PLEASE NOTE:
*
CCNet TERRA 3/2003 - 13 January 2003
-------------------------------------
"Thaw in Greenland threatens new ice age: This week's big
chill
could prove a taster of winters to come."
--The Guardian, 11 January 2003
"Chilly winds sweeping in from the Himalayas kept down
temperatures
in Bangladesh, Nepal and northern India, where a month-long cold
spell
has killed nearly 1,000 people, officials and newspaper reports
said
Monday."
--CNN, 13 January 2003
"Vietnam's longest cold spell in 18 years has destroyed a
third of
the early winter-spring rice crop, state media said
yesterday."
--The Strait Times, 11 January 2003
(1) DEATH TOLL NEARS 1,000 IN SOUTH ASIA'S COLD SPELL
CNN, 13 January 2003
(2) VIETNAM'S COLD SPELL DESTROYS RICE CROPS
The Strait Times, 11 January 2003
(3) NEW YORK DECLARES EMERGENCY WEATHER ALERT
New York Post, 13 January 2003
(4) CLIMATE SCARES GO NUTS: GLOBAL WARMING BLAMED FOR COLD SPELL
AND LOOMING
"NEW ICE AGE"
The Guardian, 11 January 2003
(5) US FACES WORST WINTER IN 7 YEARS
ABC News, 10 january 2003
(6) ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISTS THREATEN GOVERNMENT OVER FUEL PRICES
Associated Press, 11 January 2003
(7) COLD WEATHER SPARKS SWEDISH NUCLEAR DEBATE
Planet Ark, January 10, 2003
(8) THOUGHT CONTROL
The Economist, 9 January 2003
(9) DENMARK'S MINISTRY OF TRUTH
Tech Central Station, 10 January 2003
(10) RE: ANTI-LOMBORG PRESS RELEASE
Max Wallis <wallismk@cf.ac.uk>
(11) DEEP FREEZE AND THE MEDIA
Simon Mansfield <simon@spacedaily.com>
(12) AND FINALLY: NO WAY OUT OF 'KYOTO JAIL', AS IRELAND FACE
EUR1.2 BILLION
CLIMATE FINE
Ireland News, 11 January 2003
===========
(1) DEATH TOLL NEARS 1,000 IN SOUTH ASIA'S COLD SPELL
>From CNN, 13 January 2003
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WEATHER/01/13/bangladesh.cold.ap/index.html
DHAKA, Bangladesh (AP) -- Chilly winds sweeping in from the
Himalayas kept
down temperatures in Bangladesh, Nepal and northern India, where
a
month-long cold spell has killed nearly 1,000 people, officials
and
newspaper reports said Monday.
In Bangladesh, at least 50 people, mostly elderly women and
children, died
overnight Sunday due to the intense cold, the Ittefaq newspaper
reported.
The latest deaths raised to 590 the number of people who have
succumbed to
the cold in Bangladesh.
In India's northern Uttar Pradesh state, at least 21 people died
from Sunday
to Monday morning, pushing the death toll from the cold there to
343, a
state government official said on condition of anonymity.
Early morning thick fog hampered road, rail, river and air
transport and
stranded thousands of people for hours in India and Bangladesh.
Morning
flights to Lucknow, the capital of Uttar Pradesh were canceled or
rescheduled for the afternoon.
Schools have been closed until January 16 because of the cold
wave sweeping
the state of 200 million people, the most populous in India.
"If the cold wave persists, we will decide to extend the
closure of the
schools," said Navneet Sehgal, Lucknow district magistrate.
Schools were
closed last week.
The state government said it was organizing distribution of
blankets and
plastic sheets to poor people.
More cold weather
Another 30 people have perished in India's eastern Bihar state,
officials
said. Trains in the state were running nearly eight hours behind
schedule
due to dense fog and low visibility.
In the Himalayan nation of Nepal, at least 23 people have died
due to cold
weather, a home ministry official said in Katmandu, the capital.
Most of those killed were children or old people living in the
southern part
of the country bordering India, the official said on condition of
anonymity.
Bangladesh Prime Minister Khaleda Zia toured parts of Dhaka late
Sunday
night and distributed blankets and warm clothing to the homeless
sleeping on
pavements, her office said.
The meteorological office in Dhaka has warned of another cold
spell later
this month.
Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. All right
===========
(2) VIETNAM'S COLD SPELL DESTROYS RICE CROPS
>From The Strait Times, 11 January 2003
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/asia/story/0,4386,165524,00.html?
HANOI - Vietnam's longest cold spell in 18 years has destroyed a
third of
the early winter-spring rice crop, state media said yesterday.
Cold weather which began on Dec 26 has destroyed a total of
10,000 ha of
rice crops across 32 northern provinces.
In Thai Binh province, south-east of Hanoi, as much as a third of
early rice
seedlings were wiped out, the state-run Viet Nam News reported.
Meteorologists say the cold spell is the earliest and longest the
country
has seen since 1984-85.
===========
(3) NEW YORK DECLARES EMERGENCY WEATHER ALERT
The New York Post, 13 January 2003
http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/53157.htm
January 13, 2003 -- The Big Apple is headed for the deep freeze
this week,
with bone-chilling temperatures prompting the city to declare an
emergency
weather alert last night. Highs will hover in the mid-20s,
dropping to the
teens tomorrow night, and possibly to 5 degrees next week. The
third
snowstorm of the winter could hit the city Thursday or Friday....
============
(4) CLIMATE SCARES GO NUTS: GLOBAL WARMING BLAMED FOR COLD SPELL
AND LOOMING
"NEW ICE AGE"
>From The Guardian, 11 January 2003
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,872591,00.html
Thaw in Greenland threatens new ice age
This week's big chill could prove a taster of winters to come
Paul Brown, environment correspondent
Saturday January 11, 2003
The Guardian
The snowfalls of the past week may be just a taster of what is to
come, if
the latest predictions from scientists are correct. The amount of
ice
melting from the surface of the Greenland ice sheet broke all
known records
last year, threatening a rapid rise in sea levels and a return of
very cold
winters to Britain because of a slowing down in the Gulf Stream.
Already the Gulf Stream, which bathes the west coast of Britain
in warm
water from the Gulf of Mexico and keeps the country much milder
than normal
for such northern latitudes, is slowing down. Even greater
melting of the
Greenland ice could shut off the currents altogether, allowing
depressions
to dump snow rather than instead of rain in Britain and leading
to a much
colder continental climate, as has been experienced in the past
week.
As happens on the eastern seaboard of Canada, which on the same
latitude,
the sea could freeze and snow lie for weeks or months instead of
a day of
two.
Last year large areas of the Greenland ice shelf, previously too
high and
too cold to melt, began pouring billions of gallons of fresh
water into the
northern Atlantic. Melted water trapped between the ice and the
rock beneath
is causing an acceleration of glaciers breaking off in huge
chunks and
increasing the number of icebergs.
According to scientists at the University of Colorado a very
dramatic
melting trend has been in progress since 1979. Extreme melt years
were 1991,
1995 and 2002.
The Greenland ice sheet's maximum melt area increased on average
by 16% from
1979 to 2002. This year's maximum melt extent of 264,400 square
miles
exceeds by 2.6 times the melt area measured in 1992. In
particular, the
northern and north-eastern part of the ice sheet experienced
melting
reaching up to an elevation of 2,000 metres (6,560ft).
This is the first time this area of the giant island, closest to
the north
pole, has suffered this kind of melting. The Colorado-based
Cooperative
Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences also found that
temperatures during the summer of 2002 were unusually warm over
much of the
Arctic ocean.
"Since the season also was characterised by very stormy
conditions, we
believe these two factors contributed to extensive melt and
break-up of the
icepack," said research associate Mark Serreze, the lead
author of the
study, which was presented at a meeting of the American
Geophysical Union.
Sea ice in the Arctic last year was at the lowest since satellite
measurements began.
Mr Serreze said accelerated melting of sea ice, along with runoff
from the
Greenland ice sheet, was bad news for British weather moderated
by the Gulf
Stream. The warm water from the tropics now travels north past
British
shores and warms the western coastlines of Europe as far north as
Norway
before sinking to the bottom of the ocean and returning south.
This deep water convection in the north Atlantic has already been
noted to
be slowing down by British scientists, and US scientists say the
trend could
profoundly impact global ocean circulation and climate. "In
other studies,
changes in the north Atlantic circulation have been implicated in
starting
and stopping northern hemisphere ice ages," Mr Serreze said.
Climatologist Konrad Steffen, a professor of geography at
Colorado, said a
change in the Greenland climate towards warmer conditions would
lead to an
increase in the rate of sea level rise, mainly due to the dynamic
response
of the large ice sheet rather than just the surface melting.
"For every degree increase in the mean annual temperature
near Greenland,
the rate of sea level rise increases by about 10%,"
Professor Steffen said.
Oceans are now rising by a little more than half an inch every 10
years.
Both sea ice and glacier ice cool the earth, reflecting back into
space
about 80% of springtime sunshine and 40% -50% during the summer
melt. But
winter sea ice cover slows heat loss from the relatively warm
ocean to the
cold atmosphere. Without large sea ice masses at the poles to
moderate the
energy balance, warming escalates.
Copyright 2003, The Guardian
============
(5) US FACES WORST WINTER IN 7 YEARS
>From ABC news, 10 January 2003
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20030110_568.html
- WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Home heating demand and utility bills
are expected
to soar as a blast of Arctic air sweeping over the United States
will create
the coldest two-week period from the Rockies to the Atlantic
coast since the
winter of 1995-96, forecasters at AccuWeather Inc. said on
Friday.
The cold weather could compound low U.S. crude oil inventories
caused by a
workers strike in Venezuela, the fourth largest oil supplier to
the United
States, the forecasting company said.
"The mild weather in the Plains and Midwest will be a
memory," Bastardi
added.
===========
(6) ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISTS THREATEN GOVERNMENT OVER FUEL PRICES
>From Associated Press, 11 January 2003
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2003/1/11/latest/9607Islamicac&sec=latest
SURABAYA, Indonesia (AP) - Around 1,000 Islamic activists marched
through
the East Javanese capital on Saturday to demand the government
overturn
recent hikes in fuel and utility prices.
The protesters also called for the imposition of Islamic Shariah
law in
Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation.
They claimed its application would prevent prices rising beyond
the reach of
the country's legions of poor....
Fuel price increases triggered violent protests across Indonesia
that led to
the overthrow of longtime dictator Suharto in 1998, though
analysts say a
similar outcome to the current wave of protests is unlikely. - AP
=============
(7) COLD WEATHER SPARKS SWEDISH NUCLEAR DEBATE
>From Planet Ark, January 10, 2003
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/19349/story.htm
STOCKHOLM - Exceptionally cold winter weather which has strained
power
capacity and raised electricity bills in the Nordic region
sparked a new
discussion in Sweden this week on whether to close down a nuclear
plant as
planned.
Energy-intensive industry complained about high electricity costs
and
lobbyists said the country had been saved from a power crisis
only because
the weather had warmed from temperatures as low as minus 35
degrees Celsius
(-31 Fahrenheit) seen during the Christmas holidays before
factories started
again on Tuesday.
"We can expect electricity shortages when the temperature
falls," said
Lars-Erik Axelsson from SKGS, an organisation representing
energy-intensive
sectors such as the forest industry.
Pro-nuclear lobbyists also say that Sweden is more and more
dependent on
imported energy, much of it generating greenhouse gases, at a
time when its
hydropower reservoirs are low.
The Social Democrat government, whose voters are split over
nuclear power,
is expected to decide in February or March on whether to close
down the
second of two reactors at the Barseback power station at the
southernmost
tip of Sweden.
The first reactor was closed down in 1999, in line with a
referendum almost
20 years earlier that Sweden, like Germany, would gradually close
its
nuclear plants.
===========
(8) THOUGHT CONTROL
>From The Economist, 9 January 2003
http://www.economist.co.uk/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1522706
The scourge of the greens is accused of dishonesty
THE Bjorn Lomborg saga took a decidedly Orwellian turn this week.
Readers
will recall that Mr Lomborg, a statistician and director of
Denmark's
Environmental Assessment Institute, is the author of "The
Skeptical
Environmentalist", which attacks the environmental lobby for
systematically
exaggerated pessimism. Environmentalists have risen as one in
furious
condemnation of Mr Lomborg's presumption in challenging their
claims, partly
no doubt because he did it so tellingly. This week, to the
delight of greens
everywhere, Denmark's Committees on Scientific Dishonesty ruled
on the book
as follows: "Objectively speaking, the publication of the
work under
consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific
dishonesty."
How odd. Why, in the first place, is a panel with a name such as
this
investigating complaints against a book which makes no claim to
be a
scientific treatise? "The Skeptical Environmentalist"
is explicitly not
concerned with conducting scientific research. Rather, it
measures the
"litany" of environmental alarm that is constantly fed
to the public against
a range of largely uncontested data about the state of the
planet. The
litany comes off very badly from the comparison. The
environmental movement
was right to find the book a severe embarrassment. But since the
book was
not conducting scientific research, what business is it of a
panel concerned
with scientific dishonesty?
One might expect to find the answer to this question in the
arguments and
data supporting the ruling-but there aren't any. The material
assembled by
the panel consists almost entirely of a synopsis of four articles
published
by Scientific American last year. (We criticised those articles
and the
editorial that ran with them in our issue of February 2nd 2002.)
The panel
seems to regard these pieces as disinterested science, rather
than
counter-advocacy from committed environmentalists. Incredibly,
the
complaints of these self-interested parties are blandly accepted
at face
value. Mr Lomborg's line-by-line replies to the criticisms (see
www.lomborg.com) are not
reported. On its own behalf, the panel offers not
one instance of inaccuracy or distortion in Mr Lomborg's book:
not its job,
it says. On this basis it finds Mr Lomborg guilty of dishonesty.
The panel's ruling-objectively speaking-is incompetent and
shameful.
Copyright 2003, The Economist
==========
(9) DENMARK'S MINISTRY OF TRUTH
>From Tech Central Station, 10 January 2003
http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/defensewrapper.jsp?PID=1051-350&CID=2051-011003N
By James K. Glassman
In "1984," George Orwell's frightening novel set in a
totalitarian state,
the hero, Winston Smith, worked in "Recdep," the
Records Department of the
Ministry of Truth. His job was to correct "mistakes" in
past newspaper
articles.
Denmark has its own Recdep. It is called, in perfect Orwellian
syntax, the
Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty, an organization
described in the
U.S. press as similar to our National Academy of Sciences. (But
for all the
National Academy's faults, it is no propaganda ministry like this
one.) For
the past year, the Danish Recdep has investigated three
complaints against a
countryman, a statistician named Bjorn Lomborg, who had the
temerity to
write a book challenging the conventional Danish wisdom - that
the world's
environment is going to hell.
The result, which found its way into the New York Times and
Washington Post
this week [ed: 1/8], was predictable. Lomborg was smeared in a
vindictive
and amateurish fashion by a group that did not even have the
grace to lay
out coherent charges or conduct its own investigation.
The report is pathetic. It quotes from slanted magazine articles
- including
Time (!) - by Lomborg's detractors. It concludes,
"Objectively speaking, the
publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall
within the
concept of scientific dishonesty."
Shame on Denmark.
While we can't expect Europeans to have the same concept of free
speech as
Americans, even the Danes must understand that the importance of
a book like
Lomborg's is to stir debate and that debate is good, not bad.
The best ideas emerge only after ferocious intellectual
competition. The aim
of the report by this Ministry of Truth is clearly to shut off
debate by
characterizing Lomborg as a liar. He is not. The report comes
nowhere near
showing that he misled or dissembled or fabricated. But then,
that was not
its objective, which instead was to silence - or, in Recdep
fashion, to
rewrite history.
Radical enviros need to defend their views. They have the United
Nations,
practically every European government and every media outlet on
their side.
Along comes an associate professor of statistics in the
Department of
Political Science at the University of Aarhus - a man who does
not present
himself as a natural scientist and who has written a popular
book, not a
peer-reviewed article - to challenge their assumptions. They
throw pies in
his face. Literally. They malign him in ad-hominem attacks (E.O.
Wilson, the
Harvard biologist, called him "a parasite load"). But
that's not enough.
People are still listening to Lomborg. He is even named to run a
government
agency to look at the costs and benefits of environmental
regulations. So
they call on the Ministry of Truth to finish him off.
Sorry, but it's backfiring. I noticed that in the two days
following the
news reports, Lomborg's book moved up 400 places on Amazon's
bestseller
chart. Despite the fact that it is two years old, it still ranks
as the
number-one Nature book on site and number 209 overall. (Wilson's
latest,
"The Future of Life," ranks number 3,772.) By
slandering Lomborg, his
opponents are making him an even bigger celebrity. People wonder,
"What is
this book that the Ministry of Truth has found guilty?"
The book's conclusion answers that question pretty well:
"Children born
today - in both the industrialized world and developing countries
- will
live longer and be healthier. They will get more food, a better
education, a
higher standard of living, more leisure time and far more
possibilities -
without the global environment being destroyed."
Lomborg makes his case with excruciating detail, including 2,930
footnotes,
1,800 bibliographical references, 173 figures and nine tables. He
urges
costs and benefits to be weighed before an environmental policy
is enacted,
and, for that reason, he opposes the Kyoto regime on global
warming. He
lines up facts to show that the Malthusian theory that more
population
equals more poverty is bunk, and he shows that prosperity has
increased
significantly, in both the developed and developing parts of the
world, and
that resources like forests, food and energy aren't running out.
He is right, of course. But the Ministry of Truth doesn't want
such views to
enter the public discourse.
When Lomborg's book was published, it was generally ignored by
the purveyors
of what he calls "The Litany" - the interest groups,
fundraisers, government
officials and scientists with a stake in perpetuating the idea
that the
earth is rapidly deteriorating (burning up, in the latest
manifestation),
thanks to the interventions of humans.
But Lomborg turned out to be their worst nightmare. He is a
self-described
left-winger, a former member of Greenpeace. He's young, handsome
and
gregarious. When he presented his views at a panel discussion
that I
moderated at the American Enterprise Institute in October 2001,
he wore a
T-shirt and jeans and drank water from a McDonald's cup.
And he has a great story. The book was largely an accident. He
had set out
to prove that the rosy scenarios promoted by the late University
of Maryland
scholar Julian Simon were wrong. But he found they were right,
and actually
changed his mind.
His book is hardly a page-turner, but it has turned out to be a
bestseller -
in part because of glowing recommendations from such unlikely
sources as The
Economist and the Washington Post.
Now clearly, this won't do.
The Greens went on the attack. In January 2002, Scientific
American magazine
devoted 11 pages to a special section titled, "Science
Defends Itself
Against 'The Sketpical Environmentalist.'" The editor, John
Rennie, asked
"four leading experts to critique Lomborg's treatment of
their areas. The
fix was in. Rennie chose writers predisposed to detest Lomborg's
thesis.
The result was an embarrassment - not to Lomborg, but to a
magazine that
once was considered serious and was widely respected. As Philip
Stott, a
distinguished emeritus professor of biogeography at the
University of
London, put it, "I have been involved in the editing of
scientific journals
for over 15 years, and I could never conceive of treating an
author in the
manner that the Scientific American has dealt with Dr.
Lomborg....
"Not only did the magazine run an editorial criticizing Dr.
Lomborg, it gave
space to four known environmentalists to write separate articles
attacking
him with no balancing articles whatsoever from senior scientists
who are
likely to support Dr. Lomborg's critique. Again, I have never
heard the
like. In a so-called scientific journal, such a course of action
beggars
belief."
Typical was the article by Stephen Schneider, a Stanford
biologist and
global warming advocate who is perhaps best known for his
too-candid
statement to Discover magazine in 1989, arguing that sometimes
scientists
should distort the truth to win important political objectives:
"[We] are not just scientists but human beings as well. And
like most people
we'd like to see the world a better place.... To do that we need
to get some
broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That,
of course,
entails getting 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.... Each of us has to decide what the
right balance
is between being effective and being honest."
As The Economist put it: "Science needs no defending from
Mr. Lomborg. It
may very well need defending from champions like
Mr.Schneider."
Indeed, the Ministry of Truth would seem to have more substantial
grounds to
investigate Prof. Schneider, who urges scientists to "make
little mention of
any doubts we might have" and, it seems, to tell lies when
it is
"effective."
Instead, Schneider, in the kangaroo court of Denmark, turns out
to be the
main witness. The report quotes Schneider in SA: "Lomborg
assumes that over
the next several decades, improved solar machines and other new
technologies
will crowd fossil fuels off the market.... This is not so much
analysis as
wishful thinking." Here we have what's called in the United
States a
difference of opinion. Maybe Lomborg is right, maybe Schneider is
right, but
why does Denmark need a Ministry of Truth to intervene?
Lomborg's discussion of global warming is forthright and
disarmingly honest.
He writes in his conclusion to the global warming chapter of his
book that
"there is no doubt that mankind has influenced and is still
increasing
atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and that this will influence
temperature.
Yet we need to separate hyperbole from realities in order to
choose our
future optimally.... Global warming is important. Its total costs
could be
$5 trillion. Yet, our choices in dealing with global warming are
also
important.... Is it not curious, then, that the typical reporting
on global
warming tells us all the bad things that could happen fromCO2
emissions, but
few or none of the bad things that could come from overly zealous
regulation
of such emissions?"
His contention is that poverty and disease, not global warming,
are the most
important problems facing the world and that to devote vast
resources to
fighting potential warming with dubious policies, we are making a
poor
choice. And again, he is clear that this is not a controlled
experiment in a
peer-reviewed journal. Instead, "the argument I have
presented above is one
way to look at the world." How different is this tone from
that of fanatics
like Schneider, Rennie and Wilson!
You would never know it from the U.S. reporting, but nearly the
entire case
against Lomborg in the document issued by the Danish Committees
on
Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) comprises excerpts from the
Scientific American
pieces. The only other evidence comes from Time magazine.
The SA excerpts are, in many cases, dogmatic and highly
politicized. John
Bongaarts, for example, writes that "Lomborg's view that the
number of
people is not the problem is simply wrong" and that the
"overlooks the fact
that population growth contributes to poverty." Really? Then
why has China's
wealth increased as its population has risen? Bongaarts sounds
like
discredited old Rev. Malthus reborn. Certainly, we can debate
whether
population growth is good or bad, but to offer the Bongaarts
claim as
evidence of Lomborg's guilt is absurd.
The rest of the report is larded with nasty little asides that
reveal a
little too much about the ideology of the Ministry of Truth. For
example,
"It is the view of the Working party [of the DCSD] that the
many,
particularly American researchers, who have received Bjorn
Lomborg's work
with great gusto,...are unlikely to have given the book the time
of day
unless it had received such overwhelmingly positive write-ups in
leading
American newspapers and in The Economist. The USA is the society
with the
highest energy consumption in the world, and there are powerful
interests in
the USA bound up with increasing energy consumption and with the
belief in
free market forces," etc., etc.
Lomborg, for his part, says on his website that he was looking
forward to
the investigation. But, unfortunately, "the DCSD has made
their decision
without taking a position to the content of the complaints. The
DCSD has
ruled that 'it is not DCSD's remit to decide who is right in a
contentious
professional dispute.' I find this ruling inexplicable."
Lomborg goes on, "The DCSD does not give a single example to
demonstrate
their claim of a biased choice of data and arguments.
Consequently, I don't
understand this ruling. It equals an accusation without defining
the crime."
But, my dear Bjorn, that is the entire point. It is the way the
Ministry of
Truth works. Punishment first; charges later.
Lomborg says that he long ago responded to the claims in a
34-page response.
"But in spite of the fact that the DCSD received a copy of
my response, they
refer to none of my arguments. In fact, the only thing the DCSD
does is to
repeat the Scientific American arguments over six pages, while
only allowing
my arguments one-half line. This seems to me to reflect an
extremely biased
procedure. On top of that, the DCSD has failed to evaluate the
scientific
points in dispute outlined in the Scientific American
article."
But, again, the Ministry of Truth is not supposed to do that sort
of thing.
It is supposed to enforce an orthodoxy.
In his good humor and naivete, Lomborg still has not learned the
basic
reality of radical environmentalism. There is a political
struggle going on
here, and one side is willing - and indeed, eager - to use
weapons of deceit
and intellectual violence to win. The other side, alas, is not.
In fact,
much of the time, it tries to cozy up to the radicals, to win
their favor
through being reasonable.
It doesn't work.
Last April, I moderated a discussion involving Lomborg again,
this time at
the Mayflower Hotel in Washington. I asked Lomborg some questions
about the
science behind global warming claims, including the discrepancy
between
surface-temperature records, which show warming of about 1 degree
Fahrenheit
over the past century, and more extensive satellite records,
which show no
warming over the past 25 years.
I'll paraphrase Lomborg's response because I remember it
distinctly. He said
that he was not a natural scientist, and thus he did not question
the
assumptions of the global warming crowd. That was not his job.
His argument
was simply that, if the assumptions about a warming planet are
true, the
facts show the best method of mitigation is certainly not the
regime
specified in the Kyoto Protocol.
I was disappointed with this answer and probed further. Lomborg
would not
budge. He would not challenge the accepted science.
That is precisely his approach in "The Skeptical
Environmentalist." He is
modest, reasonable and cheerful. He is just a statistician, after
all. He
claims to be nothing more. All he wants is fairness. To have a
civil debate
over his ideas, his facts, his point of view.
But the other side, with an intellectual brutality and
singlemindedness that
recalls Leninism, can't stand such an approach. Free speech is
what the
Ministry of Truth hates.
Is the lesson here that happy warriors like Bjorn Lomborg will
inevitably
lose the battle of environmental ideas? I hope not. But, then,
like Lomborg,
I am an optimist.
Copyright 2003, Tech Central Station
============================
* LETTERS TO THE MODERATOR *
============================
(10) RE: ANTI-LOMBORG PRESS RELEASE
>From Max Wallis <wallismk@cf.ac.uk>
Dear Benny
I write to explain to readers that I did not originate the item
on Lomborg
headed 'Controversial environmental author found guilty of
'scientific
dishonesty'. I copied it to you personally with nothing to
indicate
circulation to CCNet, nor any connection with my institute. That
was your
choice.
The originator was someone neither of us knows - Mark Lynas. He
gave his
contact details and confirmed to you that he compiled the piece,
so that
should of course be revealed to readers. You chose to
circulate the item on
8 January to the "cambridge-conference" and to add
"Medieval Witch Hunt:
Self-appointed..." as a header. I object to being associated
with such
pejorative wording.
I consider such language is unhelpful and out of place in
scientists'
debate. The arguments for and against Lomborg have had a good
airing with
some give and take. The Danish Committee has taken evidence and
given a
collective view - they have a right to do it, even to give a
"wrong" verdict. So let's see it argued on the
specifics, not on the
personalities and via demeaning analogies with fruit picking
(CCNet TERRA
2/2003 - 9 January).
Max
MODERATOR'S NOTE: I'm afraid Max is a bit economical with the
truth. For a
start, he didn't send me a 'personal item' with 'nothing to
indicate
circulation on CCNet.' He sent me a press release! (CCNet TERRA,
8 Jan 2003;
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc010803.html)
Secondly, Max circulated a
formal press release with no other address than his contact point
at Cardiff
University. The media, to whom the press info was clearly
addressed, had to
gain the impression that he was behind the shameful text. As
regards Mark
Lynas, I have no idea who he is or who is behind the anti-Lomborg
press
release. Finally, it is normal practise of online publications to
use
subject headings of their choosing. At Max's request, I clarified
the next
day that the subject heading (which, in any case, wasn't part of
the press
release) was my choice of words - not his. BJP
===========
(11) DEEP FREEZE AND THE MEDIA
>From Simon Mansfield <simon@spacedaily.com>
The value of John Daly's own contribution to journalism and
public discourse
can be seen in the current claim on his website that the world's
media is
not reporting on the china freeze out. And if it was a hot
climate event
they'd be all over it. Maybe be Mr Daly has failed to notice that
the world
cares little about what happens inside China at the best of
times, and that
during the current northern hemisphere freeze out the western
media is fully
occupied with cold climate events in Europe and Russia, and if
they could
get good pictures of a frozen china they would include it in
their coverage
of EuroAsia freezing through a very nasty January. Mr Daly
fails to understand that mass media doesn't care about how people
die, as
long as there is a disaster to report they'll be there to bring
the news to
an ever more ghoulish public.
simon
=============
(12) AND FINALLY: NO WAY OUT OF 'KYOTO JAIL', AS IRELAND FACE
EUR1.2 BILLION
CLIMATE FINE
>From Ireland News, 11 January 2003
http://www.rte.ie/news/2003/0110/kyoto.html
The Minister for the Environment, Martin Cullen, has said that
carbon energy
taxes will have to be introduced here by 2004 if Ireland is to
avoid a
EUR1.2 billion fine for exceeding its greenhouse gas limit.
Under the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change, Ireland committed
itself to
capping its gas emissions at 13% of its 1990 levels by 2008.
The Minister said the new taxes would have to be introduced by
next year if
emissions were to be significantly reduced and would impact
everyone in
society.
Ireland's greenhouse gas emissions are twice what they should be.
Mapping out his plans to deal with this problem, the Minister
said carbon
taxes were a key strategy which were being employed by nine of
the 15 EU
member states.
Mr Cullen told RTÉ News there was no 'get out of jail card' and
that the
problem would have to be faced by the Government, business and
citizens.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
CCNet is a scholarly electronic network. To
subscribe/unsubscribe, please
contact the moderator Benny J Peiser < b.j.peiser@livjm.ac.uk
>. Information
circulated on this network is for scholarly and educational use
only. The
attached information may not be copied or reproduced for any
other purposes
without prior permission of the copyright holders. The fully
indexed archive
of the CCNet, from February 1997 on, can be found at
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/cccmenu.html.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions,
beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the articles and texts and in
other
CCNet contributions do not necessarily reflect the opinions,
beliefs and
viewpoints of the moderator of this network.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------