It just never ends. Having been visited by a couple of “contrarians” (aka “deniers”) following my post “Extreme Earth” I’ve added a list of links relating to the math. Having seen this denounced by an advocate for the mining industry (itself a major pollutor) I’ve added some links below from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), whose site I urge anyone interested in these matters to visit. Of particular interest is the UCS’ articles on the “global warming contrarian” movement. I will include one example of why people who denounce global warming should not have their claims accepted at face value.

UCS Examines ‘The Skeptical Environmentalist’

Background

A book by Bjørn Lomborg, a political scientist and professor of statistics at the University of Aarhus in Denmark, has created quite a stir since its 2001 release. Lomborg accuses scientists and environmental organizations of making false and exaggerated claims about the world’s environmental problems. He concludes that population growth is not a problem, that there is plenty of freshwater around, that deforestation rates and species extinctions are grossly exaggerated, that the pollution battle has been won, and that global warming is too expensive to fix. A self-proclaimed environmentalist and skeptic, he claims that his reanalysis of environmental data measures “the real state of the world.”

The heavily promoted book, published by Cambridge University Press, has received significant attention from the media and praise from commentators writing in The Economist, The New York Times, and Washington Post. For example, the Post’s reviewer (a philosophy professor from New Zealand) concluded that it was “a magnificent achievement,” and “the most significant work on the environment since the appearance of its polar opposite, Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, in 1962.” Meanwhile, groups with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo are using the book to promote their “no need to take action to address global environmental problems” agenda. For example, the “Cooler Heads Coalition” — formed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute and others to “dispel the myths of global warming” — featured Lomborg in a Capitol Hill briefing on global warming.

Does this book merit such positive attention? Does Lomborg provide new insights? Are his claims supported by the data? A healthy skepticism towards the claims of others is, after all, one of the hallmarks of good science. And, at first glance, Lomborg’s book appears to be an objective and rigorous scientific analysis. It is published by a leading academic press, and contains an extensive bibliography and nearly 3,000 footnotes.

To answer these questions, UCS invited several of the world’s leading experts on water resources, biodiversity, and climate change to carefully review the sections in Lomborg’s book that address their areas of expertise. We asked them to evaluate whether Lomborg’s skepticism is coupled with the other hallmarks of good science – namely, objectivity, understanding of the underlying concepts, appropriate statistical methods and careful peer review. Reviewing Lomborg’s claims are Dr. Peter Gleick, an internationally recognized expert on the state of freshwater resources; Dr. Jerry Mahlman, one of the most highly regarded atmospheric scientists and climate modelers; and top biologists and biodiversity experts Dr.’s Edward O. Wilson, Thomas Lovejoy, Norman Myers, Jeffrey Harvey and Stuart Pimm.

These separately written expert reviews unequivocally demonstrate that on closer inspection, Lomborg’s book is seriously flawed and fails to meet basic standards of credible scientific analysis. The authors note how Lomborg consistently misuses, misrepresents or misinterprets data to greatly underestimate rates of species extinction, ignore evidence that billions of people lack access to clean water and sanitation, and minimize the extent and impacts of global warming due to the burning of fossil fuels and other human-caused emissions of heat-trapping gases. Time and again, these experts find that Lomborg’s assertions and analyses are marred by flawed logic, inappropriate use of statistics and hidden value judgments. He uncritically and selectively cites literature — often not peer-reviewed — that supports his assertions, while ignoring or misinterpreting scientific evidence that does not. His consistently flawed use of scientific data is, in Peter Gleick’s words “unexpected and disturbing in a statistician”.

These reviews show that The Skeptical Environmentalist fits squarely in a tradition of contrarian works on the environment that may gain temporary prominence but ultimately fail to stand up to scientific scrutiny. Others, such as Julian Simon and Gregg Easterbrook, have come before him, and others no doubt will follow. Correcting the misperceptions these works foster is an essential task, for, as noted above, groups with anti-environmental agendas use these works to promote their objectives. It is also an unfortunate, time-consuming distraction, for it pulls talented scientists away from the pressing research needed to help us understand the environmental challenges we face and their prospective solutions.

Winston Churchill once said, “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on”, reminding usof the parable of the Tortoise and the Hare. Like the Hare, Lomborg’s lie has raced out in front of the truth. With the help of these careful scientific peer reviews, UCS hopes that the truth, like the Tortoise, will catch up and emerge the ultimate victor.

Editor’s note: In addition to these UCS-solicited reviews, critiques of Lomborg’s book have also been published in Scientific American, Nature, Science, and other scientific journals, as well as on several web sites (see Related Links).

Follow the link below to review other information on the “contrarian” movement.

Global Warming Contrarians

The following link will lead you to articles on the science of global warming.

Global Warming Science

Since those who argue against the reality of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) tend to resort to arguments about the math (“the math doesn’t add up!”) I thought I’d throw out a few links to clarify the true situation with regards to the mathematics of AGW. I hope these help, and I’d like to thank Mike Kaulbars for sending them my way:

What is the evidence that CO2 is causing global warming?
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/10/what_is_the_evidence_that_co2.php

Just in case there are any doubts about anthropogenic influence in atmospheric CO2
http://residualanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/08/just-in-case-there-are-any-doubts-about.html

Does CO2 correlate with temperature?
http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2009/03/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature.html

The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/

Yet more CO2 http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/08/08/yet-more-co2/

A role for atmospheric CO2 in preindustrial climate forcing http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2008/10/discussion-role-for-atmospheric-co2-in.html

Calculating the greenhouse effect http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/calculating-the-greenhouse-effect/langswitch_lang/sk#more-220

Of Upward Slopes and Isotopes
http://halgeranon.blogspot.com/2009/02/of-upward-slopes-and-isotopes.html

Of Upward Slopes and Isotopes (2)
http://halgeranon.blogspot.com/2009/04/of-upward-slopes-and-isotopes-2.html

Let’s accept that it behooves us all to educate ourselves as much as possible with regards to climate change. I am not a scientist. My degrees are in history and philosophy. But I can think and I can reason and one of my favorite classes in college outside of my degree areas was “Biology of the Environment” – a class which really opened my eyes to what we, as humans, are doing to our environment, either intentionally or incidentally.

If we are going to argue a point of view, we need to understand both sides of the issue, familiarize ourselves with the arguments pro and con. As a polytheist, I am all too familiar with the conservatives’ strategy of repeating obvious falsehoods in the face of all evidence to the contrary. It really doesn’t matter how many facts you pile on; they will accuse you of what they themselves are guilty of: being sheep and avoiding facts. I think the same thing has happened with the science of climate change as has happened with religion.

As I said before, evidence becomes subservient to theory. Simply stating that something is true does not make it true, no matter how often you insist upon it. You ought at least to be able to summon some facts to your side rather than saying everybody else is an idiot, or issuing a dogmatic “you’re wrong” over and over again. If you have evidence, provide it. It’s as simple as that.

Yet too many “deniers” refuse to do so. While claiming the evidence is in their favor, they refuse to provide it. While claiming that “scientific consensus” is meaningless they imply that a minority opinion carries more weight than a majority opinion (can you imagine anything more nonsensical than that???). They claim most scientists fault AGW but when proven that a consensus actually supports AGW they change their argument and claim it’s no surprise given the climate – who would dare oppose it and suffer condemnation? The fact is that there IS a consensus and the fact is that most of those “scientists” who find against AGW are not peer published and the fact is that many of them work for polluting industries, like coal, and so have a vested interest in denying AGW.

So as always, let’s educate ourselves. Whether you accept AGW as a reality or as a myth, educate yourself. Let’s look at the evidence and arrive at conclusions that are pointed to BY that evidence. Let’s look at facts, not rhetoric, and question, always question. Question with the ferocity of Socrates.

I picked up a nifty little book at Borders the other day: Bryan Ward-Perkins, The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization(Oxford, 2005). Ward-Perkins, who teaches at Trinity College, Oxford, argues against the recent view that the fall of Rome was not a violent event but more of a peaceful process and that the barbarians were not really barbarians (remember my post on Terry Gilliam?). Ward-Perkins slaps these pesky ideas away with a brilliant foray into the fall of the Roman Empire. The book is only about 230 pages long but this is a case of quality over quantity. Rather than expending 700 pages on the resurrection of Jesus, as one Christian scholar did, only to summarize his arguments by saying it happened because it had to have happened, Ward-Perkins actually demonstrates, through use of ancient literature, epigraphy and archaeological findings, that Rome did fall, and violently, and that civilization collapsed leading to a very real and very depressing Dark Age.

This brief review aside, something else the author said struck a chord.

There is no reason to believe, as people once did, that ethnic behaviour and identity is genetically transmitted, and therefore immutable. But experience suggests that a great deal of an individual’s identity is acquired during childhood and early youth, from parents, the wider family, and companions, and that this identity, once acquired, is not easily forgotten. This being so, individuals have never been entirely free to choose what they wish to be, old identities, even inconvenient ones, die hard. Furthermore, for a change of identity to be successful, this requires, not only mental and cultural adjustments on the part of the person making the shift, but also the acceptance of that person into the group they wish to join. As we know from modern experience, acceptance is by no means always freely given, and often has to be ‘earned’ over time – for instance, as an Englishmen, I am not too sure that, even if I had lived my life in Scotland, I could ever have earned acceptance as a Scot. Individuals and groups can successfully change their identities, even dramatically, but to do so they have to overcome barriers, both in their own minds and in those of the group they wish to join. This takes time, often several generations (p. 77).

Of course, I thought at once of the nationalization of genetics in the Nazi era, and more recently of silly notions current in some parts of modern Heathenry, namely the metagenetics of the AFA. Racial memory indeed. As I’ve said before, there is cultural memory. Cultures do shape their memories and their memories do shape them. And this is true of individuals as well.

I agree with what Ward-Perkins says here. In fact, it fits in very well with what I’ve said myself with regards to ancestry and orlog and starting points and the shaping of our fates. People aren’t so different that they cannot assimilate, cannot share each others’ gods and customs. The Germanic peoples did this in the ruins of the Roman Empire (thus Ward-Perkins’ point) and the Norse did it in Ireland, Scotland, England, and France. Lacking an ideological axe to grind, these “barbarians” (to use a politically loaded term) did not impose their customs and traditions on the people they conquered (obviously, this changed when they became Christian – witness the behavior of the Vandals in North Africa). Take another example: that of Hellenism in the Roman Empire. Hellenism was not associated with Greekdom, that is, Greek blood or genetic material, but with Greek culture. If you lived like a Greek, you were a Hellene, whether you were from the Indus Valley or the Rhine. The Romans understood from a very early time that citizenship could be granted. It was not only the inhabitants of the seven hills who were Romans. Anyone could be a Roman. A piece of paper could accomplish this. Specific genetic material was not required.

But I think the key is that we are shaped, as individuals, by family and society and the prevailing culture in which we find ourselves. We have a starting point established by this ancestry, most recently by our parents. As Ward-Perkins says, we cannot easily break free of this identity. We modern day Pagans are engaging in this process in reverse. We start as part of this society rather than invading it, and we try not to assimilate but to break free. This is probably a more difficult procedure. I make much of being Scandinavian. I am proud of it. My ancestors were Scandinavians who came to this country (Minnesota) in the 19th century. Before that, they lived in Norway and Sweden. But this is a cultural memory, not a racial or genetic. My blood does not sing, but my mind. I yearn for the customs and traditions of my ancestors. But this is a choice, not a requirement. I could, if I so wished, as easily worship the gods of the Hellenes. After all, if some ancient Hellenes were right in their thinking (or Jan Assmann in his) these gods were the same gods anyway, merely with national or cultural trappings associated with them.

We’re free to choose in a way that nobody since the destruction of polytheism has been, what our customs and traditions will be. I think its natural to hearken back to the customs and traditions of your ancestors, and if you have a mixed ancestral bag, as most Americans do, you have a great many choices. But by all means, be cosmopolitan if you wish, be like a denizen of that glorious epoch when you could honor Mithras and then an hour later sacrifice to Herakles or Demeter or Isis or Cernunnos. We have a past to break free from and a choice of futures to move into. Within the limitations imposed by culture and society, we are free to become whatever we wish. No longer does the Church have the power to coerce us into a narrow, fearful, and superstition-laden path. We are not limited by our genetic material. We are limited only by our aspirations and by our ability to break free of point of origin.

It’s a nice picture, isn’t it? It’s not an easy thing but then nothing worth having is easy. But it’s more precious for the struggle. The sense of discovery is something that is beyond description, that I get chills even thinking about. As Ward-Perkins says, the process might take generations, and I have said myself that we, the first generation or modern polytheists, are only paving the way for the next generation. We are laying the foundations by our struggles to find and re-establish ourselves. What we do will have a huge impact on those who come after us and that is both a heady and a weighty responsibility. Some believe that we must earn our place with the gods. After all, it is not they who abandoned us but we who abandoned them, but I believe the genetics work both ways. We are not genetically bound to certain gods (let alone customs and traditions) and we, though we share genetic matter with our ancestors who broke troth, did not ourselves break troth. The gods have no reason to avoid us; we have every reason to seek the gods. They are there; they are real; and they love us. Why would we not love them in return? And in loving them, demonstrate that love?

So back to the beginning: We are all of us children and products of our environment. We all of us come with some general programming that is part of being human (scientists still debate such things) but in many important respects we are all clean slates to begin with and the real programming comes with family, friends, and a wider culture and society. This programming can be overwritten. For we modern Pagans, it must be overwritten and it must be a conscious decision. It is not instantaneous. The fall of Rome may have been an event, as Ward-Perkins argues, but conversion is not an event; it is a process. Our ancestors, through coercion or accommodation, converted to monotheism. We are un-converting. We have discovered that the colossal bait-and-switch of Christianity is a farce. Likely, our ancestors discovered this soon enough but were not free to opt out, given the rather grisly consequences of trying. But in our process of un-converting, we are not bound by genetic paths.

A religious group can, I suppose, argue that genetics play a part but science denies this. In the end, I think any religion that makes such claims is not removing itself far from Christian influences because, after all, the gods haven’t said it is so, science says it is not, which leads to the (for me) inescapable conclusion that genetics have nothing to do with religion. I am a Heathen by blood, yes, if you look at the line of my ancestors far in the past, but I am a Heathen by choice, not by necessity, just as those ancient Germans became Romans, we can become anything we wish and genetics will not dictate otherwise.

I just had to post this here because it’s beautiful beyond words:

This is from MSNBC: