Forbes blogger Larry Bell is wrong about the biodiversity crisis and wrong about global warming

I’ve used this blog as a forum to highlight authors who deny the biodiversity crisis as a scam or hoax. We now have another example, unfortunately featured on the widely-read business website Forbes. I posted a plea on our Biodiversity Professionals Linkedin Group for help rebutting the article. I reiterate that plea here.

Please help me take some action! Read the article and tell me in a few sentences why Larry Bell, a professor of space architecture at the University of Houston is wrong to write “If we don’t begin to curb carbon-fueled capitalism and transfer governance and unfair wealth to the U.N right away, many thousands of as-of-yet undetermined insects, microbes and other species are most surely doomed!” Incidentally, Dr Bell (not a biologist or climate change scientist) recently wrote a book titled Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax so you know where he’s coming from. I’ll gather the collected sentences and provide a point-by-point rebuttal to this global warming and biodiversity crisis denier.

Please can you help by providing your thoughts? You can let Larry Bell know what you think here in the comments section, or on our Linkedin Discussion. Either way, Dr. Bell has to know that he can’t just throw around labels such as “feverish global warming hype.” Dr. Bell gets more personal criticizing the likes of Edward O. Wilson, say that the species going extinct according to Wilson “primarily inhabited the computer hard drive that generated his theoretical model.” It’s time to let Bell and his ilk know that extinctions aren’t “theoretical.” Moreover, the readers of Forbes deserve better. Bell’s article sarcastically emphasizes the loss of micro-biodiversity, saying that the purported sacrifices needed to save biodiversity will benefit only insects and microbes such as Paramecium. And why the hell should we care about those, he implies. Such a mean-spirited and misleading article is not, I am sure, the quality of writing the editors of Forbes expect of their writers. Business leaders need to know that biodiversity conservation is good for business and saves money, and does not demand his fear-mongering exaggeration that we “curb carbon-fueled capitalism and transfer governance and unfair wealth to the U.N right away.”

So yes, please help me take action. Reply directly on the Forbes article, or comment here or on the Linkedin discussion, and I’ll collect together the responses from the biodiversity community and let Dr. Bell know what we think of his nasty, dangerous propaganda.

The increased fire risk in the Amazon could turn the region from a carbon sink to a net source of atmospheric carbon. (Image courtesy of NASA Earth Observatory.)

Often cited as the lungs of the planet, it’s well-known that the Amazon rainforest is under attrition. Agriculture, mining, urban development, hydroelectric dams and global warming each pose separate threats. It seems that the lungs are suffering from the equivalent of lung cancer or emphysema.

But just how bad is it, and how bad is it going to get? Some studies have suggested that the Amazon is quite resilient, able to withstand periodic drought and able to rebound after extensive deforestation. But this is not cause for rosy optimism, according to an article just published in the prestigious journal Nature. (Davidson E. A. et al. 2012. The Amazon basin in transition, Nature 481, 321–328. doi:10.1038/nature10717) A multi-institution team of US and Brazil authors conclude that the Amazon basin is in transition. From the pristine wilderness of nature shows and adventurous expeditions, it is moving toward what the authors call a “disturbance-dominated regime.”

Covering an area almost the size of the contiguous United States, the size of the Amazon has served as a buffer to changes wrought by various types of land use and drought instigated by climate change. The key finding of this paper is that anthropogenic change is on the verge of surpassing natural change. The authors conclude that the Amazon is shifting from a net sink of carbon to a net contributor. Given the necessity of a brake on carbon emissions to prevent runaway global warming, such a conclusion is worrisome indeed.

In support of their conclusions, the authors project a dramatic increase in fire risk by 2050, particularly in the region’s southeast, due to a combination of deforestation and climate change. Human activities such as agricultural expansion and logging interact with effects of global climate change to increase forest drying, hence fire risk. The long-term consequences are dire: increased flood damage, decreased productivity in agricultural and other sectors, higher incidence of respiratory disease and disruption of air traffic. The decrease in water run-off reduces water for human use, river navigation and hydropower generation.

The big question facing land managers and policy makers, particularly as emerging economies look to expand: is it worth it? Clearly there are trade-offs. But with such gloomy prospects, it efforts to conserve what remains and mitigate climate change effects might provide a greater economic pay-off than uncontrolled development. Hopefully we won’t have to wait to 2050 for the decision-makers to come to the same conclusion.

Sampling locations along the elevation gradient in the Cerros del Sira (see article for more information).

A recent paper published by members of The Pimm Group confirms that wildlife is being affected by increasing global temperatures.

Forty years ago, ornithologist John Terborgh collected data on various bird species along an altitudinal gradient on a tropical mountain, Cerros del Sira, in Peru. In 2010, Pimm’s team returned to the same location and recorded the elevations at which those same bird species could now be found.

The data clearly showed that birds are now at a higher average elevation than 40 years ago. Evidently, increased temperatures account for the shift, since the scientists eliminated other causes such as land use patterns. On average, species moved 49 meters (161 feet) higher than 40 years ago. Although significant, this change was less than expected from the recorded increase in temperature for the Cerros del Sira mountain. The authors suggest that the birds are responding to vegetational changes, which are slower than the rate at which animals move, introducing a lag time in the birds’ responses to temperature change.

Publishing by the open-source journal PLOS, the article is available free-of-charge: Download the article (325KB PDF).

Is climate change a scam?

A RepublicanConservative friend of mine kindly asked for my response to a December 12 article by Jack Kelly about the lackluster negotiations in Durban on global warming. My friend thought that the report, by Jack Kelly, titled Long Faces in Durban, deserved a point-by-point response. Here is my rebuttal (lightly edited from the response I provided to my friend).

(1) Right from the outset, Jack Kelly says climate change is “one of the most brazen scams in the history of the world.” Therefore, I know that this is not going to be a balanced analysis. The writer has made up his mind and sees his job is to convince the reader of his viewpoint.

(2) “Of 18,531 references… 5,587 were newspaper and magazine articles written by non-experts, unpublished theses and pamphlets” That still leaves 12,944 articles that were written by experts. I don’t see that this makes any significant point against the findings of the IPCC, merely that numerous non-expert (however defined) opinions have also been published. Good! It means that some scientists are concerned about communicating their message to non-experts. (NOTE: I am assuming some of the “non-expert” pamphlets, etc. are the attempt to get out the word about the anthropogenic origin of global warming.)

(3) “many authors were graduate students selected more for political connections and “diversity” than for expertise.” These assertions regarding the credibility of the IPCC authors are groundless. It’s a widely accepted practice for graduate students to be included in the authorship of such papers, which may include dozens of authors. And since most of these papers were undoubtedly peer-reviewed, so that seems to negate Kelly’s initial point about “non-expert” authors.

(4) “…these reports contain so many factual errors. … the IPCC altered data to indicate sea levels were rising when they were not.” The author asserts that fraud is a better explanation for “factual errors” What factual errors? If he is referring to the rise in sea level as being “fraudulent” he is plain wrong. (Kelly writes: “Dr. Nils-Axel Morner asked a British member of the IPCC in 2003 why the IPCC altered data to indicate sea levels were rising when they were not.”) Wikipedia has an article with data from solid scientific research to show that sea level has been rising steadily for several decades. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise) Like temperature, sea level is not easy to measure, which leads to uncertainty in measurements. But the error estimates are less than the overall trend. No doubt sea level is rising and is not a factual error or fraud. Academic fraud is a serious charge. The author would lend credence to his accusations if he provided links to his sources. My guess is that the quote is taken out of context. Who is this “British member of the IPCC” anyway? It’s interesting to note that according to his Wikipedia biography, Nils Mörner “is a critic of the IPCC and the notion that the global sea level is rising.” And the bio goes on to say “He is also known for his support for dowsing.” Since there has never been a scientific study supporting dowsing, I would not give a lot of credence to Mörner’s opinions on sea level.

(5) “In a review of Ms. Lafromboise’s book, which was published electronically in October, Judith Curry, chair of the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, said she “feels duped” by the IPCC, which she supported until December 2009.” Kelly makes much of the e-book published by Donna Laframboise, citing her reports of leaked emails. But Kelly simply regurgitates Laframboise’s work, again with no independent links or analysis. And who is Laframboise? She’s a feminist, writer, and photographer. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donna_Laframboise) Um. No science background? Part of the reason that scientists are so cagey about releasing emails and so forth is that these are part of scientific discourse. If there wasn’t some debate and discussion, it wouldn’t be science! And scientists know that non-experts such as Laframboise and Kelly will take such debate to mean doubt and uncertainty — such as debate on the nuances of evolution is twisted as being debate about the fact of evolution. And it’s ironic that Kelly cites a non-expert who is critical of the number of non-expert papers in the IPCC’s findings.

(6) “Temperatures haven’t risen in 13 years, according to measurements from ground stations. Data from tree rings and ice cores show no warming since 1940.” Where are the references to Kelly’s “facts” and figures? No authorship, no citations, just numbers which may or may not be meaningful. We have no way of telling. So that’s pretty thin gruel and not much to substantiate his assertion that this is the biggest scam in history. For example, Kelly writes that “Temperatures haven’t risen in 13 years…” Yet a study funded by of all people the Koch brothers showed “showed the temperature had risen about 1.6 degrees since the 1950s,” (see article “Richard Muller, Koch brothers-funded scientist, declares global warming is real“). So without references for Kelly’s numbers, I just don’t buy his argument.

(7) “Few journalists have reported these facts. That’s why so many accepted for so long the preposterous assertions of the scammers.” To say something such as “the preposterous assertions of the scammers” is simply combative and reactionary. They are not assertions, (unlike Kelly’s) but conclusions based on years of research and mountains of accumulated data. Kelly says “Few journalists have reported these facts.” Again, where’s the data? Maybe the “facts” haven’t been reported because they were published in marginal literature or because they were contradicted by other more rigorously acquired data. Kelly does not say, denying us his insights on this point too.

(8) “For some, the scam is about power. Politicians saw in the regulation of CO₂ an opportunity to control people’s lives.” Kelly says that part of the “scam” has been to declare CO₂ a pollutant. In fact the US Supreme Court supported this definition (Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007)) I am not aware that the United States Supreme Court has been engaged in “scams” previously, so I don’t see why this should be an exception. The body needs mercury, albeit in tiny amounts. Too much mercury in the wrong places and it is a pollutant. Same with CO₂. But Kelly offers no background, just opinion.

(9) “The leading alarmist among American scientists, James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has been as spectacularly wrong as Mr. Gore.” Kelly tries to make a point that Hansen is wrong. He cites Hansen as saying that “the sea level off Manhattan would rise 10 feet within 40 years (if atmospheric CO2 doubled).” Kelly then counters that “In the 23 years since, the sea level has risen just 2.5 inches.” Two points. First is that Kelly has just informed us that “the IPCC altered data to indicate sea levels were rising when they were not” (see point 4). So are sea levels rising or aren’t they? Kelly himself can’t even get his facts straight in a single article. Second, atmospheric CO₂ has not doubled in 40 years. If it had, maybe sea level would have risen dramatically. But in any case, Kelly is lambasting a scientist from 23 years ago for making a wrong prediction. It’s naive in the extreme to expect every scientific prediction to be correct every time. So no biggie there.

(10) “There never was a consensus among scientists in support of anthropogenic global warming.” and that “Some [scientists] signed on because that was the only way to get governments to support their research.” These are just assertions, again (yawn). In this case, Kelly is confusing “consensus” with “unanimity.” Yes, there has been disagreement among the scientific community. No, there is not unanimity. But over the years, in fact, scientific consensus has coalesced. Whereas a couple of decades ago, many scientists questioned the anthropogenic influence of global warming, today most scientists accept it as fact. So Kelly is misleading the reader to say that “As the gulf widens between climate change models and real world data, more are skeptical.” In fact, less scientists are skeptical now than before.

So it is not the global community of climate scientists that are promulgating a scam, but non-expert hacks like Jack Kelly and Donna Framboise. With no scientific background, they prey on the general public’s poor grasp of the scientific process to score cheap and very dangerous points. Just because they don’t like the news they hear doesn’t make it a global conspiracy.

Courtesy of NASA

According to a PLOS Biology study reported March 15 in NatureNews, “deforestation in protected areas and indigenous lands is 7–11 times less than in the surrounding areas.” Such an observation offers a clear way ahead for advocates of rainforest conservation.

By supporting preservation of indigenous lands and other protected areas (ILPAs), organizations “could slow forest loss, conserve biodiversity and preserve local cultures.”

Given the failure of last December’s climate talks in Copenhagen, Denmark, (which failed to result treaty to limit carbon dioxide emissions), such an approach could offer a “win-win” according to the report.

The report suggests that conservation of ILPAs could prevent more than a quarter or a million square kilometers of deforestation, equivalent to one-third the world’s annual greenhouse gas emissions in carbon dioxide.