If the prospect of one million species going extinct gives you the jitters, then put down the coffee and go read
this commentary by Harry Lamb.
He takes issue with a recent Dr. Chris D. Thomas study, published in Nature and carried by media around the world. The study declares that the current trend of global warming will cause 1 million species to become extinct by the year 2050. NPR interviewed one of the scientists and basically placed the blame on U.S.' refusal to get on board with the Kyoto Protocol.
The results have been widely cited, but not the methodology. The New York Times revealed that the study is basically a computer model of extinction patterns applied to the results of a computer model of climate change (read Global Warming). Mr. Lamb takes issue with this:
Computer models of extinction patterns based on computer models of global warming? Wasn't it computer models that gave birth to the concept of "garbage in, garbage out"?
Computer modeling is not science; it is a tool used by science to test a hypothesis. The result produced by computer modeling is determined by the data supplied to the computer. A computer modeling run can say whatever the researcher wants it to say. If an advocate's desired outcome is stated by a scientist, supported by computer models, well then, it must be gospel, and politicians should certainly heed the word from on high.
He points out the known issues with the climate change model (that it does not accurately determine the temperatures from the 1900s when given the data from the 1800s) and then gives us this very troubling statement:
Dr. Stephen Schneider, an outspoken advocate of
global cooling in the 1970s, and of
global warming in the 1990s described the proper role of scientists to Discover magazine in October 1989. He said:
"To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest."
Conservation biology strives to be "effective"; science strives to be honest.
If you are interested in a critical look at this wildly acclaimed study, Bob Ferguson offers a very well thought-out resonse
here. He explains several key flaws with both the data and conclusions and ends with this statement:
Obviously, there is a lot to criticize in this paper. What is surprising is that something with such inconsistencies and unrealistic assumptions made it unscathed through the review process, in such a prestigious journal as Nature.
Science is the pursuit of truth in a specific discipline based on observations. Activism is a policy of taking direct and militant action in support of a specific goal. "Scientific Activism" seems to be the pursuit of truth which supports a specific goal.
If it is the science shaping the goal of the activist, then I have no problem with it. When the activist goals shape the results of the science, then the term "Scientific" is no longer applicable.
