Hearing on Economic and Environmental Risks Associated with Increasing Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/homepages/roger_pielke/rp_senate/13_2002/index.html
Pielke, Jr., R. A., 2002: Response of Dr. Roger A. Pielke, Jr. to Questions Posed by the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the United States Senate, Hearing on Economic and Environmental Risks Associated with Increasing Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/homepages/roger_pielke/rp_senate/13_2002/testimony_questions.pdf
Pielke, Jr., R. A. and D. Sarewitz, 2003. Wanted: Scientific Leadership on Climate, Issues in Science and Technology, Winter, pp. 27-30.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/2003.01.pdf
Pielke, Jr., R. A., 2004:What is Climate Change?, Issues in Science and Technology, Summer, 1-4.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resourse-486-2004.09.pdf
Sarewitz, D., and R.A. Pielke, Jr., 2005. Rising Tide, The New Republic, January 6.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resourse-1694-2005.01.pdf
Pielke, Jr., R. A. and D. Sarewitz, 2005. Bringing Society back into the Climate Debate, Population and Environment, Volume 26, Number 3, pp. 255-268.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resourse-1688-2005.25.pdf
More here: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/publications/?selectedLists%5B%5D=1&year=&authorList=&searchString=&selectAllMetadata=true&newSearch=true&doSearch=Submit
July 21st, 2005 at 10:47 am
“As Prof. Pielke pointed out about two weeks ago, climate change is a big deal.”
I think it’s a big deal, too. I think the IPCC TAR’s projections for methane atmospheric concentrations, CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations, and resulting temperature increases, constitute the greatest fraud in the history of environmental science. I think the IPCC is destroying the very idea that environmental researchers CAN do scientific research.
Since I’m an environmental engineer by profession, I think that’s a very big deal.
“Mark Bahner is clearly in Lomborg’s corner,…”
I’m never in ***anybody’s*** corner. I agree with people when they are right, and disagree with them when they are wrong.
Bjorn Lomborg wrote that it was probable (presumably meaning, “greater than 50% chance”) that the earth will warm by 2 to 2.5 degrees Celsius in the 21st century. I think there’s less than approximately 1 chance in 4 that the earth will warm by more than 2 degrees Celsius in the 21st century.
Bjorn Lomborg wrote the problems engendered by his projected warming would be worth X dollars, in present value terms. (I don’t have the number in front of me.) But clearly the costs of the problems would be related to the amount of warming; i.e., more warming, more problems. So since I think there will be less warming, I think there will be less costs.
“…not so much because he believes that other things are big deals,…”
No, I DO think other things are “big deals.” Contaminated drinking water kills millions of people every year. Indoor air pollution from little or no venting of heating stoves and cookstoves kills in the neighborhood of a million people per year. Outdoor air pollution in the developing world’s megacities (e.g. Beijing, Bombay, Mexico City, etc.) kills in the neighborhood of a million people per year.
Switching to more broadly defined “environmental problems”…malaria kills over a million people per year.
I defy ANYONE to attempt to argue that *future* climate change is more important than any one of those *present* problems. (Let alone arguing that the best way to attack climate change is by reducing ***CO2*** emissions, rather than black carbon or methane.)