Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Some good news as we go into the new year


Okay, it's mixed up with some not so good news, that is, the appointment by Mr Obama of Dr John Holdren as his science advisor.

But this goes to the heart of why the pessimists about the future and the ability of people to think their way through problems, and come up with never before seen solutions to them, have always ended up being wrong and why we should have hope and confidence about the future.

As you'll see The New York Times' science writer observe below, the famous bet between the doom mongering crank Paul Ehrlich (aided by Holdren) and the economist Julian Simon wasn't an obscure disagreement about the future prices of a selected bunch of metals.

The next time you see in the media a story based upon the WWF or some such group claiming that we are using up the world's resources faster than they can be replenished, think about this famous bet and then ignore the story.

Because it is, quite frankly, bullsh*t.

The position of Ehrlich and Holdren was based entirely on such a simplistic assumption.

And of course people such as David Suzuki even today have failed to learn the lesson from this and continue to make the same elementary mistake.

But instead of shortages and hunger, as predicted by Ehrlich (and you can check out below just how dire and gloomy and extreme they were below), the decades since his famous book The Population Bomb was published have seen the cost of resources and food continually fall in real terms. Which is to say that in relative terms they have become not less abundant, but more.

Hunger and poverty have declined steadily around the world.

Things have actually been getting better and better, even as groups such as Greenpeace and Oxfam, seeking to generate income from donations, have tried to tell us otherwise.

Right, now before reproducing the two blogs posts about Dr Holdren and that bet, can I just send a special Christmas message to the attention seeking idiot from the
CSIRO who felt it necessary to issue a warning about how much carbon dioxide your Christmas lights will generate (in reality a tiny, tiny fraction of a percent of the 40 billion tonnes or so produced every year globally), and how they are endangering the planet - F*CK OFF!

December 24, 2008
JOHN TIERNEY:

My post on John P. Holdren’s appointment as presidential science advisor prompted complaints that I was making too much of Dr. Holdren’s loss of a bet to the economist Julian Simon about the price of some metals. But that bet wasn’t just about metals. It was about a fundamental view of how adaptable and innovative humans are, and whether a rich modern society is “sustainable.” Dr. Holdren and his collaborator, Paul Ehrlich, were the pessimists. . . . They declared that “present technology is inadequate to the task of maintaining the world’s burgeoning billions, even under the most optimistic assumptions,” and of shortages of food and water that would have to be overcome in the next two decades for humans to “be to be granted the privilege of confronting such dilemmas as the exhaustion of mineral resources and physical space later.”

But the predicted famines and resource shortages never arrived. Instead, the amount of food consumed per capita around the world increased over the following decades, and the prices of food and natural resources continued their long-term downward trend.


Let’s hope for better performance in the future. Or maybe I’ll write a book about the politicization of science under the Obama Administration!

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/64285/

Politicizing Science
December 24, 2008

On Saturday, Barack Obama named Harvard professor John Holdren director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Obama said:

Because the truth is that promoting science isn't just about providing resources -- it's about protecting free and open inquiry. It's about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology. I could not have a better team to guide me in this work.

The AP seconded Obama's sentiment, editorializing that Obama was "signaling a change from Bush administration policies on global warming that were criticized for putting politics over science." Actually, as I've noted many times, anthropogenic climate change theory, as espoused by Holdren and others, isn't science at all, it's a combination of politics and faith. On empirical grounds, global warming theorists are losing the debate badly to the "skeptics."

What I want to comment on, though, is something else: Holdren's history as a politicizer of science, which is by no means limited to climate change. Holdren has long been a leading advocate of the theory that there are too many people, economic growth is unsustainable and the world is running out of resources. In fact, he collaborated on these theories with Paul Ehrlich, one of the most spectacularly and notoriously wrong-headed scientists since Ptolemy.

This is the kind of stuff
Ehrlich wrote in 1968:

The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate, although many lives could be saved through dramatic programs to 'stretch' the carrying capacity of the earth by increasing food production and providing for more equitable distribution of whatever food is available. But these programs will only provide a stay of execution unless they are accompanied by determined and successful efforts at population control.

In 1974 he predicted:

...[a] nutritional disaster that seems likely to overtake humanity in the 1970s (or, at the latest, the 1980s). Due to a combination of ignorance, greed, and callousness, a situation has been created that could lead to a billion or more people starving to death.... Before 1985 mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity [in which] the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be nearing depletion.

Ehrlich is best remembered today for the bet that he made with Julian Simon that the prices of certain commodities selected by Ehrlich would rise--a certainty, Ehrlich believed, given his theory of imminent and catastrophic scarcity of raw materials. The prices all fell.

While nowhere near as famous as Ehrlich, Holdren collaborated with him on two books and several articles, and fully shared Ehrlich's pessimistic theories on the future of the human race. In fact, as
John Tierney notes, Ehrlich went to Holdren for advice on which commodities to choose for his losing bet with Simon.

Consistent with these preoccupations, Holdren postures himself today as an expert on "sustainability." In 1995, he co-authored
this article, titled "The Meaning of Sustainability: Biogeophysical Aspects," with Ehrlich. Since Holdren is listed as the principal author, it sheds significant light on his alleged commitment to the "de-politicization of science."

Holdren begins by identifying the "ills that development must address." It's a pretty plain-vanilla list: poverty, war, oppression of human rights. Next, Holdren purports to identify the "driving forces" behind these ills. This is where we start to get political. First on the list is Ehrlich and Holdren's old hobbyhorse, "excessive population growth," which is "a condition now prevailing almost everywhere." Next comes "maldistribution," as "between rich and investment poor" and "between military and civilian forms of consumption and investment." (No one here but us scientists, right?)

This is where Holdren can no longer keep his left-wing politics under wraps. He identifies another "driving force" behind humanity's ills:


Underlying human frailties: Greed, selfishness, intolerance, and shortsightedness. Which collectively have been elevated by conservative political doctrine and practice (above all in the United States in 1980 92) to the status of a credo.

There you have it! This is the man upon whom Barack Obama is counting to "ensur[e] that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology."

It could be a long four years.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/12/022385.php

No comments: