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
Luke: We must remember that a lot of bio damage from acid rain occurs in the forest above ground where the H2SO4 is strongest.
Louis: we come back to the cart and horse thing. As I should have said; your ph sample goes off while you hold it.
An acid lake would be very interesting.
I tell this yarn about the time I lost tons of acid over months between two tanks about a km apart. A workmate found it one day while cleaning round the plant with a 2” fire hose.
The whole sizzling embankment and bushland next door finally exploded before he decided it was time to run for cover. I can still recall his wild expression and mud splattered face. Luckily; none of the flying rocks got him.
Sigh .........
- the Covered Catchment Experiment at Gårdsjön, Sweden, after Ten Years of Clean Precipitation Treatment is quite conclusive.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m2l40r2438h8195x/
Filip Moldan1 , Richard A. Skeffington2, Carl-Magnus Mörth3, Peter Torssander3, Hans Hultberg1 and John Munthe1
(1) IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, Gothenburg, Sweden
(2) Department of Geography, The Aquatic Environments Research Centre, The University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading, United Kingdom
(3) Department of Geology and Geochemistry, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
Abstract The Covered Catchment Experiment at Gårdsjön is a large scale forest ecosystem manipulation, where acid precipitation was intercepted by a 7000 m2 plastic roof and replaced by `clean precipitation' sprinkled below the roof for ten years between 1991 and 2001. The treatment resulted in a strong positive response of runoff quality. The runoff sulphate, inorganic aluminium and base cations decreased, while there was a strong increase in runoff ANC and a moderate increase in pH. The runoff continued to improve over the whole duration of the experiment. The achieved quality was, however, after ten years still considerably worse than estimated pre-industrial runoff at the site. Stable isotopes of sulphur were analysed to study the soil sulphur cycling. At the initial years of the experiment, the desorption of SO4 from the mineral soil appeared to control the runoff SO4 concentration. However, as the experiment proceeded, there was growing evidence that net mineralisation of soil organic sulphur in the humus layer was an additional source of SO4 in runoff. This might provide a challenge to current acidification models. The experiment convincingly demonstrated on a catchment scale, that reduction in acid deposition causes an immediate improvement of surface water quality even at heavily acidified sites. The improvement of the runoff appeared to be largely a result of cation exchange processes in the soil due to decreasing concentrations of the soil solution, while any potential change in soil base saturation seemed to be less important for the runoff chemistry over the short time period of one decade. These findings should be considered when interpreting and extrapolating regional trends in surface water chemistry to the terrestrial parts of ecosystems.
http://ambio.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1639%2F0044-7447(2003)032%5B0170%3ARFAIES%5D2.0.CO%3B2&ct=1#i0044-7447-32-3-170-b3
The question of possible recovery from surface water acidification was intensely discussed in the late 1970s and early 1980s (1) and was a key motivation for international agreements on large and costly S-emission reductions. In Europe, these questions have been part of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP) (2). The potential for extensive recovery from acidification has been demonstrated through several “roof” experiments in Europe, where all anthropogenic S was removed from precipitation. The RAIN experiment (Reversing Acidification In Norway) (3) and the Covered Catchment Experiment at Lake Gårdsjön, Sweden (4), showed a relatively rapid decrease in sulfate runoff, and improvement in the acidification status of the water measured as acid neutralizing capacity (ANC). The first documented observations of recovery trends in surface waters as a consequence of reduced S-deposition in Europe were from Galloway, southwestern Scotland (5). More recently, widespread evidence of recovery has been observed across large areas of Europe through the international program ICP Waters (6, 7), the EU project Recover: 2010 (8, 9), and numerous national-scale studies. A large-scale overview study (6) suggested that many regions had shown early signs of recovery during the 1980s, but that the rate of recovery appears to have accelerated during the 1990s. Within Europe, however, spatial heterogeneity has been evident, with the clearest evidence of recovery from parts of Scandinavia where deposition changes have been large.
http://www.rrcap.unep.org/md/malereport/2003/Stakreport/Attn5_Acidificationrisk.PPT Fascinating - the area sof lowest pH rain seem to be associated with industrialisation and air pollution. Who would have throught.....SEE slide 13 !!
Luke,
Moving the goal posts? Still looking for a paper which describes and acid lake and then shows the measurement of the rainfall (wet deposition I think it's called) in the study area supporting it.
Still waiting for it.
Well that's because as an arch shonk you keep moving the goal posts
(1) there's no data - but then oh bugger there is
(2) then there's no pH rainfall measurements - then oh bugger there is
(3) now it's something else
So Hissink modus operandi - is pull some bogus unsubstantiated idea out of his backside and create a diversion. Mate that's why we dropkick you every chance we get. Shonks need a regular wacking.
John F. Pittman
I am quite aware of that data, abut no one has answered by initial question, so I will leave it at that. Argument by resort to authority and of course the usual patronising sneering questioners of the eco-litany receive here makes it basically a waste of time.
Louis Hissink I checked on the data available from the link that Luke kindly gave. http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/trends/trendplot.asp?action=trendplot.asp&siteid=NH02&inpanalyte=SO4-mg&PlotSize=Small I went to a site down the road from me. It included data such as pH both field and lab data. The actual collection site is a weather station located in a field. The lab pH's are samples measured of the rain in the lab. The results are marked this way since due to temperature, pH can change substantially from the time it takes to get the sample to the lab. However, the sulfate concentration will not.
I do not make any claims one way or the other about acid rain, than to note that this data is from rain; and the pH is most often done in the lab and in the field.
Going on vacation for a week. Later.
"All I asked for was chemical evidence for acid rain in the form of rain water analyses supporting the hypothesis of acid rain."
I missed it - hmmmm (I wonder if Louis has done any chemistry) -
http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/trends/trendplot.asp?action=trendplot.asp&siteid=NH02&inpanalyte=phLab-mg&PlotSize=Small
http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/trends/trendplot.asp?action=trendplot.asp&siteid=NH02&inpanalyte=SO4-mg&PlotSize=Small
Isn't it interesting that SO4 declines and pH increases. Perhaps that's because acid rain is really about sulphate deposition. Like - "a duh"
"If the theory is acid rain then surely one would analyse the rain falling into the catchment areas to test it." well that's the point isn't Louis - they have - like for years dude. Just because someone else other than the authors may have done it seems to trouble you. I mean maaaate - there's only massive national monitoring systems in many countries. Why don't you have the data JORCed by now.
Louis: When I looked at the links above (thanks Luke) there is surprising detail however my most important impression at first glance was how low the ph range was even with the improvements, presumably from recent industrial clean ups.
“The greenie biofuels craze has landed us in an agricultural and water crisis, for example” as a statement is quite irrelevant and serves only to highlight some odd reference points given the whole world is now concerned with further hap hazard production of sulfur gases.
btw SO2 is easily converted to SO3 even in the atmosphere. Do a little reading on the next step and H2SO4