• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
Jennifer Marohasy

Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

  • Home
  • About
  • Publications
  • Speaker
  • Blog
  • Temperatures
  • Coral Reefs
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Archives for June 11, 2008

What is Wilderness (Part 12)

June 11, 2008 By jennifer

The chief executive of the National Parks Association of New South Wales, Andrew Cox, was reported in today’s The Sydney Morning Herald saying that he would “die in a ditch” protecting national parks from commercialisation by the tourism industry.

Bourke May 05 109 copy .jpg
Back of Bourke, May 2005. Photograph taken by Jennifer Marohasy

—————
Other posts in this series:
part 1 https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/000797.html Percy Bysshe Shelley 1820, Theodore Roosevelt 1903, Donald McKinley 1963, William Tucker 1982, Phil Cheney 2003.
part 2 https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/003015.html Martin Thomas, 2003.
part 3 https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/003044.html Travis, May 2008.
part 4 https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/003104.html John Brinckerhoff Jackson, 1994.
part 5 https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/003112.html Wes George, 2008.
part 6 https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/003120.html Cohenite, 2008.
part 7 https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/003124.html Roy Spencer, 2008.
part 8 https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/003127.html Libby, 2008
part 9 https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/003129.html Spangled Drongo, 2008
part 10 https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/003131.html Walter Starck, 2008
part 11 https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/003133.html Neil Hewett, 2008

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Wilderness

Misbehaving Models and Missing Mammals by Jennifer Marohasy

June 11, 2008 By jennifer

Following is my review of ‘Science and Public Policy: The Virtuous Corruption of Virtual Environmental Science’ by Aynsley Kellow (Edward Elgar, 2007, 218 pages) as published in The IPA Review, May 2008 (Vol 59/4):

In 2000 the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) claimed a species of Cambodian mountain goat, Pseudonovibos sptraits, was endangered with a fragmented population of 2,500 mature individuals. The species was included in the 2003 and 2006 edition of the IUCN Red List of Threatend Species.

But the Pseudonovibos sptrails never existed.

Cambodian artisans had been fooling collectors for years by removing the sheath from the horns of domestic cattle, soaking them in vinegar, heating them in palm sugar and bamboo leaves before moulding and carving the horns and then selling them as wall mounts. There had been no sightings of the goats, and DNA analysis indicated the skull bones to be those of cattle, but the idea of a rare creature that needed saving captured the imagination of the local Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) program manager and he featured the IUCN listing in his fight against land mines and rainforest destruction.

In a new book Science and Public Policy: The Virtuous Corruption of Virtual Environmental Science Aynsley KeIlow, Professor and Head of the School of Government at the University of Tasmania, uses this and other case studies from conservation biology and climate science as examples of ‘noble cause corruption’. The phenomenon is recognised in law enforcement circles where police officers manufacture evidence to ensure a conviction.

The thesis of Kellow’s book is that noble cause corruption gives as much cause for concern about the reliability of science as the potential influence of money.

Kellow shows that noble cause corruption is rife in the environmental sciences, and he shows how the corruption is facilitated by the virtual nature of much of the science.

After opening with the somewhat comical example of the bogus listing of the mythical Cambodian mountain goat, Kellow gets into the history of conservation biology. He explains how in the early 1980s ecology lacked a scientifically respectable method for studying life. The ecosystem approach potentially provided scientific respectability by supplying ecologists with mathematical tools developed by physicists beginning with the species-area equation and the theory of island biogeography.

While the theory could explain the number of insect and arthropod species colonising mangrove islands off the coast of Florida as a function of their distance from the mainland, the theory’s extrapolation to non-island situations and terrestrial ecology more generally was not justified.

And predicting species loss by extrapolating backwards to suggest, for example, that a reduction in the area of forest will produce the same rate of species reduction as does its growth, has no basis in observational data but is common practice in conservation biology.

It is this approach, in particular the dominance of mathematical models, which makes it possible for groups like Greenpeace to use figures of 50,000-100,000 species becoming extinct every year, with support from the scientific literature, when they would be hard pressed to provide evidence of any actual extinctions.

Furthermore, an ecosystem as Kellow explains is nothing more than a construction: ‘Ecologists tried to study ponds as examples of ecosystems, but soon found even they were not closed systems but connected to the watertable, and affected by groundwater flows, spring run-off and migrating waterfowl.’

In Science and Public Policy, Kellow shows how the misguided approach to the complexity of ‘ecosystems’ facilitated the subsequent development of climate science as ‘post-normal’ science. Kellow begins by explaining that climate change is an area of science where models inevitably play an important role-there is little scope for laboratory experimentation.

Climate models are constructed using historical data and then tested against the same data. Until about 1996 they produced a warming climate even with constant carbon dioxide. It is a vast undertaking and many scientists involved in modelling future climates have to assume the results of others are correct, and so it becomes partly a construct-dealing with enormous complexity and nonlinear processes.

Furthermore, Kellow details how lapses in scientific standards have occurred-involving the misuse of statistics on emissions scenarios and the incorrect reinterpretation of tree-ring data- which have had the effect of conveniently contributing to the political case for action to mitigate climate change.

The second half of the book is very much about politics beginning with a detailed analysis of the campaign by scientists against statistician Bjorn Lomborg and his book The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World and following with a critique of why there seems to be a closer affinity between environmentalism and left-leaning parties in western democracies and greater hostility towards environmental protection from right-leaning parties.

Kellow argues that there are cultural factors associated with the appreciation of nature that align with political ideologies and that these factors become exaggerated by the now virtual nature of many scientific disciplines. This further facilitates the corruption of science and public policy.

Kellow disputes the claim that the rise of environmentalism simply reflects increasing affluence and a progressive agenda, and considers the history of environmentalism and the myth of the balance of nature in the context of a long tradition of Western thought often involving catastrophic decline from some idyllic past- usually as a result of sin.

The idea of the ‘balance of nature’ persists, even though it is not supported by the observational data, because, if we accept this myth, any change in ecosystems can be attributed to human activity and imparted with a deep social meaning.

Within this paradigm, ecology involves all manner of projections of human values onto observed nature including through the use of terms such as ‘invasive species’ and ‘alien’.

Quoting Robert Kirkman, Kellow suggests that a belief in ecologism provides a moral compass pointing in the direction of holistic harmony, but it is an illusion.

This shift of environmentalism onto a religious plane, coupled with the descent of much of ecology into the virtual world of mathematical modelling has seen the marriage of environmental science to political activism. Classic liberalism, Kellow explains, with its emphasis on separation between the individual and the state, can provide a protection against ‘the darker possibilities of environmentalism’.

The book ends with a warning to scientists to not usurp the role of policy-makers. But rather provide those policy-makers with informed choices.

Indeed public policy is almost never resolved by some piece of scientific information. When science is used to arbitrate it eventually loses its independent status and disqualifies itself.

Science and Public Policy is an important book as a philosophical and historical analysis of environmental activism particularly over the last 30 years.

It will be especially appreciated by naturalists and biologists who remember the good old days when tramping about in work boots observing wild goats at close range or, in my case, collecting live lepidopteron, was encouraged-that is, before the advent of environmental science and sitting at desks crunching numbers for computer models.

Jennifer Marohasy is a Senior Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs.

You can buy the book here: http://www.amazon.com/Science-Public-Policy-Corruption-Environmental/dp/1847204708

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Plants and Animals

A Note on Temperature Anomalies by Tom Quirk

June 11, 2008 By Tom Quirk

One of the most vexing things about climate change is the endless debate about temperatures. Did they rise, did they fall or were they pushed? At times it seems like a Monty Python sketch following either the Dead Parrot or the 5 or 10 Minute Argument.

However it is possible to see some of the issues by looking at the correlation of the five temperature series that are advanced by the uppers or the downers.

The five groups are:
1. GISS, The Goddard Institute, home of James Hansen,
2. NCDC, The National Climate Data Center, a part of NOAA (as is GISS), the National Oceanographic and Atmosphere Administration.
3. BMO/UEA, The British Meteorological Office and the University of East Anglia.
4. UAH, The University of Alabama, Huntsville, home of Roy Spencer with his colleagues including John Christy of NASA and
5. RSS, Remote Sensing Systems in Santa Rosa, California, a company supported by NASA for the analysis of satellite data.

The first three groups use ground based data where possible with a degree of commonality. However since 70% of the surface of the earth is ocean and it is not monitored in a detailed manner, various recipes are followed to fill the ocean gap, if that is the best way of putting it.

The last two groups use satellite data to probe the atmosphere and with the exception of the Polar Regions which are less than 10% of the globe, they get comprehensive coverage.

One question is of course are the two groups measuring the same temperature? After all the satellite looks down through the atmosphere, while the ground stations are exactly that.

One of the ways to probe this is to look over time at the degree of correlation achieved in the measurements of the “global temperature anomaly

The results of such a comparison are given in Table 1 for the monthly time series from 1979 to 2008. There is the Pearson correlation coefficient extracted from the data. A value of 1.00 shows the compared values move in step with each other while a value of 0.00 would give complete independence. (A value of-1.00 is also possible.) “Commonality”, the square of the correlation coefficient is interpreted as showing what proportion of one measurement series is covered by the other series. Note that correlation does not imply connection or causality except that we know there is some commonality with ground based measurements.

Table 1.
Tom Quirk_table1_temp.JPG

First a check of the land based measurements shows that two groups are closely aligned, the difference reflecting the different processing to get the global result.

GISS is more problematic with less commonality which must be a reflection of quite different processing assumptions to that of NCDC or BMO/UEA.

For land based measurements we are faced with a “Judgement of Paris” and it is not clear who gets the Golden Apple.

Finally the satellite measurements have a high internal commonality but a commonality of some 50% with the land based measurements.

None of this should be surprising. The land measurements are on the land and subject to a number of uncertainties, such as heat island effects and lack of extensive ocean measurements while the satellites probe the atmosphere but not ground level.

So for the last 8 years the results are in Table 2

Table 2.
Tom Quirk_table2_temp.JPG

It is surprising to see the agreement achieved by two quite independent approaches.

However we should be aware that none of this is simple.

Tom Quirk
Melbourne

Filed Under: Opinion, Uncategorized Tagged With: Climate & Climate Change

Economist Ross Garnaut Confuses ‘Skepticism’ and ‘Dissent’

June 11, 2008 By jennifer

Australian economist Ross Garnaut has been commissioned by Australia’s Commonwealth, state and territory governments to examine the impacts, challenges and opportunities of climate change for Australia. There will be a final report by 30 September 2008.

Peter Gallager attended a recent lecture by this well known economist who is likely to significantly shape Australian government policy, he commented:

“I hoped to find that Prof. Garnaut would use his Heinz Arndt Lecture to describe the balance he intended to strike in his recommendations between evidence for risky climate change and a growing body of evidence that the risks are low to moderate (at most). Given his well-known views, I expected to find the balance tilted in favor of the former but I hoped to find that it would be moderated by recognition of the latter. Unfortunately, Prof. Garnaut paid no attention to any scientific facts and made no attempt to strike a balanced risk assessment…

“Ross Garnaut seems to believe that ‘scepticism’ about climate change is analogous to… or is, ‘dissent’. That is, he prefers to describe critics of his views using a term drawn from religious history, identifying someone who rejects a dogma. My reaction on first reading was surprise at the use of a term that implies acceptance of man-made global warming is really a faith from which critics may ‘dissent’. Did Ross Garnaut understand that (obvious) implication, I wondered? …

“Answering the question whether it is possible for ‘dissenters’ can be scientists, Ross Garnaut invokes Gallileo, whom he wrongly describes as a ‘dissenter’—Gallileo was no such thing; Gallileo’s conflict with the Church was about the appropriate role of empricism and contained no basic doctrinal dissent—as an exception that proves his rule…

“When Prof. Garnaut concludes ‘the Dissenters are possibly right, and probably wrong’, what evidence does he adduce? None. Not a shred. This is depressingly consistent with the approach taken in his Interim Report. He does not consider that the science offered in contradiction of the IPPCC pronouncements (the hypotheses of ‘those who are best placed to know’—see p. 5 of his address) calls anything into question because it is ‘dissent’ and not science.

“So much for name-calling. What positive reason does Prof. Garnaut offer for accepting the ‘uncertainties’ of the IPCC as reasonably indicative of a probability? No scientific reason, as it turns out.”

These excerpts are from ‘Science, dogma and dissent: Ross Garnaut’s Heinz Arndt lecture’, by Peter Gallagher. You can read the complete article here:
http://www.petergallagher.com.au/index.php/site/article/science-dogma-and-dissent-ross-garnauts-heinz-arndt-lecture/

The lecure by Professor Garnaut was entitled ‘Measuring the Immeasurable: The Costs and Benefits of Climate Change Mitigation’ and given on June 5, 2008, at the Australian National University. You can read the complete lecture here:
http://www.garnautreview.org.au/CA25734E0016A131/WebObj/MeasuringtheImmeasurable-TheCostsandBenefitsofClimateChangeMitigation,ProfessorRossGarnaut/$File/Measuring%20the%20Immeasurable-%20The%20Costs%20and%20Benefits%20of%20Climate%20Change%20Mitigation,%20Professor%20Ross%20Garnaut.pdf

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Philosophy

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • Ian Thomson on Vax-ed as Sick as Unvax-ed, Amongst My Friends
  • Dave Ross on Vax-ed as Sick as Unvax-ed, Amongst My Friends
  • Dave Ross on Vax-ed as Sick as Unvax-ed, Amongst My Friends
  • Alex on Incarceration Nation: Frightened of Ivermectin, and Dihydrogen monoxide
  • Wilhelm Grimm III on Incarceration Nation: Frightened of Ivermectin, and Dihydrogen monoxide

Subscribe For News Updates

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

June 2008
M T W T F S S
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30  
« May   Jul »

Archives

Footer

About Me

Jennifer Marohasy Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD has worked in industry and government. She is currently researching a novel technique for long-range weather forecasting funded by the B. Macfie Family Foundation. Read more

Subscribe For News Updates

Subscribe Me

Contact Me

To get in touch with Jennifer call 0418873222 or international call +61418873222.

Email: jennifermarohasy at gmail.com

Connect With Me

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2014 - 2018 Jennifer Marohasy. All rights reserved. | Legal

Website by 46digital