It’s 31st December 2006, a time for reflection and perhaps also New Year’s resolutions.
This time last year I wrote: “A CNN/TIME survey of Asia-Pacific countries reports that avian flu is expected to be the biggest global issue in 2006, followed by economic slowdown and terrorism. What happened to global warming? Why didn’t it rate a mention in the survey?”
I reckon global warming did emerge as the biggest global issue with Al Gore’s movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ galvanized support for the idea that carbon dioxide is the cause of every climate crisis.
I did a series of blog posts on the movie, most of them are listed here: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/faq.php?id=15&category=18 .
Along with ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, many environmentalists were consumed lamenting the fate of the world’s polar bears and minke whales (neither species likely to go extinct anytime soon) while a species of freshwater dolphin in the Yangtze did go extinct. As I wrote for the IPA Review in September, the extinction of the baiji has taken place at a time of unprecedented interest and concern for their large relative, the minke whale.
In May 2006, Ross Coulthart from Channel 9’s Sunday Program revealed some of the claims being used to support calls for billions of dollars to be spent on fixing a “looming salinity crisis” in the Murray River are simply not true: “Salinity is a problem. But it seems nowhere as bad as we’ve been told by environmental groups, government departments and many in the media.” Ross Coulthart began to research the issue after reading my monograph written in December 2003: ‘Myth and the Murray: Measuring the Real State of the River Environment’.
Next year the Murray River may run dry, and my home town of Brisbane will vote on whether or not we are prepared to drink recycled water, while the the sun might save us from global warming.
Next year I will be part of a new research group at the University of Queensland with funding available for 4 PhD scholarships to undertake evidence-based research into environmental issues with the aim of providing improved information and frameworks for prioritizing environmental need, quantifying the costs and benefits of conservation initiatives, developing agricultural policies and appropriate legal frameworks.
I’ve no resolutions for the New Year. But I am going to wish that the drought would break across southern Australia, that the bans on GM food crops are lifted and that more trees are cut down in Australian forests because trees are a renewable resource that sequest carbon and we shouldn’t be importing timber from south east Asia when we have so much forest in Australia. I will also hope for more controlled burning in state forests and national parks for the koalas. I also hope that more water gets through to the Macquarie Marsh nature reserve and here’s a list of my blog posts over the last year on this issue: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/faq.php?id=14&category=17 .
I also hope that David Hicks is released from prison in Guantanamo Bay, Richard Ness doesn’t go to prison in Indonesia, and that there is justice in the case of the death in custody of Mulrunji Doomadgee in Queensland, Australia.
As regards this blog, I’m going to borrow from a recent post by Jim and endorse the following rules for 2007:
1. Assume good faith from your opponent – until bad faith is demonstrated
2. Address only the argument – it is very possible that a scientist paid by Exxon (or the IPA) might be an honorable, diligent and would never compromise their integrity by advancing a proposition they knew to be false. It is equally possible that well credentialed scientists may exaggerate, cherry-pick, offer up scary scenarios etcetera because of a messianic belief in their mission to save the world from evil. In short, it’s almost impossible to be certain about motivation so speculation is fruitless.
3. Acknowledge the deficiencies in your position – pretending your argument is self evidently correct and beyond doubt when it clearly isn’t is dishonest and arrogant.
And to Jim’s three I’m going to add one from Steven Pinker:
4. Acknowledge that precious and widely held beliefs, when subjected to empirical tests, are often cruelly falsified.
Thanks to everyone who’s contributed to this blog over the last year. Here are two guest blog posts worth re-reading:
A crusading journalist is one who closes one eye in order to see better with the other by Roger Underwood: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001633.html
and also,
Paul Williams explains the pines may be a better proxy for carbon dioxide (CO2) than temperature, so the famous hockey stick graph may not be a ‘temperature hockey stick’, but rather a ‘CO2 Hockey Stick’: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001546.html.
My best wishes to YOU for 2007.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Hi Jen
Many thanks for this blog and the opportunity to participate in 2006 – I look forward to the fun and games of 2007.
Re The Rules 😉
All for them – methinks No 1 will last about as long as a polar bear on an ice floe in the tropics .. but whatever 😉
A happy new year to all on the Blog and especially the Oz mob – the lucky buggers get to start imibing in my morning .. sigh … a glass will be waved somewhere southwards around 10am tommorrow in yer honour 😉
cheers
Hi Jennifer
I’m concerned at the adverts that Google are attaching to your e-letter(ie ACF and similar,that are in violent opposition to your(Our) viewpoint
what gives?
rgds
Ron Manners
Best wishes to you to Jen.
Now let’s resume the battle.
“… many environmentalists were consumed lamenting the fate of the world’s polar bears and minke whales (neither species likely to go extinct anytime soon) while a species of freshwater dolphin in the Yangtze did go extinct.”
True, Jen. And it was me, a nasty little environmentalist and Greens Party member who alerted you to the fact that the baiji was the world’s most endangered marine mammal. http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001228.html#comments
Afterwards, you used the story of the baiji to bash environmentalists over the head, but did you or the IPA actually do anything substantive to contribute towards its conservation?
Over the past year I have made a number of comments on Jennifer’s blog. I have resolved this year not to spend any time or mental effort debating issues that “blogging” about won’t change the end result anyway. I will use my spare time to do things that I enjoy, are constructive and deliver a real result. It would be good if a few of the regulars did that too: they really seem to have time to burn. Goodbye and best wishes to all.
I forgot that all environmentalists, activist PhD’s & all NGO’s are rubbish too. I have asked before what is left on which to gather evidence?
Hi Ron,
Google place adds that their ‘search robots’ think match the content of a site I guess using key words. So it is perhaps not surprising I end up with advertisements from ACF etcetera.
It is also possible that the ACF has asked google to advertise here.
I think some of the advertisements are quite interesting… it was through the google advertisements I learnt that Patrice Newell (Phillip Adam’s wife) is running on climate change for the next NSW election.
And a Happy New Year to you Ron.
—————-
Hi Steve,
This last year I put a lot of effort into the Australian Environment Foundation (www.aefweb.info ) particularly helping with the first conference which was in Brisbane in September.
The most influential of my writings during 2006 was probably on the Macquarie Marshes and will hopefully result — in the longer term — in getting more water through to the two nature reserves for the birds.
I’ve been writing about different animals from earthworms to koalas since I was a young child as much out of interest as anything else. I did study biology at university and for many years worked as a fied biologist — that’s perhaps when I made my greatest contribution to the environment.
This blog is something of a hobby, and it has resulted in some new friendships.
———————-
Hi Robert,
I’d consider this blog a place for the exchange of information and for reading different perspectives. I’m not sure that information exchange and sharing will change the world overnight… but perhaps it all helps.
Readers and commentators like Libby and Russell certainly provide important insights for me … also Ian Mott and Rog.
Dear Jennifer,
Could you be thoughtful enough to apply apply your biological systems education and your rule number 3 to consider the scientific evidence presented to you (2 threads earlier) that contrasts with your rosy position that ‘no worries mate, ignore the published science, the polar bears will be fine cos they haven’t gorn extinct yet and there’s some in an air con zoo’.
Consider:
3. Acknowledge the deficiencies in your position – pretending your argument is self evidently correct and beyond doubt when it clearly isn’t is dishonest and arrogant.
How confident are you that the polar bears aren’t at risk of going the way of the baiji? Consider the newfoundland cod where science was dismissed because cod were still being found right up until the season that cod populations completely collapsed.
Regarding Jennifer’s comment why all environmentalists and press are lamenting over the polar bears , when they are not near extinction.
As I pointed out with the Baiji, we started too late to worry….it’s better to start “in good time”, so unother catastrophie can be avoided.
Unfortunately, one of the species that Jennifer mentioned that should be focused on, the Baltic Sea porpoise, with a population of about 100 animals or less seems quite hopeless.
The Swedish Government seems to have caved in for financial interests , and has stated it is too expensive with inspectors on the boats and putting pingers om the nets.( However, the porpoise is not exclusively a Swedish concern)
Pinxi, collapsed yes but not extinct, unlike it seems the baiji. It is also a little easier to estimate polar bear population and use that as a guide. The fishermen did not realise that the cod when stressed congregated in fewer, but large groups hence they still had big catches. Science warnings came only a short time prior to collapse relative to the length of time the fishery was over exploited.
rojo given that people were surprised, what can we learn? It makes a case for precaution, to anticipate the unexpected, to consider other factors in the ecosystem (eg changed water currents & temperatures) and to scrutinise claims that all is ok if scientists in the field say otherwise.
The cod take declined for 20 years before collapse (despite quotas and 80’s investment in industrialised fishing technology). Local fisherman and some scientists issued warnings (eg about mathematical inaccuracies and distortions in the cohort assessments based on commercial measurements) more than a decade before collapse. Commercial interests obscured good science and system factors (water temps) helped to break the camel’s back.
My interpretation of Jennifer’s point about what “crisis” should we focus on, is that problems are often chosen for attention because they have electoral and/or fund raising appeal. Aren’t the baiji and the cod good examples? People didn’t ignore these issues because they didn’t believe the well-intentioned marine scientists. We collectively overlooked them because we didn’t know and couldn’t have cared much if we did. These extinctions were generally ignored because a large proportion of western activists could not see any advantage for themselves in bringing the issues to our attention. Why would we expect otherwise? If activists spend too much time on uninteresting (albeit worthy) causes, their organisations will lose resources, power and influence. For the greatest common good, they have to balance the worthy objectives with expediency. So it comes down to normal old politics and the difficulty of agreeing upon a definition of the “greatest common good”.
I reckon the venom directed towards the conservation activists in this place is because the activists don’t appear to understand that they aren’t saving the planet, they are playing politics. Just like John Howard and George Bush and all the others we are meant to hate.
I agree on maximising the ‘bang for buck’. I see some of it a bit differently Boxer – people often do care, esp where their daily lives are affected (eg the cod again for fishers & consumers) but ideas take hold of our conciousness until they’re outdated, as we tend to unquestioningly assume the current situation will remain unchanged especially once it’s become part of our folklore. (ie we don’t change unless we’re forced to). eg the cod had been a plentiful resource for a long time (perhaps infinite by old fishing standards) & legends abounded. Then there was gold to be made. Historical bounty plus new economic opportunities in the age of exploitation. Also different interest groups – several very different fishing groups taking the cod. Increasingly large concerns got involved, with shorter histories of involvment & new technologies fishing in new territories, but economic concerns were overriding and immediate gains overshadowed longer term gains.
Pinxi the same logic that indicates something is wrong with declining cod numbers(although no serious attempt was made to do so) would also indicate polar bears are doing ok, where lots of effort has been made quantifying both numbers and health.
We don’t need circumstantial logic we need science. We also need to look beyond ‘soon’ (as in extinct soon in original post).
Science says impending risks to polar bears as it did with cod when numbers of cod still seemed plentiful to the observer. Differences, yes, but lessons to be heeded and not just caution at the general level. Approaching collapse, the average size of cod was decreasing, age of breeding changing, feeding behaviour & location might have changed too(?), and cohort representation was skewed. There are some worrying similarities there with recent scientific observations of the health of polar bears (on the couple of populations that have decent longterm studies).
I think I agree with you Pinxi in that the devil is often in the detail (if that’s what you said). An example that came to mind as I read your comment was the local red-tailed cockatoo. Their numbers are apparently fairly stable, but they are a long-lived bird and the concern was raised that we may be looking at a population that is surviving but not breeding. If this hypothesis is correct, they will suddenly vanish.
The concern was that they have food but not adequate hollows for nesting. So far so good, in terms of focussing upon the real issue.
Now the b/s factor came into play. The state water utility decided to make some hay while the sun shone during the local furore about logging native forests in the early-mid 1990’s. With much fanfare they announced that they were supporting the survival of the red-tail by providing valuable nesting environments in their water catchments located in the state forest. The thrust of this was that they were on the good side here, protecting red-tails from evil foresters. The lie behind this was that the state forest in the water catchments is in fact all regenerated after logging, much of it cut over more than once and some of it clear felled. This type of lie is still common in this debate today. Interesting, in recent times the same water utility has launched a project of forest thinning to increase water flow into the dams, a process that I applaud with vigour because it’s good for the forests, the stream flow and makes no impact on the incidence of fauna nesting hollows. But totally at odds with their opportunistic political behaviour in the early 1990’s. Environmental activism may come from state agencies just as readily as it may come from communities of bored affluent sea-changers.
I don’t know what the state of play is with the red-tails, but the interests of this bird may have been submerged beneath the games that have been played.