Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

jennifer

Nature Favors Wikipedia?

By

There is currently something of a dispute between Encyclopedia Britannica and science journal Nature on the accuracy of a study Nature conducted some time ago comparing information in the Encyclopedia with the information available on the internet at Wikipedia. The Nature study concluded that Wikipedia was as reliable and readable a source of information as the Britannica.

Readers of this blog may remember that I did a post on the issue quoting an article in The Australia in December, click here.

Now, according to The Register, it seems you can’t trust Nature or Wikipedia, click here. Encyclopedia Britannica is claiming that the study was designed to favour Wikipedia and that information provided from the Britannica as part of the study was incomplete and as a consequence not assessed accurately.

The article concludes with the following comments:

“So why did Nature risk its reputation in such a way?

Perhaps the clue lies not in the news report, but in the evangelism of the accompanying editorial. Nature’s news and features editor Jim Giles, who was responsible for the Wikipedia story, has a fondness for “collective intelligence”, one critical website suggets.

“As long as enough scientists with relevant knowledge played the market, the price should reflect the latest developments in climate research,” Giles concluded of one market experiment in 2002.

The idea became notorious two years ago when DARPA, under retired Admiral Poindexter, invested in an online terror casino to predict world events such as assassinations. The public didn’t quite share the sunny view of this utopian experiment, and Poindexter was invited to resign.

What do these seemingly disparate projects have in common? The idea that you can vote for the truth.

We thought it pretty odd, back in December, to discover a popular science journal recommending readers support less accurate information. It’s even stranger to find this institution apparently violating fundamental principles of empiricism.

But these are strange times – and high summer for supporters of junk science.”

But it seems you can’t trust science journal Nature either? And Nature is presumably not about “collective intelligence” or “voting for the truth”.

Ian Castles has commented:

“This reminds me of a letter to The Economist from ecologist Jeff Harvey, author of Nature’s review on Lomborg in 2001. Harvey quoted in all seriousness a Danish peak science figure who’d said that, to scientists, Nature, Science and Scientific American held the same place as the Bible to Christians and the Koran to Moslems.

Barrie Pittock gives references to the hostile reviews of Lomborg’s book in Nature and Science in the Supplementary Notes and References to Climate Change: Turning Up the Heat. The Science review, by Michael Grubb, was fair comment, though I don’t agree with it. The review in Nature, by Harvey was outrageous – he bracketed Lomborg with holocaust deniers.”

This reminds me of a telephone conversation I had with a farmer some time ago. He always reads my columns in The Land newspaper and was phoning to provide me with some additional information about koalas and their feeding habits. I suggested he should read and contribute to this blog. He replied that he didn’t like the internet because he didn’t trust it as a source of information, he went on to tell me that he did trust what he read in The Land.

—————————
Update 9pm

Here’s a link to the actual response from Britannica, http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf.
Thanks to Benny Peiser for the link.

Jared Diamond: Under the Spell of Malthus & Montana

By

Friends and colleagues keep sending me links to critiques of Jared Diamond’s book ‘Collapse’.

Following is a link to a short essay by Ronald Bailey that goes beyond Diamond’s book and discusses what makes a successful society and also a longer piece by Kendra Okonski on Diamond’s chapter on Montana (Chapter 1).

Ronald Bailey titled his essay ‘Under the Spell of Malthus’ and commented that:

“Why is Puerto Rico so much better off than its neighbors? In a word, institutions. Diamond vaguely recognizes the importance of social and political institutions, but his analysis doesn’t go much deeper than arguing that Haitian dictators have been more rapacious than Dominican dictators. In fact, the last two centuries have shown that the more a country adheres to the rule of law, protects private property, reduces bureaucratic corruption, nurtures a free press, permits free markets, engages in trade, and allows democratic politics, the less likely it is to suffer from the Malthusian horrors of plagues, famines, and civil wars. What Haiti and Rwanda have in common is not just dense populations but shattered social and political institutions. What the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Puerto Rico have in common are not only dense populations, but adequately effective social and political institutions.

…As ecology teaches us, the simplest ecosystems are often the most fragile. Similarly, our modern globally interconnected economy that can draw upon a wide array of resources is far more stable and robust than either the fragile pre-modern or the marginally modern societies cited by Diamond. It’s worth noting that in 1800, when the vast majority of people on the planet were farmers, the global average GDP per capita, adjusted for inflation, was about $600.

Diamond adheres to the orthodox Malthusian claims that human population growth is exponential while “improvements in food production add rather than multiply; this breakthrough increases wheat yields by 25%, that breakthrough increases yields an additional 20%, etc.” But just looking at the history of the 20th century, it is very clear that increases in food production have been exponential too; in fact, food production has been increasing faster than human population growth. Since 1961 world grain production has tripled, while world population has doubled. Consequently, per capita global food production increased by 25 percent between 1961 and 2004, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization.
“I have not met anyone,” Diamond writes, “who seriously argues that the world could support 12 times its current impact, although an increase of that factor would result from all Third World inhabitants adopting first world living standards.” But increasing human numbers and wealth do not translate automatically into more impact on the natural world. The British demographer Angus Maddison calculates that world GDP increased in real dollars from $2 trillion in 1900 to $37 trillion in 2001, while global per capita income rose from $1,300 annually to more than $6,000. This 18-fold increase in output was not achieved just by doing more and more of the same old things. Most of the increase was achieved through technological innovation: using better recipes to manipulate less physical stuff to give us more services.

…The only way to solve the allegedly impending global ecological crisis, according to Diamond, is “long-term planning, and a willingness to reconsider core values.” Although vague about whom he would put in charge of global planning, Diamond evinces throughout Collapse an alarming affection for authoritarian rulers who issue top-down orders restraining their citizens’ use of resources.”

In Collapse Jared Diamond suggests Montana is in as big a mess as Australia. But Kendra Okonski, a Montana native who now lives in England, disagrees. She argues that Diamond has got it wrong and that he doesn’t understand Montana’s history, forests or anything else. Kendra’s essay titled ‘Montana: On the Verge of Collapse?’ has just been published by PERC, the Property and Environment Research Center.

My critique titled ‘Australia’s Environment Undergoing Renewal Not Collapse’ published by Energy and Environment, recently made it into Wikipedia.

Busting Dams to Save Bilbies

By

It will be Easter soon and if you live in Australia you can buy a chocolate bilbie instead of a chocolate rabbit to celebrate the occasion.

I understand that rabbits are traditionally associated with Easter because they represent fertility. Bilbies are not particularly fertile, in fact they are listed as endangered, but hey, it is all about helping an Australian native marsupial that’s doing it tough.

There were once two species of bilbie, but one is recorded as extinct since 1931 (Macrotis leucura). Bilbies have soft silky fur, long noses, long ears and they do not need to drink water.

I was sent a link to a story on ABC Television in Western Australia last week about a women struggling to save horses on a property purchased by government with the intention of putting it back how it was before European settlement. This involves removing artificial sources of water including dams.

Draining the dams has had the effect of starving and dehydrating many feral animals, including wild horses while presumably favoring native animals like bilbies that don’t need a drink.

The transcript is worth reading, it raises issues of animal cruelty, but also how one state government agency is trying to achieve some of its longer term objectives for wildlife management in Australia’s rangelands, click here.

Technologically Advanced, Modern Economy, Survives Category 5 Cyclone With Out Single Fatality

By

A category 5 cyclone, more severe than Cyclone Tracy or Hurricane Katrina, lashes Far North Queensland and there is not a single fatality.

It perhaps says something about Australia, modern economies and democracies and their potential capacity to adapt and to survive?

Congratulations Far North Queensland!

When we were less technologically advance, that is on 10th March 1918 and a severe cyclone hit Innisfail, over 80 people died.

Following is the note in the Bureau of Meterology records for that event:

“This cyclone is widely regarded as the worst cyclone to hit a populated area of Queensland. It crossed the coast and passed directly over Innisfail. Pen on Post Office barograph was prevented from registering below 948 hPa by flange on bottom of drum. 926 hPa read at the Mourilyan Sugar mill at 7 pm 10 Mar. The eye wall reached Innisfail at 9 pm. In Innisfail, then a town of 3,500 residents, only around 12 houses remained intact the rest being blown flat or unroofed. A report from the Harbours and Marine Engineer indicated that at Maria Creek the sea rose to a height of about 3m above high water (If this refers to HAT the water was 4.65m above the tide for that day). Around 4.40pm 10 Mar at Bingil Bay a tidal wave was seen surging in from the east into Bingil Bay taking the bridge over the creek 400 m inland. Mission Beach was covered by 3.6 m water for hundreds of metres inland, the debris reached a height of 7m in the trees. All buildings and structures were destroyed by the storm surge in the Bingil Bay Mission beach area. The surge was 2.6m at Flying Fish Point. Babinda also had many buildings destroyed and some reports suggest that not one building was left standing. There was widespread damage at Cairns and on the Atherton Tablelands. Recent reports suggest that 37 people died in Innisfail while 40 to 60 (mostly aborigines) lost their lives in nearby areas.”

—————-
My aunt and brother who live in Cairns and Smithfield, respectively, are fine. They both said there was a bit of wind last night, but otherwise OK.

Blair Bartholomew on Carbon Trading and Taxi Licenses

By

Last week, after reading ‘Nine Lies About Global Warming’ in which Ray Evans draws a comparison between the issuing of taxi licenses and carbon trading, I posted a quote from Ray and some related information at this blog.

I was interested in exploring the comparison.

Blair Bartholomew made several interesting observations. Following are some edited extracts.

“The big issue of course is how many licenses to grant. From the point of safety regulations you could argue that an unlimited number of licenses would be acceptable. The issue of availability of service i.e. enables a certain number of cabs to be available at all times would demand some restriction in the number of licenses. Otherwise you would have plenty of cabs available at the more popular times of the day and the year and a dearth of cabs at others.

So in making the decision as to the number of licenses the regulators rely on data to support their decisions. If they get it wrong and have two few licenses then the original lucky taxi license holders make a windfall. If they issue too many licenses then taxi users will suffer from an unreliable service.

Similarly with respect to emission controls, in the absence of controls, the population, as a whole, would be worse off from the effects of AGW. Just as the cab regulators need good information to decide on the number of cab licenses, so do the emission regulators to decide on the level of emission controls.”

Then Blair made a second comment, asking more questions.

“Regulators have to decide whether the likely scenario, after the introduction of controls (and allowing for the costs of implementing the controls) is preferred to the likely scenario without the controls. In other words will there be an aggregate gain in society’s welfare. To do this they need information about the alternate states, the “with” and the “without”.

In the case of global carbon emission controls the information needs are infinitely greater and more complex (and the effects of “bad” research much greater).

While the questions and topics are different, regulators would enquire [information] along the following lines. For the carbon emission regulators:

1. Is the increase in world temperature over the last 60+ years largely the result of human-induced carbon emissions?

2. And without regulation will the situation worsen i.e. the world gets even hotter?

3. In the absence of controls will profitable technology provide the solution? By profitable I mean carbon emitters will voluntarily invest in the research as they will be better off from application of the research.

4. If it is agreed that indeed warming will increase, what will be its effects on human welfare?

5. How do we quantify these effects?

6. What will be the distribution of these effects? Will some regions/countries/people actually gain some benefits from warmer temperatures and by how much? What regions/countries/people will lose and by how much?

7. If we are satisfied with the projected outcomes in the absence of the controls, then we must model expected outcomes in the presence of different levels of controls …no mean feat.

8. How do we quantify the benefits from the implementation of these different levels controls?

9. What are the likely costs and their distribution from implementation of controls?

10. Finally how do we then determine the “right” level of emission control?

A lot of the rather heated discussion on this blog seems to relate to points 1,2 and 3.

However I have not seen much discussion or data relating to the subsequent points.

I am sure some economic thinktank would have done the massive modelling required to come up with the answers. That is why Phil I asked you earlier if you are familiar with studies estimating the economic returns, including distribution of benefits and costs, from the massive research in global warming and appliction of its findings viz levels of controls etcetera.”

I am unfamiliar with any “massive modelling’ effort by an economic think tank. The analysis I am most familiar with, and that I consider most comprehensive, was done by Bjorn Lomborg in Chapter 24 of ‘The Skeptical Environmentalist’ published in 2001. But perhaps there has been something done more recently?

Tasmanian Greens Not Happy

By

There were elections in Tasmania and South Australia yesterday.

Despite help from a San Francisco based environmental group, and an expectation that they would win more seats at the election, the Tasmanian Greens look like they have lost one of their four seats and suffered a 3 percent swing against them.

Green’s leader Peg Putt claims they didn’t do so well because the whole world was against them, at least,

“We have had the might of big business, union bosses, Labor, Liberals and more directed against us,” she said to a chorus of boos in the tally room.”

It is not often you have both big business and union bosses against the one party?

According to The Age,

“Big environmental issues failed to bite with the electorate. In Bass, home of the state’s controversial $1.5 billion pulp mill, the Green MP Kim Booth looked like losing his seat, and an independent anti-mill campaigner, Les Rochester, polled dismally. The re-appearance of the former federal MP for Bass, Michelle O’Byrne, in Lyons, proved a trump card for Labor.”

I recieved the following note from David Vernon just before the election. His family recently sold a property at Recherche Bay which had been the focus of campaigning by The Tasmanian Greens and Wilderness Society,

“Following the recent sale of my family’s property at Recherche Bay, I wish to make some aspects of the sale clear for all people of Tasmania.

* My brother and I did not wish to sell our property. I feel that we had been forced into making that decision by what I regarded as constant threats of protest action.

* I understand and appreciate that the site is a very precious piece of land, however the advice we received, and my understanding from our ownership and use of the land, was that it was not pristine.

* We were attempting to manage it appropriately after taking advice, taking into consideration the many aspects of its historical significance so that it could continue to be valued by ourselves and all Australians.

* Our Forest Practices Plan was scrupulously developed to enable sustainable use and proper, sensitive management into the future.

* Many people worked tirelessly to ensure that our rights, wishes and goals could be achieved. To Darren, Greg, Wilkie, Brett, Denise, Gloria, Handy, Barry, Alan, Katy and Terry and many others our heartfelt thanks for your professionalism, guidance, support and friendship during this most stressful time.

* My family has been attacked for the past 4 years, all the while for complying with Local, State and Federal requirements.

* We met, and we are advised in many cases we exceeded, every requirement of Local, State and National legislation, yet we believe that we were the subject of adverse media comment, from State and Federal Green politicians, members of the Wilderness Society and Recherche Bay Protection Group; who have acted, in my view, on the basis that it was ok to extinguish our rights as landowners and our family’s future business opportunity without just compensation.

* Our land was subjected to trespass. We had to endure public comments misrepresenting the truth as known to us, and our families being publicly vilified by protesters, with the threat of public demonstration against us with what I saw as untruthful propaganda.

* In the end I saw a future that I didn’t wish to subject my family to. I saw a future of possible physical disruption and damage to machinery and our business to the point that it would be impossible for us to continue. Therefore, I believe under duress, we reluctantly agreed to sell our private property at the best available price.

* The Greens and the Wilderness Society have developed a process that has, in our case worn down the strongest of landowners.

* Those protesting do not, in my view sufficiently or appropriately respect the rights of Tasmanian landowners, or allow diversity of thought or beliefs in relation to the use and appropriate management of forests of Tasmania.”

And yet again they have not done so well at the ballot box.