topics

Threads - Ehrlich V Lomborg, Epidemics

On 4/10/2003, Jim Edwards wrote:

Has anyone else been following the current stoush in the Oz between the Lomborg faction and the Ehrlich faction? It started when the Weekend Australian (27-28/9) published a full page piece in the Inquirer (with a colour photo of Lomborg among a lot of green trees) to publicise his visit to Australia at the invitation of the right-wink thing tank, the Institute of Public Affairs.

This was followed on 1/10 with a blast on the Opinion page from Paul Ehrlich in which he roasted Lomborg's "error-riddled book full of selected, bungled and misleading examples, and outright lies, that purported to demonstrate that concerns over environmental deterioration were misplaced." He also had few kind words to say about Cambridge University Press for publishing the book "even though it clearly had not been vetted by any environmental scientist." Then he weighed in to The Economist magazine for promoting the book, inviting Lomborg to write an essay on it, and attacking environmental scientists for criticising it. He quoted the finding of the Danish Research Agency that Lomborg's book violated Danish standards of scientific practice and met the criteria for "scientific dishonesty".

The letters page the following day contained six letters and a couple of emails, all attacking, not Lomborg but Ehrlich for daring to criticise Lomborg's book when his own book "The Population Bomb" contained so many predictions that were not fulfilled. One of the letters was from Lomborg himself, claiming that his book had indeed been reviewed "by four distinguished scientists, including three from the CUP environmental science publishing program." He also claimed that the finding of the Danish Research Agency was "that I was not guilty of scientific dishonesty".

The clear voice of reason in this debate has come from an erstwhile contributor to this list, Professor Ian Lowe, who wrote in Higher Education (1/10) that a better title for Lomborg's book might have been "The Gullible Economist". He proceeded to do what Lomborg had accused Ehrlich of failing to do, pointing out exactly where the book was wrong. He followed this up on 3/10 with a letter saying that "the responses to Paul Ehrlich's critique of the Lomborg hype consist of name-calling and abuse." He adds that "while Lomborg may be a good statistician, he is simply out of his depth when he comments on scientific issues." He also is of the belief, as I am, that the DRA found the book to be "scientifically dishonest", perhaps Lomborg's claim
to the contrary is just another example of his dishonesty.

I fear that the IPA bringing Lomborg out here to give aid and comfort to those who would exploit this country for their own profit and to hell with future generations bodes ill for any chance that the environment will receive much consideration from the Liberal Party and its paymasters.

Peter Macinnis replied:

>publishing program." He also claimed that the finding of the Danish
>Research Agency was "that I was not guilty of scientific dishonesty".

That is not my recollection. here is what Nature said on Jan 16, 2003 (p. 201):

*****************
The author of the The Skeptical Environmentalist, a widely read book arguing that the global environment is basically in good shape, misused scientific data to support his arguments, the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty has ruled.

The book was written by political scientist Bjørn Lomborg, who now heads Denmark's Institute for Environmental Assessment (IEA). In an unusual judgement issued on 6 January, the committees said that the book was, "objectively speaking, deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty". The report adds, however, that the book cannot be regarded as scientifically dishonest, because there is no evidence that Lomborg was grossly negligent or intended to deceive. It concludes instead that the
book's publication "is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice".
*****************

Funny wording for a "not guilty" verdict.

The stupid argument that Ehrlich's predictions turned out to be wrong so what would he know? was pushed by Mirande the Divine. It struck me that this well-known Vatican mouthpiece might be stopped by pointing out that many theologians have predicted the return of the Messiah, and He hasn't. Or maybe this well-known Tory apologist might like to reflect on certain of
her more worldly saints who predicted the finding of WMDs, and committed murder by proxy on that justification (something the Vatican mouthpiece seems quite comfortable with).

Lomborg has one good point: we should question everything, but when he says global warming is not an issue, because eventually we will phase out fossil fuels is a bit like saying it's OK for me to keep hitting my head with a sock full of sea urchines, because the sea urchins will eventually go extinct.

Being more serious, the big risk is that many weather events are meta-stable, and can flick to a new mode almost without warning. The main worry is "the Conveyer" (spell it how you like), a 40,000 km current that is driven by sea ice formation in the Bering Strait, and which powers the Gulf Stream that keeps Dublin from freezing solid. If that current stops, stand by for massive invasion of Australia from Europe and the US/Canada.

Lomborg would no doubt say it is safe to juggle powered-up chainsaws, because eventually they will run out of fuel.

>I fear that the IPA bringing Lomborg out here to give aid and comfort to to
>those who would exploit this country for their own profit and to hell with
>future generations bodes ill for any chance that the environment will
>receive much consideration from the Liberal Party and its paymasters.

Jim! How cynical of you.

Ray responded:

I know of it, and Andrew Bolt of SMH has been giving it his usual cynical monologue.

How right, or wrong, we are in respect of damage or the restraint of damage to the planet's ecosystems through our behaviour is probably only answerable through subsequent history.

That is, by the year 3000 (if we're lucky enough to be here) we might be able to correct against our mistakes.

To me, it is refreshing to see Attenborough reveal cohabitation by wildlife in our cities, from Monkeys in Asia, Fruit Bats in Melbourne, Cassowary in Cairns, Rats, Badgers and Foxes in London, to Moose, Alligators, Racoons and Bears in US cities.

Still, pity there are so few Lynx.

Peter Macinnis replied:

My assessment is that there are still more fruit bats in Canberra, where Richard Alston is declaring the big stroke of his career was successfully regulating the Internet. That man is a walking argument about genetic engineering -- it remains to be seen which side seizes the initiative . . .

I have no information, but definite suspicions about the rats. foxes and monkeys.

Do any cities have bilbies?

Ray answered:

>>Do any cities have bilbies?

Not presently, but I don't see why not.

After all, it is probably as true for animals as it is for cosmological balance, that if you cannot beat them then you might as well join them.

Since, cats and dogs, rats and seagulls, horses, cows, goats and sheep... sparrows, foxes and Argentine ants... discovered cohabitation they're amongst the least likely species to face extinction.

Diversify I say, and make Bilby as domestic (Irony noted) as the Rabbit.

As for foibles, follies and failures in the institute of opinion called politics.... being only human IS NOT a qualification for the job.

Unfortunately.

Margaret Ruwoldt added:

>Do any cities have bilbies?

Dunno, but Melbourne has wild platypus (Merri Creek) and assorted penguins (St Kilda).

cheers--*

Peter Macinnis one-upped:

And there are penguins living under Manly Wharf, but don't tell anybody, as it's a Big Secret. Apparently the other secret penguin area (marked by large 4-knot-limit signs) can't support them all.

Chris Forbes-Ewan wrote:

> Has anyone else been following the current stoush in the Oz between
> the Lomborg faction and the Ehrlich faction?
>
<SNIP>
>
> The letters page the following day contained six letters and a couple
> of emails, all attacking, not Lomborg but Ehrlich for daring to criticise
> Lomborg's book when his own book "The Population Bomb" contained
> so many predictions that were not fulfilled.
>
<SNIP>
> The clear voice of reason in this debate has come from an erstwhile
> contributor to this list, Professor Ian Lowe, who wrote in Higher
> Education (1/10) that a better title for Lomborg's book might have been
> "The Gullible Economist". He proceeded to do what Lomborg had
> accused Ehrlich of failing to do, pointing out exactly where the book
> was wrong. He followed this up on 3/10 with a letter saying that
> "the responses to Paul Ehrlich's critique of the Lomborg hype consist
> of name-calling and abuse."

Okay, taking the role of "Devil's Advocate" for the sake of promoting discussion: IIRC, in his book 'The Population Bomb' Paul Ehrlich stated categorically that human population collapse was inevitable in the 1970s and/or 1980s because of the rate of increase in population compared to the rate at which food production was increasing. This didn't happen, because of the Green Revolution--that is, there was a technological solution, contrary to Ehrlich's statement of impending doom.

I understand that Ehrlich also made a well-publicised bet that the prices of a group of metals would increase in real terms over the next decade or so--the price of every metal actually dropped in every case and he lost his bet.

These mistaken predictions of Ehrlich were the basis of criticisms in one of the letters to the Australian. Pointing out these mistakes doesn't constitute 'name-calling and abuse'.

Another criticism of Ehrlich was his claim in his article in the Australian that there is a 10% likelihood of severe consequences from global warming (or something similar). The letter of criticism included sarcastic reference to the 'well-known fact' that 52.327% of all statistics are made up on the spot (or similar wording).

Although I'm not an apologist for Lomborg, Ehrlich's track record doesn't inspire confidence in his ability to predict the effects of environmental change.

This isn't to say that Ehrlich is wrong on this occasion and Lomborg is correct--just that it would be nice if Ehrlich had been correct a little more often in the past.

Someone once said something along the lines that you don't have to right all the time, but it helps to be right most of the time.

Jim Edwards wrote:

For those who might be interested in what Lomborg has to say for himself:

EARTHBEAT - The Right to a View, Bjorn Lomborg Saturday October 11, 7.30am & Monday October 13, 2.30pm, Radio National
Rare sea birds and farmers are competing for land with the ultimate view along the spectacular coastline at remote Sceale Bay on the southern coast of South Australia. And, in his last public appearance in Australia, we do lunch with best selling statistician Bjorn Lomborg and investigate whether his glass is half empty or half full.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/earth/default.htm

Jim Edwards added:

David quoted:

>>"In looking at global epidemics," Brown continued, " one has to go back to
>>the 16th-century and the introduction of smallpox in the Aztec population of
>>what is now Mexico to find anything on that scale, and before that to the
>>bubonic plague in Europe in the 14th-century to see that kind of heavy toll."

One could go further back to the second half of the 6th century when the first bubonic plague burst out of Africa and wreaked havoc throughout the Roman empire. In some places entire cities were wiped out, either by the plague or by people fleeing from it. Unlike AIDS, once a person was infected with the plague, death occurred within two to three days. Also, it was carried by black rats so it was spread by ships to every port in the Mediterranean and to Ireland and western Britain.

If this example is anything to go by, we can expect some demographic changes in Africa as a result of the AIDS epidemic, but nothing on the scale of those in Europe in the 6th and 7th centuries.

>One could go further back to the second half of the 6th century when the
>first bubonic plague burst out of Africa and wreaked havoc throughout the
>Roman empire. In some places entire cities were wiped out, either by the
>plague or by people fleeing from it.

Steve wrote:

One never gets immune for these diseases: If a population has been exposed often enough to a certain - deadly disease - then after some time all the susceptible people will have disappeared from the gene pool and the next generations will hardly die of this illness. But most likely this illness will now have turned into a childhood disease. Every living thing on earth wants to go on living: so....if too much resistance is developed, bacteria's and viruses can survive if they develop into a child hood disease. You know, the ones you "had to have" - like measles (rubeola), german measles (rubella), chicken pox (varicella) and mumps.
In my generation every child had at least those four diseases. If a child in our area had one of those we would put all the children together, give them lollies that changed colour when sucked. and have it over with. Primitive? We lived in an area where every one had at least some tertiary education.

Mind you we had immunisation against diphteria, whooping cough, tetanus and polio.

Those child hood diseases thus survive, but when they encounter a "virgin" population (never been exposed to it), people will again die like flies, like the Indians and the Aborigines, to name just a few.

My question to our learned friends is now: "Aren't we immunising too much, so that all that precious existing (partial) immunity will be bred out of the population in a few (one) generations?

Peter Macinnis answered:

>The French took more than works of art back from Florence, and both Henry
>VIII and Charles of France ended up paying heavily for their failure to keep
>their trousers on.

Ray, I think you mean Naples, not Florence -- and the origin (New World or not) is still a matter for debate. See
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syphilis for some useful comments. Scroll down to the limericks as well!

>It is possible, so goes one theory, that Henry's pox was deliberately
>inflicted by French bearing "gifts", although, from what we know of Henry,
>he probably would have collected it on his own with little help.

Tudor England is not a period of of special interest to me, so I guess I can be excused for not knowing that he was probably syphilitic. Explains a lot . . . The list of famous cases in the Wikipedia article fails to mention Frederick Delius, and Eric Fenby's gift to humanity.

But as Lewis Thomas complained, you don't get good cases of GPI any more -- antibiotics tend to see them off.

<snip>
>The list of famous cases in the Wikipedia article fails to
>mention Frederick Delius, and Eric Fenby's gift to humanity.

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 00:28, Tamara Kelly wrote:
> Not a nice thought BUT... maybe once the disease has killed off a number
> of generations perhaps the survivors will be immune AND naturally be
> more resilient to other diseases and environmental conditions.

> I also wonder what will happen to Africa in the meantime. Their
> economies will collapse, people will starve but Africa and all its
> natural resources is still there. Will outsiders take the vacant land
> and recolonise? Will they just take its riches, preferring to live in
> more comfortable countries?

Well, the interesting thing is that if a genetic immunity is aquired, then those people will be the ones who inherit the Earth (what is left of it) as containment does not in essence, work.

Any containment philosophy is flawed in the sense that what you are trying to contain only has to get lucky once....

Jim Edwards commented:

There seems to be no doubt that the 6th century plague was Yersinia Pestis, called bubonic from the 'buboes' (pus-filled swellings) that broke out on their bodies. A vivid description of the disease is given by a sixth century cleric Evagrius who is quoted in "Catastrophe" by David Keys. He also says that there was a third great pandemic in the 19th century in China which eventually spread to India and tens of millions of people died.

Ray posted:

Why should Yersinia pestis be considered rare?
After all it is a member of the same order of bacteria as Escherichia coli (Enterobacteriaceae), and E.coli isn't. Neither for that matter is Salmonella.

Jim Edwards responded:

<snip>

> > sixth century cleric Evagrius who is quoted in "Catastrophe" by David Keys. He
> > also says that there was a third great pandemic in the 19th century in China
> > which eventually spread to India and tens of millions of people died.

>
>Jim, I know lots of people with no doubt about the efficacy of
>magnetic doona covers, but I won't be buying one. If Keys fails to
>note that the third great pandemic also hit Australia and the American
>west coast, he may be less than thorough.

'Twas not Keys who was less than thorough, but I, in selectively quoting him. What he said was, "A third great pandemic broke out in the mid 19th century, this time in China. Between 1894 and 1923 the disease spread from China throughout the world - especially India - and tens of millions of people died." ("Catastrophe" pp 421-422)

BTW, the catastrophe he speaks of, which caused the climate change, which caused the droughts, famine, plague and mass migrations, was not an asteroid impact but a volcanic explosion like Krakatau only bigger and in the same area. Perhaps it was in the sixth century that the Chinese came up with that old curse: "May you live in interesting times!"

David Maddern, replying to Ray:

In my training E. coli IS Escherichia coli
That doesn't knit with the logic of your statement, whattsup?

>Certainly, some diseases may be picked up from marsupials.
>That this can work both ways - i.e: human to marsupial seems logical.

>>In my training E. coli IS Escherichia coli
That doesn't knit with the logic of your statement, whattsup?

Peter Macinnis replied:

> It seemed to me that there was some idea between posts that the epidemiology
> of bubonic plague was a rare and relatively recent even, but I could have
> been wrong.

It may or may not have been rare and/or recent, we have no way of telling. Some of the things we blame on Yersinia pestis may have been other organisms, many small outbearks may have killed all in reach and died out.

> As a zoonotic (sp/sic?) disease its advent appears to run in parallel to
> people living in tight proximity with each other and attracting rodents with
> unhygienic practice. (as per SARS) Where there are people, there are rats,
> and where there are rats there are likely to be fleas.

Again from memory -- and Steve can probably confirm if this is in McNeill's book (it may also have been in Zinsser):

The late 19th century plague began with depression conditions in China, that led some people to go by railway into the countryside hunting a fur animal (not a rat, not sure no what it was, but probably a large rodent) for the skins. Locals knew to avoid animals looking like Richard Alston (confused) as they were ill -- and the fleas on them would be able to transfer the bacteria to the hunters. The city slickers saw these as easy kills, got them, got the plague, and feeling ill, fled to the towns, again by rail. From there, fast steamships carried plague around the Pacific. It wasn't hygiene, it was a new ecology, with steam trains and steam ships, able to shift a locus of infection before it was obvious.

> >Certainly, some diseases may be picked up from marsupials.
> >That this can work both ways - i.e: human to marsupial seems logical.

>
> ;-) Is this how koalas contracted chlamydia?

Jim Edwards wrote:

Was there an unusually cool period in the mid 19th century? Keys says that it was unseasonal cooling following the volcanic explosion that triggered the spread of plague from the reservoir of immune wild animals to other animals to black rats to humans. The reason is that fleas are not immune to plague, they die of it - but it is the process of their dying itself which helps them spread the disease. As a flea becomes ill, part of its gut becomes blocked by a mixture of multiplying plague bacteria and clotted blood. The flea then begins to starve, and becomes so ravenous that it will jump on to virtually anything that moves, irrespective of whether it is its normal host species or not. Its gut will still be blocked so its hunger will not be satisfied and it will move rapidly from host to host, biting each one, regurgitating plague infecting blood each time (as it cannot keep
its food down).

Plague bacteria release an anti-clotting enzyme, designed to assist the rapid spread of the disease within the host animal, but only at a temperature above 27.5 deg C. If the temperature falls below this then the blood in the flea's gut starts to clot and will block the gut within 5-14 days of the flea becoming infected. The cooler temperatures would also increase the adult flea life spans and population levels.

It would be interesting to see if other pandemics coincided with climate cooling events.

Jim Edwards replied:

A little googling has educed some interesting correlations on the subject of a possible climate cooling trigger for plague outbreaks.

Following the Dark Age pandemic there was the Medieval Warm Period from 1000 to 1300 approx. Then the Little Ice Age began in the early 1300's. The Black Death appeared in the Crimean area of the Black Sea in 1346 and was spread by rats on Italian ships to Europe, where by 1351 over a million people had died.

There were two major volcanic eruptions in the 19th century, Tambora in 1815 (1816 was called 'the year without summer') and Krakatau in 1883 which also caused considerable cooling. The third pandemic began in China near the end of the 19th century and spread to the rest of the world.

There are still reservoirs of yersinia pestis in wild animal populations around the world (e.g. in the prarie dogs in USA) so there is a possibility of new plagues occurring if the temperature falls below 27.5 deg C in these areas and the fleas jump to domestic species.

Steve wrote:

It's quite a few years now, but when we were in the Flinders Ranges, locals told us that in some areas there was a cluster of ruins of farm houses. We were told that towards the end of the 19th century new farmers decided to settle in that area, because of the good rainfall and lush grass. During that time the (local??) climate seemed favourable.

After a number of good years the climate changed - apparently back to its usual pattern and the farmers were driven off the land one by one. The sad thing was that they were warned by locals (Abrigines??) that the good times would not last. This string of events underscribes that the end of that century was, at least, different.

Does that go for the rest of Australia too?

Gerald Cairnes added:

This describes our experience when we moved to The Brisbane Valley about 22 years ago. Conditions then were lush and the "lawn" had to be cut twice a week or the ride on mower could not handle it - seriously. Between 1981 and 1983 there was a steady decline in rainfall to drought status and not much has changed since then. We do get rain but it rarely is sufficient to run off and when it does the hot weather quickly burns off any green that dares to show its head above ground.

I have some video clips of this and only wish I had kept a pictorial record of 1981 for comparison.

<< home < Articles

Ehrlich vs Lomborg

Ehrlich vs Lomborg