SkepticLance

To Lucaspa I think there may be a misunderstanding here. I am not looking for proof that loss of habitat is the sole cause of all extinctions. Nor was Lomborg suggesting we needed that. The suggestion was that loss of habitat is a minor cause. This means that over-hunting/over-fishing by humans, and introduction of alien species into an ecosystem are far more important causes of extinction than loss of habitat. Some of the examples you and Sayonara have presented are good stuff. There are a few that indicate loss of habitat is a main cause of extinction. Although, when your references are looked at more closely, it appears that in any cases there are other major causes at work, as well. This is actually an important concept, since it relates to prioritising action in trying to save species from extinction. Should you put enormous effort into conserving habitat, or would we be better off putting that effort into stopping poaching? A good example is the Indian tiger. We know that habitat is being lost, and we know that tiger populations are dropping dramatically, and we know that poachers are killing tigers. Do we spend millions on habitat conservation, or do we put those resources into stopping poachers? My conclusion so far, is that we should concentrate on conserving habitat when the habitat is what is precious. However, we should concentrate on stopping poachers and controlling alien introductions, when preventing extinction is the goal.

To 1veedo We are repeating old arguments. As I pointed out before, if you look at the period of 1880 to 1940 you will see : 1. Increases in greenhouse gases are fairly steady over the whole period. 2. From 1880 to 1910, the world is cooling. From 1910 to 1940 there is substantial warming at 0.4 Celsius. 3. The only significant difference between the two periods that can explain cooling for 30 years changing to warming for 30 years is changes in solar activity as shown by sunspots. The conclusion is obvious and clear cut.

To Dak As I said before, if you want to attack my position on global warming, first make sure you understand my position. I accept that the world is warming and that human released greenhouse gases are a major cause. I just question some of the details, and some of the exaggerated predictions. The world sees repeated examples of predictions of catastrophe, and few if any come true. I strongly suspect this is true of global warming. For example : the newspaper two days ago reported on a bunch of scientists who predicted global sea level rises averaging 2 metres by 2100. Current rise is 3 mm per year. There is rather a substantial area of doubt on their prediction.

Dak said : again, if you actually have faith that the errors you've pointed out are actual errors, then publish them. but you've got to admit, that when it filters down to our level, we're way past 'beta-testing' and the likelyhood that we'll spot any mistakes that the scientists missed is slim. I doubt, in the history of science, that there are many papers identifying a flaw in current consensus that was mentioned to the scientist by a member of the public after the consensus made the 9-o'clock news. This, at least, is a true statement. I sometimes think that, on these forums, people get a bit too serious. If no correction is made to a science 'after the 9 O'clock news', you can absolutely guarantee that no scientist cares a fig what we discuss on these forums. The global warming sceptic bit is carried on by professional climate scientists such as Richard Lindzen and a thousand like him. What I, or you, or anyone else on this forum says, is so much scientific hot air. I do my best to follow the debate, and I contribute on this or other threads what I have learned. Since the professional climate scientists who are global warming sceptics question the results of IPCC and similar, then I am quite prepared to pass on these questions. As I said, I do not dispute clear cut data. I question interpretation. At the end of the day, what you or I, or 1veedo, or swansont say matters not a damn. No-one who has any influence is reading, anyway. My own attitude is that I am on the forum for entertainment only.

To Dak. Before you set out to criticise me, make sure you understand my position. Otherwise you end up looking like a fool. I have not denied global warming, or even that greenhouse gases are the current prime contributor to global warming. What I have done is pointed out some of the errors in others arguments. The example I used was 1veedo refusing to believe that solar activity was the prime driver of global warming from 1900 to 1940, which is correct, and is clearly and demonstrably correct from the data. The problem is that global warming has become impossibly political. People of various kinds (and especially the media) have exaggerated portions of it to a ridiculous extent. And yes, you are correct in saying that I do not accept anything as true merely because someone quotes some authority. The history of science has lots of examples where the existing paradigm was later shown to be wrong. Conclusions should be drawn from good data. Not from some authority. The best example of this is plate tectonics. An idea that was utterly rubbished by authority for many years, but eventually demonstrated to be the best model of reality. The details of global warming need to be questioned by skeptics, because an uncritical acceptance will lead only to error.

1veedo. No. Arrogance consists of telling people you have the truth, and they are wrong, where there is reasonable doubt. I have never claimed to 'have the truth'. I have, however, consistently pointed out where doubt exists. You, on the other hand, do not ever admit being in the wrong, even when clear cut evidence shows that you are. Like the case where you claimed greenhouse gases were the dominant cause of warming from 1900 onwards. I showed with clear cut data, that from 1900 to 1940 at least, the dominant warming mechanism was solar. Only from 1976 can your statement apply. In spite of the data, you have refused to admit you were wrong. That is arrogance.

To freewheelin Another piece of education I am sure you have recently received, is to learn just how arrogant other people can be, when they think they have all the truth.

Sayonara I do not think Lomborg is standing alone. As I reported earlier, a New Scientist article covers the subject, including a lot of scientists who agree with Lomborg. New Scientist (Australian printed edition) 22 May 2007 page 43 I also think it would be a very good thing for you to get hold of a copy of Lomborg's book, and read it. It is a great remedy for a closed mind.

bombus said : Let it go SkepticLance, you're on a loser here mate. I am open to persuasion, and a big part of the reason I began this thread was to see if anyone could come up with any solid data to show this idea to be wrong. So far, no-one has. If I am on a loser, the big killing punch is yet to come.

Good reply 1veedo. Your graph showing ozone loss since 1980 looks quite convincing. However, I still believe that ozone levels here in the south have been less than the north for a lot longer than that. Do you have any long term north/south comparisons? I am still concerned that we do not seem to have historical data much before 1980.

Dak said : do you have a citation for the 'no change in CFC levels'? No I do not. I doubt anyone actually knows how much CFC were made an released. The Chinese were not terribly forthcoming on this. We know that enormous amounts of CFC were made and sold by the Chinese right up to the present, but exactly how much has not been revealed. The point really is that the ozone hole continues to appear, and continues to be large some years and small some others, just as it always has. Predictions of it disappearing by 2050 are meaningless. A prediction only has meaning after it has been proven correct. And usually they are not correct. I have been a bit cynical about the ozone story for a long time. The first time instruments were used to check the ozone layer, they found the ozone hole. Ever since, instruments show either the hole, or a thinned ozone layer in the areas affected. Nothing else has ever been seen. In other words, we lack a control to this experiment. People assume the ozone hole is recent, but there is no empirical evidence. Historical measurements are needed to confirm that humans and CFCs cause the ozone thinning, and historical data is totally lacking. I am old enough to remember the times before the ozone hole was discovered. I am 58, and can easily remember my childhood 50 years ago, well before the ozone hole was supposed to exist. I also live, and lived in the part of the world most affected by the thinner ozone. When I was a child, we used to get out in summer, and play in the sun with no real protection. We got burned to a frazzle! Today, New Zealand children who go out to play in the sun also get burned to a frazzle. No change there! By comparison, I remember going to California in June. I made the mistake of spending the day in the sun without protection. To my utter surprise, I did not get burned. The distinction between a thin ozone area (New Zealand) and an area (California) where it is not thin, was dramatic. I have this sneaking view, based on my inadvertant sunburn experiments, that the ozone has, in fact, been thin over the south for a hell of a long time. We just assume, wrongly, that it is a recent phenomenon. I even have a 'silly bugger' theory to explain it. The hole originates in the Antarctic, and the Antarctic has an active volcano (Mouth Erebus) which continuously puffs vast amounts of various gases into the stratosphere. Of course, it is only a wild theory, and is probably wrong. However, it is also possible it has as much validity as the CFC idea.

Actually Dak, you got the outcomes of the predictions somewhat different to the reality. Ozone hole. This was not predicted. It was discovered. The prediction was a worsening into complete disaster, unless CFC production and use stopped. CFC production and use has stayed pretty much the same, since China took up the business after the Montreal Accord stopped western nations making the stuff. CFCs have been exported from China in massive quantities. End result? Not the disaster predicted. Simply a thin ozone layer in the southern hemisphere which has not changed much overall. It gets better or worse year by year, but on average seems to be pretty much the same. Y2K Sure, the bugs were 'fixed' in the west. However, many third world countries did not have the resources to do that. And there was no problem. However, Y2K was a great source of revenue for computer companies! You are correct in saying that the main source of overblown reports is the news media, rather than scientists. However, there is a small contingent of scientists who are also guilty. Dr. Stephen Schneider even admitted in an interview to exaggerating global warming. He felt that the distortion of truth was justified in alerting the world to a disaster he perceived was coming. In other words : 'The end justifies the means.' Not good science.

1veedo Sorry, but the straw men are yours. I talked of exaggerations of disaster. You have made of that something that wasn't there. Like suggesting I was criticising scientists. I did not even use the word scientist. My list of predicted disasters is real, and correct. You are making of it something I did not say. Do not accuse others of setting up straw men, when it is yourself who is guilty.

Another contributing problem is that of definition of psychological illness. The list of such illnesses increase every year. While autism is real, and very devastating to many people, it is also rather probable that many so-called psychological illnesses, including some mild forms of autism, are simply one end of the normal distribution curve. The number of people with such ills increase every year by definition change, not by fact.

One thing that is very clear about global warming is that it is very political. Lots of people are pushing views that may, or may not be valid. Exaggerations are rife. I have been interested for a long time in the human propensity to predict disaster. In the last 60 years, since Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring, there have been a large number of predictions of global disaster. - Rachel Carson - ecological disaster by pesticide poisoning - Paul Ehrlich - famine disaster by over population - Disaster by ozone layer destruction - Nuclear War - Nuclear winter - Nuclear reactor melt-downs, like Chernobyl, only worse - Y2K - assorted plagues etc The one thing they all have in common is that none of them happened. Or at least, not to anything like the extent predicted. I suspect global warming, which is real, will be the same. It will happen, but will not be the major disaster predicted.

To bombus. With all due respect to your good self, your examples have not changed Lomborg's arguments. He admits that there are many cases where habitat loss contributes to reduction in population size. He even admits there are times when habitat loss contributes to an extinction. However, there are numerous examples where hunting or introduction of alien species have very clearly destroyed whole species, without any other contributing factors that we can measure. Such examples - where habitat loss is the sole cause of an extinction - appear to be very rare. I have not seen even one clear cut such case mentioned on this whole thread. To gator.. You have not even mentioned the grandaddy of all attacks on Lomborg's book. That found in Scientific American, where the editor did the extraordinary, and devoted an entire chapter to denouncing Lomborg. The fact that people get offended by his approach and attack his work does not obviate his work. There are heaps of people, including some quite famous, who hate what Lomborg has done and will attack his work without mercy. All that shows is that he is writing something very controversial. The book "Skeptical Environmentalist" is meticulously researched and referenced in minute detail. His facts remain facts, in spite of the attacks. I seriously suggest you go to your library and get a copy. Until you actually read it, you are not qualified to critique it. Lomborg is a professor of statistics, and understands that most vital of all mathematical disciplines as applied to science. Using his detailed, mathematical approach means his book is backed up by factual data that is hard to criticise. However, the sheer volume of data means that, if someone looks hard enough, they will find a few bits and pieces that are no longer 100% accurate. That provides ammo for his opponents. The fact that any and every book of equal volume of data can be criticised in that way does not stop the critics.

To gator. Clearly you have not read Lomborg's book. If you had, you would know how much research went into it. An enormous amount.

To fattyjwoods Let me say it again. If Greenpeace are truly sincere in their attempt to stop the Japanese government from killing whales, they will be prepared to try something new. That is, to win over the Japanese people. Southern ocean deeds of mock heroism do not do it. If they haven't learned that by now, there is no hope for them. Use the political process, and work on the Japanese people and their votes. At least that is a new tactic, whcih means it might work. The old tactics have been proven to fail.

To fattyjwoods I am not sure we can call it 'just pride'. I am not Japanese and cannot with accuracy look into the Japanese mind. For that matter, it is not all the Japanese. Just the government. What their culture dictates is obviously not what you or or would follow. However, it is clear that Greenpeace's tactics to date have just served to harden their views. There is a definition of insanity : " Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result each time." And Greenpeace keep confronting the Japanese whaling fleet in the southern ocean over and over again, and somehow expecting the Japanese to respond differently. That meets the insanity definition pretty damn well!

Is science an organised system of ignorance? Not really. However, science is probably the most honest intellectual system ever dreamed up in terms of admitting its ignorance. Scientists do not even talk of correct, incorrect, proved, or unproved. Instead, they talk of models of reality being better or worse. Scientific honesty can be devastating in its admission of ignorance.

Genecks. You 'long straw' really should win the prize for the very best 'silly bugger' idea of the year. Gravity holds water down next to the surface of the Earth. Air sits above it, also held by gravity. Water and air inside the straw sits in pace in exactly the same way as water and air outside the straw, held next to the Earth by gravity. Wrapping a straw around a small bit of water and air does not change that.

To Mudnox As I stated in an earlier post, the only tactic that is likely to work on the Japanese government to induce them to stop whaling is to work within Japan, and win over the hearts and minds of the Japanese people. Greenpeace is active inside Japan, though it is not very powerful in that country. There is nothing to stop them from running a campaign of education to tell the Japanese people about whaling and why it should be stopped. The power of the voter will then persuade the Japanese government where less subtle tactics fail. Of course, such a campaign will win Greenpeace less publicity than high seas confrontations. Thus we see their true motives.

lucaspa Your post of the 13th implies that you have not absorbed what I said earlier about probability. Occams Razor is a tool. It is a useful tool when used correctly, just as applies to all tools. If applied incorrectly, it is misleading. It is used to decide which of various hypotheses is most likely, but does not remove the need to carry out the scientific process - that is, testing. And yes. If you are superstitious and believe in ghosts, little green men from outer space, Loch Ness monsters, fairies at the bottom of the garden etc., then this principle proves terribly inconvenient.

Depends on the membrane. If its pore size is such that water molecules can pass through, but not alcohol, then there will be osmosis from water to alcohol side.

To fattyjwoods Some information you may not know. Several years ago, the Japanese whaling industry was in the hands of private enterprise. They discovered they were losing money. They offered to sell out to the Japanese government, who bought them out. The Japanese government is now running the whaling, and still losing money. Japan has all the meat it needs, since they have a cash surplus, and there are plenty of meat producing nations happy to sell their meat for less than the cost of whale meat. Consumption of whale meat in Japan has been going down for some years, and the total of whale meat produced by the whaling fleet cannot all be sold. This leads to an increasig mountain of frozen whale meat. Yet the Japanese government continues to kill whales, at a substantial financial loss. There was an article in the New Zealand Herald a while back, written by a Japanese man, on this subject. He ascribed the whole damn thing to Japanese pride. They refuse to do what outsiders tell them. Left alone, the normal rules of economics would end the entire whaling effort. With greenpeace and others trying to force them to stop, they refuse to stop. My own personal theory is that the leadership of Greenpeace, who are extremely clever and well educated people, are well aware of this. However, their approach, with 'cannon fodder' volunteers carrying out heroic deeds of derring do in the southern ocean, brings heaps of publicity, heaps of new members, and lots of new money. Money brings power, and the leadership of Greenpeace are the only winners.