Lies, Damn Lies, & Statistics

I heard that somewhere, not sure where though.

This came to mind as I read today two very different presentations of statistics. First, from Dan Gardner, a columnist I often enjoy to read in the Ottawa Citizen. "Cheer Up", he tells us! "Things aren't nearly as bad as they seem." He then quotes recently published statistics from the United Nations Human Development Report 2010.

"Most people today are healthier, live longer, are more educated and have more access to goods and services. Even in countries facing adverse economic conditions, people's health and education have greatly improved. And there has been progress not only in improving health and education and raising income, but also in expanding people's power to select leaders, influence public decisions, and share knowledge."

He informs us that the report's findings tell us that:

-. All but three of the 135 countries have a higher level of human development today than in 1970.

-. A baby born today in almost any country can expect to live longer than at any time in history.

-. If children were still dying at the higher rates prevalent in the late 1970s, 6.7 million more children would die each year.

-. People around the world have much higher levels of education than ever before. ... No country has seen declines in literacy or years of schooling since 1970.

-. Since 1970, 155 countries -- home to 95 per cent of the world's people -- have experienced increases in real per capita income. The annual average today is $10,760, almost 1.5 times its level 20 years ago and twice its level 40 years ago. These increases are evident "in all regions."

-. Between 1970 and 2010, China's per capita income rose 21-fold, Botswana's more than nine-fold and Malaysia's and Thailand's more than five-fold.

-. The share of formal democracies has increased from fewer than a third of countries in 1970 to half in the mid-1990s and to three-fifths in 2008.

-. Overall, poor countries are catching up with rich countries in the HDI.

And then, later in the day, I pick up from the library the book The Bridge at the End of the World, by James Gustave Speth, where I read the following on the first couple of pages:

Half the world's tropical and temperate forests are now gone. The rate of deforestation in the tropics continues at about an acre a second. About half the wetlands and a third of the mangroves are gone. An estimated 90 percent of the large predator fish are gone, and 75 percent of marine fisheries are now overfished or fished to capacity. Twenty percent of the corals are gone, and another 20 percent severely threatened. Species are disappearing at rates about a thousand times fasther than normal. The planet has not seen such a spasm of extinction in sixty-five million years, since the dinosaurs disappeared. Over half the agricultural land in drier regions suffers from some degree of deterioration and desertification. Persistent toxic chemicals can be found by the dozens in essentially each and every one of us.

Human impacts are now large relative to natural systems. The earth's stratospheric ozone layer was severely depleted before the change was discovered. Human activities have pushed atmospheric carbon dioxide up by more than a third and have started in earnest the dangerous process of warming the planet and disrupting climate. Everywhere earth's ice fields are melting. Industrial process are fixing nitrogen, making it biologically active, at a rate equal to nature's; one result is the development of more than two hundred dead zones in the oceans due to overfertilization. Human actions already consume or destroy each year about 40 percent of nature's photosynthetic output, leaving too little for other species. Freshwater withdrawals doubled globally between 1960 and 2000, and are now over half of accessible runoff. The following rivers no longer reach the oceans in the dry season: the Colorado, yellow, Ganges and Nile, among others.

No wonder so many of us are confused. But then...maybe it isn't so confusing after all. Maybe the reason the United Nations can report such a variety of improvement in human development indices is a direct result of humankind's gorging itself on the environmental riches of the planet, as described by Speth. Oh, some of us may be better off, for now. But, can it last?

It Can Be Depressing Sometimes...

globeandmail.com: New York-sized ice cap collapses off Antarctica

No, I'm not talking about the reports of ice melting in Antarctica. I'm talking about the "discussion" (if it can be called that), that follows such reports.

Within an hour of the above article appearing on the Globe & Mail website, numerous comments were posted bashing the integrity of G&M for posting the article and ridiculing any suggestion that Global Warming/Climate Change was either a threat to the planet or that humans had anything to do with it even if it was happening.

I'm not a climate scientist, and don't expect I ever will have the credentials or qualifications to identify myself as such. I am a layperson who seeks out the expert opinion of those qualified in their field of expertise to help me form my own opinion on such matters.

I said as much to Professor Denis Rancourt a couple of years ago when he fired off a rant on his own website ridiculing those who were concerned about global warming. Back in June, 2007 I told him that...

I am of the opinion that some aspects of climate change are attributable to an anthropocentric source. However, I accept that, as a "layperson" I am out of my depth in discussing this with you on a scientific basis. My rather "simplistic" notion is that I find it very difficult to believe that the massive increase of human population and the subsequent large scale increase in emissions would not have some form of impact on the earth's climate systems. Maybe I am naive, but I note that it took over a million years to sequester carbon in oil and coal. It was, in the human time scale of things, a fairly lengthy process. We, as humans, have managed to release into the atmosphere roughly half of it in, essentially, the blink of an eye of time. Call me crazy, but it seems to me it would have an effect.

I don't believe that you need a Doctorate in Climatology to reach this conclusion.

However, to this day, whenever there is another report in the media of melting ice in polar regions, or anything else which may be supportive of the peer-reviewed IPCC scientific reports, comment blogs light up with ridicule from the masses. Almost inevitably, they question the motives of the scientists they mock, often suggesting they are only in it for the money. I get it. These scientists are somehow manipulating the data that purports that human activity is affecting the weather to keep them employed. Furthermore, they have been able to dupe every scientist who participated in the peer review process, not once, not twice, but hundreds of times. Talk about a conspiracy!

At this point, the only logical conclusion I can come up with is that those who claim that any suggestion of human induced climate change is a hoax are themselves simply trying to protect their own profligate ways. They actually can see the writing on the wall. They see the big picture. They have more intelligence than I have, until now, been attributing to them.

They understand that if in fact the science is true, that the only way to protect the earth from human induced climate change is to greatly curtail the release of CO2. Such a prospect, of course, scares the hell out of them. What, cut back their automobile use, give up that annual trek to the Caribbean because it's too cold in Canada for them? Stop eating strawberries in February? They really are in a state of denial, but not just about climate change. What they categorically refuse to accept is that the way we have been living is completely unsustainable. No wonder they say such stupid things.

Gwynne Dyer - Climate Wars

George Bush may not have accepted the science of climate change but his military did. According to military analyst Gwynne Dyer the U.S. and British military have for several years been making advanced preparations for future climate wars. A chilling interview as the temperature rises.

Greenland is Warming Up

My adventurous soul wants to travel to places such as Greenland. I want to witness it before the glaciers disappear. My travel to such distant lands, and that of countless others, however, only hastens their demise.

Activist Teacher: Global Warming: Truth or Dare?

Activist Teacher: Global Warming: Truth or Dare?

I found the article above by Professor Denis Rancourt to be quite provocative and sent him the following response:

Professor Raincourt,

I just read your blog post http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2007/02/global-warming-truth-or-dare.htm l found it an interesting read.

It is clear that you are much more than a "layperson" as you discuss this topic. You have done considerable research and know how to write a readable article.

I am of the opinion that some aspects of climate change are attributable to an anthropocentric source. However, I accept that, as a "layperson" I am out of my depth in discussing this with you on a scientific basis. My rather "simplistic" notion is that I find it very difficult to believe that the massive increase of human population and the subsequent large scale increase in emissions would not have some form of impact on the earth's climate systems. Maybe I am naive, but I note that it took over a million years to sequester carbon in oil and coal. It was, in the human time scale of things, a fairly lengthy process. We, as humans, have managed to release into the atmosphere roughly half of it in, essentially, the blink of an eye of time. Call me crazy, but it seems to me it would have an effect.

However, I believe that all of this debate about whether or not humans are influencing climate change could be all so much navel gazing. A much greater problem we need to confront is disengaging ourselves from our over consumptive ways. Since the first oil was commercially produced in 1859, we have become addicted to ever cheaper energy sources. This has been finessed and exploited by the corporate elite into the vision and promise of infinitely increasing consumption, culminating most recently in globalisation.

So, yes, you and I are in agreement regarding the concentration of wealth and power in the corporate elite, etc., etc. Where I take issue is what I regard as your dismissive attitude of personal action. You mock those who work on reducing their consumption, and suggest that it would be much better if they became more activist in taking on corporatism and the status quo. I don't disagree with becoming more directly active in one's community, and part of that can involve challenging>corporate practices. However, I do believe that making conscious consumption choices is also very much a part of direct action.

I firmly believe that we need to do both. People vote every day with the dollars they spend. Wal-Mart thrives because people shop there. Yes, we need to challenge corporate practices. However, we also need to constructively and creatively challenge those who support their practices by doing business with them.

The root cause of the over consumptive globalisation mess we are in is the fact that the vast majority of people are buying what the corporations are selling. Corporations have convinced so many of us that what we need is quantity of life instead of quality. While challenging the corporate mentality, we also need to challenge the citizenry to accept their role in changing the world. From blockbuster entertainment, closets full of clothes that we don't wear, constant vacationing, to foods from all over the world, we are constantly being sold a bill of goods. The best form of direct action is to recognize the extent to which we are perpetuating the consumer oriented economy. If we don't buy it, they don't produce it.

All of this is going to come crashing down on us soon. Once again, I only have the "layperson's" perspective, but I believe there is considerable evidence pointing to the crunch of "peak oil" hitting us very soon. I find www.energybulletin.net to be very useful. You might want to confirm your source that suggests we have coal supplies to last for a thousand years. There is considerable evidence to the contrary. However, that is another discussion.

In summary, I disagree with your climate change assertions. However, I believe such a point is likely moot, in that the larger problem is societal over-consumption of material resources fanned by a $450 billion annual marketing budget. The best form of direct action is to cut off the food source for corporatism, namely work to reduce over-consumption of material resources by convincing more people to understand that we have been hoodwinked to pursue quantity of living rather than quality of living.

Finally, I believe that a curtailment in the availability of energy resources that will happen within the next few years, (if it already hasn't started), will lead very soon to the most difficult challenge humankind has ever faced. Mainstream society hasn't even begun to recognize the immensity of this issue. It will, however, have a dramatic impact on most people's lives.

Thank you for providing your perspective. You have challenged me to respond.

Climate Change and the Skeptics

I do not have a background in science nor do I understand all of the complexities of the research regarding climate change. However, neither did I understand the science when a medical doctor recommended that I needed to have my appendix removed. I am, however, glad I followed his advice.

Of course, he could have been wrong. The pain may have been a bad case of indigestion. My family and I could have sought alternate opinions, and fully discussed and debated the issue of whether or not surgery really was necessary. Did I really want to be scarred for life? Didn’t we realize that complications can arise from surgery?

Perhaps I am making a somewhat facetious analogy. But, I don’t believe I am that far off. In this instance the patient, planet earth, may survive for generations to come. Then again, its entire ecosystem could be on the brink of collapse. The question is, what irreparable harm are we risking by failing to act?

The overwhelming majority of scientists that study climate change agree that human activity is responsible for changing the climate. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is one of the largest bodies of international scientists ever assembled to study a scientific issue, comprised of more than 2,000 scientists from 100 countries. The IPCC has concluded that most of the warming observed during the past 50 years is attributable to human activities. Its findings have been publicly endorsed by the national academies of science of all G-8 countries, as well as those of China, India and Brazil. The Royal Society of Canada ??? together with the national academies of fifteen other nations ??? also issued a joint statement on climate change that stated, in part: “The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognize IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change.”Suzuki

The case has been made that human activity is a significant factor in climate change. This is not the rantings of a few fringe scientists. Forgive the rhetoric, but how many opinions on this do we have to seek before we accept the evidence? There will always be the contrarians amongst us. There are those who continue to deny the holocaust, and others who insist the earth is flat. However, the fate of our planet is at stake and we need to act.

I am encouraged to see a groundswell of public opinion on this issue. I encourage you to read the declaration of a coalition of 48 Canadian youth groups. Another group of young Canadians, working under the banner of The Otesha Project, is teaching us how to be the change.

I have been convinced by the evidence presented by more than 2,000 scientists from 100 countries that my consumption focused lifestyle, combined with that of everyone else, is devastating our planet. We are fouling our nest. We buy food and clothing from distant lands, with no thought to the energy resources expended to create and bring these products to us. We similarly think nothing of jetting off to anyplace on the planet simply because we have the money. We send our garbage to distant lands to minimize our costs.(BBC) We treat the world as our oyster, with no regard for the trail of debris we leave behind us.

Perhaps it is difficult to imagine how driving to a favourite big box store or indulging in an annual winter flight to warmer climes will harm the environment. First, multiply your trip by the millions of others done every day around the world. Then, add the hundreds, if not thousands of kilometres those various products you purchased travelled to get to your store. Finally, consider how the number of these “vacation” flights have increased dramatically during our lifetimes. The energy and resources consumed quickly adds up. All so we can have “cheap” fresh produce from Mexico, a ten dollar shirt from Sri Lanka or a week in the sun. It is only “cheap” because we are not capturing the external costs of environmental degradation caused by the energy and other resource consumption required to provide these products to us. Capitalism can be ruthlessly efficient, but so far, it has failed to capture and properly assign these environmental costs. It is time to pay up.

Excess consumerism is often commented on in mass media, yet every Christmas we are urged to “shop til we drop”, with a primary goal of supporting the economy. I believe we need to change this mindset. One group that has been showing us how is Buy Nothing Christmas a national initiative started by Canadian Mennonites. As they suggest, “Rise Above It!”

A group known as The Christmas Resistance Movement uses even stronger language as it urges us to “boycott Christmas Shopping, Christmas decorations, Christmas cards, and every variety of Christmas Crap.”

An organization known as the New American Dream provides a wealth of information and guidance. Although it is based in the U.S., Canadians can learn much from this group. Any group founded on the motto of “More Fun Less Stuff!” gets my vote! I urge each of you to consider the concept of Voluntary Simplicity.

This is not a call to simpler times. We will need all that our scientific research has to offer. But we will need to re-direct it toward a sustainable use of our resources. Our lifestyle is currently based on having a never ending supply of an unrenewable resource: oil. As individuals and collectively through changes in government policy we need to prepare ourselves for the consequences of the inevitable decline in oil production, otherwise known as Peak Oil.

It will require our most creative energies and talents. We will need to bring together all that we have learned to re-shape collectively how we stop the unsustainable consumption of the earth’s precious resources. We must begin to move away from being focused on what we can consume, and learn how to appreciate what we already have.

I believe a significant number of us actually grasp many of the concepts discussed above. The one thing that most of us do not do, unfortunately, is “connect the dots” between our individual consumption patterns and the collective consequence of millions of such decisions. We are not seeing that change must start from our own individual choices. It is one thing to see the problem. It is another to see that the sum of all these individual acts is the ultimate Tragedy of the Commons. I urge each of you to embrace the concept that consuming less can mean having more. Consider developing your own personal commitment so that you also can be the change!