• Home
  • /
  • Blog
  • /
  • Misbehaving Models and Missing Mammals by Jennifer Marohasy
Uncategorized

Misbehaving Models and Missing Mammals by Jennifer Marohasy

By jennifer
June 11, 2008

Following is my review of 'Science and Public Policy: The Virtuous Corruption of Virtual Environmental Science' by Aynsley Kellow (Edward Elgar, 2007, 218 pages) as published in The IPA Review, May 2008 (Vol 59/4):

In 2000 the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) claimed a species of Cambodian mountain goat, Pseudonovibos sptraits, was endangered with a fragmented population of 2,500 mature individuals. The species was included in the 2003 and 2006 edition of the IUCN Red List of Threatend Species.

But the Pseudonovibos sptrails never existed.

Cambodian artisans had been fooling collectors for years by removing the sheath from the horns of domestic cattle, soaking them in vinegar, heating them in palm sugar and bamboo leaves before moulding and carving the horns and then selling them as wall mounts. There had been no sightings of the goats, and DNA analysis indicated the skull bones to be those of cattle, but the idea of a rare creature that needed saving captured the imagination of the local Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) program manager and he featured the IUCN listing in his fight against land mines and rainforest destruction.

In a new book Science and Public Policy: The Virtuous Corruption of Virtual Environmental Science Aynsley KeIlow, Professor and Head of the School of Government at the University of Tasmania, uses this and other case studies from conservation biology and climate science as examples of 'noble cause corruption'. The phenomenon is recognised in law enforcement circles where police officers manufacture evidence to ensure a conviction.

The thesis of Kellow's book is that noble cause corruption gives as much cause for concern about the reliability of science as the potential influence of money.

Kellow shows that noble cause corruption is rife in the environmental sciences, and he shows how the corruption is facilitated by the virtual nature of much of the science.

After opening with the somewhat comical example of the bogus listing of the mythical Cambodian mountain goat, Kellow gets into the history of conservation biology. He explains how in the early 1980s ecology lacked a scientifically respectable method for studying life. The ecosystem approach potentially provided scientific respectability by supplying ecologists with mathematical tools developed by physicists beginning with the species-area equation and the theory of island biogeography.

While the theory could explain the number of insect and arthropod species colonising mangrove islands off the coast of Florida as a function of their distance from the mainland, the theory's extrapolation to non-island situations and terrestrial ecology more generally was not justified.

And predicting species loss by extrapolating backwards to suggest, for example, that a reduction in the area of forest will produce the same rate of species reduction as does its growth, has no basis in observational data but is common practice in conservation biology.

It is this approach, in particular the dominance of mathematical models, which makes it possible for groups like Greenpeace to use figures of 50,000-100,000 species becoming extinct every year, with support from the scientific literature, when they would be hard pressed to provide evidence of any actual extinctions.

Furthermore, an ecosystem as Kellow explains is nothing more than a construction: 'Ecologists tried to study ponds as examples of ecosystems, but soon found even they were not closed systems but connected to the watertable, and affected by groundwater flows, spring run-off and migrating waterfowl.'

In Science and Public Policy, Kellow shows how the misguided approach to the complexity of 'ecosystems' facilitated the subsequent development of climate science as 'post-normal' science. Kellow begins by explaining that climate change is an area of science where models inevitably play an important role-there is little scope for laboratory experimentation.

Climate models are constructed using historical data and then tested against the same data. Until about 1996 they produced a warming climate even with constant carbon dioxide. It is a vast undertaking and many scientists involved in modelling future climates have to assume the results of others are correct, and so it becomes partly a construct-dealing with enormous complexity and nonlinear processes.

Furthermore, Kellow details how lapses in scientific standards have occurred-involving the misuse of statistics on emissions scenarios and the incorrect reinterpretation of tree-ring data- which have had the effect of conveniently contributing to the political case for action to mitigate climate change.

The second half of the book is very much about politics beginning with a detailed analysis of the campaign by scientists against statistician Bjorn Lomborg and his book The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World and following with a critique of why there seems to be a closer affinity between environmentalism and left-leaning parties in western democracies and greater hostility towards environmental protection from right-leaning parties.

Kellow argues that there are cultural factors associated with the appreciation of nature that align with political ideologies and that these factors become exaggerated by the now virtual nature of many scientific disciplines. This further facilitates the corruption of science and public policy.

Kellow disputes the claim that the rise of environmentalism simply reflects increasing affluence and a progressive agenda, and considers the history of environmentalism and the myth of the balance of nature in the context of a long tradition of Western thought often involving catastrophic decline from some idyllic past- usually as a result of sin.

The idea of the 'balance of nature' persists, even though it is not supported by the observational data, because, if we accept this myth, any change in ecosystems can be attributed to human activity and imparted with a deep social meaning.

Within this paradigm, ecology involves all manner of projections of human values onto observed nature including through the use of terms such as 'invasive species' and 'alien'.

Quoting Robert Kirkman, Kellow suggests that a belief in ecologism provides a moral compass pointing in the direction of holistic harmony, but it is an illusion.

This shift of environmentalism onto a religious plane, coupled with the descent of much of ecology into the virtual world of mathematical modelling has seen the marriage of environmental science to political activism. Classic liberalism, Kellow explains, with its emphasis on separation between the individual and the state, can provide a protection against 'the darker possibilities of environmentalism'.

The book ends with a warning to scientists to not usurp the role of policy-makers. But rather provide those policy-makers with informed choices.

Indeed public policy is almost never resolved by some piece of scientific information. When science is used to arbitrate it eventually loses its independent status and disqualifies itself.

Science and Public Policy is an important book as a philosophical and historical analysis of environmental activism particularly over the last 30 years.

It will be especially appreciated by naturalists and biologists who remember the good old days when tramping about in work boots observing wild goats at close range or, in my case, collecting live lepidopteron, was encouraged-that is, before the advent of environmental science and sitting at desks crunching numbers for computer models.

Jennifer Marohasy is a Senior Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs.

You can buy the book here: http://www.amazon.com/Science-Public-Policy-Corruption-Environmental/dp/1847204708

Good Causes

Comments

  1. John F. Pittman:
    There are some promising signs in terms of the negotiation of an international instrument that might be worth something. The reliance on strong moral suasion (including an erroneous attribution of blame) and scientific consensus (what Peter Haas called 'epistemic consensus') has not worked with Kyoto. Indeed, Haas, in his seminal article in 1990, predicted it would not, but Mustapha Tolba as the UNEP Director General wrongly modelled climate change negotiations on the Montreal Protocol.
    The disconnect between the powerful underlying interests and the ever more desperate efforts to drive agreement with claims about what the science says we should do, backed by blaming and shaming, have simply produced what Arild Underdal calls the 'vertical disintegration of policy': things are agreed, but not delivered upon. (Someone once said in the EU that those first to agree to environmental policy directives were usually those least likely to implement!)
    There are a number of us now starting to reach similar conclusions about the failure of Kyoto (Prins and Rayner, David Victor, etc) who see value in limiting ambition and building trust and understanding (what Underdal calls the 'law of the least ambitious program'). This is how most successful regimes have been developed, but Kyoto has been a matter of 'more haste, less speed.' The supposed urgency has - in Prins and Rayner's view - led us to waste 15 years on the flawed Kyoto model.
    The real progress internationally is occurring in the Major Economies Meeting (MEM) sponsored by the US - essentially the G8+5 plus the Asia Pacific Partnership" the 16 heavy hitters accounting for over 80% of emissions. (Indonesia and Brazil are there, so forest emitters are there).
    Nationally, the best policy response is probably a hybrid emissions trading scheme (a la Mckibbin-Wilcoxen), with additional permits issued or withdrawn as knowledge changes (we don't really know what size the cap should be) with international trading only by governments when verification can be assured. (Would you buy a carbon permit from a party in Russia, or from a Third World country where governance systems cannot assure that carbon sinks will be managed for five years, let alone 25?)
    In short, there are sensible ways of approaching the problem appropriately viewed as one of uncertainty, but the problem is you're likely to be labelled a denier if you stick your head above the parapet.

  2. JFP: “here in the US, well arguable or not, free-market ideas and actual "blame" assigning will most probably be on the agenda”…yeah well, it had to come down to where did it all start?

    In my posts above I tried to outline a general case for the whole spectrum of modern industry. Sure; the fossil fuel sector has been wise in shoring up its defenses against public intervention over practices in recent decades but from any point of view our switch to natural gas in the short term must be applauded in terms of reduced CO2 world wide.

    Starting with the source of the problem is always best. Demand for cheap power and transport has driven our industrial growth for too long. Monitoring the gross effect from the outside has been too hard. Shifting the blame to greenie programs is too easy.

    My sympathy remains with the grass roots of industry where the natural growth of technical expertise also R & D is often overshadowed by the economic agenda. Winding up the State Electricity Commission of Victoria (SECV) by the Kennet Government is just one case of throwing the baby out with the bath water that I could mention. On the other hand I don’t miss the all powerful HEC that once ruled Tasmania. Arms of government that measure our changing environment must be independent.

    With several exceptions, alumina and steel smelting I have had virtually free access to the problems of monitoring most forms of manufacture from the inside. I say free markets don’t achieve best outcomes when considering widespread distribution of benefits to local communities scattered round the globe. Finding places of convenience was also too easy when it comes to shortcuts and profits.

    Perhaps I should mention the food industry here. The one with the day job has a simple line, “if your grandmother can’t recognize it, don’t buy it”. The latest industry fad, hiding things with “numbers” beats the raw prawn cooked for “your convenience” in Thailand.
    Dissociation with a products origin quickly becomes habit. Even Mattel got caught.

    John; the USA has a lot of wising up to do yet.

  3. A. Kellow you "pointed out in a short piece in Nature last year that the misrepresentation of the science of CO2 has serious consequences for the development of international policy. As Brazil pointed out in the Ade Hoc Group on the Berlin Mandate (where the Kyoto architecture was developed), burdens should be allocatedon the basis of historical contributions. This made (by the base year of 1990) Europe the largest contributor, NOT the US. (It's changed a bit since then). Because of the flow definition and the 1990 base year problem (Britain's 'dash to gas' and Germany reunification bbegan that year), Kyoto required least of those who had doen most to cause the problem.

    This remains the sticking point in post-Kyoto negotiations, though Japan is arguing for an end to the 1990 base year problem.

    But the time element means emissions by India and China now are less important, though they would become more important with time if Annex I parties did mitigate. That's why the acceptance by China of aspirational targets related to energy efficiency in the Sydney Declaration was significant, because they accepted ANY target for the first time and there is time and opportunity (they can probably improve energy efficiency 30% at no cost)."

    I found this a very interesting read. Thank you for your thoughtful input. I do not know whether "free-market" arguments will make or have made the rounds in your arena, but here in the US, well arguable or not, free-market ideas and actual "blame" assigning will most probably be on the agenda, especially in the US Senate.Does your article in Nature address these aspects as they may well be linked together here in the US?

  4. There is currently a great debate over the location of proposed gas fired power generation in Canberra.

    see the-riotact.com/?p=7501

    I noticed someone referred to a previous situation in Victoria where there was intense debate around the proposal to replace the old Newport coal and oil fired power station and its electricity generators with a big new gas fired plant to rival the brown coal generators to the east of Melbourne. Newport is just 4 km from the CBD and the tall chimney built in the early 1970’s to replace the old short flues stands alongside our other towering landmark, Melbourne’s Westgate Bridge over the Lower Yarra River.

    Newport as it was, traditionally supplied the metropolitan transport grid. This major industrial region is where I worked on a number of smaller furnaces during their transition to meet fresh EPA (Vic.) standards. Our interest in fuel technology, power generation, emission control and the public debate over discharge rates and heights was at that time was intense. However the details escape me.

    Seeking records of changing sulfur emissions re acid rain and other concerns I came across an excellent presentation on “fossil” fuels. Note: I almost forgot Victorian brown coal although naturally half full of water is actually very low in sulfur content.

    “Fossil Technology - Fossil facts and figures”

    “This is a collection of information from different resources and represents the situation in 2005 / 2006. Sources are the International Energy Agency (France), BWK (Germany) and Australian sources”.

    “The problem is mainly CO2 emission from fossil fuels. That adds to the problem that nearly all of this fuel comes from non-renewable sources”

    http://www.spare-exchange.com/fossil_technology.htm

    What is coal? See this outline (Louis)

    http://www.rocklandsrichfield.com.au/PDF/What%20Is%20Coal.pdf

    More on clean coal technology “Supercritical Conventional Coal Plants”

    “Thermal efficiency is a measure of how much useful energy can be extracted from a given amount of coal. Thermal efficiency in coal-fired power generation has increased from about 5 per cent in 1900 to an average of 38 per cent for modern pulverised fuel (pf) power plants. Every 1 per cent increase in thermal efficiency results in a 2-3 per cent decrease carbon dioxide emissions”

    http://www.australiancoal.com.au/cleantechAus.htm

    From “The State of the Environment Tasmania” where I also worked in industry over several decades – an “Index of Atmosphere Issues”

    “This chapter details atmosphere and air quality issues affecting the health, environment and economic well-being of Tasmanians and provides an overview of the characteristics of the atmosphere and climate. The chapter also describes the global and regional changes and trends affecting Tasmania, and highlights the condition of the State's air quality, the pressures placed upon it and the management responses to these pressures. It focuses on changes since the first State of the Environment (SoE) Report for Tasmania (SDAC 1997), although earlier baselines are used where data are available and relevant for describing conditions, trends and changes in the environment”.

    http://soer.justice.tas.gov.au/2003/atm/1/index.php

    Newport Power Station: See the case study.

    http://www.environment.gov.au/education/publications/epa/modules/module7.html#act2

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/49786582@N00/271104690/

    http://www.railgeelong.com/location/power-station-and-oil-lines#-power-stations-

    More influences, see “Subsidies to the Use of Natural Resources” Environmental Economics Research Paper No.2 (1996) and “The enhanced Greenhouse effect”

    http://www.environment.gov.au/about/publications/economics/subsidies/subs4.html

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/49786582@N00/271104690/

    http://www.railgeelong.com/location/power-station-and-oil-lines#-power-stations-

    More influences, see “Subsidies to the Use of Natural Resources” Environmental Economics Research Paper No.2 (1996) and “The enhanced Greenhouse effect”

    http://www.environment.gov.au/about/publications/economics/subsidies/subs4.html

  5. Louis, Gavin, and Luke.At the time I was studying acid rain, large internet databases were not available. The link that Luke provided was typical of what we were studying. The conclusions were that acid rain had large effects in southeastern US and areas such as Scandanavia. The data from areas such as USSR and China were suspect due not only the Cold War, but the apparent unconcern of communist states to address polution. The situation in the NE US of man enhancing the water due to farming was different and was stated at the time to be in select areas and its extent was limited. Gavin, in the US and international, the fact that acidrain affected the down wind neighbor more than the originator, was taught as the reason of the interstate and international regulatory framework i.e. it had to be done this way since legally the affected entity did not have legal recourse against the originator. Loius, I have not looked at the data itself to determine what was actually measured, or its consistancy and basis. The papers I am familiar with stated or assumed that the acidification downwind of SO2 sources was caused by the increase in SO4 in water. I also know that in my area of SE US, care had to be taken not to blame the wrong component because rain in this area can be acidic without substantial SO4. It has been a long time since I looked at these early works, so I would not state their basis one way or the other without looking in some detail. The paper Luke linked to is typical of what we saw after implementation of regulations which were used to acknowlegde success of the program.

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *