The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Save the forests: Support evidence-based environmentalism > Comments

Save the forests: Support evidence-based environmentalism : Comments

By Jennifer Marohasy, published 6/6/2005

Jennifer Marohasy argues we should be using an evidence-based approach to environmentalism.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
To remain sustainable, countries have to maintain or increase their Gross Nature Product together with their Gross National Product. (See “The Value of Natural Capital – World Bank” http://www1.worldbank.org/devoutreach/winter01/article.asp?id=97 )

So no matter what practices are used in natural environment management, the overall Gross Nature Product must be maintained or increased.
Posted by Timkins, Monday, 6 June 2005 11:05:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agreed except we are as a society far from a belief in science data as the driver of action. For example the recent 'proof' using isotope attenuuation has shown that removal of forest in the Amazon results in reduced rainfall. One might imagine on such data more forest including Australian, would be locked up. True maybe selctive logging would have less effect on the rainfall. A question for science to answer. But to find funds and the political will for the effort the appeal, like modern evangelism, is for effectiveness, directed at the emotions. Maybe more research on why humans are as they are and the extent to which behaviour is alterable is desirable. Jared Diamond in his recent book recording how man with obvious ill consequences of his actions staring him in the face has chosen again and again to adopt-what? A was not told did not see in favour of maintaing current behaviour. The evidence of real energy and consequent reduced green house gas is before us and has been for years. Amory Lovins has shown the profitability of recycling even having industries grouped so the waste of one is feedstock for the next. Taken up in Europe particularly Denmark but largely ignored here Why? The question is larger than simply becoming pragamtic for we at present do not know how on any large scale.
Posted by untutored mind, Monday, 6 June 2005 12:05:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A brave piece, Ms Marohasy. Quoting Darwin in evidence for a rational approach to anything is the proverbial red rag to the godbothering bull, so expect "replies" from a few folk who didn't read past that sentence.

Apart from that, the simple fact is that governments are the worst possible vehicle for intelligent policy in this area, given that their job security is predicated on pure emotion, rather than facts or evidence. They will follow the line that delivers them a parliamentary majority, a line that these days has a distinctly Greenish hue. And as we know, Green policy, such as it is, has little to do with the economics of real life.

Good article. Hope it gets lots of responses. Any strategy revisions will by definition have to be a grass-roots effort.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 6 June 2005 2:25:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ms Marohassy's article is a timely reminder that you must have at least a basic understanding of the system you are trying to manage, its history as well as its present. And further, that the world exists in spite of us not because of us.

The comment regarding the effects of clearing on tropical rainforests is a perfect illustration of that - although I do not believe that was the author's intention. When clearing commenced no one realised just how tightly the forest was integrated into the regional hydrological cycle. Although this is now common knowledge there is too much short term financial gain and too much political corruption involved for anyone to say "stop". It would be possible to achieve at least a limited restoration of the rainforest, but not by leaving it to "natural processes".

This suggests that none of the existing agencies can operate to effectively manage the 'natural world' and an entirely new agency utilising existing systems plus an entirely new range of inputs from (currently ignored) stakeholders will be required.
Posted by The Heretic, Monday, 6 June 2005 2:45:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said, Jennifer. In the Queensland (so-called) Public Service from 1991-2002 I sought to promote evidence-based policy across the board, to little avail. I hope you have more success than me!

In 1996, my Cabinet brief persuaded the Qld Coalition Government to support Australia's adherence to the Kyoto Agreement (I don't think that the Queensland Greens would have believed this if it had been publicised, but the Premier advised the PM in writing of Queensland's decision), arguing that (a) economic modelling of the impact on the Queensland economy showed a relatively modest impact - 32% GSP growth over 10 years compared to 35% without Kyoto; (b) that while there were great uncertainties re global warming, there were grounds for adopting a precautionary approach, and the insurance cost was acceptable if it averted the worst outcome scenarios; (c) that before the Kyoto period of 2008-2012 was reached, we would have a much clearer understanding of climate prospects; and (d) if fears expressed in 1996 were unfounded, little would have been lost if Qld pursued least-regrets greenhouse policies (e.g. cost-effective building insulation) while research continued. Nine years on, I'm more sceptical - the IPCC's global warming scenarios are all based on economic modelling, which has been discredited; if properly modelled, the outcome of the most likely scenario for warming by the end of this century would probably not be significantly different from zero. I was aware in 1996 that climate modelling was extremely complex; it has turned out to be even more complex.

The forests which concern you have had less research effort but at least as much emotion, which I agree is not a basis for sustainable policy in the community interest.
Posted by Faustino, Monday, 6 June 2005 3:42:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Great article Jennifer Marohasy - Having grown up on the north coast of NSW with the timber industry where I came to realise management is important for sustainable forests industries. The clear felled forests that made way for farming in the early 1920's are now returned to native species as managed private forests.

We have a responsibility to manage our natural resourses, as Genesis 2: 9 says, "And out of the ground God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food." There is in forests both asthetic and practical uses that are our human responsibility to manage and maintain. I was schooled in Botany by Leonard Cronin author of several books one "Key Guide to Australian trees", during his classification, analysis and research into North Coast Rain forest trees, so I from him developed a love for forest diversity.

Pericles, what do you mean? "Quoting Darwin in evidence for a rational approach to anything is the proverbial red rag to the godbothering bull, so expect "replies" from a few folk who didn't read past that sentence."

It would appear that this statement indicates some obsession or importance to you, so what prompted you to say it?
Posted by Philo, Monday, 6 June 2005 10:56:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is a curious article. It invokes the sanctity of environmental empiricism to bolster the anti-environment-movement lobby.

What should we pay attention to? Is it ad hoc point piling/lobbying by people pushing their/their employer’s financial/political interests? Or is it verifiable, replicable and abstract peer reviewed work published for community enlightenment?

Zealots come in all flavours; environmental, economic, left wing, right wing, self serving, cause serving. Naive and romantic concepts drive much of humanity, who would argue that enterprise is not popularly underpinned by such concepts. - Who hath ears to hear, let him hear (Matthew 13:43)

Indisputably, the evidence shows us that Australia has lost (and continues to loose) much of its biodiversity. A third of all the world’s recent mammal extinctions have been Australian mammals. This is mass extinction.

Where do I find evidence that the timber industry has been a force preserving Australia’s biodiversity? Where is the evidence that Australia's remaining biodiversity is not threatened by the timber industry? And what force (proved by what evidence) has, in fact, caused the enormous biodiversity loss we have already recorded?

And God blessed them, saying, be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas (with life), and let fowl multiply in the earth (Genesis 1:22). The problem is they have not multiplied, we’ve killed them, and in many cases we killed them all.

I’m not sure anyone is frightened of the answers; it’s the objectives of the people who are pushing the questions we should be wary of. In the genuine scientific journals the evidence is speaking for its self, it is in the opinion pages that you’ll hear the squealing choir of evidence-less lobbying.
Posted by martin callinan, Tuesday, 7 June 2005 12:44:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Martin Callinan
I’m not sure if all blame for environmental degradation can be laid at the feet of the timber industry, as a number of other industries have also caused considerable environmental degradation.

For example, the QLD sugar industry has been responsible for the clearing of the majority of QLD’s rainforests. This is somewhat interesting in that the QLD sugar industry is now barely economic, and beginning to rely on Gov subsidies to survive. If capital = current economic capital + human capital + natural capital, then it probably would be better to clear the sugar cane from many farms and reforestate these farms with rain forest (as these farms are presently soaking up economic capital and perhaps human capital also)

So this comes back to my original argument, that if environmental scientists want the environment to be value based, eventually they will need to develop a Gross Nature Product figure that is then used in collaboration with the Gross National Product figure (presently produced by economists) to help gauge the true extent of our overall capital. Eventually both have to go up.

(NB. I’d qualify this somewhat by saying that the natural environment can help improve human capital also, as the natural environment can also be an admirable and uplifting thing for many people)
Posted by Timkins, Tuesday, 7 June 2005 9:35:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The biggest problem with your argument Jennifer is that you are promoting an equally romantic notion of environmental protection as the 'greenies' you so obviously despise. Your 'hypothesis' "that there are more iconic species such as koalas and barking owls in state forests that are logged" is a completely un-scientific view of what is valuable to nature. You only seem to value what matters to people. Yes these are 'iconic' species but they don't reflect biodiversity. They are your stock-standard fluffy animals that people love to see more of. This kind of human-rationalist and (implied by your article) economic-rationalist view of nature is an equally destructive view of nature.

Personally I don't believe we know enough about what keeps the environment going and throwing more money at scientists to do more research is a good start. But to argue for the stamping out of discussions that promote an emotional connection with nature would be foolish. I feel good when I'm amongst nature and not so good when in a boardroom. Does that make me un-scientific and irrational? And we know now that Darwin was in fact wrong - most ecosystems survive because its constituents collaborate rather than compete. And they can exist that way for 1000s of years. I'm guessing Jennifer doesn't spend much time out in 'nature' and spends most of it in fact in the board-room.
Posted by Audrey, Tuesday, 7 June 2005 10:03:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jennifer, Latham did this for the forests and look what happened to him?

I'm glad to see you evidence-based environmentalism I'm all for it.

So when will you start to practice what you preach, on global warming and problems in the Murray River and change your current stance of relying on extreme minority views and going against the evidence of qualified individuals in their area of expertise?

Also many environmentalists aren't driven my romanticism but appreciation of the fact that the environment does much un-costed/factored work in the worlds economy and if lost we are basically screwed. Try estimating the cost of replacing insect pollinators or natural watersheds.

Also many greenies may not have a problem with the use of our forests in a sustainable way if the pro-forestry lobby and the industry were a bit more honest and self-critical of our current forestry practices. Mainly thinking of Tas.

That worlds best environmental practices were used (and they are not), that the industry at least in Tas wasn't self-regulating and abided by those regulations –which they haven’t- that we looked at value adding not just selling our forest resources for wood chipping so one large company makes a killing and its employees are the main ones that get any benefit from what could be employing many others in the area.

I practice what I preach, as I’m all for an investigation of the Nuclear option if all the costs and subsides including waste, decommissioning and security are factored in when compared to the same money going towards renewable, and a energy efficiency. If that comes out for nuclear then i'll back it.
Posted by Neohuman, Tuesday, 7 June 2005 11:06:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Since when do politicians and ideologues let pesky things like science and fact get in the way of them pushinbg their agenda?

Since when did environment become an exlusive euphemism for nature?
Environment is simply a reference to one's surroundings, physical and/or perceptual.

How can l believe anything they say when they twist things in such a cynical fashion?
Posted by trade215, Tuesday, 7 June 2005 12:40:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What is always missing from these free-flowing debates on our environment is some form of baseline. Before examining in detail the politics and economics we should try to determine priorities. For example what do we consider to be more highly regarded: the survival of the human race, the survival of "stock-standard fluffy animals" (nice phrase Audrey), the maximization of the actual number of existing species (biodiversity?), the warm-and-fuzzies af a few do-gooders, the warm-and-fuzzies of a parliamentary salary and perks etc. etc.

It won't happen, of course. Arguing on a purely emotional level is too much fun.

"A third of all the world’s recent mammal extinctions have been Australian mammals. This is mass extinction."

Clearly martin wants us to read this as a bad thing. No supporting logic required. We can give it the "that's a shame, isn't it" response, but it doesn't help us work out a survival plan for people.

"I feel good when I'm amongst nature and not so good when in a boardroom. Does that make me un-scientific and irrational?"

No Audrey, just human. But does it really help determine whether there is anything left of our planet for our descendents?
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 7 June 2005 2:19:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How do we arrive at a 'true' value for the environment when the value system is derived from what self-interested individuals determine is important? When the value is determined by the economists and the free-market (in Jennifer's ideal world) then the warm-and-fuzzies, revenue from timber and Quensland cane growers become most important. Timkins is leaning in this direction with his gross-nature-product so while we're here we should start asking the koalas and the barking owls about their annual profits for the last year and strategic direction for the next. In other words, lets just corporatise the environment.

The greenies are onto something when they start talking about the environment being part of 'us' and about how it makes them 'feel'. It's not biblical, radical, or god-bothering stuff but maybe something we've simply forgotten how to value from within our urban jungles.
Posted by Audrey, Tuesday, 7 June 2005 4:32:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Audrey, I absolutely agree that we have strayed a long way from being in harmony with the earth. Problem is, there isn't an easy way to reverse the damage we have caused over the last couple of centuries or so, without substantial change to our concepts of "civilization".

We have to face reality at some point, and if that means making a choice between the survival of fluffy owls (or whatever) and the continuation of the human race, I know which one will get the vote.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 7 June 2005 5:18:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Audrey
What is meant by Gross Nature Product is the “amount” of natural flora and fauna that is in an environment. The term was originally developed by environment researchers in India who found a direct relationship between the degradation of an environment, and the standard of living of the people who lived in that area. By improving the environment and bringing it back towards a more natural environment, it also increased the wealth and standard of living of the local people, so it became a win / win situation all round.

With a gradual decline in commodity prices for some of our agricultural products, there would be a good case for converting certain farm land back into native bushland, rather than begin to subsidise unviable farms.
Posted by Timkins, Tuesday, 7 June 2005 5:24:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles Do you really see emotional environmentalism as leading to a choice between barking owls and human survival? Perhaps a more rational reality is that it will involve a lowering of our economic aspirations in favour of the barking owls and even the ugly little bugs that stink and bite. I'm ready to make that choice.
Posted by Mollydukes, Tuesday, 7 June 2005 7:14:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would like to see a win/win approach combined with a science based policy instead of the screw you its the environment or its jobs stance.

People like Amory Lovins at the Rocky Mountain Institute and the Natural Capital concept have already been developed, it just takes some vision, honesty and common sense to take us there.(sorry I also forgot the public and political will)

But I can now see why places like Easter Island went under, not only do you need the vision to see what we have to do to have a life in the future, but also the honesty to see what we are doing to the environment and acknowledge any harm we are currently doing.

Which unfortunately, is sorely lacking with many from the pro-business lobby who would rather dispute the work of the scientists with their own extreme minority views than look at solutions and working with the scientists.

So Jennifer when you can start calling a spade a spade and accepting the work of mainstream scientists like those at the CSIRO I’ll believe you have accepted science based environmentalism and not that this just another cheap political ploy
Posted by Neohuman, Tuesday, 7 June 2005 8:14:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The work of the Lovinses is really amazing stuff. If no one knows what we're talking about, go to http://www.natcap.org/ and download all the chapters from their book "Natural Capitalism". The first two or three chapters are generally doom and gloom statistics, but the rest of the book is a really inspiring, exciting account of how being environmentally friendly *will* help your business's bottom line, along with plenty of examples and success stories from the real world.

As for evidence based environmentalism, well I'm all for it in theory but my cynical side suspects this may be a bit of green bashing in disguise. But as Natural Capitalism demonstrates, environmentalism and business concerns need not be on opposing sides.
Posted by Albert, Tuesday, 7 June 2005 11:27:27 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fascinating reading thanks - who would have thought that as practical scientists of the 60's we would face the prospect that our life's work in big picture environmental understanding and risk management would be so often ignored for blinkered, inadequate and even irrational views . The opportunity to invest wisely in conservation is being lost to those with an unrealistic and narrow museum worldview view of the world that avoids buying into the really tough and dynamic cutting edge issues. - the ones that Africa Asia and the Middle east need to move with right now .

Clearly too , if we are going to be more effective , we have to recognize the rational basis for the irrationality that’s out there Things like worldview, denial ,projection and guilt factors and the widespread Western cultures failure to see different value systems as actual heavy weighting factors in human decision making.

What gives the post Christian worldview of “nature worship” so much power is the value its adherents place on matter over mind. Those of us who want to see sound outcomes and not tokens need to take”nature worship” issues seriously because the values systems themselves can powerfully and increasingly distort the mere “evidence on its own “principles.

It’s easy to see elements of distortion , narrowmindedness ,fear, guilt and projection going on in that ‘irrational and emotive opponent” - harder to recognize it in your own worldview. To reduce the degree to which we might be calling the kettle black , we need to understand how to rationally argue both science and values together - to chase objectivity - well done AEF !

We , and our governments , can be a lot more effective in sound conservation investments if we understand and accept the real depths of the paradigm challenges that face each community living in and with each environment . Join in and help us BE objective and avoid cul de sac quick fix and token investments in conservation. http://cuttingedgeconservation.blogspot.com
Posted by Sirhumfree, Wednesday, 8 June 2005 8:33:05 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We could start to teach our innate connection to the natural world in school. Also spending time with our kids in our own gardens. Get them out of the house, away from the television and away from rigid structure into the more free flowing nature of nature itself. Plant a few seeds and watch them grow. Kids love that.

Having gardening plots at school, growing vegetables, excursions into the bush. Standing by a fresh water stream under a tree fern, taking in the sounds and the smells. Then take the kids on an excursion to a salt contaminated area or an open cut mine.

Kids are smart and very observant. They will make the connection.
Posted by trade215, Wednesday, 8 June 2005 11:12:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Apologies from me then Timkins. In that case I completely agree with you for once. But just don't let it go to your head or anything.

More money for research is a good idea. But I agree that Jennifer's view of evidence based environmentalism is a thinly veiled push for all dollars to be allocated by the economic-rationalists and given out selectively to pro-development research groups like the IPA and AEF. Nice try for a plug there Sirhumfree. What about an environmental-rationalism where the values are based around what's going to sustain the environment for longer? Otherwise, even though we might get to squeeze out a few more people with our human-centric rationalism, we won't survive for very long. Can't we co-exist?
Posted by Audrey, Wednesday, 8 June 2005 11:16:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Institute of Public Affairs is a faith based (or should I say cashed based) org. Which uses science as selectively as a creationist.
Practice what your preach Jennifer, ever worked for the tobacco lobby they were always able to find people to say cig’s weren’t as bad for you as people made out.?
Posted by Kenny, Wednesday, 8 June 2005 11:37:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jennifer,

Very naughty of you to ask for evidence to be used to manage the environment.

You know when you are little and you kick your toe, amazing how a hug from mum is the best thing in the world.

Its the same with trees, so lets all go out tomorrow and hug a tree and the whole world will be a better place and you won't even feel your stubbed bleeding toe.

t.u.s.
Posted by the usual suspect, Wednesday, 8 June 2005 4:30:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi,

I was interested in Martin's comment: "I’m not sure anyone is frightened of the answers; it’s the objectives of the people who are pushing the questions we should be wary of. In the genuine scientific journals the evidence is speaking for its self, it is in the opinion pages that you’ll hear the squealing choir of evidence-less lobbying."

Is he referring to studies in the scientific journals that compare biodiversity in state forests to biodiversity in national parks? I would really like the references.
Posted by Jennifer, Wednesday, 8 June 2005 7:02:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jennifer here's your chance to practice an evidence-based approach to environmentalism.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7488

So one can expect you to support the worlds's leading science acadamies who say '"is clear and increasing" and that they must act immediately to begin addressing its causes and consequences.' and the science behind their statment.

This alone will be enough to benchmark your credibility.

Please reply
Posted by Neohuman, Thursday, 9 June 2005 10:39:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Neohuman,

Can't see the evidence or science in the link you have posted - looks like a lot of politics?
Posted by Jennifer, Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:07:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jennifer if you cannot trust the world’s most prestigious scientific academies then what is the point of a science based policy?

The Royal Academy, hmmm if I were the British government I would ask for my funding back they are obviously just a bunch or political hacks.

If you can give some substantive reasons why we cannot trust the words of the worlds leading scientists and instead we should trust fringe business lobby connected views please do.

But now I get it, your piece was really an attempt at humor, not a serious attempt to open dialogue and objectively look at the facts, since you already dismiss the science and scientists and wont except any work unless it already agrees with your stance.
Posted by Neohuman, Thursday, 9 June 2005 1:57:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Neohuman, the academies are quoted as saying that "most recent warming is likely to have been caused by human activity." Note "most likely." As I posted earlier, the science of global warming is very complex and, as the academies' comment admits, little understood. As an example, geological records show that in some earlier periods of global warming, increased atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have followed warming, not precipitated it. So what is the causation here? What are the appropriate policies?
Posted by Faustino, Saturday, 11 June 2005 8:09:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a gun for hire in the escalating war against what remains of the natural environment, Marohasy is obviously privy to more accurate and compelling evidence than "the science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the UK and the US".

The unsustainable agricultural and forestry practices in the Murray-Darling basin (of which the Pilliga-Goonoo is part) are unquestionably implicated in the environmental disaster of the degradation of our continent's most extensive and important river system.

However, Marohasy is on record as rejecting the clear scientific evidence that records the human causes of this deplorable situation.

I really hope that she is highly paid by her masters at the IPA, because very few of her 'publications' would enhance her employability as a real scientist.
Posted by garra, Saturday, 11 June 2005 8:39:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nice attempt at spin and diversion Faustino.

"It is clear that world leaders, including the G8, can no longer use uncertainty about aspects of climate change as an excuse for not taking urgent action to cut greenhouse gas emissions," said Lord May, head of Britain’s Royal Society national science academy.

Climate Change Consensus
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/brkfast/stories/m1069525.ram

While you cannot get 100% certainly in science -it just doesn’t work like that- getting the heads of the worlds most prestigious scientific academies saying there is no longer any uncertainty –sorry if I don’t chase after your ‘little understood’ red herring- is as good as it can get.

Keep whipping that uncertainty dead horse Faustino and see what little credibility you climate skeptics had evaporate to nothing.

Again what’s the point in promoting evidence-based policies when you and Jennifer ignore the work of the most qualified to look into the evidence?

As to policies as I posted above I’m all for an objective science based cost benefit analysis of nuclear but before we even go that far how about an energy efficiency drive?

If you go to the Rocky Mountain institute link above you will get info that it is a win/win situation for business and the environment.

In Kyoto mark 2 ask more of the burden to be taken on by the developed nations to encourage the developing to sign on, funding for technology transfer and why not while we are at it throw in dept relief and market access for truly Fair Trade not the shame that is Free trade.

BTW I’m not prepared to debate you on the evidence or lack of for GW, as I won’t debate creation science advocates. If you like them won’t accept the stance of mainstream science then that’s your problem.
Posted by Neohuman, Saturday, 11 June 2005 10:53:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Neohuman,

Have a read of the IPCC third assessment report on climate change.

Apart from the summaries (which are advocacy statments rather than scientific studies) the vast majority of the document is full of contradictions, caveats, guess work and assumptions.

In short, there is as much evidence from the scientists that global warming is happening as there is that it isn't.

statements such as there could be a link between X and Y in the report turn into Y causes X in the summaries.

Happy reading.

t.u.s.
Posted by the usual suspect, Tuesday, 14 June 2005 5:25:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hmmmm on the one hand theusualsuspect, or on the other, eight of the world's most prestigious scientific institutions and the best climatologists in the world.

That's a hard one.
Posted by Neohuman, Tuesday, 14 June 2005 8:43:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I know, much easier to dismiss rather than investigate something for yourself, hey Neo.

All I was trying to get you to do was actually read the document which is the Bible for the global warming experts - including the ones from the eight leading acadamies you talk about.

And there really is no such thing as a climatologist - just meteorologists, biologists, glaciologists, geologists, physicists, chemists etc - you can't go to university and do a course in climatology - it is a combination of a variety of sciences.

Not that it matters, if you are so quick to dismiss.

t.u.s
Posted by the usual suspect, Wednesday, 15 June 2005 1:05:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>Not that it matters, if you are so quick to dismiss.

T.U.S thers's a thread over at http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2005/06/13/experts-and-interests/

on experts bias and leads into what can a lay person do to get the bottom line. It is problematic for lay people or even those with academic yet not qualified , nor informed about latest research or data, in a field to give judgments on complex subjects. So while it isn't perfect going with the mainstream experts is your best bet. Unless you can give solid evidence that some sort of bias is occurring.

Basically I don't have the time to go point to point with the evidence on GW or evolution and know how easy it is for the dishonest and biased to cherry pick, misrepresent and plain refuse to admit when they are wrong. Which is often the case when you talk with those like yourself on GW and creation science advocates who go against mainstream science.

Instead I look at quality science broadcasting and publications-since I've an interest in have done so for many years- to get an overview of what mainstream science is saying.

So when consistently the worlds sxcientists have been saying that humanity has been having a detrimental effect of the environment and now the leading scientific academies say there is no longer any doubt that GW is in fact the case, and the environmental and GW skeptics have consistently denied humans are having in impact on the global environment and continue to say that the evidence for GW is still doubtful; well that leads me to to conclusion that like the creation science adviocates you have a severe case of confirmation bias and it is a waste of time debating the facts with you.

When you and Jennifer can start honestly dealing with the evidence and those most quailified to do the reseach, instead of denying it because it doesn't fit your idealogical positions we can move onto debate about the solutions including the nuclear option.
Posted by Neohuman, Wednesday, 15 June 2005 9:27:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Garra,
People like you will never make a difference because you could never be convinced to a differing point of view. Stay in your little cocoon – you’ll feel safer there. Thank God (not the Environment) for people like Jennifer who think outside the square. My family has had its livelihood stripped from us in the name of environmental science. Jennifer just happens to be one who wants to be sure that legislation which impacts in this way is driven by science and fact – not emotional ideology and politics. There aren’t enough Jennifers in this world. They are all intimidated by those who have embraced the green ideology and like to make others think they are red-necks if they have a differing point of view- or worse that they are somehow in a conspiracy with big business, the real bogey man. Remember – a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. Keep up the good work Jennifer. Australia needs you. Garra will recognize you as a hero one day.
Posted by Charlie, Wednesday, 15 June 2005 2:14:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Evidence based approach to environmentalism sounds very reasonable on the surface. But whose 'evidence'? Powerful governments and corporations have too much tied up in money and power to commence the huge ideological shift required for a balanced approach to managing our environment.

The following link exemplifies the low levels that the 'powers-that-be' will sink to in an effort to maintain the status quo.

"A White House official who once led the oil industry's fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/politics/08climate.html?
Posted by Trinity, Thursday, 16 June 2005 9:59:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The IPCC do the same thing Trinity for the opposite motive - just do a google search for Chris Landsea, a hurricanes expert whose evidence was misrepresented by the climate change organisation.

Not all government and business people have hearts of stone and not all environmentalists have hearts of gold.

t.u.s.
Posted by the usual suspect, Sunday, 19 June 2005 12:55:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jennifer’s article is really about challenging our perceptions. But I ask, why this new focus on facts, stats or science? Long before we became articulate, forest management was an art form.

We shared that responsibility with other creatures too. It should remain so.

Good observation comes with a trained eye though and our visual skills will always exceed our verbal when it comes to dealing with trees and logs. From birth we develop vision and perspective and I suggest the landscape artist has the best measure in nature.
Emotion must come into that but let’s not go into the difference between the sexes here.

The history of any forest or woodland is written in the trees. Their form tells me much and even in death they tell tales.

We don’t need a science degree to get a good result on the farm or in the garden either.

Elsewhere I rattle on about interesting folk like Bert Farquhar and Peter Cundall, both legends on our ABC. Fertility starts with soils.

Let’s not have elitism around our trees.
Posted by Taz, Wednesday, 6 July 2005 4:58:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy