[Leps-l] [leps-talk] Monarch Armageddon

[Chuck Vaughn]

Stan,

> 
>> Chip, Jim,
>> 
>> I'd like to start out by saying I am not a "denier," a term I dislike because of its obvious connection to the Holocaust, but used exactly because of that. Humans have made huge land use changes and this has led to the decline of some species largely through habitat loss. Although I'm sure you can find some people who would not agree with that, I'll bet the majority would agree.
>> 
>> Further though and here's the difference and my key point, I'll bet that there is a much larger group of people, perhaps the majority even, that would disagree with you that this is a problem. I know you think it is a problem and you probably think anyone who disagrees with you are crazy, nuts, head in the sand, can't see the big picture or whatever term you care to apply to them. But they probably think the same of you. People have different priorities in their lives. Personally I'm somewhere in the middle. I think anyone who thinks there are no changes or that those changes have no impact at all are extreme in their views. I also think that those that hold the view that anything environment should take precedence over human needs in all cases are extreme in their views.
>> 
> 
> I think in the context of unlimited 
> population growth, the idea that human needs takes precedence is 
> equivalent to justifying the natural world as we know it to feed or make 
> living more pleasurable a thing of the past. What you advocate would be 
> sort of like Isaac Asimov's planet Trantor where the entire surface of 
> the planet is nothing but structures to house people.

If nothing else, I wish people would actually read what I wrote and not put their own spin on it. Did I say anything about population growth, let alone unlimited population growth, or did I advocate it? No.

> I certainly cannot defend those that made dire predictions that never 
> came to be. However, it may have been quite reasonable during the time 
> they were made. One cannot foresee the future advances in technology and 
> science. For example, now quantum computers, which will be immensely 
> faster than computers now, are being developed. Who could have foreseen 
> such technological advances as this, say, 50 years ago?

From what I can see most of these predictions are made from linear extrapolation of current trends. Humans almost never function like this as you point out in your comment about technology and computers. Certainly the people who make these scary predictions must understand this yet they go ahead with these predictions anyway. I have to wonder about their motives.

>> There have been some pretty major predictions made by some in the environmental movement in the past 50 years that have turned out to be completely wrong. I don't see how this helps your cause. It turns people against you and it's really easy, true or not, to conclude that it's done to generate donations to fund continuing research. The big environmental organizations are multi million dollar businesses that employ a lot people and support some pretty high lifestyles for those that run them. They come across as hypocritical. They certainly have a stake in keeping the dollars flowing that extends beyond just funding research and they use alarmist language to do it.
>> 
>> I love science and I'm a huge science advocate but I don't like it when science and advocacy become joined. In my ideal world scientists would do science and leave the advocacy to someone else. I don't like it when scientists become advocates for a cause. I think it's a conflict of interest that does a disservice to science.
>> 
> 
> I disagree. When it comes to something that cannot be proven one way or 
> the other, such as anthropogenic climate change, I think it is a duty of 
> the scientist to become involved in alerting the world and involved in 
> policy making. If not scientists, what will we depend on then, large oil 
> companies or others that have a definite profit motive to spread 
> misinformation to the public? Look at how tobacco companies hid research 
> results showing smoking was harmful purely because of the profit motive. 
> Scientists are needed in advocacy and policy making. I think saying 
> scientists should stay in their labs and stay out of advocacy, politics, 
> and policy making is just another way of suppressing reality and 
> allowing profit motives to rule.
> Stan

At least we agree that AGW cannot be proven at this time. :-) But sticking to that topic, it concerns me that certain advocate/scientists have let their advocacy influence their science to the point of pulling tricks with their research and trying to keep outsiders from reviewing and duplicating their results. That is not how science works and why I say science and advocacy should be separate. The temptation is too great for some to make their research fit their advocacy. BTW I have no problem with a scientist speaking out on science issues as long as (s)he isn't involved in that research. There are plenty of conflict of interest laws. Why not for scientists too?

Chuck