OPINION/COMMENTARY

Science behind the times?

Everyone who reads Science "the journal of the lobbying organization the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)" knows it only accepts one side of the global warming story in its "Compass" and "Perspectives" sections, and in its more opinionated, mainline articles. Anyone who writes otherwise for those sections gets a quick rejection. That's understandable because global warming is scheduled to pay U.S. scientists about $4.2 billion next year, and the AAAS is just doing its job keeping the customers happy.

But sometimes they go a little overboard in their one-sided zeal, particularly when they schedule so-called bombshell articles to coincide with the periodic meetings of the signatories to the United Nations' Climate Change treaty, discussing implementation of the (dead?) Kyoto Protocol. The most recent case of this funereal dance just ended in Milan, Italy...

Skeptical Environmentalist Vindicated!

The Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation today severely repudiated a board which, a year ago, had judged "The Skeptical Environmentalist," the best-selling book by Bjorn Lomborg, "objectively dishonest" and "clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice."

Lomborg's book -- with 2,930 footnotes, 1,800 bibliographical references, 173 figures and nine tables -- powerfully challenged the conventional wisdom that the world's environment was going to hell. When it was published in English in 2001, the book, published by the distinguished Cambridge University Press, was praised in The Washington Post, The Economist and elsewhere.

That reception provoked panic among radical greens. In early 2002, The Economist reported that "Mr. Lomborg is being called a liar, a fraud and worse. People are refusing to share a platform with him. He turns up in Oxford to talk about this book, and the author ... of a forthcoming study on climate change throws a pie in his face."...

EPA Seeks to Monitor GM Crops from Space

The Environmental Protection Agency has announced it is considering a project that would allow it to monitor gene-spliced crops from space. Experiments will begin in Spring 2004 to determine whether satellite surveillance can distinguish conventional from gene-spliced corn.

EPA’s proposal has led many to wonder whether there is something particularly sinister or worrisome about gene-spliced crops—in particular, corn that has been engineered for improved resistance to predatory insects. Is it potentially toxic, or more invasive than conventional corn? Does it have a history of stealing lunch money from children as they pass the fields en route to school?

In fact, the gene-spliced corn is wholesome, as well-behaved as any other variety, and has eliminated the need for millions of pounds of chemical pesticides. So why the attempt to monitor it, at tremendous effort and expense? Evidence suggests this is one of those examples of government intervention creating the need for more government intervention to correct a distortion government caused in the first place...