Knowledge and the value of ignorance Re: Nobel

[Wayne Tyson]

An excellent point that bears repeating and repeating and repeating . 
. . ad infinitum.

"The most important thing is to know what you don't know."  --Margaret Mead

"The suspension of judgment is the highest exercise in intellectual 
discipline."  --Raymond Gilmore

WT

At 03:50 PM 10/12/2007, David Inouye wrote:
>It was interesting to hear the Nobel prizewinner in chemistry this
>year say in an interview I heard on the radio that he had some
>trepidation about receiving the award because he would now be
>expected to give expert opinion on issues about which he knew little.
>I think he specifically mentioned climate change as an example.

Re: Scientists versus activists

[Malcolm McCallum]

If you go to the used car lot, and you see a car you like do you trust the
used car salesman, or do you ask a mechanic for his expert advice?  Who is
more reputable on the car (assuming they aren't connected in some way?).

With the same reasoning, who is more credible?  A climate scientist who
will get his grants and pubs whether or not climate change is taking
place, or a polluter who has vested interests in the results?

Its common sense to me.  The tobacco companies denied cancer, others
denied PCBs, later all kinds of economic catastrophies were portrayed by
the industries using CFCs, and now its green house gases.

Greed does not care about need.


On Fri, October 12, 2007 5:55 pm, DAVID WHITACRE wrote:
> Jacqueline,
>
> Those climate scientists are probably not driving new sports cars, since =
> Paul Cherubini has repeatedly explained to this list in the past that =
> ecologists (if not climate scientists)--generally described by him as =
> "affluent"--generally live in over-sized houses and drive gas-guzzling =
> SUV's. I'm sure there are some ecologists who do. Based on that, I =
> highly respect everything Paul says. I won't even touch on the DDT =
> topic.
>
> Respectfully where respect is due,
>
> Dave Whitacre, apparently one of the few ecologists sans SUV and with a =
> modestly-sized house
>
>
>
>  competing for many hundreds of millions of dollars worth of newly
>> available climate change grant money.  And that's my point - that
>> climate change has been a recent a financial windfall for
>> the catastrophic man-made global warming camp of scientists.
>
> This hardly constitutes an economic "windfall." These researchers, who =
> are engaging in peer-reviewed science, are hardly driving new sports =
> cars because a couple of institutions have donated money for climate =
> research. The NSF funding rate for many grants has decreased in recent =
> years, due to budget cuts by our current administration. Presumably, if =
> a research project doesn't get funded (and many don't), then the PI =
> picks a different project.  Given that it takes a good ten years of =
> education before someone's ready to do independent research, I hardly =
> think today's climate scientists were in the wings a decade or more ago =
> plotting for ways to bring climate change to the forefront so they'd =
> have job security. The in funding was brought about by the science, not =
> the other way around.=20
>
>> By contrast, there are only a relatively small numbers of scientists =
> who
>> make their living (via corporate-fronted foundations) promoting the
>> idea that the causes of global warming are not mostly man made
>> or that nothing can be done that will effectively delay warming
>> by more than a few years.
>
> I thought that the purpose of applying for federal research dollars was =
> not to use the funds to "promote" a particular agenda, but to test an =
> hypothesis?=20
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Jacquelyn Gill
>


Malcolm L. McCallum
Assistant Professor of Biology
Editor Herpetological Conservation and Biology
http://www.herpconbio.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Prominent scientist who have changed their minds on Global Warming

[Larry T. Spencer]

As someone who has followed this area very closely (though not doing 
research per se), it is interesting that the site that lists the 
prominent scientists is none other than the blog of Sen. Imhofe of 
Oklahoma who when he was chair of the committee had requested tons of 
materials from the people who had put together the long term record of 
temperature change. He is the same Senator, who made some outrageous 
statements about the science and its practitioners.

We do know that climate has been quite variable in the past, with some 
pretty large swings, Luckily, we weren't present when those swings took 
place.  Unfortunately, we are here today and in ever growing numbers 
and living in locations that will be quickly affected by even minimal 
changes in sea level. We all saw what impact the loss of the wetland 
buffers had on New Orleans with respect to Katrina.  A little bit of 
sea level rise with strong on-shore winds will wreck havoc in many 
parts of the world. Recent reports by the National Snow/Ice Center in 
Boulder indicates that more sea ice has melted in the past decade than 
in previous decades. Although the melting of sea ice does not increase 
sea level, the melting of the glaciers on Greenland certainly will. I 
hope Paul's house is not at sea level :)

Larry

-- 
Larry T. Spencer, Professor Emeritus of Biology
Plymouth State University


This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

Science, ethics, and professionalism Re: Scientists versus activists

[Wayne Tyson]

Evidence, evidence, evidence!

However, cannot one set aside the distracting tedium and get down to 
the question of whether or not academic institutions (not to mention 
individual researchers) are so grant-driven that education and 
research has suffered to some extent thereby?  If so, to what 
extent?  Significant or insignificant?

I make no judgment on the global warming issue or any other 
particular issue--that's where one needs the specific evidence.

WT

There are two kinds of professional; one puts the work first, the 
other the buck.

At 12:37 PM 10/12/2007, Val Smith wrote:
>I am very puzzled by Paul Cherubini's suggestion that increases in
>climate change research funding has been "a recent a financial [sic]
>windfall for the catastrophic man-made global warming camp of
>scientists."  The term windfall has built-in negative connotations
>that could potentially be taken to imply that some of us are out
>there waiting to "exploit" this real-world problem, and thus are
>indulging in some kind of ecoprostitution.  I take very strong issue
>with such an assertion, if that was the intent.  By extension, would
>it be suggested that Bill and Melinda Gates' new initiative on Grand
>Challenges in Global Health (http://www.gcgh.org/Projects/) provides
>a similar kind of windfall for human health researchers, rather than
>being viewed as creating a much-needed investment in research
>directed in improving human well-being?
>
>Val Smith
>Professor
>University of Kansas
>
>At 12:52 PM 10/12/2007, Paul Cherubini wrote:
> >Wil Burns wrote:
> >
> > > 1. If you want to cash in on climate change, you'd actually
> > > be a skeptic. There's way too many people competing for
> > > university and foundation grants if you support this
> > > "radical" thesis. By contrast, if you want to be a
> > > skeptic, there's an array of corporate-fronted foundations
> > > that will bestow cash on you, so your thesis is internally illogical;
> >
> >I agree many scientists today  - probably thousands - are
> >competing for many hundreds of millions of dollars worth of newly
> >available climate change grant money.  And that's my point - that
> >climate change has been a recent a financial windfall for
> >the catastrophic man-made global warming camp of scientists.
> >Here are just are few of many available examples of the
> >kind of money being allocated:
> >
> >HSBC To Donate $100 Million For Climate Research
> >http://tinyurl.com/37n9kj
> >
> >$9 million to fund climate research
> >http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2005/2/16/9MillionToFundClimateResearch
> >
> >By contrast, there are only a relatively small numbers of scientists who
> >make their living (via corporate-fronted foundations) promoting the
> >idea that the causes of global warming are not mostly man made
> >or that nothing can be done that will effectively delay warming
> >by more than a few years.
> >
> >But to get back to Maiken Winter's original questions:
> >
> > > How much more evidence do we need? Why is there such an incredible
> > > resistance among scientists to get active?
> >
> >I would suggest Maiken take a look at this US Senate Committee Minority
> >page website http://tinyurl.com/36jyvw that provides detailed information
> >on the views of 12 prominent scientists who used to be members of the
> >catastrophic man-made global warming camp and are now skeptics.
> >
> >Paul Cherubini
> >El Dorado, Calif.
>
>Val H. Smith
>Professor
>Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
>University of Kansas
>Lawrence, KS 66045
>785-864-4565
>FAX:  785-864-5321
>e-mail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Nobel

[David Inouye]

It was interesting to hear the Nobel prizewinner in chemistry this 
year say in an interview I heard on the radio that he had some 
trepidation about receiving the award because he would now be 
expected to give expert opinion on issues about which he knew little. 
I think he specifically mentioned climate change as an example. 

Re: Scientists versus activists

[Warren W. Aney]

Paul says:  "There's a lot more money to be made by saying the world
is coming to an end than to say that this is a bunch of hooey."

Common sense says: "There's a lot more money to be saved by taking measures
to counter man-induced global warming emissions and then being wrong about
climate change in comparison to the amount of money (and lives) that would
be lost if we say this is a bunch of hooey, doing nothing, and then being
wrong."

Warren W. Aney
Tigard, Oregon

-Original Message-
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Houlahan, Jeff
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 2:51 PM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: Scientists versus activists


Hi Paul and all. These are an odd set of statements from two tenured and
well-funded
skeptics of human-induced global warming.

Jeff

> Val Smith wrote:
>
> > The term windfall has built-in negative connotations
> > that could potentially be taken to imply that some of us are out
> > there waiting to "exploit" this real-world problem, and thus are
> > indulging in some kind of ecoprostitution.  I take very strong issue
> > with such an assertion, if that was the intent.
>
> Here is what some climate scientists themselves have say:
> http://tinyurl.com/27eozg
>
> David Legates, Delaware state climatologist:
> "There's a lot more money to be made by saying the world
> is coming to an end than to say that this is a bunch of hooey."
>
> Reid Bryson: "If you want to be an eminent scientist, you
> have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You
> can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes,
> carbon dioxide.'"
>
> Legates tells students who are not global-warming true believers,
> "If you don't have tenure at a major research university, keep
> your mouth shut."
>
> Paul Cherubini
> El Dorado, Calif.
>
>


Jeff Houlahan
Dept of Biology
University of New Brunswick Saint John
PO Box 5050
Saint John New Brunswick
E2L 4L5 Canada
telephone (office): (506) 648-5967
telephone (department): (506) 648 -5565
fax: (506) 648-5811
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Scientists versus activists

[DAVID WHITACRE]

Jacqueline,

Those climate scientists are probably not driving new sports cars, since =
Paul Cherubini has repeatedly explained to this list in the past that =
ecologists (if not climate scientists)--generally described by him as =
"affluent"--generally live in over-sized houses and drive gas-guzzling =
SUV's. I'm sure there are some ecologists who do. Based on that, I =
highly respect everything Paul says. I won't even touch on the DDT =
topic.

Respectfully where respect is due,

Dave Whitacre, apparently one of the few ecologists sans SUV and with a =
modestly-sized house



 competing for many hundreds of millions of dollars worth of newly
> available climate change grant money.  And that's my point - that
> climate change has been a recent a financial windfall for
> the catastrophic man-made global warming camp of scientists.

This hardly constitutes an economic "windfall." These researchers, who =
are engaging in peer-reviewed science, are hardly driving new sports =
cars because a couple of institutions have donated money for climate =
research. The NSF funding rate for many grants has decreased in recent =
years, due to budget cuts by our current administration. Presumably, if =
a research project doesn't get funded (and many don't), then the PI =
picks a different project.  Given that it takes a good ten years of =
education before someone's ready to do independent research, I hardly =
think today's climate scientists were in the wings a decade or more ago =
plotting for ways to bring climate change to the forefront so they'd =
have job security. The in funding was brought about by the science, not =
the other way around.=20

> By contrast, there are only a relatively small numbers of scientists =
who
> make their living (via corporate-fronted foundations) promoting the
> idea that the causes of global warming are not mostly man made
> or that nothing can be done that will effectively delay warming
> by more than a few years.

I thought that the purpose of applying for federal research dollars was =
not to use the funds to "promote" a particular agenda, but to test an =
hypothesis?=20

Respectfully,

Jacquelyn Gill

Re: Reference

[Wirt Atmar]

Pete asks:

>  Back in April there was some discussion regarding a video on climate
>  change (global warming swindle).  This video showed (if I remember
>  correctly) how sun spots or solar radiation correlated with global
>  temperatures.  In response to this video, someone posted an article that
>  referenced the intentional manipulation or fitting of data to prove this
>  point, and that in fact, since the 70's or so, this correlation no longer
>  exists.  Can someone remind me of the title and author of this paper?

Just as prefatory note, all postings to ECOLOG-L are archived at:

 https://listserv.umd.edu/archives/ecolog-l.html

To find the posting that you were referring to, I simply searched on the word
"swindle," which is not a commonly used word on the list. The posting you are
referring to can be found in the archives at:

 https://listserv.umd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0704C&L=ECOLOG-L&D=0&I=-3&P=9879

That posting in turn refers to Chris Merchant's webpage at:

 http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/chris/

which has the material (and more now) that you are looking for.

Wirt Atmar

AICS Research, Inc.
University Park, NM  88003-4691
(505) 524-9800
(505) 526-4700 fax
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://aics-research.com/research/

Re: Scientists versus activists

[JACQUELYN GILL]

Hello all,

Another note: Dr. Bryson can't be speaking on this issue from personal 
experience, as he's been retired for twenty years. A couple of individuals who 
aren't actively engaging in peer-review science aren't the best examples to 
cite. 

.j.


Jacquelyn Gill
Graduate Research Assistant
Jack Williams Lab

University of Wisconsin - Madison
Department of Geography
550 North Park St.
Madison, WI 53706

608.890.1188 (phone)
608.265.9331 (fax)

- Original Message -
From: "Houlahan, Jeff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, October 12, 2007 5:12 pm
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Scientists versus activists
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU

> Hi Paul and all. These are an odd set of statements from two tenured 
> and well-funded
> skeptics of human-induced global warming.  
> 
> Jeff
> 
> > Val Smith wrote:
> > 
> > > The term windfall has built-in negative connotations
> > > that could potentially be taken to imply that some of us are out
> > > there waiting to "exploit" this real-world problem, and thus are
> > > indulging in some kind of ecoprostitution.  I take very strong issue
> > > with such an assertion, if that was the intent. 
> > 
> > Here is what some climate scientists themselves have say:
> > http://tinyurl.com/27eozg
> > 
> > David Legates, Delaware state climatologist: 
> > "There's a lot more money to be made by saying the world 
> > is coming to an end than to say that this is a bunch of hooey."
> > 
> > Reid Bryson: "If you want to be an eminent scientist, you 
> > have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You 
> > can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, 
> > carbon dioxide.'"
> > 
> > Legates tells students who are not global-warming true believers, 
> > "If you don't have tenure at a major research university, keep
> > your mouth shut."
> > 
> > Paul Cherubini
> > El Dorado, Calif.
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> Jeff Houlahan
> Dept of Biology
> University of New Brunswick Saint John
> PO Box 5050
> Saint John New Brunswick
> E2L 4L5 Canada
> telephone (office): (506) 648-5967
> telephone (department): (506) 648 -5565
> fax: (506) 648-5811
> email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reference

[Peter]

Back in April there was some discussion regarding a video on climate 
change (global warming swindle).  This video showed (if I remember 
correctly) how sun spots or solar radiation correlated with global 
temperatures.  In response to this video, someone posted an article that 
referenced the intentional manipulation or fitting of data to prove this 
point, and that in fact, since the 70's or so, this correlation no longer 
exists.  Can someone remind me of the title and author of this paper?

Thanks.

Re: Scientists versus activists

[Houlahan, Jeff]

Hi Paul and all. These are an odd set of statements from two tenured and 
well-funded
skeptics of human-induced global warming.  

Jeff

> Val Smith wrote:
> 
> > The term windfall has built-in negative connotations
> > that could potentially be taken to imply that some of us are out
> > there waiting to "exploit" this real-world problem, and thus are
> > indulging in some kind of ecoprostitution.  I take very strong issue
> > with such an assertion, if that was the intent. 
> 
> Here is what some climate scientists themselves have say:
> http://tinyurl.com/27eozg
> 
> David Legates, Delaware state climatologist: 
> "There's a lot more money to be made by saying the world 
> is coming to an end than to say that this is a bunch of hooey."
> 
> Reid Bryson: "If you want to be an eminent scientist, you 
> have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You 
> can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, 
> carbon dioxide.'"
> 
> Legates tells students who are not global-warming true believers, 
> "If you don't have tenure at a major research university, keep
> your mouth shut."
> 
> Paul Cherubini
> El Dorado, Calif.
> 
> 


Jeff Houlahan
Dept of Biology
University of New Brunswick Saint John
PO Box 5050
Saint John New Brunswick
E2L 4L5 Canada
telephone (office): (506) 648-5967
telephone (department): (506) 648 -5565
fax: (506) 648-5811
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: prominent scientist skeptics

[David Inouye]

I looked up information on one (and only one) of the "prominent 
scientists who used to be members of the catastrophic man-made global 
warming camp and are now skeptics." listed at the URL below. Although 
he is listed with the address University of Alberta on that web site, 
his connection there appears to be as an instructor who has taught a 
"faculty of extension" course on home building ("Building an Energy 
Efficient Home for Less") at the University of Alberta Extension 
Department at the Devonian Gardens.  It's not clear what makes him a 
"prominent scientist" based on a quick Internet search.



>But to get back to Maiken Winter's original questions:
>
> > How much more evidence do we need? Why is there such an incredible
> > resistance among scientists to get active?
>
>I would suggest Maiken take a look at this US Senate Committee Minority
>page website http://tinyurl.com/36jyvw that provides detailed information
>on the views of 12 prominent scientists who used to be members of the
>catastrophic man-made global warming camp and are now skeptics.
>
>Paul Cherubini
>El Dorado, Calif.

Re: Scientists versus activists

[David Bryant]

Val and Wil,

Lets be open minded, I think Paul may have a point here;  I myself  
spent 7 years in graduate school studying effects of acid rain on  
forest and tundra nutrient cycles receiving $11K - $18K annually of  
NSF funded taxpayer dollars.  As a Post-Doc the windfall was more  
than doubled and that doesn't include the transportation to and from  
Antarctica not to mention the weekly phone calls to my wife for 6  
months.  So all told I have gleaned nearly $300,000 over 12 years to  
study global change, and only had to pay for cross country relocation  
3 times!.  The money devoted to the topic has grown so large that  
literally hundreds of newly minted PhDs compete vigorously for the  
dozens of faculty positions through which future funding will be  
provided.  In fact I have grown so affluent from scientific funding  
that I am able to "retire" early and pursue a career as an adjunct  
professor at a local community college.

Why do you think the 3000 plus IPCC scientists devoted their free  
time over the last 28 years?  Obviously, so they could divide up the  
millions in Noble Prize money.  I pity those poor dozen skeptics who  
now have only Western Fuels and King Coal to look to for research funds.

David Bryant

On Oct 12, 2007, at 3:37 PM, Val Smith wrote:

> I am very puzzled by Paul Cherubini's suggestion that increases in
> climate change research funding has been "a recent a financial [sic]
> windfall for the catastrophic man-made global warming camp of
> scientists."  The term windfall has built-in negative connotations
> that could potentially be taken to imply that some of us are out
> there waiting to "exploit" this real-world problem, and thus are
> indulging in some kind of ecoprostitution.  I take very strong issue
> with such an assertion, if that was the intent.  By extension, would
> it be suggested that Bill and Melinda Gates' new initiative on Grand
> Challenges in Global Health (http://www.gcgh.org/Projects/) provides
> a similar kind of windfall for human health researchers, rather than
> being viewed as creating a much-needed investment in research
> directed in improving human well-being?
>
> Val Smith
> Professor
> University of Kansas
>
> At 12:52 PM 10/12/2007, Paul Cherubini wrote:
>> Wil Burns wrote:
>>
>>> 1. If you want to cash in on climate change, you'd actually
>>> be a skeptic. There's way too many people competing for
>>> university and foundation grants if you support this
>>> "radical" thesis. By contrast, if you want to be a
>>> skeptic, there's an array of corporate-fronted foundations
>>> that will bestow cash on you, so your thesis is internally  
>>> illogical;
>>
>> I agree many scientists today  - probably thousands - are
>> competing for many hundreds of millions of dollars worth of newly
>> available climate change grant money.  And that's my point - that
>> climate change has been a recent a financial windfall for
>> the catastrophic man-made global warming camp of scientists.
>> Here are just are few of many available examples of the
>> kind of money being allocated:
>>
>> HSBC To Donate $100 Million For Climate Research
>> http://tinyurl.com/37n9kj
>>
>> $9 million to fund climate research
>> http://daily.stanford.edu/article/ 
>> 2005/2/16/9MillionToFundClimateResearch
>>
>> By contrast, there are only a relatively small numbers of  
>> scientists who
>> make their living (via corporate-fronted foundations) promoting the
>> idea that the causes of global warming are not mostly man made
>> or that nothing can be done that will effectively delay warming
>> by more than a few years.
>>
>> But to get back to Maiken Winter's original questions:
>>
>>> How much more evidence do we need? Why is there such an incredible
>>> resistance among scientists to get active?
>>
>> I would suggest Maiken take a look at this US Senate Committee  
>> Minority
>> page website http://tinyurl.com/36jyvw that provides detailed  
>> information
>> on the views of 12 prominent scientists who used to be members of the
>> catastrophic man-made global warming camp and are now skeptics.
>>
>> Paul Cherubini
>> El Dorado, Calif.
>
> Val H. Smith
> Professor
> Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
> University of Kansas
> Lawrence, KS 66045
> 785-864-4565
> FAX:  785-864-5321
> e-mail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Scientists versus activists

[Paul Cherubini]

Val Smith wrote:

> The term windfall has built-in negative connotations
> that could potentially be taken to imply that some of us are out
> there waiting to "exploit" this real-world problem, and thus are
> indulging in some kind of ecoprostitution.  I take very strong issue
> with such an assertion, if that was the intent. 

Here is what some climate scientists themselves have say:
http://tinyurl.com/27eozg

David Legates, Delaware state climatologist: 
"There's a lot more money to be made by saying the world 
is coming to an end than to say that this is a bunch of hooey."

Reid Bryson: "If you want to be an eminent scientist, you 
have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You 
can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, 
carbon dioxide.'"

Legates tells students who are not global-warming true believers, 
"If you don't have tenure at a major research university, keep
your mouth shut."

Paul Cherubini
El Dorado, Calif.

Re: Scientists versus activists

[JACQUELYN GILL]

> competing for many hundreds of millions of dollars worth of newly
> available climate change grant money.  And that's my point - that
> climate change has been a recent a financial windfall for
> the catastrophic man-made global warming camp of scientists.

This hardly constitutes an economic "windfall." These researchers, who are 
engaging in peer-reviewed science, are hardly driving new sports cars because a 
couple of institutions have donated money for climate research. The NSF funding 
rate for many grants has decreased in recent years, due to budget cuts by our 
current administration. Presumably, if a research project doesn't get funded 
(and many don't), then the PI picks a different project.  Given that it takes a 
good ten years of education before someone's ready to do independent research, 
I hardly think today's climate scientists were in the wings a decade or more 
ago plotting for ways to bring climate change to the forefront so they'd have 
job security. The in funding was brought about by the science, not the other 
way around. 

> By contrast, there are only a relatively small numbers of scientists who
> make their living (via corporate-fronted foundations) promoting the
> idea that the causes of global warming are not mostly man made
> or that nothing can be done that will effectively delay warming
> by more than a few years.

I thought that the purpose of applying for federal research dollars was not to 
use the funds to "promote" a particular agenda, but to test an hypothesis? 

Respectfully,

Jacquelyn Gill

Re: Scientists versus activists

[johoma]

Actually, most of the $100 million of the HSBC climate change money  
is for long-term conservation projects, not research per se. HSBC is  
not setting itself up along the lines of the Bill and Melinda Gates  
Foundation or the NSF but filling in a genuine gap for work on  
restoration, remediation, planning, and adaptation.


On Oct 12, 2007, at 10:52 AM, Paul Cherubini wrote:

> Wil Burns wrote:
>
>> 1. If you want to cash in on climate change, you'd actually
>> be a skeptic. There's way too many people competing for
>> university and foundation grants if you support this
>> "radical" thesis. By contrast, if you want to be a
>> skeptic, there's an array of corporate-fronted foundations
>> that will bestow cash on you, so your thesis is internally illogical;
>
> I agree many scientists today  - probably thousands - are
> competing for many hundreds of millions of dollars worth of newly
> available climate change grant money.  And that's my point - that
> climate change has been a recent a financial windfall for
> the catastrophic man-made global warming camp of scientists.
> Here are just are few of many available examples of the
> kind of money being allocated:
>
> HSBC To Donate $100 Million For Climate Research
> http://tinyurl.com/37n9kj
>
> $9 million to fund climate research
> http://daily.stanford.edu/article/ 
> 2005/2/16/9MillionToFundClimateResearch
>
> By contrast, there are only a relatively small numbers of  
> scientists who
> make their living (via corporate-fronted foundations) promoting the
> idea that the causes of global warming are not mostly man made
> or that nothing can be done that will effectively delay warming
> by more than a few years.
>
> But to get back to Maiken Winter's original questions:
>
>> How much more evidence do we need? Why is there such an incredible
>> resistance among scientists to get active?
>
> I would suggest Maiken take a look at this US Senate Committee  
> Minority
> page website http://tinyurl.com/36jyvw that provides detailed  
> information
> on the views of 12 prominent scientists who used to be members of the
> catastrophic man-made global warming camp and are now skeptics.
>
> Paul Cherubini
> El Dorado, Calif.

statistical test on CV

[Junran Li]

Dear all,

I was studying soil nutrient spatial heterogeneity by calculating 
coefficient of variation (CV) over different years, but I have hard time to 
find out a statistical method to test for significance. Any suggestions or 
references in this regard would be highly appreciated.

-J

Junran Li
Department of Environmental Sciences
University of Virginia
291 McCormick Rd
Charlottesville, VA 22903

Re: Scientists versus activists

[Val Smith]

I am very puzzled by Paul Cherubini's suggestion that increases in 
climate change research funding has been "a recent a financial [sic] 
windfall for the catastrophic man-made global warming camp of 
scientists."  The term windfall has built-in negative connotations 
that could potentially be taken to imply that some of us are out 
there waiting to "exploit" this real-world problem, and thus are 
indulging in some kind of ecoprostitution.  I take very strong issue 
with such an assertion, if that was the intent.  By extension, would 
it be suggested that Bill and Melinda Gates' new initiative on Grand 
Challenges in Global Health (http://www.gcgh.org/Projects/) provides 
a similar kind of windfall for human health researchers, rather than 
being viewed as creating a much-needed investment in research 
directed in improving human well-being?

Val Smith
Professor
University of Kansas

At 12:52 PM 10/12/2007, Paul Cherubini wrote:
>Wil Burns wrote:
>
> > 1. If you want to cash in on climate change, you'd actually
> > be a skeptic. There's way too many people competing for
> > university and foundation grants if you support this
> > "radical" thesis. By contrast, if you want to be a
> > skeptic, there's an array of corporate-fronted foundations
> > that will bestow cash on you, so your thesis is internally illogical;
>
>I agree many scientists today  - probably thousands - are
>competing for many hundreds of millions of dollars worth of newly
>available climate change grant money.  And that's my point - that
>climate change has been a recent a financial windfall for
>the catastrophic man-made global warming camp of scientists.
>Here are just are few of many available examples of the
>kind of money being allocated:
>
>HSBC To Donate $100 Million For Climate Research
>http://tinyurl.com/37n9kj
>
>$9 million to fund climate research
>http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2005/2/16/9MillionToFundClimateResearch
>
>By contrast, there are only a relatively small numbers of scientists who
>make their living (via corporate-fronted foundations) promoting the
>idea that the causes of global warming are not mostly man made
>or that nothing can be done that will effectively delay warming
>by more than a few years.
>
>But to get back to Maiken Winter's original questions:
>
> > How much more evidence do we need? Why is there such an incredible
> > resistance among scientists to get active?
>
>I would suggest Maiken take a look at this US Senate Committee Minority
>page website http://tinyurl.com/36jyvw that provides detailed information
>on the views of 12 prominent scientists who used to be members of the
>catastrophic man-made global warming camp and are now skeptics.
>
>Paul Cherubini
>El Dorado, Calif.

Val H. Smith
Professor
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
University of Kansas
Lawrence, KS 66045
785-864-4565
FAX:  785-864-5321
e-mail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Faculty Position - Global Change Ecologist

[Tom Rooney]

Global Change Ecology. The Department of Biological Sciences of Wright State 
University invites 
applications for a tenure-track faculty position at the level of ASSISTANT OR 
ASSOCIATE 
PROFESSOR. Successful candidates must have a doctorate by time of appointment 
and sufficient 
research experience to develop a vigorous externally funded research program 
exploring the 
effects of global change on ecological processes in aquatic and/or terrestrial 
ecosystems at the 
landscape, regional or global scale. Aspects of global change include, but are 
not limited to, 
climate change, changing use or quality of land or water, species invasions or 
losses, and 
emerging diseases. We seek to expand and complement current departmental 
strengths in 
studying the ecological and evolutionary consequences of species interactions 
to individuals, 
communities and ecosystems.
A competitive start-up package will be tailored to the specific needs of the 
successful candidate. 
Teaching responsibilities may include courses at the undergraduate and/or 
graduate level. 
Graduate programs include the College of Science and Mathematics’ (CoSM) 
inter-departmental 
Environmental Sciences Ph.D. program, the Biomedical Sciences Ph.D. program, 
which integrates 
across CoSM and the Boonshoft School of Medicine, the Biological Sciences M.S. 
program, and 
the Microbiology and Immunology M.S. program. Resources in support of research 
include 
genomics and proteomics facilities, animal care and aquarium facilities, 
greenhouse, on-campus 
wooded Biology Preserve and regional natural areas, and numerous area research 
institutions, 
including Wright Patterson Air Force Base.
WSU has nearly 17,000 undergraduate and graduate students, and the department 
graduates 
approximately 150 students per year.  To be considered for associate professor, 
candidates must 
have a record of excellence in scholarship and teaching as defined in the 
Department of 
Biological Sciences bylaws. 
Interested applicants should send a curriculum vitae, statements of research 
and teaching 
interests, and names and contact information for three references to Chair of 
the Global Change 
Ecology Search Committee, Department of Biological Sciences, Wright State 
University, Dayton, 
OH 45435-0001.  Electronic applications can be sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
Review of 
applicants for all positions will begin November 30, 2007, and continue until 
all positions are 
filled.

Faculty Position - Molecular Ecologist/Ecological Genomics

[Tom Rooney]

Molecular Ecology/Ecological Genomics. The Department of Biological Sciences of 
Wright State 
University invites applications for a tenure-track faculty position at the 
level of ASSISTANT OR 
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR. Successful candidates must have a doctorate by time of 
appointment and 
sufficient research experience to develop a vigorous externally funded research 
program that 
uses molecular tools to address questions in ecology or environmental sciences. 
Opportunities 
exist for collaboration with faculty in the areas of aquatic, terrestrial and 
evolutionary ecology 
and other scientific disciplines.
A competitive start-up package will be tailored to the specific needs of the 
successful candidate. 
Teaching responsibilities may include courses at the undergraduate and/or 
graduate level. 
Graduate programs include the College of Science and Mathematics’ (CoSM) 
inter-departmental 
Environmental Sciences Ph.D. program, the Biomedical Sciences Ph.D. program, 
which integrates 
across CoSM and the Boonshoft School of Medicine, the Biological Sciences M.S. 
program, and 
the Microbiology and Immunology M.S. program. Resources in support of research 
include 
genomics and proteomics facilities, animal care and aquarium facilities, 
greenhouse, on-campus 
wooded Biology Preserve and regional natural areas, and numerous area research 
institutions, 
including Wright Patterson Air Force Base.
WSU has nearly 17,000 undergraduate and graduate students, and the department 
graduates 
approximately 150 students per year.  To be considered for associate professor, 
candidates must 
have a record of excellence in scholarship and teaching as defined in the 
Department of 
Biological Sciences bylaws. 
Interested applicants should send a curriculum vitae, statements of research 
and teaching 
interests, and names and contact information for three references to Chair of 
the Molecular 
Ecology Search Committee, Department of Biological Sciences, Wright State 
University, Dayton, 
OH 45435-0001. Electronic applications can be sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Review 
of applicants 
for all positions will begin November 30, 2007, and continue until all 
positions are filled.

Re: Scientists versus activists

[Paul Cherubini]

Wil Burns wrote:

> 1. If you want to cash in on climate change, you'd actually
> be a skeptic. There's way too many people competing for
> university and foundation grants if you support this
> "radical" thesis. By contrast, if you want to be a
> skeptic, there's an array of corporate-fronted foundations
> that will bestow cash on you, so your thesis is internally illogical;

I agree many scientists today  - probably thousands - are
competing for many hundreds of millions of dollars worth of newly
available climate change grant money.  And that's my point - that
climate change has been a recent a financial windfall for
the catastrophic man-made global warming camp of scientists.
Here are just are few of many available examples of the
kind of money being allocated:

HSBC To Donate $100 Million For Climate Research
http://tinyurl.com/37n9kj

$9 million to fund climate research
http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2005/2/16/9MillionToFundClimateResearch

By contrast, there are only a relatively small numbers of scientists who
make their living (via corporate-fronted foundations) promoting the
idea that the causes of global warming are not mostly man made
or that nothing can be done that will effectively delay warming
by more than a few years.

But to get back to Maiken Winter's original questions:

> How much more evidence do we need? Why is there such an incredible
> resistance among scientists to get active?

I would suggest Maiken take a look at this US Senate Committee Minority
page website http://tinyurl.com/36jyvw that provides detailed information 
on the views of 12 prominent scientists who used to be members of the 
catastrophic man-made global warming camp and are now skeptics.

Paul Cherubini
El Dorado, Calif.

Sponge key

[Hilary Richardson]

Hello list,
I was wondering if anyone on this list serve knows of a good sponge key? 
I have been unsuccessful in finding any comprehensive guide to this 
group. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Regards,
Hilary Richardson

Trouble using ICP-MS to Analyze Aquatic Plant Material

[Lesley Bensinger]

Hi!

I am a graduate student studying the trace metal accumulation in several 
aquatic plants and in sediments using ICP-MS.

I am having trouble?generating reliable data however. Using EPA digestion 
methods 3051 and 3021 I am only able to get between 0-10% recoveries on my 
reference standards.? I can't figure out what I am doing wrong!

Has anyone used ICP-MS to study plant and sediment samples?? If so, would you 
mind reading on to help me discover where I'm going wrong?? I feel like it's 
something?obvious and right in front of me, but I am just unable to see my 
error!

Ok,? here's what I have done to the samples...

1.? For microwave digestion I tried both EPA 3052 and EPA 3051 (3052 for plant 
samples only, 3051 for both plant and sediment reference standards)? I followed 
these methods exactly, using only nitric acid.?

2.? Following digestion the samples were centrifuged and decanted.

3.? Samples were diluted 100x.? (.5mL of digestate, 2.5mL of HNO3, .5 g 
Yttrium, and brought to 50g with DI water)

4. Samples were run on the ICP-MS (the daily performance and internal standards 
were all acceptable)

5. Data reported by the ICP is in ppb while the data reported by the reference 
standards are in ppm, so I first corrected each raw element data for the blank, 
then the dilution factor.? Then I converted ppb to ppm and calculated percent 
recovery.

Again,?most recoveries were within 0-10% of the certified values.

I am thinking that one thing I am not properly accounting for is the initial 
weight of the dry sample being digested.? However one of the reference 
standards used the same mass I am using (0.1g).

Because most of the?% recovery values I have are within 10% of each other I 
suspect I am making a systematic error somewhere in?this process.
?
I would really appreciate any suggestions or guidance to correct this problem.? 
I am out of ideas!

Thank you!

Lesley

-Original Message-
From: Jim Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Sent: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 3:25 pm
Subject: Study in Africa in 2008: Conservation and Biodiversity in South 
African Parks and Nature Reserves



Study in Africa in 2008


 


Conservation and Biodiversity in South African Parks and Nature Reserves


 

May 10 to June 5, 2008


 


Have you always wanted to go to Africa?  To see, study, and explore the rich
diversity of wildlife and natural resources?  Here's an amazing opportunity
to do just that!  


 


In Summer 2008, the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, through the Office
of Study Abroad, at Michigan State University will be making it's 4th,
4-week excursion to South Africa, to explore the Conservation and
Biodiversity of their Parks and Nature Reserves.  We'll tour various parks
and nature reserves throughout South Africa, including Timbavati Private
Nature Reserve, Kruger National Park, Manyeleti Nature Reserve, Pilanesberg
Game Reserve, Kalahari Transfrontier Park, De Hoop Nature Reserve, Agulhas
National Park, Boulders African Penguin colony, Cape of Good Hope, Table
Mountain National Park and Robben Island.

 

At a time when natural resource managers are asked to consider global
contexts of biodiversity and ecosystem approaches to management, this course
will expose students to various South African ecosystems and will broaden
students' scope of management by taking into account the impacts that
land-based activities and international policies have on the natural
communities in these ecosystems. The role of game reserves, nature reserves,
and national parks as management tools will be investigated and students
will be introduced to social issues that are encountered when protection of
biodiversity restrictions are imposed on a society.  We will also address
the role of hunting as a management tool of big game species on private game
reserves and the impact of hunting on the surrounding communities.

 

Students will familiarize themselves with the flora and fauna of the
different ecosystems visited; will interact with government officials and
land managers; and will participate in hands-on learning, including
bushwalks, habitat sampling, population surveys and other field experiments.


 


This program is perfectly suited for undergraduate students studying
ecology, natural resources, and wildlife biology, ecology and/or management.
We can take a maximum of 12 students.  Preference is for Wildlife/Natural
Resource type students with an ecology background, but students from other
biological majors that are passionate and excited about exploring South
African wildlife and natural resources are also encouraged to apply.

 

Each student participating in this programs enrolls in 6 credits of FW 480 -
International Studies in Fisheries and Wildlife at MSU.  While this is a
Michigan State University program, students from non-MSU colleges and
universities are welcome and encouraged to apply.  Over the past 3 summers
students from Ball State University, Central Michigan University,

GRADUATE RESEARCH ASSISTANTSHIP: SYSTEMS ANALYSIS IN NATURAL RESOURCE

[Sandor F. Toth]

The College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle is
seeking qualified individuals in the area of natural resource decision
systems. This program focuses on developing quantitative mathematical models
to aid natural resource management. The position will be filled at either
the Masters or at the Ph.D. level. The Ph.D. level is preferred.

RESEARCH TOPICS: Multi-criteria decision making in natural resources;
optimal reserve selection problems; spatial optimization in invasive species
management; and modeling timber and non-timber tradeoffs in spatial forest
planning.

STIPEND: At the College of Forest Resources starting assistantships
range from $1,451 (Master's) to $1,559 (Ph.D.) per month. Tuition is
waived and health benefits are included. Dependents can be insured at a
small extra fee.

TENTATIVE STARTING DATE: March 1, 2008

DESIRABLE QUALIFICATIONS: Science degree in forestry, environmental
science, economics, operations research or management science, with an
interest or ability in quantitative techniques and computer programming.
An interest in the application to forestry / environmental problems. If
applicable, a minimum grade point average of 3.00 (A = 4.00). Acceptable
GRE scores.

APPLICATION PROCEDURE: Interested individuals should contact:

Dr. Sándor F. Tóth
Assistant Professor of Natural Resource Informatics
College of Forest Resources, University of Washington
Box 352100, Seattle, WA 98195-2100
Tel.: 206-616-2738
Fax.: 206-685-0790
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
URL: http://faculty.washington.edu/toths/   

Re: Scientists versus activists

[joseph gathman]

> From:Malcolm McCallum
> If I submitted a paper with legitimate results
> showing that climate change was not occuring or that
> it was not linked to greenhouse gases, I would
> make the front page of science and nature, every
> newspaper in the world and be inundated with funds 

Malcolm,

While I agree with you in general, and certainly don't
share the views of our resident contrarian, Paul, it
should be noted that there has been pretty recent
legitimate research showing that the effect of solar
activity on our climate has probably been
underestimated.  This was reported in science news
sources, but certainly hasn't made a splash in
mainstream news.  

In fact, it has seemed odd to me that scientists (me
included, albeit as a grad student back then) warned
about global warming for many years, to little effect,
and then suddenly, and rather recently, it has gone
mainstream in a really big way.  For all those years
any mainstream media (MSM) mention of GW was met with
all kinds of "skepticism" and derision (if it was
mentioned at all), and then there was an abrupt shift
with all major newspapers repeatedly printing GW
stories, GW in general being discussed as an accepted
phenomenon, and Al Gore trotting out a film that makes
somewhat exaggerated claims, largely unchallenged in
the MSM.  Now a Nobel Peace Prize?  Seems a bit over
the top.

Joe


> 
> Scientists are in the business of doing research,
> how the results defend
> or rebut a hypothesis are inconsiquential.  Even if
> those results go
> against conventional wisdom, church teachings,
> public opinion, or
> industrial might.
> 
> Malcolm McCallum
> 
> On Wed, October 10, 2007 1:14 pm, Wil Burns wrote:
> > This has to be one of the more inane postings I've
> seen in a while here:
> >
> > 1. If you want to cash in on climate change, you'd
> actually be a skeptic.
> > There's way too many people competing for
> university and foundation grants
> > if you support this "radical" thesis. By contrast,
> if you want to be a
> > skeptic, there's an array of corporate-fronted
> foundations that will
> > bestow
> > cash on you, so your thesis is internally
> illogical;
> > 2. Oh, so ozone depletion isn't a concern anymore?
> Funny, we had a hole
> > 1.5
> > times the size of North America last year over the
> Antarctic, and the
> > Dobson
> > unit measurements in some places well below 100.
> Well, why should we worry
> > about a few million additional cases of
> potentially lethal skin cancer?
> > You're right, just another fad by those greedy
> scientists. wil
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs,
> news
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Paul Cherubini
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 8:43 AM
> > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> > Subject: Re: Scientists versus activists
> >
> > Maiken Winter wrote:
> >
> >> How much more evidence do we need? Why is there
> such an incredible
> >> resistance among scientists to get active?
> >
> > Because scientists are in business to perform
> research
> > and publish or they will perish. In decades past,
> scientists
> > who wrote grant proposals that showed how their
> proposed
> > research was relevant to the envrionmental crisis
> fad of the
> > time (e.g. impact of industrial and agricultural
> chemical
> > pollutants on the environment, impact of GMO
> foods, etc)
> > were more likely to get funded.
> >
> > In recent years, scientists who wrote grant
> proposals that
> > showed how their proposed research was relevant to
> the
> > current crisis fad (climate change) were more
> likely
> > to get funded.
> >
> > When the grant getting advantage of linking
> proposed research
> > to climate change wears off it, scientists will
> come up with a
> > novel new crisis that helps keep the grant money
> rolling in.
> >
> > In 5-10 years the everyday discussions on ECOLOG-L
> will
> > likely be about a new "crisis" and climate change
> will
> > no longer be a dominant concern anymore just like
> > concern over ozone holes, acid rain and GMO foods
> > has faded away.
> >
> > Paul Cherubini
> > El Dorado, Calif.
> >
> 
> 
> Malcolm L. McCallum
> Assistant Professor of Biology
> Editor Herpetological Conservation and Biology
> http://www.herpconbio.org
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 




   

Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the 
tools to get online.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting 

Postdoc position

[Vanni, Mike]

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

I am looking for a postdoc to start in my lab in January or thereafter. A
position description and details are given below. Please encourage excellent
candidates to apply!

Thanks for your help.

Cheers,
Mike Vanni

A postdoctoral position in aquatic ecology is available at Miami University,
under direction of Michael J. Vanni. Areas of interest include the study of
carbon flow from watersheds through aquatic food webs; experimental ecology
of food webs and ecosystems; and analysis and synthesis of long-term data.
The position is not tied to any particular grant, so it offers considerable
flexibility for the successful candidate to explore her/his interests. For
more information about research in the lab, see www.muohio.edu/vannilab.

The position is initially for one year but may be renewable for an
additional year, depending on funding and performance.  Start date can be 1
January 2008 or thereafter. The initial annual salary is $32,500 plus full
benefits including health and dental coverage.


The ecology group at Miami is an active and growing group, with >30 faculty.
Please visit our websites for more information about ecology faculty
(www.muohio.edu/ecology), field and research facilities
(www.muohio.edu/erc), our ecology REU site (www.muohio.edu/ecoreu) and the
Department of Zoology (http://zoology.muohio.edu/).

Interested persons should contact Mike Vanni (see below). To apply for this
position, please send (preferably electronically) a cover letter briefly
describing research experiences and interests; a copy of academic
transcripts; curriculum vitae; reprints; and 2 letters of recommendation to.
Dr. Michael J. Vanni, Department of Zoology.  Contact phone number is
513/529-3192. Preferred application via email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact fax number is 513/529-6900.  Screening of applications begins
November 1, 2007 and will continue until the position is filled.  Miami
University is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer.  For
information regarding campus crime and safety, visit
www.muohio.edu/righttoknow  .  Hard copy
available upon request.

*
--
Mike Vanni, Professor
Department of Zoology
Graduate Program in Ecology
Miami University
513-529-3192
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.muohio.edu/vannilab

Job: Tenure Track Faculty Position in Quantitative Ecology

[Dan Bolnick]

The following job advertisement states that applications are due October 
1, but the search has been extended. Review of applications will begin 
after October 26, and the position will remain open until filled.

Tenure-Track Faculty Position in Marine Science

The University of Texas at Austin Department of Marine Science and Marine
Science Institute invite applications for a faculty position in marine 
science. We seek candidates with demonstrated expertise and innovative 
research in: Quantitative Ecology, with a focus on contemporary issues in 
landscape ecology, benthic-pelagic coupling, conservation biology, or 
population biology. The most competitive candidate will make use of the 
Institute’s excellent facilities for experimental work and proximity to a 
variety of estuarine and coastal habitats (including the 185,000-acre 
Mission-Aransas National Estuarine Research Reserve). Candidates must have 
a Ph.D. degree at the time of appointment and a strong research and 
publication record. Postdoctoral experience is strongly preferred. The 
positions, based at the Marine Science Institute (www.utmsi.utexas.edu) in 
Port Aransas, TX, include 9 months of annual salary support. Faculty are 
expected to maintain a vigorous, externally funded research program, teach 
graduate and undergraduate courses, and mentor M.S. and Ph.D. students.
Applicants should send an application as a PDF file to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and have at least three letters of 
recommendation mailed to: Search Committee Chair, The University of Texas 
Marine Science Institute, 750 Channel View Dr., Port Aransas, Texas 78373-
5015. The application should identify the position of interest and contain 
a curriculum vitae and a statement of research interests that indicates 
how the applicant’s research activities would take advantage of the 
Institute’s facilities and location (3 pages maximum). Review of 
applications will start October 1, 2007, and will continue until the 
position is filled. State law requires a background check on the selected 
applicant.

The University of Texas at Austin values diversity and is committed to 
affirmative action and equal opportunity. Women and minorities are 
encouraged to apply. UT Austin will make every effort to accommodate 
professional couples.

Faculty Position, GIS and Environmental Microbiology, Univ. of South Carolina

[John Kupfer]

Assistant Professor in Geography

As part of the Faculty Excellence Initiative at the University of South
Carolina, the Department of Geography and School of the Environment
invite applications for a Geographic Information Scientist specializing
in ecological mapping and spatial analysis for a tenure track assistant
professor position to begin August 16, 2008. This position is one of
several university-funded cluster hires whose goal is to build strategic
research capabilities in Environmental Microbiology, with a focus in the
emerging research area of Environmental Stresses and Microbial Stress
Responses.  Interests should include, but are not limited to, the
general area of geospatial dynamics of waterborne microbial pathogens. 
We are seeking a candidate who can integrate, analyze, model, and/or
interpret microbiological information along with spatial and temporal
environmental data.  This is a joint search involving the Department of
Geography and the School of the Environment in the College of Arts and
Sciences.  The position is a 9-month academic year tenure-track
appointment in Department of Geography.  A Ph.D. is required at the time
of appointment. 

We are searching for a geographer with outstanding research and
teaching capabilities who will complement existing campus-wide strengths
in geospatial techniques and analysis, environmental microbiology,
gene-environment interactions, and the assessment of environmental water
quality. Specifically, we are interested in a specialist who can
contribute to mapping and describing the geospatial aspects of
environmental stressors, such as pathogen distribution, abundance, and
dynamics, to integrate the results of research on stress response with
land/water use over large geographical areas. The successful applicant
will demonstrate experience in this topical area, or in another area
where the experience can be transferred. The successful candidate is
expected to teach courses in geographic information systems and their
application, as well as other undergraduate and/or graduate courses in
geography and related environmental studies, and to direct an active
externally funded research program.

For more information about the Department of Geography and the School
of the Environment, visit our Web sites at www.cas.sc.edu/geog/ and
www.environ.sc.edu/.

Applicants should include with their application a vita, statement of
research and teaching interests and goals, and the names, addresses,
phone numbers and e-mail addresses of at least three references. This
information should be sent to: Chair, FEI Environmental Microbiology
Search Committee, Department of Biological Sciences, University of South
Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208.  To ensure full consideration,
applications should be submitted by December 1st, 2007. 

The University of South Carolina is an affirmative action, equal
opportunity employer.  Women and minorities are encouraged to apply. The
University of South Carolina does not discriminate in educational or
employment opportunities or decisions for qualified persons on the basis
of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, sexual
orientation or veteran status.


Dr. John Kupfer
Associate Professor
Dept. of Geography
Univ. of South Carolina
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(p) 803-777-6739
(f) 803-777-4972
web: people.cas.sc.edu/kupfer