I acknowledge and agree your well written submission. The point that I would like to make is regardless of accuracy of the Easter Island theories of over-exploitation is that how far can these 'examples' be used for contributing a sound and scientific argument in favour of global warming theorists? It's prima facie that an over-use or exploitation of a resource in an eco-system can and will be to that eco-system's detriment unless that eco-system adapts to the changes.

How far back historically are we willing to go to prove this? European colonialisation? Norse colonialisation of Greenland (as noted)? Or even further back to the pre Homo sapiens sapiens genus- a mass competetivity of food resources has been proposed for the extinction of later homo genus'. As interesting as speculating over these issues are, I see little weight in them as a specific contribution for arguing in favour of global warming. The fact of the matter is the only point these examples could provide is over-exploitation to an eco-system can lead to its demise, and this only needs to be stated ONCE. To use the examples reccuringly only serves as the 'fear' factor in the global warming argument.

The quickest way to receive priority on an issue is to bring to peoples attention the urgency of the issue. The 'fear' factor attempts to bring the global warming debate to the forefront, but as you have clearly indicated, the examples proposed to create the 'fear' factor are flawed. By continuing to dispense of the the falliable 'over-exploitation' examples, it is no wonder the global warming debate has 'cooled' significantly in the scientific realm since it was first promulgated in the 20th Century.

Mark Lawson here.

Matthew Lloyd - I sort of see where you're coming from. In fact, the history of past civilisations/cultures can give us only a limited guide to our own situation..

For example, there have been projections that global fishery stocks will collapse within 50 years due to over-expolitation (note, not acid seas but straight over-exploitation). Will market solutions combined with stringent regulation - the solution prferred in Australia - help us? What can we do to ensure that such solutions are adopted? Easter Island anologies are of little guide.

Mark

I'm not quite sure what the point of the article is. You've gone to great lengths to critique Diamond, but the connection to global warming or a carbon tax is tenuous, as far as I can see.

I mean, it surely cannot be doubted that human societies throughout the history of civilisation have overstepped the mark in terms of resource demand and supply capability and have gove by the wayside, often with the assistance of drought or civil strife.

And it is surely obvious that we are heading the same way, but on a scale a couple of orders of magnitude worse.

The nature of the crash of readjustment remains to be seen, but it is bound to be ugly.

So does it really matter if Diamond was accurate or not regarding Easter Island and some of his other claims?

Or was the purpose of the article to critique Diamond with references to global warming and the carbon tax just in passing?

BTW, nice photo. Now I can see why you call youself Curmudgeon! ( :>)

Would that Mr Lawson applied the same rigorous questioning of the accuracy of the work of Ian Plimer and Bob Carter.
But that would defeat his purpose of pro denialist propaganda wouldn't it?

Thanks for this article .... although it is several years too late. I agree that Jarod Diamond's work has been critical to developing a totally unwarranted misunderstanding of resource use issues in Australia that has simply fed the misinformation that is regularly peddled by ENGOs and which is promulgated to the public by an unquestioning media.

Australian forestry was damaged by Diamond's assertion that Easter Island pointed to what could happen in Tasmania which utterly misrepresents the facts of public land alienation and declarations of different tenures in which timber production is excluded from the major slice of their area; and disregards the planning and regulation of forest management which ensures forests are regenerated and protected.

Perhaps his analogy with Easter Island may have been appropriate to parts of Indonesia and the developing world, but the fact that he applied it to Tasmania bespeaks of him being overly influenced by ENGO views coupled with extremely lax research on his part. On this basis, the credibility he has enjoyed is highly questionable.

Mark Lawson here

Ludwig - the reference to the carbon tax is just a facetious comment. A lot of nonsense is justified with reference to Diamond's theorising. I'd certainly be interested in any examples you can think of where civilisations have over-exploited their resources. The Maya is one poss, but all I know of them is through Diamond and he is unreliable. The Kymer, maybe, as their collapse had something to do with irrigation around the capital.. but even those are far from clear cut. Any other examples?

shal - Your comments are further indication of the double standard that applies in these matters. Despite being guilty of howlers in his book Diamond has escaped all criticism, yet Plimer and Carter get abused frequently. This article goes a little way in correcting that major imbalance, but not nearly far enough.

MWPOYNTER - true, late and after much damage has been done. Policy makers must accept a great deal of discredit for not ensuring that Diamond was thoroughly debunked .. not to mention realising that even if the example was anything other than speculation then it simply did not translate to Tassie.

Mark,

i was in no way abusive. I was merely asking for consistency. Playing the man not the ball is par for the course though.

I would merely like you to apply the same standards of accuracy that you apply to Diamond to Carter and Plimer.
See this article isn't about Diamond, he is a trojan horse for you to attack climate change advocates.

I think it would have been better – in terms of readability if Mark had stated his agenda first – that is that he is critiquing Diamond because he thinks he has deceived the public in some way about climate change - and then provided the argument.

Mark writes ‘A closer look at the material he (ie Diamond) presents, however, suggests that much of what he puts forward is speculative.” But all pronouncements by all archaeologists about how people behaved in the past are speculation based on a very small amount of physical evidence and this speculation is based on the speculators own ‘world view’ – ie the set of assumptions a person makes about why and how we are here. That is all one can do in this academic field.

Googling ‘criticism of Jared Diamond’ reveals quite a few sites so I’m sure he didn’t go uncriticised as was suggested. And perhaps the reason for the double standard Mark sees, is that the consequences for being factually wrong about the science of climate change are serious, whereas the consequences for being wrong about a speculative claim about what people did in the past with their resources does not have the same importance.

What I’d like to hear from the author is an explanation of why he chooses to agree with the minority of scientists in the climate science field rather than accept the (huge) majority ‘opinion’.

Nice book review.

It also highlights the fact that in order to sell non-fiction one has to make the subject matter interesting to the readership.

Diamonds hypotheses are often speculative and refutable, indeed many examples of such refutation are given, but they also provide the framework for further research. A good book does not necessarily have to be true in every detail, just true enough to the authors knowledge and be able to fire the readers imagination.

This is how books sell and debates are promoted. Diamond is an interesting and prolific author and has enough scientific credibility to be not put in the 'nutbag' category. Even if he is wrong.

Mark Lawson here
shal - I wasn't accusing you of being abusive; I was accusing you of applying a double standard. Plimer and Carter already have plenty of people attacking them. Nor is the article about climate as such. Diamond's theories are about the effects of climate change on society.

Mollydukes - the article has nothing to do with the causes of climate change. Diamond's stuff is about the affects of climate change on societies, and failure to respond and so on. So its a bit off topic to talk about climate change itself. However, I have, written a whole book on the debate 'A Guide to Climate Change Lunacy - bad forecasting, terrible decisions'. As the book points out the fact that a majority of climate scientist endorse the orthodoxy is simply irrelevent to the debate, unless they have an established forecasting track record. If you want to find out more you can mail order the book. Failing that, I have also written various articles on this site on the issue.

Bugsy - I am delighted to see we are not quite disagreeing. True a few mistakes can be forgiven, and if it fires the imagination that is all to the good. But Diamond is simply too unreliable to take seriously. I didn't place him in the nutty catagory, but said that his chapter on Australia was so erratic and badly researched as to be considered nutty..

Nice article, well researched. I think the lack of criticism of Diamond is not necessarily just related to his pro Global waming stance. Of recent times, any author who comes to the conclusion, (with or without sufficient evidence), that man is basically a destructive force on himself or the 'environment' is generally uncritically accepted because this belief has been the dominant madness of our times.

It has also been a convenient theme for the media and politicians to push because they can both see financial benefit from it. I think, though, that people in the West are fatiguing of being blamed for everything from starving children, to tiger hunting to causing the earths temperature to increase,particularly when they see that the end point seems to be all about giving their money away to make up for their sins. We may soon see a strong backlash against the prosletyzers, like Diamond, whose ideas seem to about man's damnation than discussing the scientific evidence.

Meh, what's to disagree with Mark? But there's a bit of 'so what?' element in all these criticisms listed. If it's supposed to have a broader implication that the man himself is not at all credible, then I think you've a long way to go.

True, you have not described Diamond himself as a nutter...here. But you have often described him as a nutter in previous comments.

It's nice to see you put in so much effort to do a full 2 page critique of a guy you think is a nutter we should all ignore.

Back in 2005, the Jared Diamond and his book received wide applause by those supporting the green political party. His tour was commented upon, in this publication at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=64 which is a summary of a longer critique of the Australian chapter.

Dr Marohasy's longer paper can be downloaded at http://www.ipa.org.au/library/EE%2016-3+4_Marohasy.pdf and concludes:

"In a world full of information, but much of it spin, it can be very difficult to distinguish propaganda from fact. Anyone who wants to understand the world as it really is will need to apply a good deal of self-discipline and focus on the evidence.

Diamond set out to write a story about environmental damage and he has not let the facts get in the way of this predetermined agenda. By relying almost exclusively on secondhand reports from environmental activists, Diamond incorrectly concludes that the Australian environment is on the brink of collapse."

It is perhaps little wonder that two of the key acknowledgements for his 'Mining' Australia Chapter is Climate Change Commissioner Tim Flannery and Australian Greens Leader Senator Bob Brown.

Perhaps there needs to be closer scrutiny of claims being made to justify current environmental policy of the Green ALP partnership.

Mark, It seems to me the article was about your objection to the climate change science and that is what I was asking about – your objection not the facts that you base your objection on. I’d like to understand what you have that means you can see through to the truth more clearly than all the ‘scientists’ who work in the area.

I’m not looking for facts about why the science is wrong, but an explanation about why in this particular area of expertise you will not accept the majority opinion. Why you can the ‘truth’ and they cannot.

I have checked out your OLO articles and they don’t tell me what I want to understand about your position and how you came to have such disdain for this particular area of science.

Sorry can’t buy your book. I am very poor and depend on the public library. Are you in the library system or should I ask them to get your book in for me? Will it answer what I want to know or do you not think that self-examination is a useful exercise

Atman - true. People just see this politically correct stuff and dump all critical reasoning, and that includes the scientists. Some scientists seem to have lost all objectivity altogether.

Bugsy - true, it is a lot of space to waste on someone who shopuld be disregarded but then a lot of space has been wasted praising him to the skies and, as well know, the balance of the cyber universe must be restored.

cinders - thanks for pointing out that stuff. I knew I was coming very late to the party with the material on Australia, but perhaps the article will do a little more to push Diamond back into well deserved obscurity.

Mollydukes - again the article is only tangentially related to climate. What I said was that the debate is cooling, which is true for the general public (albeit not for the political elite in Aus with the carbon tax) and certainly in the US. As for the book, I doubt its in the library system, but if you drop me a line on ecocriminal@optusnet.com.au I'll send you a couple of the chapters as they left me..

Somehow I don't think you have been paying attention Mark. You are a noisemaker. You have just made a lot of noise telling us about a person you don't think anyone should pay attention to. I doubt that this sort of treatment will help in any way to push him to obscurity. If anything it will help in the other direction. But if you feel that it is bringing balance to the cyber universe, then more power to you...

Oh by the way, your book now has 10 copies in the Brisbane City council Library and one ordered for the State library of Victoria.

You're welcome.

Mark, as you say the article is only tangentially related to the topic of climate change but this was your motivation for writing it surely? And I am only interested in your motivation. To quote Spinoza “I seek to try not to laugh at human actions, nor to mourn about them or to detest them but to understand them”.

And I’d love to understand the amazing fact that lots of old blokes like you, who once loved scientists and saw them as being at the forefront of progress, now see one set of them as very bad people. What happened?

So your intention is to debunk Jared Diamond’s support for climate change, on the basis that he makes mistakes in his facts, therefore his hypotheses are flawed? No problems there. But, I think you are mistaken about how much influence he has had on the issue. I doubt that Diamond’s hypotheses have or had very little influence on people’s support for the climate change theory.

The basis of most people’s – that I know anyway - belief that climate change is happening, that human activity causes it and that the changes will not be a good thing for humans, is predicated on the fact that the vast majority of scientists still say this is the case and I don’t understand why we should doubt that the majority opinion in science is the best truth.

Mollydukes you need to get out more, your social circle is far too restricted.

Mark,

so why did you refer to abuse then in your response to me? I repeat. i did not abuse anybody including Plimer and Carter. And how can i apply a double standard when all i was asking was that you apply the same standards of analysis to two other climate writers. If your analysis of Diamond is correct then i'm inclined to agree with you about him.

You still have not answered my questions re consistency. You still use Diamond as a trojan horse to attack those who support human induced climate change. You attack him to get at them.

Here's an idea: why don't you apply your investigative rigour to the work of Howard Brady? or are you afraid of the outcome?

Jared Diamond is a geographer, not an archaeologist. To a large extent, he is simply reporting on the work of others. There are certainly mistakes in his book, and Diamond may have been badly served by his editor, who should have been doing fact checking on matters outside his area of expertise. However, none of the authors of his sources have been jumping up and down claiming that Diamond misrepresented them.

It should hardly be news that people outbreed their resources, overexploit their environment, and then try to drive off or kill their neighbours to take what they have. We saw it happen in Rwanda on our television screens in 1994.

http://atlismta.org/online-journals/0607-journal-development-challenges/the-environment-and-conflict-in-the-rwandan-genocide/

Prof. Steven LeBlanc (Archaeology, Harvard) in his book "Constant Battles" and Prof. Lawrence Keeley (Archaeology, University of Chicago) in "War Before Civilization" have been saying much the same sorts of things as Jared Diamond, some of it based on first hand experience in excavations. Some of LeBlanc's ideas are discussed here

http://discovermagazine.com/2003/may/featwar

Another good source is "Dirt: the Erosion of Civilizations" by Prof. David Montgomery (Soil Science, University of Washington).

Contrary to Mollyduke, this article is more likely to be motivated by defending growthism in general, not just climate change scepticism. Growthists believe that limits to growth of population or consumption either don't exist (in defiance of all mathematical logic) or are so far in the future that we don't have to worry about them, which is challenged by the idea of collapse. If Diamond is a nutter, then so are all the archaeologists who apparently agree with him, or perhaps they have a parallel conspiracy to that of the climatologists, along with the geologists (peak oil, peak phosphate), hydrologists (depleted aquifers), agronomists (agricultural productivity not keeping up with population growth), oceanographers (acidification and dead zones in the oceans), biologists (extinctions, overfishing), and maybe even the physicists.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8155

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8185

Bugsy - actually that's true. It will just make the man more notorious. Just look at Paul Ehrlich, of Population Bomb fame. Completely wrong in all the forecasts he ever made, and he is revered. There is simply no justice in the world. Thanks for the information about the library copies.

Mollydukes - wow! that's the first time I've had Spinoza quoted at me. As for the business about weight of scientific evidence, as I pointed out before it is simply of no consequence in the debate. Whether 10 per cent or 90 per cent of scientists in a particular field agree on an issue has no bearing on whether its right or not. What actual forecasting track record can they point to? This point is instantly obvious to anyone family with the long and disasterous history of forecasting. Time for the rest of the community to catch up. The onus is on the experts to justify forecasts made with an incomplete knowledge of the system.

Shal - Your questions about Plimer et al have been answered in full.. I go where I can add value. Claiming that I'm unfiarly singling out one, big pile of nonsense because global warmers hate criticism of any kind of their their icons is absurd.

Divergence - while I admire your efforts to defend Diamond, you want to push your own line. That push would be more effective if you dumped Diamond altogether, rather than tried to defend him.

I'll read any responses but probably won't bother to respond after this. Thanks for the jousts fellas.

It's probably because Paul Ehrlich has also had a long scientific career and is the author or co-author on more than 300 scientific papers, mostly encompassing ecology. You know, some people actually read those in full, not just books and cherry-picked abstracts. Hard to believe, I know.

And he is an excellent and entertaining speaker. That tends to get you invited to dinner parties at least.

The important thing to consider is that the islanders adapted to their environment because of, among other things, the spread of disease, abductions, etc. It should also be noted how population stabilized.

Perhaps the same will happen to the global population as combinations of peak oil, chronic economic crisis, and environmental destruction take place. That is, we will be forced to adapt to these coupled with the spread of disease, resource wars, etc.

Hasbeen, LOL I know I need to get out more but I have Asperger Syndrome (AS) and I don’t do social stuff very well. But I do obsessive rational thought well and I’m bothered/obsessed by the seeming irrationality displayed by those who deny the science of climate change.

I don’t have any personal opinion about whether it is happening or not. I am not qualified to have any opinion on the science. What I am interested in, is that a particular group of people have chosen to deny that certain parts of science are not the best way of finding the ‘truth’ and this is an amazing way to behave, to me anyway.

Mark I do recommend Spinoza as a very interesting philosopher. What impresses me about him is that his life, the way he lived it, was consistent with his philosophy; he was not a hypocrite and even his philosophical‘enemies’ praised his behaviour. Things were different then perhaps.

But back to my obsession, on what basis can you dismiss the scientific consensus as being of no consequence! Surely, the authority of science has been the mainstay of our western culture. Science, as I understand it was founded on the white male belief in rationality and progress toward truth and I don’t understand why you have no problem in singling out one area of science and claiming that these particular scientific conclusions are wrong.

You refer to a ‘long and disastrous’ history of prediction but this is rhetoric – as my dictionary defines it; the use of exaggeration in an unfavourable sense. My understanding of science is that these failures of predictions and models are taken into account in the process of scientific validation of hypotheses. So why aren’t the scientists themselves responding to these failures?

If I can no longer depend on science to find what is right, what do I use?

Oh dear, I've done it again; behaved inappropriately in a social situation and stopped the conversation. After reading some more posts, I now realise that polite, reasoned discussion is not the way to participate in this forum.

It seems that the correct way to participate is to have a hard-line, set in stone opinion, then deride, patronise or ignore any person who has an alternative opinion.

But Mark, just in case you do have the capacity to critically and objectively examine your position, I'll ask you in all seriousness and without any attempt to be sarcastic (if you read up you'll see that Aspergers people don't do sarcasm), if you have ever considered that you might be allowing your emotions to override your reason.

I suspect, based on my understanding of human behaviour, that you like many older white men, have always been able to see the truth and your position on all political and social issues has always been correct. Have you ever been wrong about any political issue?