Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Opinion

Environmentalism Can’t Replace Religion: A Note from Ian Plimer

By

Despite our comfortable materialistic lives, there are many who ask: Is that all? They want a meaning for life and yearn for a spiritual life. Some follow the traditional religions, others embrace paranormal beliefs and many follow a variety of spiritual paths.

A new religion has been invented: Environmentalism. The rise of environmentalism parallels in time and place the decline of Christianity and socialism. This environmental religion is terrified of doubt, scepticism and uncertainty yet claims to be underpinned by science. It is a fundamentalist religion with a fear of nature. It has its own high priests such as Al Gore and a holy writ, such as the IPCC reports. Like many religious followers, few have ever read and understood the holy books from cover to cover.

Like many fundamentalist religions, it attracts believers by announcing apocalyptic calamities unless we change our ways. Its credo is repeated endlessly and a new language has been invented. Logic, contrary data or questioning are not permitted. Heretics are inquisitorially destroyed.

It states that now is the most important time in history and people are told that humanity is facing the greatest crisis in the history of time. We must make great sacrifices. Now. This religion uses thinking out of the Judeo-Christian tradition: If the world has been destroyed, then we humans are to blame.

This new age religion tries to re-mystify the world, a world that its adherents neither experience nor try to understand. The apocalyptic doomsayers promote their new religion with seven second television grabs. A disunity between religion and science is created. The science that derived from the Enlightenment and which bathes in doubt, scepticism and uncertainty is willingly thrown overboard.

Contrary facts are just ignored. Enthusiastic reporting by non-scientists is undertaken. They report new science with alarmist implications yet there is no reporting of contrary information. Non-scientific journalists and public celebrities write polemics that encourage public alarm.

The environmental religion produces widespread fear and a longing for simple all encompassing narratives. It offers an alternative account of a natural world with which adherents have little contact.

Environmentalism embraces a myth of the Fall: the loss of harmony between man and nature caused by our materialistic society. It searches for the lost Eden, which probably never existed. In the ‘good old days’ there was only struggle, starvation and unemployment, not harmony with nature. Environmental evangelism has ritual and language that have substituted substance.

Over historical, archaeological and geological time, there have been thousands of global coolings and global warmings. Global coolings have always depopulated the Earth. We are the first humans ever to fear a warm climate.

Environmentalism exacerbates disease and food shortages and destroys economies. It is a highly flawed religion. Its morality and ethics are questionable.

When the environmentalists recognise the religious aspects of their stance, then real discussion with other scientists becomes possible. Until then, they are just like the creationists who claim that their stance is scientific when their very foundations are religious and dogmatic.

The contradictory religion of environmentalism has given people a purpose in life and, despite ignoring all the contrary science, this religion provides some of the stitches that hold the fabric of society together.

Traditional religious life and practice is experience. Traditional religion tries to make sense of what’s happening to us now and gives us the mechanisms whereby we can have hope for a meaningful life, in spite of its disappointments. Religion gives us the mechanism to cope with failure.

Environmentalism cannot provide for these needs.

This is an edited version of a speech given by Ian Plimer at the IQsquared debate ‘We’d be better off without religion’ on Sydney on August 20, 2008. Ian Plimer is Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at The University of Melbourne and Professor of Mining Geology at The University of Adelaide.

Polar Bears Can Survive where there is no Summer Sea Ice: A Note from Nichole Hoskin

By

There has been a dramatic reduction in the extent of summer sea ice in the Arctic since 1870, Chart 1.

Blog and Wiki format, Arctic Seasonal Sea Ice Extent, 1870-2007 ver 3.jpg
Drawn by Nichole Hoskin using data from Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois

Australian television’s Four Corners showed a program on August 4, 2008, entitled ‘Tipping Point’ claiming that the disappearance of summer sea ice in the Arctic could have drastic consequence for polar bears.

Interestingly there is no summer sea ice in western Hudson Bay in the Canadian Arctic and there are polar bears.

According to polar bear experts, Douglas Clark and Ian Stirling (1998), “The polar bear population that inhabits western Hudson Bay spends the period from late July through early November on shore because the annual ice melts completely.”

Scientists previously thought that these polar bears sustained themselves on stored fat during this ice-free period, however, Derocher et al (1993), found that juvenile males and female polar bears would eat vegetation, such as alpine blueberries, crowberries, grasses and sedge, when marine mammals were unavailable because of the absence of summer sea-ice. This conclusion was based on examination of droppings and observations of signs of feeding on berries, such as berry stained teeth and fur, on polar bears captured in inland areas of western Hudson Bay between 1986 and 1992.

While there is evidence that females and offspring eat berries during the ice-free period, it is unclear whether eating berries significantly contributes to the total energy budget of polar bears. However, Derocher et al argue that eating vegetation “could significantly influence the condition of bears and in turn influence survival, particularly of cubs” and that “the patterns found in western Hudson Bay illustrate the physiological and behavioural plasticity of polar bears.”

—————-
Douglas C. Clark and Ian Stirling, ‘Habitat Preferences of Polar Bears in the Hudson Bay Lowlands during Late Summer and Fall’, (1998) Ursus 10, pp 243-250 at 243 and 248.

Andrew E. Derocher, Dennis Andriashek and Ian Stirling, ‘Terrestrial Foraging by Polar Bears during the Ice-Free Period in Western Hudson Bay’, Arctic (1993) 46(3), pp 251-254 at 251 and 253.

ABC 4 Corner’s ‘The Tipping Point, broadcast August 4, 2008. Reporter: Marian Wilkinson
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2008/s2323805.htm

A Note on Temperature Anomalies by Tom Quirk (Part 2)

By

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… So began Part 1 of ‘A Note on Temperature Anomalies’ in which Tom Quirk looked at the correlation of the five temperature series and concluded that it is surprising to see the agreement achieved by two quite independent approaches.

In response to a question following this post about the real temperature fluctuations on a monthly basis, Tom calculated the the standard deviations from a covariance analysis, Table 3.

“The last two rows are from averaging the ground based results and averaging the satellite results and then making a comparison.

Table 3
tom Quirk table3_temp.JPG

The temperature and common fluctuations on the ground based constructs must be around 0.09 0C for the standard deviation.

GISS has a larger standard deviation so 0.09 0C would be easily accommodated along with the manipulations for the extra total standard deviation.

Finally the satellite data has a different and larger standard deviation to the ground based results. Perhaps the atmosphere is more turbulent than the oceans that must have a soothing effect on temperature fluctuations, as they have the largest heat memory of the components, land, sea and air.

Tom Quirk
Melbourne”

Shooting Roos to Save Rangelands? by Nichole Hoskin

By

There are claims that the presence of too many sheep, cattle and kangaroos are damaging Australia’s rangelands and that commercial shooting of kangaroos will reduce overall grazing pressure.

In an article published today at On Line Opinion entitled ‘Kangaroo: Designed for our Times’ by Executive Officer of the Kangaroo Industry Association of Australia, John Kelly, he writes that commercial harvesting of roos delivers, “a direct environmental benefits in our fragile arid rangelands where kangaroos are harvested” and that “these are extremely fragile areas which can support a limited number of grazing animals” and that “allowing the grazing pressure from all animals to increase is one of the most serious environmental hazards in these rangelands.”

Population numbers of red and grey kangaroos can fluctuate from 15 to 50 million. Under current government policy, 10-15 percent of this population is shot in any one year. So, commercial harvesting can potentially reduce grazing pressure particularly by limiting increases in wet years.

On the other hand, commercial shooting of kangaroos will not relieve grazing pressure if there is a corresponding increase in numbers of other grazing herbivores, such as sheep, cattle and ferals including horses, donkeys, camels, rabbits, buffalo and deer.

Gordon Grigg, an Australian expert on kangaroos, argues that, “Most of the grazing lands, unfortunately, show everywhere abundant signs of the foot and tooth pressure of the introduced hardfooted stock and there is simply no room for doubt that running sheep in the fragile arid inland has done a lot of damage. Graziers will argue that they obey the stocking rates recommended and many of them do, perhaps even most of them do. Maybe even all of them do, but the fact of the matter remains that the damage is everywhere evident.”

It remains unclear what proportion of grazing pressure directly results from kangaroos.

A Note on Temperature Anomalies by Tom Quirk

By

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

More Good News on Rising Food and Fertiliser Prices: Ian Mott

By

Further to my recent article on how rising food prices will be good news for rural communities all over the world, The Land newspaper has carried an interesting report on how rising energy and fertiliser costs (Nitrogen is now $1000/tonne) have restored and reinforced the economics of growing nitrogen fixing cover crops in fallow rotation.

Cotton farmers routinely add 200kg of nitrogen/ hectare but the growing and ploughing-in of Vetch in rotation has been found to add 140kg in a more balanced application that is safer for the following cotton crop in dry times. It substantially reduces cash outflows, leaving the synthetic form of this fertiliser as an ‘opportunity outlay’ to boost production in a good year. It seems the humble Fava Bean is almost as good for this purpose, with the advantage of producing a cash crop as well.

The implications of this, not just for farmers in less developed nations, is that they have the means to boost production in response to higher world food prices without placing additional demands on world oil/fertiliser supplies. In poorer countries the input cost is no more than the price of seeds and the farm family’s own labour.

Regards
Ian Mott