Page 7
Claim 1: Many species will do better in a warmer climate.
Source of claim: Arctic climate impact assessment, p. 997
Status of claim: - The trouble is that the page in question is not online. I'll have to take a look in the library next time I need to go along.
Claim 2: There will be less polar desert and more forest.
Source of claim: Arctic climate impact assessment, p. 998
Status of claim: - see above
Claim 3: Higher temperatures will mean more nesting birds and butterflies.
Source of claim: Arctic climate impact assessment, p.256
Status of claim: - see above.
Claim 4: The full enforcement of Kyoto would at, at best, save 0.06 bears per year, and would at most reduce global warming by 7% in 2100.
Source: The Kyoto Protocol: CO~ 2, CH~ 4 and climate implications.
Status of Claim: Accurate. In fact, if anything he understates the bleakness of Kyoto - a 7% reduction translates to 0.10 - 0.21C.
Overall status of the claims: Lomborg's conclusions as regards the polar bears and what can be done to protect them are supported by the data that he pulls together. Moreover, he relies on solid sources (with two exceptions that are not central to his claim): the International Arctic Science Committee, the IUCN etc. So, contra what that ridiculous fool Friel and his ventriloquist Begley, not to mention the excitable schoolgirls over at SB have said, he is neither dishonest nor inaccurate.
Friday, 29 April 2011
Wednesday, 27 April 2011
Liveblogging Lomborg part 2
Continuing on page 6.
Claim 1: That only four bears were observed drowned offshore the day after an abrupt windstorm.
Source of Claim: Potential effects of diminished sea ice on open-water swimming, mortality, and distribution of polar bears during fall in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea.
Status of Claim: Accurate.
Further notes: This is one of those claims that's a little suspicious, since there is too much unknown. First of all, the poster states that there may have been more drowned (well possible), but that's a matter of interpretation. Lomborg should probably have included it. Also, the question is - are there any other studies that have shown more drowned bears? I'm currently trying to find observations of them, but they are a little difficult to come by. E.g. Observations of mortality associated with extended open-water swimming by polar bears in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, mentions the same four bears (nothing unusual in recycling data between posters and papers, btw) but no others. Some further points of interest is that, over the period of seven years (1987-2003), the survey noted only 658 polar bears. During that time no dead or floating polar bears were seen, and more importantly they say "To our knowledge, we report here the first observations of polar bears floating dead offshore and presumed drowned while making apparent long-distance movements in open water". Of course, I don't envy the poor bastard who has to go out there and look for a polar bear carcass in that wasteland, and it should be noted that there was a peak of swimming bears in 2004 (I don't know if that's a trend or a fluke).
Claim 2: The Hudson bay polar bear population has declined by 17 percent, from 1,200 to 950 in 2004, but has increased from 500 in 1981 to present day levels;
Source of Claim: LONG-TERM TRENDS IN THE POPULATION ECOLOGY OF POLAR BEARS IN WESTERN HUDSON BAY IN RELATION TO CLIMATIC CHANGE
Status of Claim: Accurate, see table 6 on page 302.
Claim 3: 300 to 500 bears are shot each year, with 49 shot on average on the west coast of Hudson bay.
Source of Claim: Polar bears: proceedings of the 13th working meeting of the IUCN/SSC polar bear specialist group, Nuuk, Greenland. See the table on page 22 (granted this depends on what you mean by the polar bear population.
Status of Claim: Inaccurate - Lomborg understates the numbers being shot (though he is right about the numbers shot each year on the west coast of Hudson bay). In total, 741 polar bears are shot each year. Granted, this depends on what population you are looking at. If you are considering only the arctic one, Lomborg may be right (depending on how you define "arctic").
Claim 4: Dissapearing ice will make it harder for polar bears to continue their traditional foraging patterns. They are more likely to take up a brown-bear lifestyle & hybridize from them.
Source of Claim: Arctic climate impact assessment, page 509
Status of Claim: Accurate - Lomborg accurately quotes them, and I agree that it is a little exasperating to have to listen to "threats of hybridization" given some of the threats that are going on in the world today.
Overall conclusion: Lomborg is solidly in the science here. His general picture is supported by the data.
Claim 1: That only four bears were observed drowned offshore the day after an abrupt windstorm.
Source of Claim: Potential effects of diminished sea ice on open-water swimming, mortality, and distribution of polar bears during fall in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea.
Status of Claim: Accurate.
Further notes: This is one of those claims that's a little suspicious, since there is too much unknown. First of all, the poster states that there may have been more drowned (well possible), but that's a matter of interpretation. Lomborg should probably have included it. Also, the question is - are there any other studies that have shown more drowned bears? I'm currently trying to find observations of them, but they are a little difficult to come by. E.g. Observations of mortality associated with extended open-water swimming by polar bears in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, mentions the same four bears (nothing unusual in recycling data between posters and papers, btw) but no others. Some further points of interest is that, over the period of seven years (1987-2003), the survey noted only 658 polar bears. During that time no dead or floating polar bears were seen, and more importantly they say "To our knowledge, we report here the first observations of polar bears floating dead offshore and presumed drowned while making apparent long-distance movements in open water". Of course, I don't envy the poor bastard who has to go out there and look for a polar bear carcass in that wasteland, and it should be noted that there was a peak of swimming bears in 2004 (I don't know if that's a trend or a fluke).
Claim 2: The Hudson bay polar bear population has declined by 17 percent, from 1,200 to 950 in 2004, but has increased from 500 in 1981 to present day levels;
Source of Claim: LONG-TERM TRENDS IN THE POPULATION ECOLOGY OF POLAR BEARS IN WESTERN HUDSON BAY IN RELATION TO CLIMATIC CHANGE
Status of Claim: Accurate, see table 6 on page 302.
Claim 3: 300 to 500 bears are shot each year, with 49 shot on average on the west coast of Hudson bay.
Source of Claim: Polar bears: proceedings of the 13th working meeting of the IUCN/SSC polar bear specialist group, Nuuk, Greenland. See the table on page 22 (granted this depends on what you mean by the polar bear population.
Status of Claim: Inaccurate - Lomborg understates the numbers being shot (though he is right about the numbers shot each year on the west coast of Hudson bay). In total, 741 polar bears are shot each year. Granted, this depends on what population you are looking at. If you are considering only the arctic one, Lomborg may be right (depending on how you define "arctic").
Claim 4: Dissapearing ice will make it harder for polar bears to continue their traditional foraging patterns. They are more likely to take up a brown-bear lifestyle & hybridize from them.
Source of Claim: Arctic climate impact assessment, page 509
Status of Claim: Accurate - Lomborg accurately quotes them, and I agree that it is a little exasperating to have to listen to "threats of hybridization" given some of the threats that are going on in the world today.
Overall conclusion: Lomborg is solidly in the science here. His general picture is supported by the data.
Liveblogging Lomborg part 1
Lomborg's scientific claims begin on page 5, on the subject of whether or not the Polar Bears are going extinct.
Claim 1.: the Polar Bear Specialist Group's data states that, of twenty Polar bear populations, over half are stable, one or two are decreasing, and two are increasing.
Source: IUCN Species Survival Commission, 2001.
Status of Claim: Acurrate (see table on page 22). A slight overstatement the 'over half'' that are stable is exactly eleven, so just over half, but his claims are accurate.
Notes: The IUCN species survival commission of 2006 lists five as declining rather than two. (see IUCN 2006). Given what research is like, he may have just had the 2001 report available at the time. As of 2010, the IUCN lists seven as declining.
Claim 2.: The global bear population has increased from ~5,000 to 25,000
Source: Bear Hunting Caught in Global Warming Debate, The New York Times
Status of Claim: Unverifiable, since, while Lomborg has accurately cited the article, he should know that the popular press is not an acceptable scientific source.
However, one of the sources he cites shortly thereafter - Long-term Trends in the Population Ecology of Polar Bears in Western Hudson Bay - does seem to support this, at least in Hudson bay where there's been an increase from ~300 to ~ 1500 in 17 years (see p. 302)
Claim 3: The decreasing populations come from areas it has been getting colder over the pasty 50 years.
Source: Polar Disasters: More Predictable distortions of science, Cato Institute
Status of Claim: Unverifiable.
Secondary source: Temporal and Spatial Variation of Surface Air Temperature over the Period of Instrumental Observations in the Arctic
Status of Claim: Accurate. See page 596, 598 etc. The Baffin Bay area is indeed getting colder, and the Davis strait - where the population may be in declien - is an adjunct to it. From what I can see from the study, the Davis strait is amalgamated into the Baffin Bay area.
Overall status of claim: Accurate from what he cites. I wish he wouldn't cite guff like the NYT or the Cato Institute, but the science he cites is accurate.
Overall conclusion for the first five pages: Scientifically, he is on solid ground, but he should wean himself off this habit of citing anything except journals for scientific purposes.
Claim 1.: the Polar Bear Specialist Group's data states that, of twenty Polar bear populations, over half are stable, one or two are decreasing, and two are increasing.
Source: IUCN Species Survival Commission, 2001.
Status of Claim: Acurrate (see table on page 22). A slight overstatement the 'over half'' that are stable is exactly eleven, so just over half, but his claims are accurate.
Notes: The IUCN species survival commission of 2006 lists five as declining rather than two. (see IUCN 2006). Given what research is like, he may have just had the 2001 report available at the time. As of 2010, the IUCN lists seven as declining.
Claim 2.: The global bear population has increased from ~5,000 to 25,000
Source: Bear Hunting Caught in Global Warming Debate, The New York Times
Status of Claim: Unverifiable, since, while Lomborg has accurately cited the article, he should know that the popular press is not an acceptable scientific source.
However, one of the sources he cites shortly thereafter - Long-term Trends in the Population Ecology of Polar Bears in Western Hudson Bay - does seem to support this, at least in Hudson bay where there's been an increase from ~300 to ~ 1500 in 17 years (see p. 302)
Claim 3: The decreasing populations come from areas it has been getting colder over the pasty 50 years.
Source: Polar Disasters: More Predictable distortions of science, Cato Institute
Status of Claim: Unverifiable.
Secondary source: Temporal and Spatial Variation of Surface Air Temperature over the Period of Instrumental Observations in the Arctic
Status of Claim: Accurate. See page 596, 598 etc. The Baffin Bay area is indeed getting colder, and the Davis strait - where the population may be in declien - is an adjunct to it. From what I can see from the study, the Davis strait is amalgamated into the Baffin Bay area.
Overall status of claim: Accurate from what he cites. I wish he wouldn't cite guff like the NYT or the Cato Institute, but the science he cites is accurate.
Overall conclusion for the first five pages: Scientifically, he is on solid ground, but he should wean himself off this habit of citing anything except journals for scientific purposes.
Liveblogging Lomborg preamble
Okay, here goes my attempt to fact-check every page of Cool It and link to the primary sources along with a comment whether or not it supports what he says. I am restricting myself to the following:
1. I am not going to comment on anything that is opinion or interpretation; I am restricting myself to whether or not Lomborg has accurately quoted and honestly interpreted the data in question.
2. I am not interested in checking his citations of the media, or economics, or anything other than his citations of 'hard science'.
My edition of Cool It is the First Vintage Books Edition, 2008.
1. I am not going to comment on anything that is opinion or interpretation; I am restricting myself to whether or not Lomborg has accurately quoted and honestly interpreted the data in question.
2. I am not interested in checking his citations of the media, or economics, or anything other than his citations of 'hard science'.
My edition of Cool It is the First Vintage Books Edition, 2008.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)