John Kane-Berman’s latest foray into environmental issues smacks more than somewhat of desperation. Having failed in any of his previous pieces to come up with any remotely credible scientific sources to back his opinions on what is clearly a scientific issue, he has resorted, “at last”, to referencing an article written by an erstwhile climate activist named Michael Shellenberger. Whenever I am referred to articles by people I have never heard of on subjects I am interested in, I have a process which I go through. Let me use this case as an example.
I start, even before reading the article concerned, by trying to find out what I can about the author. As far as formal qualifications are concerned, Mr Shellenberger has a masters degree in cultural anthropology. Since his teens he has been an activist on a number of fronts, which have been mainly environmental over the last couple of decades. I have found no reference to any professional activity other than activism. He has apparently never been involved in any kind of formal environmental research.
From there I read the actual article referred to by Mr Kane-Berman. It was immediately clear that the purpose of the article is not to be a source of environmental information, but is rather to promote Mr Shellenberger’s recently published book “Apocalypse Never – why environmental alarmism hurts us all”. Promoting a book one has written is not only a very valid and sensible undertaking, but is probably even a precondition in order for the publishers to accept the book.
The tactics used to promote the book include making controversial statements which, one assumes, will be explained and substantiated if one purchases it. As Mr Kane-Berman points out, creating controversy should boost sales of his book. These statements, some described as “facts few people know”, others as “highlights from the book”, include some of a technical nature and clearly relevant to environmental issues.
An example is Mr Shellenberger’s assertion that climate change is not making natural disasters worse. I am unqualified to judge the veracity of such statements, and look to other sources in order to form a judgement as to their accuracy. Others are obviously true, but of obscure relevance.
It is undeniable that, as Mr Shellenberger points out, Netherlands is a wealthy country despite much of it being below sea level, but so what? And others are just a mystery. He states, without explanation, that a colonialist approach to gorilla conservation in the Congo may have resulted in the killing of 250 elephants. Where does that fit in a book on environmental science? Leaving such questions hovering in the air is a valid ruse to arouse interest in order to enhance sales, but in and of itself does little to enhance understanding.