I was sent a copy of Ian Lowe’s soon to be launched book ‘A big fix’ subtitled ‘Radical solutions for Australia’s environmental crisis’ (Black Inc 2005).
I started reading the book yesterday at the beach. It is full of popular mythology dressed up as scientific fact without footnotes or references … and Lowe starts the first sentence, of the first paragraph, of the first chapter, “I am a scientist”.
He then goes on to employ the rules of propaganda every effectively, particularly rules 1,3 and 4, see http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/000579.html .
On page 13 he writes, “There is a great scientific tradition of scepticism, generally a good thing because it keeps us honest and forces us to justify our conclusions.” But then goes on to suggest climate skeptics “… try to win their arguments, sometimes by actually lying, but more often by making statements that are facually correct but misleading.”
He shows himself to be expert at the same including with the statement also at the bottom of page 13, “it is now indisputable that the global climate is changing.”
As though it was ever in dispute that the history of the earth has been, and always will be, one of climate change.
While suggesting skepticism has its place, Lowe provides no example of a contrarian view worthy of consideration and evaluation. Rather he suggests that climate change global warming skeptics who number perhaps 5 (in the whole wide world!) are given a voice because the commercial media loves controversy.
And if you were wondering how many scientists “support the accepted view” – according to Lowe it is about 10,000 (pg 13).
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Well Ian maybe has a good point … I mean have we heard one substantial anti-AGW argument in this entire blog. One possible other explanation or mechanism ? Nope …
So boring that the anti-arguments are getting recycled – not even any new ones.
Just what is this environmental crisis that needs a “radical” solution?
Westfield? B-doubles? Macdonalds?
Last time I looked out the window everything looked OK.
Phildo et al argue from a cultural point of view, hijacking science, sociology and the economy to support an anti-social paranoia.
Lowe does suggest that MacDonalds are part of the problem.
The latest cajun mcnuggets are fairly tasty actually.
And I like Westfield as they have everything …
B-doubles scare me though as they’re very big
I think for many living in surburban Australia life is very comfortable and most pleasant.
dum de dum de dum … OK Rog let’s see
I guess we have salinisation, soil acidification, cropping land soil loss, land degradation from overgrazing, woody weed invasion, inappropriate fire regimes, native species losses, introduced vertebrate pests, self created macropod problems, over allocated water resources, noxious weeds, soil compaction, yield decline syndrome, millions in drought aid – the place has had three 1 in 100 bailouts in the last 15 years, declining terms of trade, and decling rural services and population … and on the positive side we still have signficant areas of wild space, some inconic national parks, a pretty good economy, a relatively efficient farming sector, and a still enviable standard of living and lifestyle.
Doesn’t mean it will always be that way and doesn’t mean we can’t do better.
Crisis – mmmmm – well that’s relative… I’m an optimist who says we can improve.
I think there are both great opportunities and great hazards with management of our natural resources. e.g. use of acacias as tree crops to improve the WA problems with hydrological cycle excess water is surely a good news story…. even if experimental. And it doesn’t come about by arguing that the world must stay exactly as it is now. It is by debate, analysis of a problem and an innovative solution being conceptualised.
You accusation of hijacking science, sociology and anti-social paranoia is drivel and unsubstantiated. I’m not arguing from a cultural point of view – just a logical point of view. Don’t paint me into a stereotype.
But we need to be aware of our own consumption in terms of ecological footprint and overall impact. There are limits and there are reasonable responsibilities IMHO.
Now as I said – Ian Lowe has a point …
I agree Phil, despite all the negatives we are still able to produce “signficant areas of wild space, some inconic national parks, a pretty good economy, a relatively efficient farming sector, and a still enviable standard of living and lifestyle” so in balance where is the evidence of a crisis?
Nice cherry pick Rog – the report card is only a C plus. Lots of improvement required. More diligence and the student needs to concentrate much more. The student’s parents are wondering whether the investment and scarifice is still worth it.
In terms of climate I think we have a crisis. We have a crisis of water supply in most of our urban areas. And our farmers seem incapable of surviving without govt handouts.
The C plus is there because of the reserve of resources that was there in the first place. There’s a fair buffer. Rate of loss should not continue. Of course people forget what things used to look like e.g. the big scrub from Grafton to Brisbane. Open grasslands where we now have forests of choking trees.
SW WA wheat lands are hardly something to be proud of …. loss of small mammals so we can have some pets is also nothing to be proud of.
ACF President Lowe fronts an organisation that reaps political pay dirt with incendiary rabble-rousing.
I wish it were otherwise, but the general environmental decency of the metropolitan masses is easily exploited by unscrupulous provocateurs under the thinnest veneer of propriety and ever more so under the pretense of crisis.
It seems to be an inherent failing of democracy, a kind of quasi-gerrymander, that state Labor governments have exploited to the hilt.
The very notion that contribuotrs to this thread believe that we are still able to produce signficant areas of wild space and inconic national parks resonates of gullibility. How many wild places are there in suburbia? Surely we should exercise this ‘ability’ and ‘produce’ some.
The illusion of ‘producing’ wild spaces and iconic national parks is no different to the illusion of saving the planet from the inevitability of climate-induced catastrophe – it is a strategy that preys on the vulnerabilities of a caring and fearful population to win political power at whatever cost.
Lowe does suggest that the state Labor governments are trying and gives them a bit of a pat on the back with reference to various initiatives.
In this article http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=773 Rowe identifies three areas of national progress, the economy, society and the environment and then argues that “a na
Rog, I reviewed the 202 “Measuring Australia’s Progress” environmental section/indicators in the December 2003 issue of the IPA Review see, http://www.ipa.org.au/files/review55-4.pdf . You will see that the ‘analysis’ ended up being very much about the perception of the academics. and now Lowe builds on this perception in his book.
I’m not talking about “producing” wild areas … jeez what sort of wild tangent is this. Nice rhetoric but zero facts and no answers.
“vulnerabilitieas of a fearing population ” rolling around the the floor laughing after children overboard WMD etc. Just keep those interest rates low and a few porkies are fine. And Labor govts have raised the porkies art-form to a new level – just 6 inches to the left.
Mate the environment has hardly had any impact. Suburbia think yellow wheelie bins were it…
Meanwhile back at thread….
So Jen & Rog & Neil – what’s you score card for the nation’s enviro record ?? A Plus ?? No problems at all… OR WHAT ?
AND
Still zero new innovative explanatory anti-AGW arguments yet … de dum de dum dum dum…
Phil,
1. As regards the state of the Australian environment, you could reread my review in ‘Energy and Environment’ posted previously: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/000790.html . I think I could have been much more critical of ‘rangeland management’ – but otherwise I am probably reasonably happy with what I wrote.
2. As regards global warming – I am still sort of hoping for your summary of that thread that David Brewer contributed to. This might provide some insights here.
3. As a general comment, I think it would be good if people could post at this blog without having to then respond back to you. It is sort of bullying to find something you disagree with and then insist on an answer. In my view it is OK for ideas to just ‘hang’. But otherwise thanks for your contributions.
Jennifer – generally when people ask for replies is when Loius, rog et al make outlandish unscientific claims and leave then hanging with absolutely no evidence or proof.
It is not OK, in my opinion, to let ideas just hang if they are completely against basic repeatable science.
eg: non-biogenic oil – no response to biomarkers from Loius
Greenhouse – still no response on greenhouse gases
Oil supplies – rog seems to think oil is infinite with no proof.
Non scientific, indeed anti-science, stuff should be corrected or proved not left hanging as if it is true.
Ender, I appreciate your point. And I think it is great when you explain why a comment is, in your view, junk science, plain wrong, stupid, annoying etcetera. If no reply/response is forth coming then you have perhaps very effectively made your point… even won the point. There is no need, in my view, to then pursue the person/people.
Phil,
Children overboard and WMD simply reinforce Australia’s political gullibilities.
My score card for the nation’s environmental record highlights its need for change.
If only Australia functioned according to its own environmental policies, it would be so much better tendered. but alas, it is corrupted by the failings of democracy and the institutional infidelity of bureaucracy.
And for the sake of my conscience, my natural environment, my children and their progeny, I shall never surrender!
Ender, I have never stated that the supply of oil was infinite.
Whilst we are on oil I read in Bloomberg that the IEA has *cut its estimate for 2005 world oil demand for a third month as record-high fuel prices curb sales in China, Thailand and other developing countries in Asia.
The forecast was lowered by 250,000 barrels a day, almost equal to Switzerland’s consumption, from a month ago. Hurricane Katrina’s destruction along the Gulf of Mexico is “only partly attributable” because demand in the region should recover “fairly quickly,” the Paris-based adviser to 26 oil-consuming nations said in a monthly report today…..*
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=aDTFYjBnWFoI&refer=home
Market forces at work; sure as night is day with increased prices bringing higher returns investment will flow and new fields will be opened up – where exactly I dont know but they will.
For an industry overview without political overtones;
http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm
rog – thats right you don’t know where the new fields are and neither does anyone else. Market forces cannot bring a substitute for all the oil based infrastructure that we have to market in time.
Oil occurs in very specific places and has to have been cooked for exactly the right time – to litte and it is oil sands to much and it is gas.
There is some evidence that light sweet crude has already peaked or is very close. That leaves us with the heavy sour crudes and the ultra deep and hard to extract oil. This is exactly in line with Hubberts Peak.
I dont know how you can say that no-one else knows where the new oil fields are Ender, all you can reliably say is that you dont know.
Green River is one area that shows potential, the Rand Corporation say that the new extraction technique offered by Shell could provide the US with 25% oil for 400 years.
Shell say that refinements to their “insitu conversion” process could produce oil for $US30bbl.
http://www.harolddoan.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5591
rog – All in-situ techniques reguire large amounts of heat to extract the oil fractions from the shale in the ground. That heat is now provided by Natural Gas with an energy return of 3:1. As I said before even a PV solar panel has an energy return of 5:1 and Ricks ethanol return could be 8:1.
Yes it probabaly could provide 25% of the USA’s CURRENT oil demand for 400 years however we do not have 400 years worth of Natural Gas to extract it.
There are also serious questions about the environmental impact of heating the Earth to this temperature and what effect this has on the eco-system in the ground.
You need to ask yourself the big question – Do you really want to strip mine the Earth for Oil, or is it time to get of this energy train wreck we are on?
rog – before you say it when I said “environmental impact of heating the Earth to this temperature” I did not mean the entire Earth – I meant the ground where the oil shale is.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,16606434,00.html Link to Lowe on climate change being responsible for water shortages and a bit more…
Ender
When mantle derived abiotic oil seeps upwards into the sediments it is usually found, it incorporates all the biomarkers already present in the sedimentary sequence. The presence of biomarkers is not proof oil is fossil remains. This is like saying elephants evolved tusks because they eat piano keys.
You have not shown any experimental data at all that shows that vegetable matter or fossil remains can at the pressure and temperatures of the sedimentary strata in which is routinely found be converted to petroleum. It is thermodynamically impossible as various scientific papers at here show.
However as a suspension of the second law of thermodynamics seems accepable to you, one can only conclude that assigning the origin of petroleum as a “fossil” fuel has to be the result of a miracle.
How interesting – html tags don’t seem to work.
The link to the papers supporting abiotic origin of petroleum is at http://www.gasresources.net
A few sound scientific facts for Ender to refute. The paper from which this was copied is the reply by Kenney et al to a Nature article.
The second law of thermodynamics prohibits spontaneous genesis of hydrocarbons heavier than methane in the regimes of temperature and pressure found in the near-surface crust of the Earth. This fact has been known by competent physicists, chemists, chemical engineers, mechanical engineers and thermodynamicists since the third quarter of the 19th century.
Contrary to the misstatements by Clarke, there is no “debate” on this consequence of the laws of thermodynamics, – nor on any other aspect of those laws. That natural petroleum is not a “fossil fuel” has been known (by competent scientists) since the time of Clausius, Boltzmann, Gibbs, and Mendeleev.
The scientific problem connected with the genesis of hydrocarbons has been that genuine scientists have not heretofore been able to explain how, and under what conditions, such molecules do spontaneously evolve. Our article has resolved this question: Petroleum hydrocarbons heavier than methane are the high-pressure members of the hydrogen-carbon system; their spontaneous genesis requires pressures comparable to those necessary for the spontaneous genesis of diamond.
Ther genesis of diamod requires pressures and temperatures equivalent to a depth of 220 km, ie upper mantle.
“The suggestion that petroleum might have arisen from some transformation of squashed fish or biological detritus is surely the silliest notion to have been entertained by substantial numbers of persons over an extended period of time.” Fred Hoyle 1982
(Posted on behalf of Louis. When he tried to post the above it was knocked back on the basis of questionable content. The problem it seems was the name ‘Fred Hoyle’ – which I had to add as an edit. So who exactly is Fred Hoyle? Jen.)
I await your considered reply Ender.
The book is intended for the layman to understand the environmental crisis the world is currently in (it has just been announced that Australia has the 6th biggest ecological footprint in the world). It is not meant to be blanketed in scientific facts, figures and statistics, if it were, it would be 10 times as long.
The point is is that the global future is uncertain, numerous threats and impacts are current and imminent, and we need to educate the wider public about this.
Those whose heads are in the sand, content with urban living and oblivious to the evidence around them are the ones we need to make aware. Education is action. If this book is the means in which we can fire people up, then it has served its purpose in my eyes.
If there were no clouds, we should not enjoy the sun. Erasmus.