Creating perspective

Matt Ridley has braved the brickbats of the vested interests and the greens with another hard-hitting piece in the Wall Street Journal, this time looking at the forthcoming Working Group II report, its downgrading of alarm and the new perspective of climate change among a number of issues facing the world.

Almost every global environmental scare of the past half century proved exaggerated including the population "bomb," pesticides, acid rain, the ozone hole, falling sperm counts, genetically engineered crops and killer bees. In every case, institutional scientists gained a lot of funding from the scare and then quietly converged on the view that the problem was much more moderate than the extreme voices had argued. Global warming is no different.

This, I think is likely to enrage those whose livings depend on the maintenance of a state of alarm and the reaction will therefore be aggressive. Let's make sure that the voices of reason are heard too.

Comments

[ABC]

I think people are underestimating the potential issue of biodiversity loss. While it is probably true that climate change is unlikely to cause any serious loss of biodiversity (despite some pretty speculative research based on computer models in this area concluding losses will be major despite no good or mounting evidence so far), the stresses of an ever increasing world population and pressures to increase agricultural land could well lead to losses of habitats. And it through the losses of habitats, driven by world human population, that will lead to extinctions.

Now, some researchers may be devious and pretend or try to link climate change to extinctions, when the true factors are probably economic and ultimately population driven. But there is fairly good theory in ecology linking area of habitats to survivability of species and if these habitats are made smaller, then species will go extinct. Whether we should care about this is another matter, but I think enough of us probably do care (and I certainly care) that we will be willing to spend additional money to support the prevention of this loss. Now whether the tax raised is spent wisely is another matter, and it will require redistribution to countries with tropical forests so corruption is inevitable but probably unavoidable if we want things to be protected.

Other issues - I do think air pollution is a serious issue despite others worrying about impact on our car use. There is no denying the negative health links related to air pollution, and the increasing congestion on our roads will make more people ill at the margin. Balancing the costs and benefits of road use (health care costs versus car/lorry use) will be critical and we have to trust those doing this work, and those making policy and law based on this work, understand this and act fairly. Whether politicians actually can think rationally and beyond blind ideology I am yet to be convinced. But whether future governments increase the cost of road usage beyond fuel costs (and let's fact it they probably will but not directly for air pollution health reasons (although that could be the excuse) but for general revenue raising reasons) then road congestion could go down as the young and poor are priced off the road (until money gets redistributed to the poor to help them stay on the road - you can predict all outcomes in our democracy).

Of course, climate change has been totally overblown and the evidence is not there at the moment to suggest any of the serious alarming issues will ever come to pass. Beating that message down is however going to take time, but rationality will come through eventually as the alarmists will look increasingly stupid in time if nothing much continues to happen and all of their predictions are wrong. A sea level rise of 1.5 mm per annum or whatever the figure/rate was is not something to worry about.

I can't comment on ocean acidification as I have had no training in chemistry or oceanography of note. I'm not convinced the majority of people talking about the issue have either! A geography graduate will know nothing serious about the chemistry of oceans or how they will react to a marginal increase of CO2, of that I am certain, so such people can be readily ignored.

[Matt Ridley]

On the question of environmental scares, John Gillot pointed out on Twitter that I was not fair in implying that institutional science got funds from the GM crops scare. He's right, and of course that is why this was the one scare of the past 40 years where the institutions of science, such as the Royal Society, stood firm against the greens. Interesting.

As for what scare comes next, I have written several times about the exaggerations of ocean acidification, as have others. Here are a couple of my pieces:

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/acid-oceans-and-acid-rain.aspx

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/noise-versus-signal.aspx

ABC mentions biodiversity, and I would say that the overwhelmingly dominant threat to endemic or rare species wherever you go in the world is always and everywhere -- invasive species. Grey squirrels, kudzu vine, cane toads, brambles in Galapagos, deer in New Zealand, chytrid fungi versus golden toads, rats and mice on oceanic islands, brown snakes on Guam etc etc etc. By far the most dangerous human habit is taking these things around the world.

This to me is the one environmental problem that is, if anything, downplayed.

That's the topic I would stress if I were a senior scientist.

[kim]

Over a hundred years ago, the teamster who drove the nitroglycerin wagon was very highly paid. I don't know about the team.
=============

[Jack Hughes]

Hi ABC,

Trouble is I just don't believe anything an enviro says now.

An easy example is the "...theory in ecology linking area of habitats to survivability of species and if these habitats are made smaller, then species will go extinct..."

I simply do not believe this. 20 years ago I would have taken it in because it seems plausible. But the experiment has never been done. It would be expensive but possible. You would get a remote island then napalm 50% of the vegetation - maybe use it as target practice for apache gunships. Then measure and see if X% of the critters had gone extinct.

This has never been tested - in fact Julian Simon describes a rainforest that was 99% demolished and the number of species increased

Julian Simon, Doomslayer

Some of Simon's other claims, however, are so far from received opinion as to be hard to take seriously - his view on species loss, for example, regarding which he asserts that "the highest rate of observed extinctions is one species per year."

That was hard to accept. Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson, the guru of global species extinction, said in 1991: "Believe me, species become extinct. We're easily eliminating 100,000 a year." A year later, in his 1992 book The Diversity of Life, he had modified that figure somewhat, saying: "The number of species doomed each year is 27,000." Apparently, these numbers were a tiny bit slippery. Still, both of them were a far cry from Simon's "one species per year."

Simon, on the other hand, pointed out that the higher estimates did not come from observation, they came from theory, specifically from Wilson's own theory of "island biogeography" which correlates species extinction with tropical forest destruction. The theory's "species-area equation," supposedly, predicts that for each additional unit of forest destroyed, so many more species die out.

This was another mathematical argument, reminiscent of the one made long ago by Malthus, and it was exactly the type of Neat Mathematical Certainty that Julian Simon took so much joy in shooting big holes through, which is what he proceeded to do now. The problem with the theory, he wrote in a paper on species loss with Aaron Wildavsky, is that it is not borne out by the empirical facts.

"The only empirical observation we found is by Lugo for Puerto Rico, where 'human activity reduced the area of primary forests by 99 percent.... This massive forest conversion did not lead to a correspondingly massive species extinction.'" Simon quoted Lugo to the effect that "more land birds have been present on the Island in the 1980s (97 species) than were present in pre-Columbian times (60 species)."

Say again? The forest was 99 percent demolished, and the number of bird species actually rose?

These enviers have bet the ranch on climate change and they have burned any goodwill they had.

[It doesn't add up...]

Jones, the guardian is getting ocean acidity ready, just in case.

I thought Roger Harrabin just wanted a nice beach holiday somewhere exotic.

[Patagon]

Next scare?

There are plenty of brains working on that already.

This is the next EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation
HORIZON 2020

with calls like:

Call for competitive low-carbon energy 158 million €
Innovative, Sustainable and Inclusive Bioeconomy 24.5 million €
Green vehicles 30 million €

I've got nothing against many of the other calls except that the projects will be approved only if they are faithful to the current "consensus"

[Richard Drake]

Matt Ridley: Thank you for the addendum on GM, ocean acidification and invasive species. I agree on all three. I'd expect attempts to be made at the UNFCCC level to keep CO2 mitigation on the road using ocean acidification as a figleaf, not that it will catch the public imagination as CAGW once did. So we have a democratic deficit to overcome with the public increasingly sympathetic as we do. I don't know how the story ends.

[Robin Guenier]

JamesG – 9:38 AM and 12:03 PM

Let’s not start another Y2K debate here – apart from anything else, His Grace doesn’t approve of it distracting from a topic. But, if you want to pursue the matter, I suggest you post a comment on this Discussion thread. And, to get you going, I suggest you read this first: LINK - at least read the Executive Summary.

PS: if you decide to do so, I’d be interested to see your evidence that ‘the millennium bug was almost ignored by the Japanese’ and that they ‘chose to fix on failure’. But, if you decide not to bother with it, no problem.

[Dodgy Geezer]

@ Orson

.
...Almost every global environmental scare of the past half century proved exaggerated...
"ALMOST??!!!"

My term would be "virtually." I that strong enough?..

Not for me. I would use the words 'Invariably' and 'Excessively'.

You cite the 'Ozone Hole'. This was a classic. A hole was discovered. No one knew at the time whether this was natural or artificial. Some environmentalists proposed a mechanism whereby ozone might be degraded by CFCs, but nobody knew whether this was happening (much the same as CO2 warming, of course). But the scare was established.

Balloon high-altitude sampling was inconclusive.I believe there were two high-altitude U-2 flights to gather samples - one indicated increased levels of CFCs in a 'hole' area, another one did not. There was effectively no evidence available.

However, at one point it became commercially convenient for Du Pont to back the banning of CFCs. So it happened, amongst joyous partying from the Greens.

I believe that CFCs caused no environmental damage whatsoever, but I don't think that anyone is going to research that now - it would be too embarrassing...

[Athelstan.]

Matt Ridley, speaks a great deal of common sense, what a pity it is that, he is one of the few.

When, I hear the irresponsible drivel of such as notable alarmist headbangers like Davey, Miliband or Greg Bark[ing]er and indeed most of those who inhabit infest the Westminster bubble - I despair and wonder - which galaxy did they originate from - because it was nowhere near Earth.

Still, I know that I stand pretty much near the truth of it. In that, I have never believed for one moment that man made emissions of CO2 will cause a runaway warming catastrophe - indubitably...and though my physics ain't up to scratch but earth science is - not because I believe it but because one, Dr. Lindzen's science, rationale and direction - pretty much aligns with mine. Matt Ridley, is more than welcome to join our club, no fees are necessary [but members only in the bar;^)].

[Owen Morgan]

It's a characteristically good article by Ridley, but I wish he wouldn't pull his punches. Which one of the listed scares ("the population 'bomb', pesticides, acid rain, the ozone hole, falling sperm counts, genetically engineered crops and killer bees") is, as he puts it, "exaggerated"? They all sound to me like the most blatant fictions. That's why they're called "scares", the word he himself uses.

The Inquisition wasn't famous for being magnanimous to those who were only a little bit heretical and Lord Ridley shouldn't expect alarmists to be any more considerate.

[JamesG]

I see: from the BBC news in 1999:
"Meanwhile, Robin Guernier, the head of Taskforce 2000, says he is seriously concerned that councils, police authorities, health trusts and emergency services are nowhere near ready....And Mr Guernier told BBC News: ''If things are not improved we are going to see a massive degradation of the services people get.''

Nowhere near ready? Well truly amazing what they did in a year isn't it? Or to the rest of us, exactly the same scenario as the ozone layer scare or acid rain scare. ie hype it up bigtime, tell us it is already too late, discover nothing bad happened after all so clearly you were talking nonsense - then whatever else happens, never admit you were wrong - pretend instead to be the white knight who saved us. No cost was too great of course.

I'm afraid no debate is truly possible with those who promote and benefit from a scare as they cannot possibly be unbiased and that is bang on topic.

[Jimmy Haigh]

Islamic fundamentalists are scary too. Can we tax them?

[Robin Guenier]

OK JamesG so you're determined to discuss Y2K. Groan.

Let's start with Japan. You asserted that ‘the millennium bug was almost ignored by the Japanese’ and that they ‘chose to fix on failure’. Well this and this show that wasn't true.

As for my view in early 1999, see this BBC report. An extract:

UK 'in good shape'

In Britain, another expert who gave early warning of the Millennium bug dangers, Robin Guenier, says the three key industries are in good shape here.

"There's been a lot of progress from three months and 12 months ago. People are no longer in denial about it. We're not heading for doomsday," he told The Observer newspaper.

[Steve Jones]

Grecian 2000 wasn't affected by the millennium bug.

[Robin Guenier]

Are you sure, Steve? My information is that there were some grey areas. And it doesn't seem to have been around so much for 14 years. That may be significant.

[Don Keiller]

Lord Stern is either incompetant or a liar. See this.
What is more he is being protected by the "system". In his reply to this letter The House of Lords Commissioner for Standards stated "a members views and opinions are outside my remit"

The House of Lords Commissioner for Standards,
House of Lords, London,
SW1A 0PW.
Dear Mr. Kernaghan.
As you can see I sent the accompanying letter to Lord Stern on 25th April, 2012. Despite the fact it was sent by recorded delivery, Lord Stern did not have the courtesy to reply. Having given Lord Stern ample opportunity to reply to my enquiry, I now believe it is appropriate to make a formal complaint about Lord Stern.
I have taken a particular interest in Sections 3.3 and 3.4 of the Stern Report, which largely concerns crop productivity, as I am a Plant Physiologist by training (M.A. PhD, Cantab) and can therefore write with authority in this area.
My first concern is why Lord Stern used data from an obscure publication (Wheeler et al 1996) and indeed, manipulated it to produce a conclusion that was not supported by the original authors? They clearly state in their abstract “Mean seed dry weight was increased by > 72 % at elevated CO2, because grain numbers per ear did not decline with an increase in temperature at elevated CO2”. Furthermore whilst Lord Stern went to the trouble to delete data, which did not support his narrative, from the graph (see my original letter), he further emphasised the apparent decline by adding a “dogleg” line, which did not appear in the original graph.
Moreover one has to question why Lord Stern did not chose to present evidence from multiple publications, all available at the time, that clearly demonstrate that under the scenarios of increased CO2 and temperature used in his report: “Projections of future warming depend on projections of global emissions (discussed in chapter 7). If annual emissions were to remain at today’s levels, greenhouse gas levels would reach close to 550 ppm CO2e by 2050. Using the lower and upper 90% confidence bounds based on the IPCC TAR range and recent research from the Hadley Centre, this would commit the world to a warming of around 2 – 5°C.” (Stern review Page 12 and Table 1.1) plant and agricultural productivity are increased, rather than decreased as Lord Stern states: “In tropical regions, even small amounts of warming will lead to declines in yield. In higher latitudes, crop yields may increase initially for moderate increases in temperature but then fall. Higher temperatures will lead to substantial declines in cereal production around the world, particularly if the carbon fertilisation effect is smaller than previously thought, as some recent studies suggest.” (Stern review Page 67).
Even a cursory search of the relevant literature, available at the time, shows that Lord Stern’s conclusions are seriously flawed. Perhaps the most authoritative paper of the time is that of Ainsworth and Long (2005) which collated data from 120 primary, peer-reviewed articles describing responses to plants under a variety of high [CO2] (475–600 ppm) scenarios, precisely those envisaged in his report. They state that: “Stimulation of photosynthesis at elevated [CO2] is theoretically predicted to be greater at higher temperatures (Drake et al., 1997). When the FACE data were divided between experiments conducted below 25°C and those conducted above 25°C, this prediction was supported. At lower temperatures (< 25°C) Asat was increased by 19%, and at temperatures above 25°C Asat was increased by 30% when plants were grown under elevated [CO2] . Precisely what Wheeler et al (1996) found. Significantly they quote Drake et al (1997) which demonstrates that the theoretical underpinning of increased plant productivity, in response to elevated CO2 and temperatures, was well-known at the time Lord Stern wrote his report, further undermining Lord Stern’s partisan conclusions.
Finally I note that the other graph that Lord Stern has chosen to use in Figure 3.4 (Page 69), from Vara Prasad et al (2001), uses Peanut (hardly a major crop) as an example of a tropical crop where “even small amounts of warming will lead to declines in yield”. However Lord Stern studiously omits to say that the authors only exposed the plants to high temperatures, rather than in combination with high [CO2], as is required by Lord Stern’s own future high temperature, high [CO2] scenarios.
Accordingly it is clear that Lord Stern has some serious questions to answer:
1) Why did he exclude mainstream papers from his review that clearly show that plant productivity will increase under the future [CO2] and temperature scenarios he predicts?
2) Why did he deliberately remove data from the Wheeler et al (1996) paper, which clearly stated “grain numbers per ear did not decline with an increase in temperature at elevated CO2”, to suggest precisely the opposite?
3) Why did he further manipulate the already altered graph, using a superimposed line, to emphasise a decline in productivity when, in fact, no such decline existed under his stated scenario?
4) Why did he further compound the misinformation presented in the Wheeler paper with that of Vara Prasad et al (2001) which does not duplicate the conditions of his chosen high [CO2], high temperature scenario?
I do not accept that the misinformation in this part of Lord Stern’s review is the result of lack of expertise. Lord Stern is one of the World’s foremost economists and well versed in the collation, interpretation and presentation of complex data. The fact of the matter is that Lord Stern actively and deliberately chose and manipulated data to support a particular conclusion. Any reasonable person would conclude that these omissions of fact and manipulation were specifically designed to mislead Parliament. The fact that so much Government policy is directly informed by Lord Stern’s report is particularly disturbing.
Accordingly I request that you communicate my concerns to Lord Stern and I await his and your considered reply.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. D. Keiller.
Ainsworth, E.A. and Long, S.P. (2005). What have we learned from 15 years of free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE)? A meta-analytic review of the responses of photosynthesis, canopy properties and plant production to rising CO2. New Phytologist 165: 351-372.
Drake BG, Gonzàlez-Meler MA, Long SP. (1997). More efficient plants: a consequence of rising atmospheric CO2? Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology 48: 609–639.
Wheeler TR, Batts GR, Ellis RH, Hadley P and Morison JIL (1996) Growth and Yield of Winter Wheat (Triticum Aestivum) Crops in Response to CO2 and Temperature. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge, 127, 37-48.
Vara Prasad, P.V., P.Q. Craufurd, V.G. Kakani, Wheeler TR and Boote KJ. (2001): 'Influence of high temperature on fruit-set and pollen germination in peanuts', Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 28: 233.

[Steve Jones]

Mar 29, 2014 at 9:47 AM | Robin Guenier

You might have a point!

[theduke]

Matt Ridley has a gift for presenting scientific fact and opinion in prose that is digestible for the layman. Long may be prosper.