At Tumblr, Andy Revkin asks:
Would things be clearer if the process known as “global warming” had been described as “global heating” from the get-go?
His answer:
Graph of heat-content anomaly in atmosphere and seas says YES.
Greenpeace continues its descent into anti-science oblivion.
Last Thursday, the environmental group carried out a destructive anti-GMO stunt that has outraged scientists in Australia. Over at Sustainablog, agricultural scientist Steve Savage describes what happened:
On July, 14, three Greenpeace activists dressed in hazmat suits scaled a fence, and used weed whips to destroy a GMO wheat experiment in Canberra, Australia. The experiment was being conducted by CSIRO (the USDA equivalent for Australia). The activists posted video of the attack on You Tube. They also posted “explanations” by activists who could be easily identified. Although this is technically a criminal activity, it was more likely about publicity. Greenpeace has been at the forefront of the anti-GMO movement since the late 1990s, and it has claimed victory for stopping the development of GMO wheat varieties. Those heady days are fading for Greenpeace. 15 years and billions of acres into the GMO revolution, Greenpeace may just be attempting to defend conquered ground.
So why is this stunt damaging, nonetheless? Christopher Preston, an agricultural scientist at the University of Adelaide, explains:
These trials are not just about the development of genetically modified crops that may at some future time be developed commercially, but frequently provide spin-off information that is of use in our understanding of gene action in the environment. This important information is also lost.
This particular act of eco-vandalism by Greenpeace seems to have struck a nerve in Australia’s scientific community and among some science journalists. Here’s a biting response from Wilson da Silva, the editor of Cosmos:
GREENPEACE WAS ONCE a friend of science, helping bring attention to important but ignored environmental research. These days, it’s a ratbag rabble of intellectual cowards intent on peddling an agenda, whatever the scientific evidence.
It was once the most active, independent and inspiring civilian group for the environment. Whether riding zodiacs alongside boats carrying barrels of toxic waste to be dumped in the open sea, or campaigning against CFCs and HFCs that were depleting the ozone layer, Greenpeace did admirable work.
But in the last decade or so, Greenpeace abandoned the rigour of science. When the science has been inconvenient, Greenpeace chooses dogma. Which is why it has a zero-tolerance policy on nuclear energy, no matter how imperative the need to remove coal and gas from electricity production. Or why it is adamant organic farming is the only way forward for agriculture, when organic could not feed the world’s population today.
In his must-read post, Steve Savage at Sustainablog explores the bigger picture:
…this argument about GMO wheat is a mere sub-set of something bigger than even agriculture. It is really about the choice between risk management based on sound science or risk avoidance based on the “Precautionary Principle.” The same is true of the Climate Change and Vaccine/Autism debates, as well as many more.
As for a certain leading group of the environmental movement, Silva in Cosmos ends his piece with withering contempt:
Greenpeace has lost its way. Its former glory rested on the righteousness of its actions in support of real evidence of how humanity was failing to care for the environment. Now it is a sad, dogmatic, reactionary phalanx of anti-science zealots who care not for evidence, but for publicity.
Andy Revkin wrestles with Tim Flannery’s new book, Here on Earth: A Natural History of the Planet, in a NYT book review:
An overwhelming majority of scientists agree that humans have upended hosts of ecosystems and are exerting a growing and potentially calamitous influence on the climate. Some, perhaps in response to public indifference, have a tendency to push beyond the data in arguing for action. “Here on Earth” places Flannery in this group. I had a moment, about halfway in, when I was ready to give up in the face of overheated descriptions of environmental problems. But I stuck it out and was heartened to see Flannery abandon the rhetoric of shame and woe and turn to a more reasoned assessment of a young, intelligent species that finds itself in quite a predicament. After all, it’s not easy being the first life-form to become both a planet-scale force and — ever so slowly and uncomfortably — aware of that fact.
Despite Here on Earth’s evident imperfections, I plan to read it. Flannery, who is Australia’s E.O. Wilson, is similarly a gifted and brainy popularizer of science.
In his new book (according to reviews), Flannery seems to make a case for the “rewilding” concept (just for Australia?) that has recently come into vogue. This strikes me as an ecological fantasy. I reviewed the North American version of this idea a few years ago.
What interests me more are two biological worldviews Flannery puts in opposition, which Revkin describes nicely:
“Here on Earth” begins with the deepest biological context, as Flannery pits what he sees as the mechanistic, soulless conceptions of Charles Darwin against the more holistic, even hopeful, vision of Alfred Russel Wallace, the English naturalist who discovered evolution independently. Whereas Darwin “sought enlightenment by studying smaller and smaller pieces of life’s puzzle,” Flannery writes, Wallace “took on the whole,” envisioning a transcendent human future in which evolutionary fitness is determined by more than simply the ability to out-reproduce — or, according to the Social Darwinists, out-earn — one’s competitors. Flannery cites, too, Wallace’s denunciation of the “criminal apathy” behind the choking urban pollution of the late 19th century, which stunted and killed the poor in particular.
Tracking the rise and spread of the human species, Flannery contrasts two more contemporary visions of the processes in play. The “Medea hypothesis,” developed by the paleontologist Peter Ward, holds that natural selection drives species to exploit resources to the point of ecosystem collapse, and thus ultimately to destroy themselves. While Flannery agrees that this theory describes some extinctions of species and civilizations, he instead embraces the “Gaia hypothesis,” developed by the ecologist James Lovelock, which sees evolution as “a series of win-win outcomes that has created a productive, stable and cooperative Earth” — at least until human selfishness got in the way.
Here’s a good primer on the Medea Hypothesis, if you need to get up to speed on it. I’ll have to read Flannery’s book, of course, but I’m not exactly enthralled with the two choices–the Medea or Gaia hypothesis–that he’s using to make his argument.
