From: jdac (jdac@alphalink.com.au)
Date: Thu Jan 16 2003 - 17:07:31 EST
I have read Lomborg's book and found it a fascinating and challenging work.
It is full of useful references to primary sources and excellent
compilations of a whole range of global data on food, nutrition, air and
water quality, income, life expectancy, risk, energy, forestry,
biodiversity, and climate. Inevitably in a work of this scale a few errors
can creep in, and one can always disagree with the analysis (I find him too
pessimistic on nuclear power and too optimistic on solar, for instance), but
this is an invaluable resource for anyone interested in environmental and
resource issues.
All his critics so far have missed the whole point of it, which is that over
the last 50 years, globally and regionally, people are better fed, better
educated, have better access to good quality water, and live longer. While
there are areas of genuine environmental concern they have been overstated
in many cases and are being dealt with. Minimizing CFC emissions and
improved air and water quality in the industrialised world are cases in
point. Lomborg says that this should be grounds for hope, because humanity
has achieved this despite a doubling of the world's population in that
time. As the world's population growth is slowing it should plateau at
about double the present level in about 200 years time. If human
civilization has survived the worse period of population growth with
improved quality of life and a remarkably intact biosphere, then why should
it not be able to survive the next 200 years. I can certainly remember
getting very depressed in the 70's when, to believe the then current crop of
environmentalists in 2000 there would be no forests left, few if any wild
animals, the oceans would be largely devoid of marine life, and billions
would have died of starvation. The realty is quite different, as Lomborg
rightly points out, comparing the predictions of the 60's and 70's with
actual events. I think there is need to recognise an element of common
grace in this.
The Scientific American articles were especially bad in ignoring the main
theses. They picked up a few detailed errors (which Lomborg acknowledged
and has put up on his web site at Lomborg.com) and then launched into an
extraordinary ad homenium attack on Lomborg, describing his work as the
worst sort of pesudoscience and equating it with creationism. The Danish
Research Agency basically rehashed the SciAm criticisms without addressing
the issue. The Lomborg critics have resorted to legal action (scientific
American), physical assault, and verbal abuse, but completely missed the
main point. The response to Lomborg appears a classic case of the response
of vested interests when criticized. The greenhouse industry is a well
funded vested interest.
Cheers
Jon
John or Carol Burgeson wrote:
> >>
> For what it's worth, the Jan. 7 Washington Post reported that the Danish
> Research Agency (the equivalent of our National Academy of Science) had
> denounced Lomborg for "scientific dishonesty". >>
>
> Yes, that was part of the material on the web site I referenced.
>
> John Burgeson
>
> http://www.burgy.50megs.com
> (an eclectic web site about science/theology, quantum mechanics,
> ethics, baseball, humor, cars, philosophy, etc.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Jan 19 2003 - 00:11:42 EST