{"id":6991,"date":"2021-01-03T23:42:53","date_gmt":"2021-01-03T23:42:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/newmatilda.com\/?p=139676"},"modified":"2021-01-03T23:42:53","modified_gmt":"2021-01-03T23:42:53","slug":"the-rbg-affect-where-the-rubber-meats-the-road-on-science-global-warming-and-the-convenience-of-hypocrisy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/2021\/01\/03\/the-rbg-affect-where-the-rubber-meats-the-road-on-science-global-warming-and-the-convenience-of-hypocrisy\/","title":{"rendered":"The RBG Affect: Where the Rubber \u2018Meats\u2019 The Road On Science, Global Warming And The Convenience Of Hypocrisy"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

DON’T MISS ANYTHING! ONE CLICK TO GET NEW MATILDA DELIVERED DIRECT TO YOUR INBOX, FREE!<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

US Supreme Court judge Ruth Bader Ginsberg knew a lot about activism and the fight for women\u2019s rights. And like the current battle to arrest global warming, RBG also knew a bit about people ignoring the bleedingly obvious when it suited. Geoff Russell explains.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Physical scientists often repeat experiments. It\u2019s mostly a\nrite of passage for young scientists to get more precise answers to old\nquestions than their elders. Mathematicians similarly delight in new proofs to\nold theorems. In 1928, Elisha Loomis published a book of 365 proofs of\nPythagoras\u2019s Theorem.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A person who says \u201cLet\u2019s not reinvent the wheel\u201d has probably\nnever built anything.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The process is loosely called \u201creplication\u201d<\/em>. If two\ngroups can\u2019t perform the same experiment and get the same result, then there is\na problem. Identifying the problem is a terrific way of learning stuff. There\nis no substitute for sleepless nights thinking about why something doesn\u2019t\nwork.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A huge landmark study in 2015 pointed to what some have called a replication crisis in psychological science<\/a>. A consortium of researchers tried and mostly failed to replicate 100 pieces of psychological research. Others have pointed to similar problems in medicine<\/a>. Watch that space.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

And in climate\nscience?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Happily there isn\u2019t any replication crisis in climate\nscience. Probably because it\u2019s really just very complex physics; and physicists\nhave been repeating, checking and scrutinising each others\u2019 work for over 100 years.\nIn 1887, the first ever Michelson-Morley experiment was performed\u2026 by Michelson\nand Morley\u2026 who else? The experiment is all about relativity and the speed of\nlight; the details don\u2019t matter. But the work has been repeated at least 30 times\nsince, with increasing accuracy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Remember the famous climate science hockey stick<\/em>\ngraph? This was a graph in the 2001 IPCC report on the global climate showing\nthat current temperatures were dramatically higher than anything for 1,000 years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Climate change deniers criticised the methodology, so teams\nof scientists from all over the planet repeated the work; again and again and\nagain. By the time of the 2007 IPCC report, some 12 teams had replicated and\nconfirmed the results. This isn\u2019t quite like the Michelson-Morley experiment,\nthere is a much wider intrinsic range of reasonable results that count as\nconfirmation, but the original work stood up well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If different methods get the same result, then you can be\nfar more confident of it. You can still find climate change deniers saying the\nhockey stick has been discredited; because they, like Donald Trump, simply make\nstuff up. They lie. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Michael Mann, one of the original hockey stick study\nauthors, wrote a book about the saga in 2012; \u201cThe Hockey\nStick and the Climate Wars\u201d<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here\u2019s a recent version of the hockey stick graph:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The dark blue is the original graph with its light blue error margins. The green dots show a 2013 replication; a new estimate using quite different methods. The red line is the global mean temperature as of that replication.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

An inconvenient\nreplication<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

November 2020 saw another replication result<\/a> – meaning a new paper using a\ndifferent method to check something already widely believed – by climate\nscientists. But it\u2019s a result not widely known and even less widely accepted by\nthe general public or many environmentalists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This result appeared in one of the world\u2019s most prestigious\nscience journals, the aptly named Science<\/em>, which should have been enough\nto make it headline news in many countries, particularly Australia. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why here in particular? Because it pointed the finger fairly\nand squarely at our meat centric lifestyles as a major climate change villian.\nBecause we have more of both cattle and sheep than people in Australia. Because\nwe deforested 100 million hectares of land to graze those sheep and cattle and\ngrow their feed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

We feed them the lion\u2019s share<\/a> of our grain harvest every year. Beef cattle consume close to 4 million tonnes, dairy cattle consume 2.6 million tonnes\u2026 while we consume less than 3 million tonnes. Even pigs and chickens consume way more than us at some 5 million tonnes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
A cattle feedlot, outside Merriwa in the NSW Hunter Valley. (IMAGE: Chris Graham, New Matilda)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The title of the new paper says it all: Global food\nsystem emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5\u00b0 and 2\u00b0C climate change\ntargets<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But just in case it isn\u2019t clear, the paper says that even\nif, miraculously, we stopped all fossil fuel emissions instantly, the impacts\nof animal agriculture would still see us exceed 1.5 and possibly 2 degrees of\nwarming above pre-industrial levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And if that still isn\u2019t clear, it means that none of the\nthree biggest political parties in Australia has a climate friendly climate\npolicy; not even the Greens; or Greenpeace, or Craig Reucassel, or Elon Musk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Put yet another way, even if we achieved \u201cnet\u201d (or even\nreal) zero fossil fuel emissions by 2025 or 2030 or 2050, that won\u2019t halt the\nrise in global temperatures\u2026 because of our meat production and the land we\nkeep deforested as part of that system. The Greens, for example, in defiance of\nthe science, have a policy in favour of the worst<\/em> form of meat\nproduction from a climate perspective; extensive agriculture. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

British writer George Monbiot (currently recovering from\nCovid-19) summarised the science beautifully back in 2019<\/a>.\nBut aren\u2019t I talking about a new paper? Yes, but it\u2019s an old result. Everybody\nwho has been paying attention knows this stuff\u2026 except our politicians and many\nin the environmental movement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How long has the connection between livestock and climate\nchange been known? In general terms, people have known that animal agriculture was\na serious climate issue for over 30 years, but I think it was first implied\nmost strongly in 2008 by one of the planet\u2019s best climate scientists, Dr James\nHansen. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a long and detailed paper<\/a>, Hansen argued that we needed to do three big things to stabilise the climate: slash short-lived climate killers like methane; build a clean energy infrastructure; and roll back 200 years of deforestation. The first and the third of these require slashing animal agriculture. He showed clearly that none of these was optional; all three were absolutely essential.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Former NASA scientist and the ‘Father of Climate Change’ Dr James Hansen, at the COP21 talks in Paris. (IMAGE: Thom Mitchell, New Matilda)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

In 2010, a couple of other climate scientists made it\nexplicit. Writing<\/a> in the Proceedings of the National\nAcademy of Science, Nathan Pelletier and Peter Tyedmers made the case against\nmeat production as a climate vandal abundantly clear. They showed clearly that\nit didn\u2019t matter what else we did, animal agriculture was enough to screw the\nplanet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There have been other papers along the way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But did you see coverage of the Science<\/em> paper on the\nABC News? Did you see any of our Green eco-warriors shouting about it? Of\ncourse not. \u201cListen to the science\u201d is something they shout about to Scott\nMorrison, but it\u2019s more a matter of do as I say, rather than do as I do. They\nare very selective when it comes to science.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The new paper by a team from the Universities of Oxford,\nStanford, Minnesota, and California recalculates the impacts of animal\nagriculture using the latest data. Here is their summary:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We show that even if\nfossil fuel emissions were immediately halted, current trends in global food\nsystems would prevent the achievement of the 1.5\u00b0C target and, by the end of\nthe century, threaten the achievement of the 2\u00b0C target.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

They calculate the impacts on the climate of various\npossible changes to the food system: slashing waste, increasing yields, eating\nless, and eating plant rich diets. The biggest impacts, it\u2019s no surprise, come\nfrom plant rich diets. Writing in a mainstream journal, the authors don\u2019t use\nwords like \u201cvegan\u201d or even \u201cvegetarian\u201d. Why not?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here, finally, is where we come to Ruth Bader Ginsburg.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

The RBG Affect<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you haven\u2019t already seen it, I\u2019d urge you to watch the\n2018 film \u201cOn the Basis of Sex\u201d<\/a>, inspired by the life of\nthe recently deceased US Supreme Court justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is a brilliant court room scene where the young RBG is\ntrying (indirectly) to argue for the rights of women to a panel of judges in\nthe early 1970s. One of the judges was a great advocate for black rights, so\nyou\u2019d think she could appeal to the clear parallels. But no. Ginsburg is warned\nvery clearly by her colleagues that it\u2019s easier for judges to think rationally\nabout black rights than about women\u2019s rights; because women\u2019s rights could\nimpact their personal domestic relationships.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So it is with meat and many environmentalists. \u201cI love meat\u201d\noverrides \u201cI love the planet\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When I wrote, for example, to Professor  Tim Flannery at the Adelaide Museum some 15\nyears ago and suggested he make the Museum restaurant vegan, as a powerful\nsymbol of the kind of changes we need to stabilise the climate, he replied that\nhe was a \u201cproud eater of flesh\u201d<\/em> (I still have the email!) <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Over the past 15 years, the replications of the basic\nscience showing the overwhelmingly devastating impact of animal agriculture on\nboth biodiversity and the climate have been numerous. That\u2019s how it is when a\nresult is solid in a quantitative science. Has Flannery changed? Not as far as\nI know. Have the Greens? No.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is RBG vs male judges all over again. Objectivity and\nscience are easily ignored when a person puts their taste for burgers ahead of science,\nrationality and the planet. It doesn\u2019t matter how many times a result is\nreplicated and the authority of the scientists involved, the blindness of\nselfishness isn\u2019t limited to the coal industry, it is a rotten canker at the\nheart of our environment movement. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

How are they to convince others to listen to the science, when they ignore it so comprehensively themselves?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

DON’T MISS ANYTHING! ONE CLICK TO GET NEW MATILDA DELIVERED DIRECT TO YOUR INBOX, FREE!<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post The RBG Affect: Where the Rubber \u2018Meats\u2019 The Road On Science, Global Warming And The Convenience Of Hypocrisy<\/a> appeared first on New Matilda<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n

This post was originally published on New Matilda<\/a>. <\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

US Supreme Court judge Ruth Bader Ginsberg knew a lot about activism and the fight for women\u2019s rights. And like the current battle to arrest global warming, RBG also knew a bit about people ignoring the bleedingly obvious when it suited. Geoff Russell explains. Physical scientists often repeat experiments. It\u2019s mostly a rite of passage […]<\/p>\n

The post The RBG Affect: Where the Rubber \u2018Meats\u2019 The Road On Science, Global Warming And The Convenience Of Hypocrisy<\/a> appeared first on New Matilda<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":634,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[393,1963],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6991"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/634"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6991"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6991\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":70720,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6991\/revisions\/70720"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6991"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6991"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6991"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}