[saymaListserv] Re: Does This Sound Familiar? (Lomborg/Death of Environmentalism)

[Janet Minshall]

Dear Steve Livingston of SAYMA, Joshua Rose of Earthcare, and Friends,

I am most gratified at the responses and discussions brought about by 
messages I have forwarded.  I am struck by some interesting thoughts 
(interesting, I hope, to others too):  Joshua Rose is apparently 
well-qualified in environmental science and, presumably, teaches at 
Duke University in North Carolina.  Bjorn Lomborg is apparently 
well-qualified in political science and statistics and teaches at 
Aarhus University in Denmark. Their departments, presumably full of 
respected scholars in their fields, have seen fit to promote each of 
them on the merits of their work.  Yet the two of them disagree 
completely about what is true from their separate perspectives.

Friends have an old traditional belief that there is "that of God in 
each of us" and "that each of us has a measure of the truth (or 
Light)". Is it possible that this old traditional Quaker belief is 
relevant to the differences of opinion we are faced with here?  Are 
there, perhaps, "true believers" who resist any and all questions 
about the beliefs they hold?  And do they tend to discredit those who 
disagree?  And are there also "honest skeptics" who see reason to 
doubt and question what is commonly accepted as truth?  And do they 
tend to discredit those who disagree?

I have encountered this same standoff in many other discussions. 
 From the perspective of a political economist, I find that almost 
every issue which highlights significant differences in belief and 
leads to differing conclusions and behavior finally comes down to 
this issue of perspective.  Do you, as a Friend and as a member of 
the group of Friends among whom this discussion is taking place, find 
that you tend to be "a true believer" and react angrily to the 
suggestion that your beliefs might be based on some flawed 
information? Or, on the other hand, do you tend to be an "honest 
skeptic" and "get your hackle up" at the suggestion that you should 
believe something simply because this or that group of experts says 
its true?  As in innumerable court cases, we can all produce whatever 
experts are necessary to prove the point we are trying to make. 
George Fox often railed against "the professors", the experts of his 
day who had pretentions that they "knew" what was true and that their 
word should be believed above anyone else's.

I, on the other hand, am saying, as Steve Livingston suggested in his 
message, that we Friends are bound together in a common search for 
truth. As has happened so often in the past, the heretic of today 
may, eventually, become the courageous prophet of tomorrow -- or not. 
We don't yet have the perspective of elapsed time and changing events 
to make a sound judgment.  Instead of producing lists of endorsements 
on either side, we should all make a real effort to be open to other 
possibilities and get along with those among us who hold differing 
beliefs and make statements contrary to our own truth. Maybe that is 
what old George meant when he used the words of his time "Christ has 
come to teach his children himself" and to encourage Friends to be 
open to continuing revelation from "the Christ (or the Light) within".
				Janet Minshall







>On 4 May 2005 at 22:24, Joshua Stuart Rose wrote:
>
>>  Hey all,
>>
>>  Two issues seem to have been conflated in the recent back-and-forth on
>>  environmentalism: the essay "The Death of Environmentalism" by Michael
>>  Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, and the book "The Skeptical
>>  Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg. These are two very different
>>  issues.
>>
>>  The Shellenberger/Nordhaus essay is intelligent, thought-provoking
>>  writing by two people who have been environmentalists for many years,
>>  and so know a fair amount about the topics they address. It would be a
>>  mistake to attempt to dismiss this essay with a few CNN-style sound
>  > bites such as "Environmentalism is just another special interest" or
>>  "Environmentalists are to blame for losing the battle over Arctic
>>  drilling".
>>
>>  And note - I'm not sure this was clear to everyone - that the essay
>>  posted to this listserv was NOT "The Death of Environmentalism", but
>>  an editorial from The Economist which just briefly quotes from that
>>  much longer work. Grist, the on-line environmental magazine with which
>>  most of us are familiar, re-ran the original essay and several
>>  in-depth pieces in response; see
>>  http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/01/13/doe-reprint/
>>
>>  Lomborg is a very different animal. He is a statistician and political
>>  scientist who wrote a book attempting to deal with issues of
>>  meteorology, ecology, and several other fields in which he is far from
>>  an expert. I'm sure he's a very good statistician, but as an
>>  ecologist, he is an incompetent. Any honest and ethical scientist
>>  confines his or her comments to those areas where they understand the
>>  science involved; Lomborg did not. The criticisms of Lomborg's book
>>  did not come just from "environmentalists whose work he questions", as
>>  alleged in one preceding e-mail; his critics include many of the
>>  scientists whose work he distorts and misrepresents in attempting to
>>  make his case.
>>
>>  To use as an example the area closest to my specialty, Lomborg
>>  addressed forests. One e-mail posted here quoted him using statistics
>>  on worldwide forest cover as justification that loss of forests was
>>  not a threat. Anyone who actually studies forests knows that this is
>>  an incorrect, if not dishonest, analysis. Forests as intact, healthy
>>  ecosystems are still being lost rapidly. Healthy forest ecosystems are
>>  being replaced by tree plantations and early successional growth that
>>  lack most of the species diversity and ecosystem services of the
>>  ecosystems they have replaced. In his book, Lomborg disputes the use
>>  of a forest loss index on the basis that it does not count timber
>>  plantations as forest; speaking as an ecologist who lives in a region
>>  where much of the original forest has been converted to plantations,
>>  and who has investigated both in detail, I can state authoritatively
>>  that Lomborg is wrong, a tree plantation is not any kind of healthy
>>  forest. Protection of virgin and old-growth forest, and of forest
>>  processes such as fire, flood, and decomposition, should still be a
>>  top priority.
>>
>>  Ironically, Lomborg, at least wtih regards to forests, makes the same
>>  error of which he accuses environmentalists, abusing and
>>  misunderstanding the science supposedly supporting his case.
>>
>>
>>  Joshua S. Rose, Ph.D.
>>  jsr6 at duke.edu
>>  http://www.duke.edu/~jsr6/
>>
>>  Duke Natural History Society
>>  http://www.biology.duke.edu/dnhs/
>>
>>  Program Director
>>  Ellerbe Creek Watershed Association
>>  http://www.ellerbecreek.org/
>>
>>  Environmental Chair
>>  Old North Durham Neighborhood Association
>>  http://www.oldnorthdurham.org/
>>
>>  Duke University
>>  Department of Biology (Zoology, R.I.P.)
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  Southern Appalachian Yearly Meeting and Association mailing list
>>  posting address: sayma at kitenet.net
>>  subscribe/unsubscribe:
>>  http://kitenet.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sayma
>>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Southern Appalachian Yearly Meeting and Association mailing list
>posting address: sayma at kitenet.net
>subscribe/unsubscribe: http://kitenet.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sayma