Debunking Bjorn Lomborg: Part I

The great polar bear irony

Posted by Joseph Romm (Guest Contributor) at 4:59 PM on 13 Sep 2007

For debunkers, Lomborg's work is a target-rich environment. There is even a Lomborg-errors website, where a Danish biologist catalogs Lomborg's mistakes and "attempts to document his dishonesty." Lomborg's latest work of disinformation, Cool It, isn't out yet in Europe to be debunked, so I'll fill the gap for now.

I will start with polar bears for two reasons. First, the nonironic reason: Lomborg starts his book with a chapter on polar bears, presumably because he thinks it's one of his strongest arguments -- it isn't.

Second, the ironic reason. "Bjorn" means "bear"! Yes, "Bear" Lomborg is misinformed about his namesake. Lomborg himself notes (p. 4):

Paddling across the ice, polar bears are beautiful animals. To Greenland -- part of my own nation, Denmark -- They are a symbol of pride. The loss of this animal would be a tragedy. But the real story of the polar bear is instructive. In many ways, this tale encapsulates the broader problem with the climate-change concern: once you look closely at the supporting data, the narrative falls apart.

Doubly ironic, then, that the polar bear is doomed thanks to people like Bear Lomborg, who urge inaction. Lomborg says (p. 7) polar bears "may eventually decline, though dramatic declines seem unlikely." Uh, no. Even the Bush Administration's own USGS says we'll lose two-thirds of the world's current polar bear population by 2050 in a best-case scenario for Arctic ice.

How will the bears survive the loss of their habitat? No problem, says Lomborg, they will evolve backwards (p. 6):

[T]hey will increasingly take up a lifestyle similar to that of brown bears, from which they evolved.

Seriously. Yet, Wikipedia notes:

According to both fossil and DNA evidence, the polar bear diverged from the brown bear roughly 200 thousand years ago; fossils show that between 10 and 20 thousand years ago the polar bear's molar teeth changed significantly from those of the brown bear.

Doh! Lomborg is giving the bears a few decades to undo tens of thousands of years of evolution. In fact, most experts do not believe the bears can survive the loss of their habitat:

Dr. Andrew Derocher, Chair of the Polar Bear Specialist Group of the World Conservation Union (a group whose work Lomborg cites), says:

No habitat, no seals; no seals, no bears ... At the end of the day, the sea ice is disappearing. Take away the habitat and the species follows shortly thereafter (or before).

The 2004 Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, (a group whose work Lomborg cites), says:

The survival of polar bears as a species is difficult to envisage under conditions of zero summer sea-ice cover.

A 2004 Canadian study finds:

[G]iven the rapid pace of ecological change in the Arctic, the long generation time, and the highly specialised nature of polar bears, it is unlikely that polar bears will survive as a species if the sea ice disappears completely.

And thanks to delayers like Lomborg, the ice will probably be gone long before the USGS projects, perhaps even by 2030.

But Lomborg believes by cutting greenhouse-gas emissions, "probably we can save about 0.06 bears per year." Seriously. As we'll see, Lomborg suffers from an inability to even imagine the possibility of thresholds or tipping points, beyond which irreversible and catastrophic change occur.

There are so many questionable statements in this chapter alone, you could fill a book, or at least a book chapter. From p. 5:

Moreover, it is reported that the global polar-bear population has increased dramatically over the past decades, from about 5000 members in the 1960s to 25,000 today, through stricter hunting regulation.

If I ever say, "it is reported," please shoot me. (Note to self: Don't ever say, "it is reported.") Actually, Lomborg has a source, The New York Times, which also quotes unnamed experts. Well, here is a named expert, Dr. Andrew Derocher again:

The early estimates of polar bear abundance are a guess -- there is no data at all for the 1950-60s. Nothing but guesses.

Derocher has an extended comment on this subject, which serves as a complete and utter rebuttal to Lomborg's whole polar-bear discussion.

Lomborg mocks the notion that polar bears are "today's canaries in the coal mine" (p. 3). He uses the polar bears to argue that "we hear vastly exaggerated and emotional claims" (p. 6) and "our worry makes us focus on the wrong solutions" (p. 7) because we should be focused on stopping people from shooting bears rather than saving their habitat. For Lomborg, you simply can't do both. You must pick one, and you must pick the one that is easier to do now -- even though failure to save their habitat renders all other solutions pointless.

To paraphrase Lomborg,

... this tale encapsulates the broader problem with his climate-change book: once you look closely at the supporting data, his narrative falls apart.

It is Bear Lomborg who has evolved backwards, back to a time when people didn't care about future generations.

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

For story: Debunking Bjorn Lomborg: Part I
10 Comments | Post a Comment

Nice job

And, does anyone have a set of links to the various sites handy for evaluating deniers' claims? I can think of the "how to talk to a skeptic" site, RealClimate, Deltoid, and DeSmogBlog, but I know I've seen others.

by Smaug at 7:33 PM on 13 Sep 2007

Polar bears will de evolve?

Moron.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 10:26 PM on 13 Sep 2007

so how about rechristening him:

Puddingtoppen, to borrow a couple of words from next to the photo of the cheery blonde at the top of that fun page on Old Norse name formation.

(So now I know what "Ingmar," as in Bergman, means; to my frustration, though, they do not define the "-rid" of "Ingrid," as in the other Bergman. I shall have to look up who this god Ingr is. The "Vig" of "Viggo," as in Mortensen, means "battle" -- it seems every other word means either "battle" or "victory" -- , but they give us no clue about the "-go" part.)

As for Bjorn's bright forecast about how the polar bears will quickly adapt to their changing conditions, that is simple craziness. Even the much more resourceful and adaptable grizzlies of Yellowstone are coming under pressure, as the life cycle of the alpine moths that they feed on in late Summer is shifting on account of climate change.

In fact, as the Arctic and sub-Arctic regions grow warmer, we should not be surprised if polar bears come increasingly into competition with northward-moving brown bears, aka grizzlies. The changing conditions of those regions would seem likely to favor the grizzlies, so the increasing overlap of ranges and habitat -- grizzlies are already present on the north coasts of Canada and Alaska -- would add yet another pressure on polar bears.

We already see how this might work, in the case of red foxes moving in ever greater numbers into the range of Arctic foxes. Red foxes are of course among the cleverest, most adaptable and most successful animals on the planet. Arctic foxes no doubt have their virtues too; but being adapted to life in the Arctic, like polar bears -- in fact they often follow polar bears, in order to scavenge from the bears' kills -- , their repertoire of behaviors and adaptive devices is limited. The presence of red foxes in their territory is not good news for them at all.

By the way, while Arctic sea ice has been much discussed lately, in connexion with the fate of polar bears, I do not recall reading anything about snow cover on dry land. Has the season of snow cover been growing briefer? That will be important to animals that are permanently white in color, such as the polar bear, and those that seasonally adopt a white phase, such as the Arctic fox, the snowshoe and Arctic hares, the long-tailed, short-tailed and least weasels, and the willow ptarmigan. Presumably they would all be at a disadvantage, to find themselves for increasingly longer periods very conspicuous to prey and predators on snowless ground. By the same token, a shorter season of snow cover would be an advantage to such permanently dark animals as the grizzly and the red fox. Presumably these animals are not at their best when there is snow on the ground. In southern regions, where the winter season of snow cover is limited, grizzlies are dormant; red foxes remain active, but no doubt the Winter is a tough season for them.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 10:42 PM on 13 Sep 2007

Something's rotten (even) in the state of Denmark

Bjorn Lomborg seems to appear on the scene as an errand boy for the new Janus approach of Denmark.

Denmark, well known for its leading role in development and use of wind energy - yes, as a matter of fact, until recently a world leader in that field - now also has become a world leader in air pollution.

How did it come about, that a Scandinavian country shifted from being an invocative leading sustainable developer to an extremely high contributor of greenhouse gases [GHG]?
Denmark, with an annual growth rate of 12, 7% in primary energy consumption of fossil fuels in 2006, now has the highest rate of energy growth among OECD members' countries - even higher than the growth rate in China (8, 4%).

Add thereto, the GHG-emissions from the Danish International Shipping Industry [DISI] - which now owns and manages a fleet with a gross tonnage of approximately 50 million - equal to ca. 10 percent of the entire world fleet (and with a heavy segment of high-speed container vessels, (Maersk-Line etc.)). In 2006 DISI consumed about 40 million tons of heavy marine bunker oil - more than twice of the country's entire domestic energy consumption (total domestic fossil fuel consumption 2006: 19, 5 mill. tons oil equivalent, according to BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2007)

To Denmark, that gives a yearly consumption rate of 11 tons fossil fuel/capita and a corresponding emission rate of 32, 5 tons CO2/capita - far beyond the figures from US.

So, The Kingdom of Denmark, which ironically embraces Greenland, has as a world leader in air pollution sent a messenger to play down the consequences of the global warming.

by Ralphs at 3:56 AM on 14 Sep 2007

"Cool It" Available at KCLS.org

The King County Public Library has "Cool It".

I just put a hold on the book...looks like it's so popular they just ordered another 15 copies!

http://catalog.kcls.org/search?/Ycool%20it&SORT=D/Yco ...

by jabailo at 8:24 AM on 14 Sep 2007

Bjorn Lomberg...again?

Why do the media pay attention to Bjorn Lomberg, who has been accused by the Danish Institute of Science of deception and lying? Second question: why are BOTH the extreme right and the extreme left denying global warming? From the latter we have Alexander Cockburn; from the former we have numerous neo cons from conservative think tanks, such as one Don Kates, a lawyer connected to the Pacific Research Foundation. Of course their intent is to muddy the waters and cloud the issues. But it also is, apparently, to defend capitalism, economic growth and technology from the heathens and neo luddites. Isnt it interesting how the left and right converge in their philosophies? They also converge in their methodology: mock, denigrate and deny anything that deviates from their political ideologies. I have acquaintances on each end of the spectrum - a libertarian intellectual and a Marxist green from the US Green Party, lined up with the deniers. Strange bedfellows.

Lorna Salzman

by lorna salzman at 11:38 AM on 14 Sep 2007

Critic-al

Did Lomborg actually use the phrase "evolve backwards" in his book? If he did not, you should not. That promotes sloppy thinking about evolutionary processes. The quote you did use directly from Lomborg is almost as bad. Bad on Lomborg's part. A population of polar bears can only change their niche if that niche is open. Yet, per an article in a National Wildlife magazine (Feb/March 2006), barren-ground grizzlies (yes, grizzlies are brown bears) have been noted to be aggressively pushing into polar bear territory since the early 1990's. A significant amount of information in the article is about and from bear biologist Andrew Derocher, University of Alberta.

www.nwf.org is not a good source for this article. You may have to go to a library. However, the site does have a Cool It! page with the phrase "Cool It!" denoted with a trademark.

"Lomborg is giving the bears a few decades to undo tens of thousands of years of evolution." Uhh, don't count out evolution so quick. Evolution can be fast. I remember the case of the blue geese and snow geese from the 1960's. Also, about the same time as the NWF article, I remember reading about some trophy hunters getting a large male polar bear and claiming via DNA testing that it was a half-and-half: half polar bear, half grizzly. A picture accompanied the blurb, and the bear looked all polar to me.

With apologies, the epitaph of the polar bear maybe: "Live fast, die young, and leave a good looking rug."

Populations evolve, individuals do not

at a remove

by ataremove at 2:23 PM on 14 Sep 2007

Bob Park nails it

CLIMATE CRAP: A SEQUEL BY THE "SKEPTICAL ENVIRONMENTALIST."
Bjorn Lomborg's "Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming" is out. Well, yes it is getting warmer he finds, but aside from polar bears, it just means more beach weather. We've got bigger problems, he says. Instead of spending all that money trying to prevent warming, let's focus on making everyone rich so they can all buy air conditioners.

The 5% Project

by JMG at 2:49 PM on 14 Sep 2007

H. Sterling Burnett and Mitchell K. Taylor - bears

Joseph Romm wrote in the original post: There are [...] many questionable statements [...] From p. 5:

Moreover, it is reported that the global polar-bear population has increased dramatically over the past decades, from about 5000 members in the 1960s to 25,000 today, through stricter hunting regulation.
[...] Actually, Lomborg has a source, The New York Times, which also quotes unnamed experts.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear#Conservation_status

[...] the need for species protection has been disputed by two professionals: H. Sterling Burnett and Mitchell K. Taylor. Burnett, a senior fellow for the National Center for Policy Analysis have claimed that the total global population of polar bears increased from 5,000 to 25,000 between the 1970s and 2007.[36] Between 1965 and 1970 the population of polar bears was estimated at only 8,000 - 10,000 and it was classified as an endangered species.[citation needed] This increase coincides with changes in hunting practices which began in the early 1970s. For example, the USA adopted the Marine Mammal Protection Act in 1972, and in 1973 the International Agreement for the Conservation of Polar Bears was signed by Canada, Denmark, Norway, the USSR and the USA.[37]

by Nucbuddy at 4:00 PM on 14 Sep 2007

Polar Bear Population estimates

Re: Piolar Bear population increase:
The citation in the last posting ("[36]") links to the Humane Society web page. I was unable to find this factoid at all, let alone a further citation to, e.g., a population survey or published estimate.

And regarding the National Center for Policy Analysis:
This from its website:

"The NCPA's goal is to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector. Topics include reforms in health care, taxes, Social Security, welfare, criminal justice, education and environmental regulation."

Burnett is listed as one of its "experts," but no qualifications are given. However: http://www.ncpa.org/abo/staff/sburnett.html tells us:
-------
H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D.
Senior Fellow
H. Sterling Burnett , Ph.D. is a Senior Fellow for the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA). While Burnett works on a number of issues, he specializes in issues involving environmental policy.

He has held various positions in professional and public policy organizations, including serving as a member of the new Environment and Natural Resources Task Force in the Texas Comptroller's e-Texas commission (2000).

President (2005), Board of Directors (present), Dallas Woods and Water Conservation Club.

Advisor, American Legislative Exchange Council Energy, Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture Task Force, 1996 - Present.

Senior Fellow, Texas Public Policy Foundation (2005 - Present).

Contributing Editor, Environment & Climate News (2005 - Present).

Academic Advisor, Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow (2005 - Present).

Brand Visiting Chair of Free Enterprise and Public Policy at Howard Payne University , 1998.

PERC Fellow, Political Economy Research Center , 1995.

Research Assistant, Social Philosophy and Policy Center , 1991 - 1992.

Environmental Research Associate, Competitive Enterprise Institute, 1990.

Research Associate, Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment, 1987.

Policy issues spokesman on nationally syndicated radio and television talk shows.

His articles and opinion pieces have been published in Ethics, Environmental Ethics, International Studies in Philosophy, The World and I, USA Today, Los Angeles Daily News, The Washington Times, Washington Post, The Dallas Morning News, Houston Chronicle, Rocky Mountain News, Miami Herald, Las Vegas Review-Journal, Detroit News, The Seattle Times and Human Events.

Burnett received his P.h.D. in 2001 from Bowling Green State University. His doctoral dissertation was "Ecosystemic Goods: The Pros and Cons of a Property Rights Approach."
------------

So it appears that Burnett's entire career has been devoted studying and advocating a particular ideological position that is presumed to overlay and ultimately control all other factors.

So whether there actually is a source for the oft repeated and claim low population estimates for Polar Bear pre-1990's, its a pretty good bet that Burnett didn't produce it. He jsut doesn't sound like the kind of guy who would be counting tiny white blobs from a freezing small airplane, or performing statistical analysis of chnages in Iunit Polar Bear hunt success rates, or nay of the other myriad methods that might be used to derive a population estimate.

Note that Mitchell K. Taylor does appear to be a serious Ursus researcher, with credited publications in peer reviewed journals. However, he is not the person credited in the Wikipedia article with the earlier population estimate(s).

Steve E. Whidbey Environmental Action Network

by paintbrush at 1:35 PM on 17 Sep 2007

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.