A SCIENTIST’S REPLY TO THE GREENIES

One of my readers has written in with an extensive review of the work of Philip Stott (Professor of Biogeography at the University of London). I reproduce the email below:

This PDF document (49 pages) on this page provides a detailed critique of modern rain forest mythology -- pointing out that rain forests are not nearly as “endangered” as we are usually told. His views are also summarised here.

Stott runs a website dealing with 'little green lies' here that covers a lot of green ground. He seems to be a regular guest on some BBC radio programmes on environmental matters, so he is not an ivory tower scribbler. Here is his "Quote of the week":
"The problem with predicting the course of global climate change... is that global climate is too complex to be adequately modeled."

Stott has lots of other good articles including this one on the Le Brea Tar Pits in Los Angeles, which are a must see for anyone interested in science and the history of the Earth. I remember them as one of the highlights of my time in LA. The lesson of this great museum is "In nature, change is the only constant. Get used to it." If you ever get a chance to visit the Pits and the associated museum do so.

He has a discussion of his big picture overview of ecology and environmentalism here. He says ecology is in a crisis that the popularisers have yet to acknowledge. The scientific frontline is increasingly reporting a dynamic, open ended 'non-equilibrium' real natural world but the "rear echelon" of popularisers, pundits and propagandists are stuck with an obsolete language of the balance of nature, equilibrium era.

My guess is that the front line may be reluctant to confront these fallacies as it may impact funding and public support for their scientific work as well as conservation programmes. If so, this is really a Faustian bargain for the scientists and can 'cut both ways', they risk having all their professional expertise ignored or tainted by undue association with doom merchants. Stott sees the language of ecology as the hang up and in some ways his comments remind me of the focus 'post-modernist' critics who usually focus on language semiotics etc, however Stott is arguing that the empirical realities are being hidden by obsolete lingo where the post-mods see empiricism as just another lingo.

His discussion of global warming is to the point:

[Global warming] ..is thus in the same category as ..., the assumption that other planets are inhabited by rational beings. While such semi-empirical entities are possible, they are ultimately neither verifiable nor falsifiable because of the continuing technical limitations involved.

The technical limitations of our current climate models and knowledge are, ...horrendous. Even the.. (IPCC) admits openly that we know next-to-nothing about 75% of the main factors implicated. We therefore cannot allow the global warming alarmists' key antinomy to pass unchallenged: namely, that while climate is an exceedingly complex non-linear chaotic system, we can control climate by adjusting just one set of factors.

While the phenomenon of global warming is an empty worry, fundamentally unverifiable and unfalsifiable in a strict scientific sense, it is one that has been empowered with a greater meaning by those who have the motive to do so. Accordingly, and perhaps unsurprisingly, since the early 1990s its intrinsic linguistic emptiness has been filled by a mighty myth, especially in Europe. This myth asserts that current global warming is both faster and worse than at any previous time, that it is not natural, but must be caused by human hubris, and that the main culprit has to be the United States.

The concept has been translated into a matter of faith, transcending "the theoretical use of reason." For the good folk involved, following Kant, global warming has become neither a matter of knowledge nor of opinion, but wholly a matter of morality.

He also makes some interesting points about savannas...

they dominate the tropical world. Savannas occupy no less than 45 per cent of South America, 65 per cent of Africa, and 60 per cent of Australia. .. the majority of people living in the tropics, comprising no less than one-fifth of the world's population, inhabit the savannas, which form the core of the world's monsoonal lands that overall support some 50 per cent of the global population. The savannas in consequence are the single most important terrestrial environment, and are both older than and as diverse as the tropical rain forests. ..

He has a brief intro into the increasingly important field of savanna studies here

***********************************