Re: [ECOLOG-L] Confronting climate deniers on college campuses - EOS Forum
My skepticism regrading the CO2 argument comes from looking at what causes the greenhouse effect and the relative contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect. As we all know water vapour is the cause of the greenhouse effect, and lacking water vapour in the atmosphere there likely wouldn't be a greenhouse effect. A small change in water vapour concentration, say +- 0.1%, is a change several fold greater than the total effect of CO2, and such changes in water vapour concentrations occur continuously. And then there are winds I personally don't care one way or another about the CO2 argument though, it's the bad science that I don't like. If we were looking at human driven climate change properly, we would investigate all possible drivers, generate some basic statements (that are either true or false), do some experiments and see which explanations most accurately predict reality by rejecting those that don't. Statements left standing following experimentation will have that empirical base. With CO2 some decider has simply decided it has to to CO2, and to look at anything else makes one a heretic. Why is it political? Consider fracking gas as one example (I use that name just so you know what gas I am talking about). Big oil discovers this gas, a large energy reserve. One thing we use such energy for is boiling water to produce electricity. However we have coal, which is cheap and plentiful, and far cheaper than fracking gas even when all you emit is CO2 and water when you burn the coal. So what to do? Make coal more expensive so the fracking gas is more competitive. So you push the CO2 argument to force people to eliminate the CO2 when they burn coal so as to make coal more expensive allow the fracking gas to be more competitive, and we do that. Note that there is no mandate to burn fracking gas such that no CO2 is emitted! We even have a political edict that CO2 is a pollutant, which is amazing to me. This is not a democrat or republican thing, FWIW, as both Bush II and Obama have pursued this. I also really don't care much if we use coal or fracking gas to boil water, just the quality of the science. Since the ozone hole problem is still ongoing, I have to wonder if CFCs are the only cause. Again, some decider decided is had to be caused only by CFCs, even though that theory has not gone through the rigors of normal science. I have no problem with banning CFCs; good riddance IMHO. I do have a problem with the poor quality of the science. As we all know, any consensus in science is derived from the empirical support for a theory, not arm-twisting and other political hackery. Any political consensus is invalid scientifically. This isn't the Environmental Science Society of America, it's the Ecological Society of America, and we should do better, IMHO. IMHO we should be more the voice of reason and less the voice of various political trends of the day. Rob Hamilton -Original Message- From: Jane Shevtsov [mailto:jane@gmail.com] Sent: Thu 7/5/2012 2:57 AM To: Robert Hamilton Cc: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Confronting climate deniers on college campuses - EOS Forum Seriously? In my undegrad physics class, we did a problem that involved calculating the effect of a doubling of CO2 concentration on temperature, using only the fact that CO2 blocks long-wavelength infrared radiation -- stuff that was known to Arrhenius a hundred years ago. Even though this was just a textbook problem, I remember being struck by how close our prediction was to that generated by complex models. Saying There is no evidence that changes in CO2 levels have caused any sort of atmospheric warming is just denying basic physics -- or claiming that the climate system is so wonderfully balanced that some effect or other will exactly compensate for the increase in CO2. On a related note, I recommend that everyone read The Discovery of Global Warming by Spencer R. Weart. This is available both in book form and as a free online text. (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm) It's a great review of how we know what we know. Jane Shevtsov On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Robert Hamilton roberthamil...@alc.eduwrote: Actually this climate debate is more about hocus pocus than anything else. at least a it is. That climate change is occurring is undeniable, and the oddity would be no climate change occurring. The climate is going to change regardless. The issue of why is where the hocus pocus comes in. There is no evidence that changes in CO2 levels have caused any sort of atmospheric warming; none. It is a predicted outcome of climate models designed to show that CO2 can affect atmospheric temperatures. We know for a fact that atmospheric warming would cause CO2 levels to increase because all the various organisms would increase respiration rates. It is dubious to suggest that CO2 levels that we observe could have any influence on the greenhouse
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Confronting climate deniers on college campuses - EOS Forum
I really don't care if CO2 causes global warming or not. It is irrelevant to what I am trying to say. If the science was being done right we would look at a variety of theories regarding human causes of climate change, and there are several, derive basic statements (to test risky predictions) from various theories and test them. Some theories would make accurate predictions and survive, others would not and would be falsified and discarded. We do have a whole industry of people promoting the theory that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause climate change. They are 100% vested in that conjecture. If it is falsified they lose their jobs and or their influence. I find it curious when some of these people claim to be underground in some sense when they in fact are the establishment; they are the man! Enormous wealth is being generated based on consequences of the belief that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause climate change. The last climate model I looked at was last year, someone had a model that included clouds! These models, in my experience, predict a static effect of water vapour, when it is clearly highly dynamic, and generally they don't consider winds, and I don't see why they cannot include the dynamics of water vapour and winds if they are simply trying to model climate. As for the fact I live in coal country, my view on coal is that its future value greatly exceeds its present value; it is worth far more in the ground. It is somewhat of a waste to burn it as there are probably a lot of hydrocarbon based materials that can be made from coal, types of materials that are in great demand and whose value will increase as other fossil fuel reserves decline. My last word on this at this time, and hopefully I will be able to curb my tongue on this in the future. What we say doesn't really matter anyways, and I certainly have no real influence in this area, and thus don't need the aggravation of this sort of a discussion. All I really care about is the vitality of the Science of Ecology with respect to this issue. Rob Hamilton -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Ganter, Philip Sent: Thu 7/5/2012 11:47 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Confronting climate deniers on college campuses - EOS Forum Robert, I am glad that you support the modeling efforts of atmospheric scientists with respect to ozone-depleting substances. Their models are in complete agreement with you: the holes should still be there. The residence times of ODS is so long that, without any new additions, the holes should appear for another 50-75 years. Does this agreement alter your opinion of the science involved? The ozone models have been very accurate but perhaps accuracy is not sufficient. I have not read the primary literature about climate change and so must confess that I am ignorant of the actual global warming models. However, I must ask you a question about them. Have you read them? Do you know that water vapor is not part of the models or that it is not modeled in a realistic manner? If so, some specific criticisms would be very welcome (and I mean this sincerely). Back-of-the-napkin calculations and it-stands-to-reason arguments have not served us well (think of Laffer's napkin and Reganomics) but some specific criticisms are what this forum is about. To be honest, your criticism so far has committed the very error you have so vigorously denounced. Your criticism is bad science. But that may be only because you did not include the specifics and I, for one, would like to read them. If there is real criticism of global warming due to change in CO2 concentration we (ecologists) all need to see it and to see it as soon as possible. Phil Ganter Department of Biological Sciences Tennessee State University On 7/5/12 9:29 AM, Robert Hamilton roberthamil...@alc.edu wrote: My skepticism regrading the CO2 argument comes from looking at what causes the greenhouse effect and the relative contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect. As we all know water vapour is the cause of the greenhouse effect, and lacking water vapour in the atmosphere there likely wouldn't be a greenhouse effect. A small change in water vapour concentration, say +- 0.1%, is a change several fold greater than the total effect of CO2, and such changes in water vapour concentrations occur continuously. And then there are winds I personally don't care one way or another about the CO2 argument though, it's the bad science that I don't like. If we were looking at human driven climate change properly, we would investigate all possible drivers, generate some basic statements (that are either true or false), do some experiments and see which explanations most accurately predict reality by rejecting those that don't. Statements left standing following experimentation will have that empirical base. With CO2 some
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Confronting climate deniers on college campuses - EOS Forum
Actually this climate debate is more about hocus pocus than anything else. at least a it is. That climate change is occurring is undeniable, and the oddity would be no climate change occurring. The climate is going to change regardless. The issue of why is where the hocus pocus comes in. There is no evidence that changes in CO2 levels have caused any sort of atmospheric warming; none. It is a predicted outcome of climate models designed to show that CO2 can affect atmospheric temperatures. We know for a fact that atmospheric warming would cause CO2 levels to increase because all the various organisms would increase respiration rates. It is dubious to suggest that CO2 levels that we observe could have any influence on the greenhouse effect on earth given the overwhelming effect of water vapour, and the flux of water vapour, which in itself is substantially greater than the total effect of CO2, let alone the difference in CO2 past and present. Many of the things we do could cause climate change. The massive increase in runoff of freshwater from terrestrial systems; various drainings and fillings in of wetlands and floodplains, channeling if rivers along with rapid runoff through sewers and other means. A lot less standing water in the spring to ameliorate continental warming through the summer. Conversion of heat sinks like say Manhattan Island (via urbanization) into heat sources, possibly radiating more energy back than is input from the sun due to additional heat from things like air conditioners and automobiles, and this sort of thing occurs on a massive scale (like say Germany, which used to be a very moist deciduous forest) in the northern hemisphere. But such issues are not allowed to be investigated for the sake of the political hacks with their CO2 argument. There is no science to this process, and amazingly the public in general sees the weakness of the science. The thing of it is that what goes around comes around, and the truth will out in the end. If we are wrong about CO2 but right about human impacts the political hacks will blame us for being unscientific even though it is they that force us this way via the way they dispense power in the form of academic appointments and funding. A bit like CFCs causing the ozone hole. They could cause the ozone hole for sure, but do they actually cause it? Never seen any evidence of that. Could be that flying jet aircraft is causing the ozone hole, but political hacks don't want to go there! If it isn't CFCs, they will blame us for sure, because we are supposed to know for sure in their eyes in such situations. We are the scapegoat if they (we) are wrong). I suppose I am a denier because I reject politically motivated science, and that sort would shout me down, pull my hair and throw things at me if I were ever to present such heretical arguments to the public. But I don't need to. As the consequences of the CO2 based policies sink in, they will be revisited with a more skeptical eye. We move forward, but do bumble along, and that seems to work in general, although there are casualties along the way, and the way it looks now is Ecology will be one of those casualties, which is the real crime here IMHO. Rob Hamilton -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of malcolm McCallum Sent: Tue 7/3/2012 10:07 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Confronting climate deniers on college campuses - EOS Forum society has never been trusting of scientists. However, the same could be said of business with identical survey mechanisms. So what. This isn't about a bunch of hocus pocus and its not about baseless opinions. ITs about the facts that exist. Period. As for track records of academics, virtually all of our discoveries were by academics. Very few were made by others. Do your homework. Malcolm On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Paul Cherubini mona...@saber.net wrote: On Jul 3, 2012, at 10:31 AM, Jerome Joseph Howard wrote: See the Goddard site at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/. Those graphs also show a flattening of global mean temperatures over the past decade or so. Therefore the flattening trend could conceivably continue for another 20-25 years, just like the 30-35 year flattening trends of 1880-1910 and 1940-1975. IF the anthropogenic factors that contribute to warming are relatively minor or moderate in relation to the natural factors which may well turn out to be the case. In view of these uncertainties it is understandable why industry and agriculture appear to be taking a wait and see approach instead of making plans for a much warmer world. The track record of academia is not stellar in the minds of conservatives that run industry and agriculture. Surveys indicate educated conservatives have grown increasingly distrustful of scientists (but not science) http://tinyurl.com/7dkgolp Paul Cherubini
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
I don't think people are nasty because they work hard. In fact, it could well be that people who don't get as much done get nasty/envious and backstab more productive people...but I could be wrong about that! I see work as a much higher level social interaction that say networking. Working with other people to actually get things done is a lot tougher than being friendly and fun at parties. I see the best steel goes through the fire as representing that ability, which comes from motivation. If the issue is productivity then the harder working person, who is so because they want to do the work, will be the more productive. Academics very generally have a lot of free time, and can do a lot of the things we do at our convenience at a place of our choosing. FWIW I would not take a child into the field because it is too dangerous; you are focused on something other than being the caregiver of the child in a situation that has a lot of aspect unfamiliar to the child, but that's JMHO. People who spend a lot of time seeking recognition do get some very transient success with their work, but it quickly dissipates and what stand over time is the well done science that is almost (but not exclusively) done be people who seek the joy of doing the work over the gratification of recognition and social status. If the doing of the work isn't enough for someone, they have unrealistic expectations of life, IMHO. What someone else thinks is only relevant if and when they are involved in the work itself. Gossips are losers. IMHO work is the real social activity we do that makes a difference. It's the doing of it that counts. I don't see the point of spending too much time seeking amusement. Doing something is far more fulfilling than watching something; and you can take that wherever you want to go with it! ;^) Children will be happy interacting with other children, and don't need Mom and Dad in their face 24/7; maybe 2/7 would work better, and in our jobs, there is really no problem finding that 2. Family is no excuse for non-productivity. In fact, not opinion, using family as such an excuse is somewhat despicable! Robert Hamilton, PhD Professor of Biology Alice Lloyd College Pippa Passes, KY 41844 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Martin Meiss Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 11:53 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life Interesting observations, Robert H., perhaps summed up by the metaphor The best steel goes through the fire. But what does it imply for implementing social policy, or academic policy? Deliberately harsh or downright brutal conditions might be appropriate for training Navy Seals, and tough ghetto conditions might produce the best boxers, but should this apply in academia? Aren't high academic standards and intellectual rigor better tools for training productive scientists? And if these high standards are not accompanied by things like support for family and other work/life balance issues, what are we selecting for? The most ruthless, cutthroat competitors? Such people might be very poor at the cooperative aspects of science, and so science would suffer. Would we be selecting for people with iron constitutions that makes them resistant to ulcers and mental breakdown? Perhaps, but people who might be weak by this criterion could have brilliant minds that would make great contributions. Are we really in danger of making life so cushy for students and scientists that they will grow complacent, slack off on their work, and merely warm their academic chairs? And even if scientific productivity were to fall off a bit, is that the end of the world? I think that harsh conditions, such as those imposed by totalitarian regimes, can boost performance in the short term, but in the long run it is unstable. People hate it and they rebel against it by passive/aggressive non-cooperations,, voting with their feet, sabotage, etc. The history of the twentieth century shows this. And smart, qualified people leaving academia shows it, even if less dramatically. I think these are factors we should bear in mind when considering how the academic life should be structured. Martin M. Meiss 2012/4/30 Robert Hamilton roberthamil...@alc.edu I have had both young men and young women (much more often young women) in my classes who are/were single parents, working and going to school full time and raising children. IMHO they have a much better sense of the urgency of life, and while they are not the top students, the ones that get through do very well, much better (in general) than those who simply live in a dorm or some rental housing of some sort and do nothing they are obliged to do but go to school. JMHO again, but it seems that those who are given a tough row to hoe early in life
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
I must say that I find this conversation somewhat embarrassing, and hope it never gets out into the public domain. I have and have always had friends and neighbours who work 2 or 3 jobs to keep things going. Literally going to work at 6AM and not coming home till after 10PM working jobs at places like Walmart and McDonalds. Lots of people work 8+ hours per say 50 weeks a year, like say my Dad, and had no problem raising a family and contributing to the community. This whole thing is a study in extreme narcissism. How's that for a wet blanket! Robert Hamilton, PhD Professor of Biology Alice Lloyd College Pippa Passes, KY 41844 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Jahi Chappell Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 10:07 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life While putting resources into science, including ecology, is of course a wonderful, necessary, and valuable thing, assuredly supporting our own families with our presence, time, and energy (and societal resources) is at least as wonderful, necessary, and valuable. Indeed, as many benefits as flow from science and science funding, we know that having strong families and communities makes everyone better off, ceteris parabus, and having strong families and communities requires time and resource investment from everyone. Even granting the proposition that we in the US produce the best and most successful scientists in the world, all accounts indicate that we certainly don't produce the highest average of happy and most secure and successful families in the world. We have a *lot* of those, but alas, our median is likely much lower than our mean, and both are likely behind countries like those Andres analyzed. So much of what so many are lacking are basic needs, connections, support networks, and resources, something depending as much or more on good and participatory governance than new scientific discovery--we need more time for more participation outside our work and research, not less. On 4/27/12 10:22 AM, David L. McNeely mcnee...@cox.net wrote: This is not meant as a wet blanket, as I encourage family friendly employment practices for all countries and for all occupations. But, I wonder how those figures would look if all areas of science were considered? It may be that smaller economies, and the Scandinavian countries in particular, put a greater fraction of their available resources for scientific research into ecology than do larger economies and non-Scandinavian countries. Is U.S. science more diversified than Finnish or Icelandic science? David McNeely Andres Lopez-Sepulcre lopezsepul...@gmail.com wrote: Since we're at it, it did the same calculation for all four countries ranked first in gender equality by the Global Gender Gap Report. All four, as far as I remember, provide generous paternity leaves that guarantee job security and can be shared between mother and father. ISI indexed publications in Ecology per capita (countries ranked in order of 'gender equality index') Iceland: 1167 Norway: 1794 Finland: 1500 Sweden: 1361 Not only do these countries do significantly better in ecology 'per capita' than the less family-oriented scientific powerhouses (e.g. USA: 650, UK: 660), but it almost seems that if anything, their ranking in the gender equality index is correlated with their productivity, not an 'impediment' ... safe for Iceland, but do remember that Iceland suffered the largest financial collapse in world history in these last 5 years. Even when this small sample and oversimplified analysis is not proof of anything, I hope it can change peoples' perceptions that countries that have increased social welfare, gender equality and more protective labour laws are less productive. Andres Lopez-Sepulcre Laboratoire d'Ecologie, UMR 7625 Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris alo...@biologie.ens.fr http://web.me.com/asepulcre On Apr 27, 2012, at 6:43 PM, Cecilia Hennessy wrote: PERFECT response, thank you so much! If we Americans could stop patting ourselves on the back long enough to realize that other countries have successful ways of doing things too, maybe we could learn from international example and progress more efficiently. cheers! On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Andres Lopez-Sepulcre lopezsepul...@gmail.com wrote: ...however, why should the USA modify the system producing among the best and most successful scientists in the world... I would simply like to add a quick clarification. I struggled with how to respond to this US-centric statement. There is no doubt that the USA is a scientific powerhouse and I have wonderful things to say about my experience as a scientist there, which has brought me wonderful collaborations I hope last long. However I am not sure it is fair to compare a country of over 300 million inhabitants with another of 5 (Finland
Re: [ECOLOG-L] UC-Berkeley and other 'public Iv ies' in fiscal peril
Things we are doing now that seem to cost a lot of money are things like the waste on accreditation. Waste on politically correct courses and curricula. Waste on unnecessary administration to cover every little contingency that could come up and unnecessary waste on useless fixed assets like Greek columns, marble foyers and garbage cans made from tropical hardwoods. The real kicker to this, IMHO, is we spend less on assets allocated towards education itself, like say vans for field trips, lab assistants (not grad students) for teaching situations and specialty fixed assets for basic and meaningful courses like say organic chemistry and ecology. Rob Hamilton -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Paul Cherubini Sent: Tue 12/27/2011 7:29 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] UC-Berkeley and other 'public Iv ies' in fiscal peril The University of California at Berkeley subsists now in perpetual austerity. Star faculty take mandatory furloughs. Classes grow perceptibly larger each year. Roofs leak; e-mail crashes. One employee mows the entire campus. Wastebaskets are emptied once a week. Some professors lack telephones. If all of the above is true, then can someone please explain why for 20+ years the annual increase in the cost of college tuition has far outpaced the consumer price index, heath care, energy costs, etc. http://www.nas.org/polArticles.cfm?doc_id=1450 http://tinyurl.com/6xq6hv Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from Paul Ehrlich
Paul: Actually, the point about it not being about specific heat but infra-red absorption is not a good response, but I would not be overly critical because I am hardly immune to making such responses myself. Water is very well known for its heat absorbing properties as reflected by its specific heat (ie The heat required to raise the temperature of the unit mass of a given substance by a given amount (usually one degree).) The greater the specific heat, the more heat the molecule can absorb. Don't let anyone use authority only as a means of convincing you of anything. Accept it if it serves your interests and assume the accompanying risk (if the authority is wrong, you wind up wasting your efforts, maybe your career) for your own sake. Rob Hamilton Robert Hamilton, PhD Professor of Biology Alice Lloyd College Pippa Passes, KY 41844 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul Backus Sent: Friday, December 09, 2011 10:02 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from Paul Ehrlich Rob, That certainly seems to be a good mathematical point, but I can't help but feel it's an oversimplification of a very complex system. Your calculations certainly don't account for temperature feedback caused by water vapor, though that is a long-term trend. And as someone else pointed out on this list, climate change involves infrared absorption rather then specific heat. I'm not sure how much that would affect the values you're arrived at though. I'm far from an expert on this. Hell, I'm just a grad student. I am certainly enjoying this discussion though. It's one of the first I've wanted to jump in on. Paul Backus On Dec 8, 2011 4:19 PM, Robert Hamilton roberthamil...@alc.edu wrote: Paul: I had to unsend this twice. Hope you only get the one copy. Definitely time to wind this up! What you say sounds reasonable. However it is tangential to where I am coming from. I also wonder if it is little more than a platitude that justifies a proposition, but a statement for which there is also zero empirical evidence. In any event this will be my last word on this. I can give a quick and dirty example of what I am trying to say. Let's consider water vapour in the atmosphere at 2%. That's 20,000 PPM. Let's also consider CO2 at 400PPM. The specific heat of water vapour at 275°K is 1.859 KJ/KgK and the specific heat of CO2 at 275°K is 0.819Kj/KgK, so the specific heat of water vapour is 2.27 times that of CO2. So using these numbers let's say 1 PPM CO2 = 1 greenhouse gas unit (GU). We have 400 GUs for the CO2 in the air and 20,000 x 2.27 = 45,400 GUs for the water vapour in the air. We have a total of 45,800 GUs of which 400 are due to CO2, that's 0.0087, or 0.87% of the total greenhouse effect is due to CO2. Let's double the CO2 to 800PPM and see the effect. We now have 46,200 CUs of which 800 are due to CO2, that's 1.7% due to CO2. Let's now leave the CO2 constant and increase the water vapour to 2.1%, that makes the GUs due to water vapour 47,670, an increase of 1870 GUs, which is about 4.7X the total effect of CO2. These kinds of very minor water vapour changes are common, can happen almost instantaneously, and dwarf the effect of massive changes in C02; and in an atmosphere with changes in water vapour an order of magnitude more than that, ie from say 2 - 3%, (1% as opposed to .1%) I don't see how CO2 changing from say 280PPM to 480PPM can have any real influence on the greenhouse effect Rob Hamilton -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul Backus Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 2:17 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from Paul Ehrlich My understanding of the situation is that water vapor can't function as a driver for climate change, only as a response or feedback mechanism. As atmospheric temperatures increase, more water vapor can be held in the air, which will act as positive feedback for increasing temperatures already observed. Any anthropogenic addition of water vapor into the atmosphere will precipitate out rather quickly (on the order of a few weeks, I believe), in any significant quantities. That leaves the question that if water vapor isn't causing the warming we've seen, what is? The available evidence seems to indicate to me that CO2 at least has a significant correlation with warming, and is likely a driver of climate change. Likely enough to require significant action, at least, considering the consequences of doing nothing. Of course I could be wrong. Feel free to point out any mistakes I've made. Paul Backus On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Robert Hamilton roberthamil...@alc.edu wrote
Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from Paul Ehrlich
Paul: I had to unsend this twice. Hope you only get the one copy. Definitely time to wind this up! What you say sounds reasonable. However it is tangential to where I am coming from. I also wonder if it is little more than a platitude that justifies a proposition, but a statement for which there is also zero empirical evidence. In any event this will be my last word on this. I can give a quick and dirty example of what I am trying to say. Let's consider water vapour in the atmosphere at 2%. That's 20,000 PPM. Let's also consider CO2 at 400PPM. The specific heat of water vapour at 275°K is 1.859 KJ/KgK and the specific heat of CO2 at 275°K is 0.819Kj/KgK, so the specific heat of water vapour is 2.27 times that of CO2. So using these numbers let's say 1 PPM CO2 = 1 greenhouse gas unit (GU). We have 400 GUs for the CO2 in the air and 20,000 x 2.27 = 45,400 GUs for the water vapour in the air. We have a total of 45,800 GUs of which 400 are due to CO2, that's 0.0087, or 0.87% of the total greenhouse effect is due to CO2. Let's double the CO2 to 800PPM and see the effect. We now have 46,200 CUs of which 800 are due to CO2, that's 1.7% due to CO2. Let's now leave the CO2 constant and increase the water vapour to 2.1%, that makes the GUs due to water vapour 47,670, an increase of 1870 GUs, which is about 4.7X the total effect of CO2. These kinds of very minor water vapour changes are common, can happen almost instantaneously, and dwarf the effect of massive changes in C02; and in an atmosphere with changes in water vapour an order of magnitude more than that, ie from say 2 - 3%, (1% as opposed to .1%) I don't see how CO2 changing from say 280PPM to 480PPM can have any real influence on the greenhouse effect Rob Hamilton -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul Backus Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 2:17 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from Paul Ehrlich My understanding of the situation is that water vapor can't function as a driver for climate change, only as a response or feedback mechanism. As atmospheric temperatures increase, more water vapor can be held in the air, which will act as positive feedback for increasing temperatures already observed. Any anthropogenic addition of water vapor into the atmosphere will precipitate out rather quickly (on the order of a few weeks, I believe), in any significant quantities. That leaves the question that if water vapor isn't causing the warming we've seen, what is? The available evidence seems to indicate to me that CO2 at least has a significant correlation with warming, and is likely a driver of climate change. Likely enough to require significant action, at least, considering the consequences of doing nothing. Of course I could be wrong. Feel free to point out any mistakes I've made. Paul Backus On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Robert Hamilton roberthamil...@alc.eduwrote: Martin: What you are suggesting here is that the proposition that CO2 increases are causing global warming must be accepted unless it is proven false. This rhetorical tactic is common in social sciences, and thus it is hardly surprising to see it used here, but we Ecologists should know better. I have no problem with investigating the fact that there is a correlation between CO2 increases and global warming, however there are at least three things that need to be investigated with equal veracity. 1) CO2 rises could cause global warming, 2) global warming could cause CO2 rises and 3) the correlation could be spurious. #1 is investigated to the exclusion of the other 2 because of political pressures. There are many people whose careers are vested in the proposition that CO2 causes global warming and it seems to me they feel the other two propositions are a threat to their livelihood. I don't buy #1 because when I look at the global greenhouse effect, water vapour is the #1 contributor by far. CO2 is relatively very minor, and if CO2 were eliminated from the atmosphere it may well have no effect on the overall greenhouse effect. I have looked at the models used to support #1, and I don't see any that look at the overall greenhouse effect, the relative effects of CO2 and the other gasses, particularly water vapour fluxes (the atmosphere is hardly static). When I do some simple calculations, it seems to me that the total effect of CO2 is insignificant given the effect of water vapour alone, and that's looking at an atmosphere with 2% water vapour when in fact it varies from 0 - 10% and averages about 2%; as far as I know. If that's just me, so be it. I don't care if people investigate CO2 as a cause of global warming, I encourage people to do so, what I object to is the demonization of people who want to look at other causes of climate change. I
Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from Paul Ehrlich
I see no evidence that CO2 causes global warming. CO2 levels would rise if we had global warming in any event due to increased cellular respiration. I don't know what causes global climate changes, all I know is that the global climate will always change one way or another. Rob Hamilton -Original Message- From: kerry Cutler [mailto:cutler.ke...@gmail.com] Sent: Tue 12/6/2011 2:04 PM To: Robert Hamilton Cc: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from Paul Ehrlich Dear Rob and the rest of Ecolog listserve, I am not a climate scientist, but am an ecologist. Your idea that it is not CO2 causing global warming is not new to me and I know that people put forth several other hypotheses for the current global warming. I am curious about what research (a link to a paper, perhaps?) you know of to support your idea and what evidence you have to invalidate some of the calculations on the absorptive quality of CO2 effects and some of the analyses that support the opposite conclusion to yours (Philipona 2004, Evans 2006, etc...). For that matter, I would love to hear some evidence-based arguments from the other side: What are some of the most controversial issues surrounding this topic and what kind of research could be done to improve upon our models and convince even the most unshakable skeptic? I am sure that this is well discussed in other forums, but I would be interested to have us consider it here. This seems like an important enough issue to warrant some sensible intelligent discourse and to leave out the rhetorical extravagance. Let's give it a shot. Kerry Cutler On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Robert Hamilton roberthamil...@alc.eduwrote: I would not be much of a scientist if I accepted conjecture based solely on authority. My reason for not accepting the view that CO2 causes current global warming is based on my acceptance of conjecture related to the effect of water vapour on the energy of the atmosphere, and it's variation, relative to the effect of CO2, conjectures for which there are actual data. I have done my own analysis for my own sake and come to my own conclusions, but saying CO2 causes global warming to me is like saying someone throwing a bucket of water into the Pacific Ocean in Hawaii caused the tragic Tsunami in Japan last year. As for attacking me personally, even if I worked for the coal industry itself, so what? If CO2 is not causing global warming it is not, what I do has no effect on that. I am somewhat fortunate that I don't have to sell myself out to some political establishment though (I don't have to get grants from politically biased granting agencies). If I did research the issue I would probably look at things like development and the way we manipulate watersheds as a human cause of global warming over CO2, and thus would fail, so I am lucky! Nice thing about where I work is that while we have a tiny endowment, our students graduate with the least debt of any school in the US. No Greek columns, no art galleries, no mahogany garbage cans, but then we don't force students into massive debt to support such things either. As for the coal, IMHO the coal is worth more in the ground than it is to mine it presently, IMHO. Maybe after generations of being ruthlessly exploited by commercial and consumer interests for the sake of cheap electricity to run air conditioners and computers, people around here might get a good return on their labour once it starts costing a person like you the equivalent of @2000.00 per month to heat your home to 68 degrees in the winter, something that is just around the corner IMHO. The thing that bothers me about this sort of issue is the effect it has on Ecology a a science though. I have seen go from being required in every school I have known to not being so required (it is here though), and I blame that decline on the emphasis on political hackery that has developed in Ecology over the past generation. I applaud your desire to stand up for your political view, but it they are not science and they are not Ecology, and when any science exists to serve politics, it ceases to be real science, IMHO. Rob Hamilton -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of David L. McNeely Sent: Mon 12/5/2011 1:49 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from Paul Ehrlich Well, I don't know exactly how to respond to such a claim from a professional biologist. Could the importance of the coal industry to the endowment of Alice Lloyd and other economic entities in Kentucky have anything to do with this outrageous claim? How much credible science is needed to convince you? Does the fact that the world's leading climatologists and the National Academies of Science all disagree with you matter? Does the fact that the conflict you claim comes
Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from Paul Ehrlich
Martin: What you are suggesting here is that the proposition that CO2 increases are causing global warming must be accepted unless it is proven false. This rhetorical tactic is common in social sciences, and thus it is hardly surprising to see it used here, but we Ecologists should know better. I have no problem with investigating the fact that there is a correlation between CO2 increases and global warming, however there are at least three things that need to be investigated with equal veracity. 1) CO2 rises could cause global warming, 2) global warming could cause CO2 rises and 3) the correlation could be spurious. #1 is investigated to the exclusion of the other 2 because of political pressures. There are many people whose careers are vested in the proposition that CO2 causes global warming and it seems to me they feel the other two propositions are a threat to their livelihood. I don't buy #1 because when I look at the global greenhouse effect, water vapour is the #1 contributor by far. CO2 is relatively very minor, and if CO2 were eliminated from the atmosphere it may well have no effect on the overall greenhouse effect. I have looked at the models used to support #1, and I don't see any that look at the overall greenhouse effect, the relative effects of CO2 and the other gasses, particularly water vapour fluxes (the atmosphere is hardly static). When I do some simple calculations, it seems to me that the total effect of CO2 is insignificant given the effect of water vapour alone, and that's looking at an atmosphere with 2% water vapour when in fact it varies from 0 - 10% and averages about 2%; as far as I know. If that's just me, so be it. I don't care if people investigate CO2 as a cause of global warming, I encourage people to do so, what I object to is the demonization of people who want to look at other causes of climate change. I am opposed to the idea that current unsubstantiated C02 causes global warming argument MUST be accepted. The fact that there are zero empirical data to support the CO2 causes global warming argument and it is based 100% on unrealistic models of the atmosphere drives my skepticism. However, regardless of what I feel, #2 and #3 above should be investigated, as well as other possible human causes of global warming. If it were shown that CO2 does in fact cause global warming, I would obviously have to accept that fact, but I don't think it is rational to take the view that one must accept that CO2 causes global warming unless the conjecture is proven wrong. You want to promote the proposition that CO2 causes global warming argument, you prove it right...at least make some elegant risky predictions and if they don't turn out, accept the falsification of the proposition. FWIW, Ehrlich was right about population, IMHO, but he went a little overboard on the immediacy and the nature of the consequences. A more open analysis on his part would have been more effective, just as in the present case of CO2 and its effect on the atmosphere. Robert Hamilton, PhD Professor of Biology Alice Lloyd College Pippa Passes, KY 41844 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Martin Meiss Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 9:37 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from Paul Ehrlich Robert Hamilton, Your statement implies that we mustn't confuse causes with effects. Fine, but how do we tell what is really going on in phenomena as complex as global climate? I don't see how one can justify an opinion unless actually running a climate model, or subscribing to the results of a climate model. If cellular respiration were to rise as a result of temperature increase, would there be a corresponding rise in photosynthesis, which in turn would lower CO2 levels? If not, how long would it be before all available biomass was oxidized and cellular respiration would cease? What other forces would come into play, such as changes in cloud cover, ice cover, ocean currents, etc., in response to the initial change? If some of these factors had appropriate sign and magnitude, increasing CO2 level could actually lower temperatures. This is what modeling is all about. If your skepticism about the role of CO2 in climate change is supported by data and a climate a model, I think you should share the details with the scientific community. To do otherwise is like having the cure for a major disease but not bothering to tell anyone about it. Martin M. Meiss 2011/12/6 Robert Hamilton roberthamil...@alc.edu I see no evidence that CO2 causes global warming. CO2 levels would rise if we had global warming in any event due to increased cellular respiration. I don't know what causes global climate changes, all I know is that the global climate will always change one way or another. Rob Hamilton -Original Message- From: kerry
Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from Paul Ehrlich
Science works to persuade when it provides real data, not weak hypotheticals. Consider the issue of ozone vs CO2. Lots of real data on ozone, nothing but political hackery on CO2, so we get some action on ozone and nothing but conflict on CO2. However, we are only as strong as our weakest link, so the CO2 argument defines us. Robert Hamilton, PhD Professor of Biology Alice Lloyd College Pippa Passes, KY 41844 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Bowles, Elizabeth Davis Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 12:07 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from Paul Ehrlich Social and environmental psychologists have known for some time now that knowledge does not change *behavior* and that information-only campaigns rarely are effective. This is because, as opposed to commercial marketing campaigns, usually you are asking the public to give something up, step out of social norms, or do something that does not reap immediate benefits to them. This requires a completely different approach, including removing perceived or structural barriers to sustainable behavior. Ecologists should strongly consider collaborating with psychologists on any outreach program in which a behavior change in the public is the goal. See this paper in conservation biology: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10./j.1523-1739.2011.01766.x/full and this website: http://www.cbsm.com/pages/guide/fostering-sustainable-behavior/ and this report from the APA: http://www.apa.org/science/about/publications/climate-change.aspx Beth Davis Bowles, Ph.D. Research Specialist Bull Shoals Field Station Missouri State University 901 S. National Springfield, MO 65897 phone (417) 836-3731 fax (417) 836-8886 From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of David L. McNeely [mcnee...@cox.net] Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 9:55 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from Paul Ehrlich Steve Young syou...@unlnotes.unl.edu wrote: Lawren et al., Unfortunately, I think you may be preaching to the choir. I'm not trying to be pessimistic, but if every ESA member were to follow through and commit to the 'doing something', instead of just 'talking more', what would that accomplish? Just going by the numbers, conservatively speaking, ESA membership is around 10,000 and according to the Census Bureau, the current population in the US is 312,718,825 ( http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html) So, what do we do about the other 312,708,000? I'm in the education arena and it is a question that I've been trying to figure out how to answer for a long time. I know advocacy is one way and something I work on all the time. Maybe this should be part of the focus of the 'doing something' approach. Steve I believe when we help to educate others we are doing something. I'm funny that way, I guess. The difficulty comes when our educational efforts fail, as they seem to be doing on this matter. So, I need help in knowing what to do that will actually work. So far as individual effort, I already try to buy only what I need and to use old stuff. I minimize my fuel use by driving a Toyota Prius, walking for local transportation when I can, not using air conditioning though I live in a very hot climate, wearing warm clothing and keeping the house cool in winter . But I have not been able to persuade many others to engage in the same actions. Reading and understanding the data that come in seems unconvincing to so many. Science is only trusted when it reinforces already held beliefs, even if less than 1% of those claiming to be scientists provide the claims that reinforce. So, what can I do? David McNeely The information transmitted is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error, and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the message and any hard copy printouts. Thank you.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from Paul Ehrlich
I would not be much of a scientist if I accepted conjecture based solely on authority. My reason for not accepting the view that CO2 causes current global warming is based on my acceptance of conjecture related to the effect of water vapour on the energy of the atmosphere, and it's variation, relative to the effect of CO2, conjectures for which there are actual data. I have done my own analysis for my own sake and come to my own conclusions, but saying CO2 causes global warming to me is like saying someone throwing a bucket of water into the Pacific Ocean in Hawaii caused the tragic Tsunami in Japan last year. As for attacking me personally, even if I worked for the coal industry itself, so what? If CO2 is not causing global warming it is not, what I do has no effect on that. I am somewhat fortunate that I don't have to sell myself out to some political establishment though (I don't have to get grants from politically biased granting agencies). If I did research the issue I would probably look at things like development and the way we manipulate watersheds as a human cause of global warming over CO2, and thus would fail, so I am lucky! Nice thing about where I work is that while we have a tiny endowment, our students graduate with the least debt of any school in the US. No Greek columns, no art galleries, no mahogany garbage cans, but then we don't force students into massive debt to support such things either. As for the coal, IMHO the coal is worth more in the ground than it is to mine it presently, IMHO. Maybe after generations of being ruthlessly exploited by commercial and consumer interests for the sake of cheap electricity to run air conditioners and computers, people around here might get a good return on their labour once it starts costing a person like you the equivalent of @2000.00 per month to heat your home to 68 degrees in the winter, something that is just around the corner IMHO. The thing that bothers me about this sort of issue is the effect it has on Ecology a a science though. I have seen go from being required in every school I have known to not being so required (it is here though), and I blame that decline on the emphasis on political hackery that has developed in Ecology over the past generation. I applaud your desire to stand up for your political view, but it they are not science and they are not Ecology, and when any science exists to serve politics, it ceases to be real science, IMHO. Rob Hamilton -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of David L. McNeely Sent: Mon 12/5/2011 1:49 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from Paul Ehrlich Well, I don't know exactly how to respond to such a claim from a professional biologist. Could the importance of the coal industry to the endowment of Alice Lloyd and other economic entities in Kentucky have anything to do with this outrageous claim? How much credible science is needed to convince you? Does the fact that the world's leading climatologists and the National Academies of Science all disagree with you matter? Does the fact that the conflict you claim comes from fewer than 1% of all reports on the question, while those few reports lack credible analysis matter? Sincerely, David McNeely Robert Hamilton roberthamil...@alc.edu wrote: Science works to persuade when it provides real data, not weak hypotheticals. Consider the issue of ozone vs CO2. Lots of real data on ozone, nothing but political hackery on CO2, so we get some action on ozone and nothing but conflict on CO2. However, we are only as strong as our weakest link, so the CO2 argument defines us. Robert Hamilton, PhD Professor of Biology Alice Lloyd College Pippa Passes, KY 41844 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Bowles, Elizabeth Davis Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 12:07 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from Paul Ehrlich Social and environmental psychologists have known for some time now that knowledge does not change *behavior* and that information-only campaigns rarely are effective. This is because, as opposed to commercial marketing campaigns, usually you are asking the public to give something up, step out of social norms, or do something that does not reap immediate benefits to them. This requires a completely different approach, including removing perceived or structural barriers to sustainable behavior. Ecologists should strongly consider collaborating with psychologists on any outreach program in which a behavior change in the public is the goal. See this paper in conservation biology: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10./j.1523-1739.2011.01766.x/full and this website: http://www.cbsm.com/pages
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it?
Ecology is a science. It is no more about environmentalism, for example, than is physics, IMHO. Ecologists study the interaction between organisms and their environment. As a matter of fact, we know very little of ecology. If you want to refer to the founding of ESA, one of the major motivations was to get the non-science and pseudoscience out of ecology and try to establish ecology as a real science. With all the political hackery and pseudo-science trying to call itself ecology these days, ecology as a science has really not progressed much further than the original basic objectives of the founders of the ESA. The Earth Manifesto does not involve ecology. Robert Hamilton, PhD Professor of Biology Alice Lloyd College Pippa Passes, KY 41844 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Baker, David Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 10:16 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it? Hmmm..you can't read our minds without active input to the listserv? I must be too used to working for the Fed. I am following the thread with interest. I may have some input. Just as you may only have 10 minutes to spare to respond, I am not funded to do half the work I am asked and expected to do, much less question or respond to why am I here (as an ecologist... etc.). Don't let my title fool you; as a district botanist my funded 'work' is to kill invasive plants, an inherently unsatisfatory task. My training is as a community ecologist, and whileI have my own ideas about what the study or application of that is, your and wayne's and other's discussion keep me engaged and I assume that speaks to others as well. Maybe the thread loses importance, as the Occupy movement, with time, but it continues to surface, so let's none of us quit thinking, or expressing our thoughts. discourse keeps the process alive. thank you. david David C. Baker Botanist, Tiller Ranger District 541-825-3149 Phone 541-825-3110 Fax -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Matt Chew Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 2:41 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it? As of the latest digest I received, this thread had attracted input from fewer than 0.1% of the list's 12K recipients. Perhaps there are 12K reasons for remaining unengaged but I suspect they are all variations or combinations of a few basic themes. Rather than debate plausible rationalizations, I challenge you all to consider Wayne's question carefully. Sociologists who study the formation and dynamics of scientific disciplines use the concept of boundary work to describe the process of deciding what ideas (and those who adhere to them) are inside (therefore also outside') of the group. So, what's in and what's out of ecology? Academic ecologists and biogeographers have a long tradition of border skirmishing. But beyond that ecology seems to have been accreting adherents, methods and ideas at quite clip for the last 40 years or so. As an -ology, is ecology limited to studying something? Strictly speaking, yes; but we do not speak strictly. Is ecology a thing to be studied? We speak of the ecology of a place, of a geographical feature, of a species, of a population, of an assemblage, of a community (whatever that is) of an ecosystem (whatever that is) or of a landscape (etc.). Is ecology a method, a philosophy, an ethical stance, a moral commitment, a religious belief? Are you an ecologist? What makes you one? Recycling stuff? Organic gardening? Watching a TV show? Joining the Sierra Club, Audubon, and/or TNC (etc.)? Taking a class? Two classes? Earning a certificate? An Associate's degree? A BA? A BS? An MA? An MS? A Ph.D.? Some other accredited degree? Working in the field for 1/5/10/20 years? Should anyone who calls whatever they feel, think or do ecology be considered an ecologist because they call themselves one? If so, why does ESA have a certification process? Does that process exclude anyone who seeks certification? If so, can excluded individuals still call themselves an ecologists? Can those of us who never seek certification call ourselves ecologists? Does being certified mean you know what you're talking about, or merely that you're using the right words? If ecology means all those things, can it really mean any one of them? The impending 100th anniversaries of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring and of ESA and BES as organizations are good excuses to ponder all this. I'm expecting 12,000 answers by Monday night. But don't cc me. Just respond to the list. Matthew K Chew Assistant Research Professor Arizona State University School of Life Sciences ASU Center for Biology Society PO Box 873301 Tempe, AZ 85287-3301 USA Tel 480.965.8422 Fax 480.965.8330 mc...@asu.edu or anek...@gmail.com http://cbs.asu.edu/people
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology as Science Status and Future
IMHO, succession stands still as the one thing that we can take as solid theory in ecology. Since Clements, there has been a lot of re inventing of the wheel, however nonetheless we still can and do observe succession and it stands as the basic point of reference for most ecology. Theories on diversity are also pretty solid, especially ideas about diversity and complexity (although the one begs the other, again, JMHO). Measures of diversity are needlessly pushed into pedantic mathematical/statistical elaborations that muddy, rather than clear any issues. Of course I am a person who thinks the log normal model is generally best, so what could I know! In any event, it would be nice to start some sort of large scale assessment and concentrated collection of diversity data so we can systematically, rather than haphazardly assess changes in diversity. How many times do we really need to count the trees in the Harvard Experimental Forest? Especially when we have, as we do in Mississippi, an area that was recently clear cut, and has regenerated an interesting distribution of species, such that with respect to trees anyways, you can find almost a completely different forest on one side of a small road vs another; or very small scale geographic changes, like a smooth 20 meter rise in elevation, can cause the composition of the forest to change dramatically...so how could all this come to be homogeneous longleaf pine forest...or could it? Or would this disparity remain over time...or would it eventually sort itself out into something more regular? Unfortunately, the concerns of the founders of modern ecology still plague us. A lot of non science is called ecology, and ecology is called on as knee jerk support for a lot of non science. Not that there is anything wrong with philosophical approaches that are not science, but if it is not science it is not ecology. Ecologists can and do investigate factors that affect the environment; it is central to our role in science, but that doesn't mean that we thusly somehow become associated with any sort of socio political theory in any sense. In the end, I don't know if one can be a political activist and a sceintist in the same field. Too much of a temptation to try to make you science fit your politics. Hopefully we can focus more on discovering what is happening, and get away from what we want o be happening, or what someone thinks should be happening, and stick more and more to the science. So easy it seemed once found, which yet unfound most would have thought impossible John Milton Robert G. Hamilton Professor of Biology Department of Biological Sciences Mississippi College P.O. Box 4045 200 South Capitol Street Clinton, MS 39058 Phone: (601) 925-3872 FAX (601) 925-3978 This communication may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient or if you are not authorized to receive it, please notify and return the message to the sender. Unauthorized reviewing, forwarding, copying, distributing or using this infomration is strictly prohibited.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Credibility Research grants etc
Climate change has to happen. With respect to temperature, over any period of time temperature will go up...or go down..on average as compared with any other period of time. That human activities, specifically, the release of CO2 into the atmosphere, will have serious consequences is a prediction that simply has not borne out. Acid rain had obvious consequences that did not require very weak tedious statistical arguments, for example. The CO2 caused greenhouse effects predictions simply did not happen, and that's the problem with the current climate change debate. Maybe they could occur in the future, but as we deplete fossil fuel reserves and normal economic forces move us away from fossil fuels, the potential is much less than it was in any event. My problem with this is that we have done good work in educating people on the effects of atmospheric pollution, and as a result have had a great effect on industrial methodology and related technologies; reducing emissions of serious pollutants. We risk exchanging our credibility on real issues for what looks like politically motivated extremism on the CO2 issue. If the CO2 argument is to be validated in any meaningful way, related models have to make accurate elegant predictions. So far they have failed, and mainly are used to explain past events; and as such represent little more than classic pseudo science. So easy it seemed once found, which yet unfound most would have thought impossible John Milton Robert G. Hamilton Professor of Biology Department of Biological Sciences Mississippi College P.O. Box 4045 200 South Capitol Street Clinton, MS 39058 Phone: (601) 925-3872 FAX (601) 925-3978 This communication may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient or if you are not authorized to receive it, please notify and return the message to the sender. Unauthorized reviewing, forwarding, copying, distributing or using this infomration is strictly prohibited. Raffel, Thomas traf...@cas.usf.edu 12/23/2009 8:15 AM Of course ecologists try to link their research to climate change! Everyone wants their research to sound (and hopefully be) important, and climate change is clearly important. Just as acid rain is important, and species extinctions, and the hole in the ozone layer. And yes, this is partly motivated by a desire for funding, but also by a desire to continue doing research on important questions. I see nothing wrong with this. Claiming that global warming is a fraud because scientists use it as a buzz-word to get funding is absurd. Next they'll say that cancer is a fraud, because molecular biologists and chemists use it as a buzz-word to help obtain funding. I wonder if even the tobacco companies ever stooped so low. Tom Raffel -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 5:24 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Credibility Research grants etc ECOLOG: One of the major propaganda statements of those opposed to climate change research and actions to reduce atmospheric CO2 is that money is a major motivation behind what they claim is a fraud. Funding requests are often cited, and the claim has been made that, for example, all you have to do to get your proposal funded is to mention 'climate change,' 'global warming,' or some similar buzz-phrase. To what extent do you think this might be true? WT No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.430 / Virus Database: 270.14.101/2555 - Release Date: 12/22/09 08:09:00
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Why should I care about mass extinction?
I'm not going to argue the point beyond this. I'm off for a short field trip anyways. The issue is *MASS* extinctions, and the impact of CO2 levels. To suggest CO2 has caused mass extinctions is absurd. Like many of us, I like to review Silent Spring from time to time as a watershed publication. IMHO, Silent Spring has happened, but not because of pesticide and fertilizer use, but because of habitat conversion, which does require pesticide and fertilizer use...but the reason the birds are gone, IMHO, is that the habitat for the birds is no longer sufficient to maintain the populations. Even the ubiquitous blackbirds in this region are pretty much gone...a few scraggly flocks, but nothing like we saw say 15 years ago. Not that we did anything about it, mind you...the politics of the day were and are far more important than the meaningful realities. Easy to talk in some therory laden terms than actually go out and do real work as scientists. Easier to confirm our biases I suppose. It's unfortuate that so many are so consumed by political advocacy that science becomes nothing more than a talking point. It is either silly to say CO2 has caused mass extinctions or silly to say CO2 has not caused mass extinctions, and my point is the former. And of course, speaking politcally, anyone so opposed to CO2 emissions can simply stop consuming products that involve CO2 emissions...metals, plastics, processed foods...and some people do this, BTW. So easy it seemed once found, which yet unfound most would have thought impossible John Milton Robert G. Hamilton Department of Biological Sciences Mississippi College P.O. Box 4045 200 South Capitol Street Clinton, MS 39058 Phone: (601) 925-3872 FAX (601) 925-3978 This communication may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient or if you are not authorized to receive it, please notify and return the message to the sender. Unauthorized reviewing, forwarding, copying, distributing or using this infomration is strictly prohibited. William Silvert cien...@silvert.org 5/24/2009 4:50 AM Hamilton's posting is so silly that it hardly merits rebuttal, but the sentence Habitat conversion is the sole cause of human induced mass extinctions. is so astoundingly ill-informed that it might be useful for lectures on how unaware the public is about scientific issues, perhaps accompanied by illustrations of dodos, passenger pigeons, and numerous other species hunted to extinction. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Robert Hamilton rhami...@mc.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2009 11:39 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Why should I care about mass extinciton? Global warming is a ruse. There is no evidence contemporary global warming will cause sea level rise, for example. Sea levels are pretty high anyways. warm the atmosphere, more water goes into the air, more is cycled onto land. Will sea levels rise? Will it make some great difference, especially with respect to mass extinction? I, at least don't see it. More storms? Even if so, so what? heat waves? Is that a joke? It surely is silly. Habitat conversion is the sole cause of human induced mass extinctions. When we advocate on the issue of CO2, we are buying into a meaningless ruse that more and more looks like nothing more than a means to generate revenue for people who want to invest in wind and solar power distribution. Rob Hamilton
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Why should I care about mass extinciton?
Global warming is a ruse. There is no evidence contemporary global warming will cause sea level rise, for example. Sea levels are pretty high anyways. warm the atmosphere, more water goes into the air, more is cycled onto land. Will sea levels rise? Will it make some great difference, especially with respect to mass extinction? I, at least don't see it. More storms? Even if so, so what? heat waves? Is that a joke? It surely is silly. Habitat conversion is the sole cause of human induced mass extinctions. When we advocate on the issue of CO2, we are buying into a meaningless ruse that more and more looks like nothing more than a means to generate revenue for people who want to invest in wind and solar power distribution. Rob Hamilton So easy it seemed once found, which yet unfound most would have thought impossible John Milton Robert G. Hamilton Department of Biological Sciences Mississippi College P.O. Box 4045 200 South Capitol Street Clinton, MS 39058 Phone: (601) 925-3872 FAX (601) 925-3978 This communication may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient or if you are not authorized to receive it, please notify and return the message to the sender. Unauthorized reviewing, forwarding, copying, distributing or using this infomration is strictly prohibited. malcolm McCallum malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org 5/22/2009 9:34 PM You are correct. Joe and Jane just don't care. Our ethical structure is based on anthropocentrism, and until the overall philosophy of modern society changes, we must operate within that realm. The problem is they are also EXTREMELY short-sighted. The upside? Remember in Star Wars Episode 1 when Quagon (sp?) says that greed can be a powerful ally? Well this is true of all vices. So what about anthropocentrism and short-sightedness can be capitalized on? Rather than trying to change the world, something that takes forever, maybe we should be trying to work within its bounds So, what can we as leaders identify to accomplish our agenda to save the rest of the world and humanity from humanity? Anyone care to brainstorm On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Brendan Rogers brog...@gmail.com wrote: Okay, I'm the average Joe or Jane, concerned with my kids' educations, mortgage payments, a failing economy, crime, and sometimes endangered species. When the media warns of global warming, they most often cite three reasons why I should care: 1) more heat waves 2) more storms 3) sea level rise I'm thinking, 100 years ago we hadn't flown a plane, landed on the moon, or fought off the Nazis. We didn't have computers, cell phones, or the internet. Why is everyone so up-tight about global warming if all we have to conquer in the next 100 years are some more heat waves, a few more hurricanes, and some lost shoreline?? Sounds like a fairly short order. Now, I know. I'm a graduate student studying climate change. I understand the interconnected ecology of the natural world and how rapid climate change can be detrimental to its fabric in the geologic short-term. What I don't understand is why hardly anybody mentions mass extinctions when they warn of global warming. Here's what I can gather: as far as we know, there have been five major mass extinctions in Earth's history where up to 95% of all species vanish. Most believe all five were either directly or indirectly results of rapid climate change. Right now, today, when the effects of climate change are beginning to be felt but pale in comparison to those likely ahead of us, extinctions are occurring at a rate orders of magnitude above the pre-historical background rate. This is mainly from habitat destruction and invasive introductions. However, add to this rapid climate change where even mobile species must negotiate a patchwork landscape of roads, agriculture, and cities. Can you imagine an Earth with 95% of its species lost? I can't. I don't know. Maybe I'm missing something or maybe my information is off. If it's not, then maybe mass extinction just isn't that big a deal. If it is a big deal, and I'm pretty sure of that one, then maybe Joe and Jane just don't care that much. But if we can get the general public to care about pandas and koalas and spotted owls, surely we can get them to care about the rest. The truth is, I think I know the answer. People need consequences that can directly relate to them, someone they know, or for the slightly more enlightened, some other group of people. But the rest of the environment becomes a bit more removed and theoretical. Plus, climate change isn't an issue that can be solved by the preservation of some wildlands or even by mildly altered behaviors. It requires a whole-sale restructuring of our global energy grid, and if we succeed, there will be significant short-term economic repercussions. But I'm still left wondering why no one TRIES to communicate this
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey!
The effects of overcomsumption and overdevelopment on the part of people in modern cities are very obvious, and one does not need to make the sorts of arguments that Miller makes below to show the effects. The obscene amount of energy required to maintain people living in modern cites would be greatly ameliorated if people moved onto less arable lands and became more responsible for their own existence. Grow some of your own food for example, or at least support local food producers rather than forage on food shipped in from Thailand and Chile. I wonder if that practice is factored into people's carbon footprint?. IMHO, nothing does more ecological harm than maintaining populations in large urban centers. I could equally argue that Birkenstock shoes have caused global warming. The effects are difficult to see, but if you were a nuclear physicist you could see them. If you remain unconvinced, get a degree in nuclear physics and do some research. There is no side to this thing, IMHO. Science is a particular type of philosophy. You must have an explanation that makes a risky prediction, and you must have empirical evidence to show that nature behaves in accordance with your risky prediction. What we see with CO2 arguments is akin to Freudian psychology. The data are explained regardless; the hypothesis cannot be wrong. Explanations are changed to suit each particular contigency. We have seen, with CFC's, that science can make meaningful contributions in related areas, with real evidence. Here, with CO2, there is none. What is most disturbing to me is the presentation of evidence spun to support one view or another, be they some weatherman saying there is no human generated increase in CO2 levels, which is ridiculous to me, or some environmentalist saying that increased CO2 levels will destroy our civilization, equally ridiculous, to me. I can understand them as political arguments. As science, they are invalid, and the shadow cast when people who are scientists make these arguments, falls across all scientists, and ecologists in particular get painted as quacks by this pseudoscientific political spin. Rob Hamilton Robert Miller rjmill...@gmail.com 3/5/2009 11:20 AM The problem with CO2 and climate change is that they are not visible. A city is visible, and easily vilified, even though spreading its citizens over the countryside would do far more damage. There is abundant evidence that global warming is a problem, but it's not easy to understand. To people who claim the evidence is weak I suggest talking with an experienced biogeochemist. If you're still not convinced, maybe you should become a biogeochemist and do some science to see if your views hold up. Bob On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 1:42 AM, William Silvert cien...@silvert.org wrote: I don't have the reference available, but I recall a talk from an AAAS meeting some years ago dealing with the impacts of increased CO2 on PP. The findings were that scurb grasses, weeds basically, responded well to increased CO2 levels, while cereals and trees did not do as well. Perhaps someone on the list could add more facts and details. In the marine ecosystem we know that increased sedimentation of carbon and nutrients increases benthic productivity but there is a loss of biodiversity to the point where eventually the bottom is covered with slug worms (Capitella) and little else. Beyond this point anoxia sets in and the bacteria take over. Although the overall impacts of increased CO2 are still controversial, a lot of people seem ready to characterise any views other than their own as nonsense. This too can be an embarassment for the rest of the science community. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Robert Hamilton rhami...@mc.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 4:26 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey! Increased CO2 in the air, along with the resultant increased temperature and water vapor has to increase primary productivity, as we all know from basic principles that precipitation and temperature are the prime regulators of primary productivity. I see increasdPPP as a good thing overall. The catastophic predictions, the Al Gore sorts of things, are embarassing to me as an ecologist, as the public does see me as a person supporting such nonsense. -- Robert J. Miller, Ph.D. Bren School of Environmental Science and Management University of California Santa Barbara Santa Barbara CA 93109-5131
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey!
or most dire problem is per se, but whether our actions result in a sustainable and equitable society for us as well as a viable habitat for the rest of the planet *. But I suppose I am preaching to the choir. -Gene On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Robert Hamilton rhami...@mc.edu wrote: Don't know if you want to post a contrasting view, but I'll offer one up. No question that human generated CO2 is causing global warming, in my opinion. There is, however, no evidence of a deleterious effect, especially given the fact that the climate does and will change one way or another anyways. Models predicting catastrophes have been overblown to a degree that is embarrassing to an informed scientist, and results a in classic boy who cried wolf type loss of credibility for informed scientists. With respect to our ecological impact, habitat destruction is the #1 negative human impact, and the overall ecological footprint is the real issue, not just the carbon footprint. There is no activity we engage in as humans that is worse than the building of modern cities, especially when you factor in the type of agricultural practices needed to support those cities. The carbon footprint approach also strongly discriminates against those living in poorer, more rural areas, singling out the activities that support the economies in those areas as the major problem, as opposed to the much more destructive activities of people who live in urban areas, particularly modern urban areas. It's obvuiously more politically prudent to attack the weak. There is an issue with global warming, but it is relatively minor, as far as we know at this point in time, and it appears to be just another way of deflecting the real issue, habitat conversion. Allowing people in large modern cities to feel good about themselves re environmental issues while continuing on with the most destructive of lifestyles. I recall reading many months ago about Leonardo DeCaprio wanting to buy a tropical island and build an eco friendly resort being presented as evidence of some sort of environmentally responsible act. Ridiculous, of course, but one of the best examples of the sort or poor thinking that drives a lot of the pop culture based environmental movement. Rob Hamilton So easy it seemed once found, which yet unfound most would have thought impossible John Milton Robert G. Hamilton Department of Biological Sciences Mississippi College P.O. Box 4045 200 South Capitol Street Clinton, MS 39058 Phone: (601) 925-3872 FAX (601) 925-3978
Re: [SPAM] textbook-free classes
** Low Priority ** Also, instructional methods don't mean so much at higher levels. At the graduate level especially, students are adults and should be able to develop the necessary understanding in any environment. We are all going to approach each discipline differently. While I can see, and I do, sticking to the textbook more with freshman undergraduate students, and have used textbooks as principle sources in graduate courses, if all a student comes back at me with in a graduate course is what is in some textbook, I would not consider that effort a passing effort at the graduate level. I make it a point to give graduate students questions of a sort they have not seen in class, but require the use of the principles learned during the course when creating tests. A student who cannot handle this is not adequately prepared for graduate level education, and is most certainly not qualified to be awarded a graduate degree. Real science doesn't come with a textbook! So easy it seemed once found, which yet unfound most would have thought impossible John Milton Robert G. Hamilton Department of Biological Sciences Mississippi College P.O. Box 4045 200 South Capitol Street Clinton, MS 39058 Phone: (601) 925-3872 FAX (601) 925-3978 Jeff Jewett [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/20/07 4:11 PM Speaking as a former high school teacher and current environmental science graduate student, I'd like to comment on instructors tossing the textbook from their courses. I appreciate _supplements_ to the textbook, such as selected websites, journal articles, etc. I have always had a problem, however, with instructors whose only reading material is something that they wrote themselves (whether it was a coursepack or something more formal). Every student learns differently, and not all students will relate well to any particular instructor's teaching style. If the course follows a decent textbook (even if assigned readings are not required), then a motivated student has a fall-back instructional method if lectures are not working (read the book!). If the only reading available is something that the instructor wrote, it is usually more of the same that the student heard in lecture. An instructor-written textbook rarely sheds new light on the subject or teaches with a different explanation of the concept. So...course readers and other supplemental materials are good, but be very careful that students have the opportunity to hear from a variety of instructional voices, not just one. Thanks for listening, Jeff Jewett Montana State University
Re: why scientists believe in evolution
The answer is much simpler. The Theory of Evolution explains those data. No other theory does. Someone wants to propose another theory to explain those data, I'd be all ears, but my ears are closed the theories that are nothing more than criticisms of other theories. Rob Hamilton So easy it seemed once found, which yet unfound most would have thought impossible John Milton Robert G. Hamilton Department of Biological Sciences Mississippi College P.O. Box 4045 200 South Capitol Street Clinton, MS 39058 Phone: (601) 925-3872 FAX (601) 925-3978 Russell Burke [EMAIL PROTECTED] 8/27/2007 8:09 AM Carissa: you've got quite a collection of concerns about evolution here, and you're asking a lot of readers to go thru them all and teach you a basic course in evolution. too bad you didn't have one already, then it would be possible to start this discussion at some point later than where it was in Darwin's time--we're on to more advanced issues now. that's right, almost every one of your concerns here was familiar to Darwin and he quite nicely rebutted them in his time. sure, he didn't ask about molecular evolution, but replace the molecular terms in your email with parts of the vertebrate eye and he answered it 150 years ago. ID arguments are so old hat by now that they're pretty boring. sorry if that's offensive, I don't mean to be. except maybe the origin of life question, which is quite separate from evolution--evolution being change over generations, evolution doesn't specifically address origin of life. that's a different issue that's often conflated with evolution. you asked why the scientific community is so convinced of evolution? I'd say three main reasons. 1. there is a gigantic amount of morphological, behavioral, molecular, and fossil evidence to support it. pick up any basic text book in evolution and you'll see what I mean. 2. it has another characteristic that scientists like: using the theory of evolution, we can and do generate testable hypotheses, and by testing them, we practice science. in fact, many thousands of tests of evolution have been performed, and evolution is holding up quite well. 3. it is the only game in town. no other theory of how the biological world got to be this way has evidence supporting it and generates testable hypotheses. if you or someone else comes up with an alternative, you can replace the theory of evolution with your own ideas when you produce substantial amounts of data and successfully use it to generate and test meaningful hypotheses. especially given your background and institutional placement, its surprising that you haven't made better use of the tremendous resources at your disposal to educate yourself on the evidence for evolution, and at least bring your education up to current issues. I'll bet the people in your lab would be glad to hear your thoughts, and if not, you are surrounded by resources that can answer your question: why is the scientific community so convinced of evolution? RBurke Carissa Shipman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/26/07 10:08 PM I am a biology student at Temple University and I have conducted an NSF funded systematics project for the order Hymenoptera at the American Museum of Natural History. My question is why is the scientific community so convinced of evolution? There are very few publications concerning evolution at the molecular or biochemical level. Most scientists are baffled at how such molecular systems such as blood clotting actual evolved in a step by step manner. It looks to me like many of the molecular inter workings all needed to be there simultaneously for the end product to function properly. The biosynthesis of AMP is just as baffling. How could that have happened in a step by step fashion? You can speculate, but no evolutionist has the answer. So if you can not explain how the most nitty gritty machines of life molecules learned to function in the intricate ways that they do why are you so certain that everything evolved? Science is looking at the details. All science textbooks I have read have relayed very little evidence of evolution at the molecular level. They just say it happened. Since Darwinian evolution has published very few papers concerning molecular evolution it should perish. Systematics addresses genetic similarities between species, but it does not address exactly how those genetic differences and similarities came to be. There maybe fossils and genes, but you need more than this. I am not convinced of evolution, but still choose to educate myself in what it teaches and believes. How do scientists explain how even the slightest mutation in the human genome is highly detrimental most of the time? If even the slightest change occurs in our genome it is oftentimes fatal. Believing that this mechanism lead to all the species we see today takes a great deal of faith.For instance if even one step of the blood clotting
Re: Peer review, another perspective
Actually, it's hard to find cases where applied research in and of itself has ever lead to anything. It's almost always, if not always, applications of stuff learned via basic research. So easy it seemed once found, which yet unfound most would have thought impossible John Milton Robert G. Hamilton Department of Biological Sciences Mississippi College P.O. Box 4045 200 South Capitol Street Clinton, MS 39058 Phone: (601) 925-3872 FAX (601) 925-3978 Liane Cochran-Stafira [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5/8/2007 11:34 AM Hmmm, If we start viewing science through the social relevance lens, what will happen to basic research - i.e. non-applied, question oriented work rather than problem driven work? I can think of many examples where basic research has provided unexpected applied benefits. If grant proposals are weighed on relevance, won't we lose the ability to conduct basic research? Liane Cochran-Stafira At 07:09 AM 5/8/2007, Dan Tufford wrote: From Futures 39(7) Scott, Alister, 2007. Peer review and the social relevance of science. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2006.12.009 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2006.12.009 Abstract Recent science-policy debates have emphasised a growing role for science in helping to address some of society's most pressing challenges such as global environmental change, caring for the needs of ageing populations, and competitiveness in a global age. Other 'relevance' pressures include drives for public accountability, pressure for the 'democratisation' of science and demands from industry for usable knowledge. Underlying the question of the social relevance of science is the matter of decision-making and quality control in science, usually via the peer-review process. Peer review plays a central role in many of the key moments in science. It is the main form of decision-making around grant selection, academic publishing and the promotion of individual scientists within universities and research institutions. It also underpins methods used to evaluate scientific institutions. Yet, peer review as currently practised can be narrowly scientific, to the exclusion of other pressing quality criteria relating to social relevance. It is often also controlled and practised by scientists to the exclusion of wider groups that might bring valuable perspectives. This article sets out to examine peer review through the lens of social relevance. It challenges peer review as currently practised and makes some suggestions for ways forward. Regards, Daniel L. Tufford, Ph.D. University of South Carolina Department of Biological Sciences 209A Sumwalt(office) 701 Sumter St, Room 401(mail) Columbia, SC 29208 Ph. 803-777-3292, Fx: 803-777-3292 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.biol.sc.edu/~tufford *** Liane Cochran-Stafira, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Biology Saint Xavier University 3700 West 103rd Street Chicago, Illinois 60655 phone: 773-298-3514 fax:773-298-3536 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://faculty.sxu.edu/~cochran/
Re: 1916 Clements reference in electronic version?
with their respective interpretations of succession and that if you flipflopped their experience, both men would have developed the others' theories. Clements primarily worked mostly in temperate and montane environments in the USA (Neb, Min, Col, Calif, Ariz). Gleason began his research in Ill, following up on work by Cowles, and continued in Michigan and at the NY Botanical Garden. Most importantly for this post, Gleason spent time putting together a botanical survey for Puerto Rico and worked in the Asian tropics. He had already begun to question the association model of Clements by 1927, but his tropical trips resulted in a more complete criticism. From PR, Gleason published on plant ecology and noted that multiple transects or plots would seldom result in similar species compositions. (Gleason, H.A. and M.T. Cook, Plant ecology of Porto Rico. Scientific Survey of Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands, 1927. 7(1-2): p. 1-173.) Granted, a series of plots or transects may only be descriptive, but PR at the time that Gleason was here was already a highly fragmented habitat, severely affected by land use history. The Spanish had been here for 400 years. Agriculture was already well on its way to deforesting 96% of the island (a level reached within 25 yr of Gleason's visit) but some marginal lands and former crown lands were already developing secondary forests. We have aerial photos of the island from 1936 that show clear patchworks of forest fragments of various ages witihin an agricultural matrix. Gleason was a bright fellow, was well trained by Cowles and in Clementsian succession before arriving in PR, and would have recognized the value of sampling in what we would now recognize as a chronosequence. I would argue that chronosequence sampling is in fact experimental, but that is probably another topic for Ecolog. Finally, I think if you read more of Gleason's work, you'll find that he is cut more from a modeler's mold. If you blindfold yourself and run through a mature forest in Michigan, it's pretty sure that you'll run into a majority of beeches and maples, or oaks and hickories, etc. If you do the same in mature forests in Puerto Rico, you won't run into a majority of anything, except trees, and our flora is depauperate compared to continental tropical tree floras. In fact, we do refer to tabonuco or colorado forests, but these aren't dominant species in the temperate sense, they are better understood as species that one might frequently find in mature lowland or lower montane (respectively) wet forests. They are indicators of a forest type, rather than a successional association. If you go into a mature (80 year old) forest in the tropics and predict the species of tree next to the one you are standing under, you'll need a long list to be correct--much longer than in most temperate/alpine regions. On the other hand, Clements did not work in the tropics, as far as I know. As such, he would have a shorter list of species to work with and a set of climax forests that were very predictable in dominant species--even in species from earlier successional stages, as Marks so well illustrated in Pennsylvania. A most reasonable explanation of these patterns would be plant associations. When forced to explain exceptions due to waterlogged soil, sandy patches, etc. Clements defined smaller associations. Perhaps the tropical forests represent ever more smaller associations due to edaphic and other factors, but it is very hard not to believe that our forests are more individualistic and our species are more interchangeable. Gleason began his career in Illinois using a Clementsian approach and found cracks in it, even from his descriptive work. Perhaps Clements' calls for more experimentation were a smokescreen to diminish the attention paid to his critics. Perhaps it was genuine. Regardless, in hindsight, it was ahead of the curve to call for manipulative support for successional concepts. On the other hand, 10 years after the publication of Clements' seminar work, Gleason would have had ample experience with very controlled observations in much different systems to both support his individualistic hypothesis and criticize superorganisms. So there is my 2c. and as it's after midnight, this post will probably miss yet another day in the life of ecolog digests, but thanks for letting me provide a postscript. Skip J. Van Bloem, PhD Dept. of Agronomy and Soils University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez Date:Sat, 17 Feb 2007 13:51:50 -0600 From:Robert Hamilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 1916 Clements reference in electronic version? The problem I see with Gleason is that his argument is purely rhetorical. He does use examples, but no experimental analyses of any sort. A key point, again JMHO, is that Gleason talks of SPECIES while Clements talks more of life forms. Clements does not predict rigid SPECIES compositions
Re: 1916 Clements reference in electronic version?
The problem I see with Gleason is that his argument is purely rhetorical. He does use examples, but no experimental analyses of any sort. A key point, again JMHO, is that Gleason talks of SPECIES while Clements talks more of life forms. Clements does not predict rigid SPECIES compositions, however one of the problems with a lot of Clements work is the attempt to define smaller and smaller scale associations of life forms. I could rant on almost indefinitely! Reading Gleason reveals a person who is consumed with description only; there is no attempt at any sort of experimental analysis. Clements continually insists on experimental analysis. The 1916 paper, for example, includes a lot of data. One needs to remember where Ecology was in 1916. We had no Evolutionary Synthesis, but rather Darwinists vs Mendelists. We had no concept of any sort of Functional Ecology outside Clements and his group. Clements challenged people who just wanted to describe; Clements wanted experimental analysis. So easy it seemed once found, which yet unfound most would have thought impossible John Milton Robert G. Hamilton Department of Biological Sciences Mississippi College P.O. Box 4045 200 South Capitol Street Clinton, MS 39058 Phone: (601) 925-3872 FAX (601) 925-3978 JACQUELYN GILL [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2/16/2007 4:48 PM In defense of Gleason, it might be useful to keep in mind his individualistic concept of vegetation, as opposed to the Clementsian model. I know that especially as a Quaternary paleoecologist-in-training Gleason's work has been extremely important. Cheers, .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: Robert Hamilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, February 16, 2007 4:21 pm Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] 1916 Clements reference in electronic version? To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Definately, many thanks. I am presenting Clements v Gleason next week, and this saves me a trip to get a copy. I am going to rip Gleason, FWIW, because IMHO the main point in criticizing Clements has more to do with not liking Clements' experimental approach to ecology, and wanting to stay with ecology being nothing more than descriptions of habitats. So easy it seemed once found, which yet unfound most would have thought impossible John Milton Robert G. Hamilton Department of Biological Sciences Mississippi College P.O. Box 4045 200 South Capitol Street Clinton, MS 39058 Phone: (601) 925-3872 FAX (601) 925-3978 L Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2/16/2007 10:26 AM Thanks to Jonah Duckles for putting together a .pdf from the Library of Congress website! Some of you asked for it if I got it, so here it is with only a few pages missing. I was told this link might not last long, so save your copy soon. Here it is in PDF...sucked down the TIFFs from Library of congress and put it in a PDF format. Pages 383-387 (Tiff numbering) were bad so they aren't included. This link probably won't last for too long...but enjoy: http://www.jduck.net/Clements1916.pdf Jonah Original Message Follows From: L Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: L Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: 1916 Clements reference in electronic version? Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:47:21 + This is a great place to start. You're right, though, it is a bit clunky to go through each section by opening new HTML links. I'd still be glad for a .pdf version if anyone already has that. In the meantime, I'll be plugging away at the Library of Congress website... Thank you! Lauren Quinn Original Message Follows From: Wirt Atmar [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: 1916 Clements reference in electronic version? Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 17:22:45 EST It is actually on-line at the Library of Congress website, although in one of two ugly formats: either as a sequence of plain-text HTML pages or one SGML (Standard Generalized Markup Language) document, an open-source format which almost no one supports any longer. The address for the document is: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/consrv:@field([EMAIL PROTECTED](amrvgvg39 )):@@@$REF$ or http://tinyurl.com/29kjnv Wirt Atmar _ Invite your Hotmail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live Spaces http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp007001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=createwx_url=/friends.aspxmkt=en-us _ Want a degree but can't afford
Re: 1916 Clements reference in electronic version?
Definately, many thanks. I am presenting Clements v Gleason next week, and this saves me a trip to get a copy. I am going to rip Gleason, FWIW, because IMHO the main point in criticizing Clements has more to do with not liking Clements' experimental approach to ecology, and wanting to stay with ecology being nothing more than descriptions of habitats. So easy it seemed once found, which yet unfound most would have thought impossible John Milton Robert G. Hamilton Department of Biological Sciences Mississippi College P.O. Box 4045 200 South Capitol Street Clinton, MS 39058 Phone: (601) 925-3872 FAX (601) 925-3978 L Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2/16/2007 10:26 AM Thanks to Jonah Duckles for putting together a .pdf from the Library of Congress website! Some of you asked for it if I got it, so here it is with only a few pages missing. I was told this link might not last long, so save your copy soon. Here it is in PDF...sucked down the TIFFs from Library of congress and put it in a PDF format. Pages 383-387 (Tiff numbering) were bad so they aren't included. This link probably won't last for too long...but enjoy: http://www.jduck.net/Clements1916.pdf Jonah Original Message Follows From: L Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: L Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: 1916 Clements reference in electronic version? Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:47:21 + This is a great place to start. You're right, though, it is a bit clunky to go through each section by opening new HTML links. I'd still be glad for a .pdf version if anyone already has that. In the meantime, I'll be plugging away at the Library of Congress website... Thank you! Lauren Quinn Original Message Follows From: Wirt Atmar [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: 1916 Clements reference in electronic version? Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 17:22:45 EST It is actually on-line at the Library of Congress website, although in one of two ugly formats: either as a sequence of plain-text HTML pages or one SGML (Standard Generalized Markup Language) document, an open-source format which almost no one supports any longer. The address for the document is: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/consrv:@field([EMAIL PROTECTED](amrvgvg39 )):@@@$REF$ or http://tinyurl.com/29kjnv Wirt Atmar _ Invite your Hotmail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live Spaces http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp007001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=createwx_url=/friends.aspxmkt=en-us _ Want a degree but can't afford to quit? Top school degrees online - in as fast as 1 year http://forms.nextag.com/goto.jsp?url=/serv/main/buyer/education.jsp?doSearch=ntm=ysearch=education_text_links_88_h288cs=4079p=5116
Re: 1916 Clements reference in electronic version?
It's a monograph published by Carneige. I lost mine somewhere. You cannot get it online, I've looked. If you expect some sort of crank with some sort of GAIA hypothesis, you will be dissapointed! IMHO Clements is almost deliberately misrepresented on the issue. Some others used Clements to really go in a direction opposite of that of Clements, who wanted to take ecology from an anecdotal pastime to an experimental science. If you get a copy, I'd appreciate the opportunity to replace mine. Rob Hamilton So easy it seemed once found, which yet unfound most would have thought impossible John Milton Robert G. Hamilton Department of Biological Sciences Mississippi College P.O. Box 4045 200 South Capitol Street Clinton, MS 39058 Phone: (601) 925-3872 FAX (601) 925-3978 L Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2/15/2007 3:19 PM Dear list, Does anyone out there have a scanned .pdf version of any portion of Frederic Clements' 1916 book Plant Succession especially excerpts that directly relate to the suggestion of plant communities as superorganisms? I'd like to have my students read some of this text (will compare to Gleason's later individualistic concept), but the library at my school does not have a copy. If anyone can send me an electronic file of any portion of the text, I would very much appreciate it! Thanks, Lauren Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] Adjunct Professor Department of Natural Sciences and Math Dominican University of California _ Dont miss your chance to WIN 10 hours of private jet travel from Microsoft Office Live http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0540002499mrt/direct/01/
Re: NSTA's response to OpEd
The problem is we are not teaching politics. If you want to have some sort of political science class that looks at the politics of this, fine. Otherwise political haranguing only causes the problem to get worse. No one has done more harm on the issue of Global Warming that people like Al Gore. We are strong on the science with this issue. Present the science only and let the students think it through for themselves. It is easy to debunk the cycles ruse as pseudo science, for example, and I don't see doing that as advocacy. The classroom should *NEVER* be used for politcal advocacy...study poltical advocacy, fine, but not political advocay. It cheapens education and makes us look like a bunch of political hacks. Rob Hamilton So easy it seemed once found, which yet unfound most would have thought impossible John Milton Robert G. Hamilton Department of Biological Sciences Mississippi College P.O. Box 4045 200 South Capitol Street Clinton, MS 39058 Phone: (601) 925-3872 FAX (601) 925-3978 David M. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/29/2006 2:20 PM A large part of the public rejects the science of climate change because most of them don't have a clue about science, period. When you have widespread ignorance, which is an indisputable fact of American life, it is easy for entrenched interests to pervert the political process by engaging in a equally widespread, well-organized and well-funded campaign of disinformation and misinformation (like coal is a clean alternative). An Incovenient Truth is an effective piece of persuasion (some might call it propaganda, which is OK). Unfortunately, it is exactly the kind of piece that will get the public's attention that something must be done. An apolitical scientist can talk about the radiative properties of the atmosphere until his face is as blue as the sky on a clear day -- most people will just glaze over (or go get in fights at the local K-Mart over the limited supply of Playstation 3s). Besides, I wonder how you muster the political will to tackle a problem by remaining apolitical. Engaging in the political process, which is necessary to get something done about the problem, is by definition a political act. Dave -- David M. Lawrence| Home: (804) 559-9786 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] USA | http: http://fuzzo.com -- We have met the enemy and he is us. -- Pogo No trespassing 4/17 of a haiku -- Richard Brautigan -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark E Kubiske Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 2:20 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: NSTA's response to OpEd The climate change information contained in An Inconvenient Truth is largely very good, and it is information that science teachers should be teaching. However, the DVD encapsulates the educational material in a political framework. In my view, this makes the DVD An Inconvenient Truth an inappropriate vehicle for disseminating scientific information to captive audiences in public schools. In addition to educating, the DVD intends to sway public opinion in favor of an ideology. In addition, interspersed throughout the DVD are little vignettes intended to arouse emotions, so that the climate information will have an emotional impact on the viewer. The issues surrounding climate change are too important to be constantly politicized. I rather suspect that a large portion of the public rejects the science of climate change because the issue has for so long been held aloft by their ideological opponents. The best way to build public consensus is for politicians, and many scientists, to approach the issue in an apolitical way. --- Mark E. Kubiske Research Plant Physiologist USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station Forestry Sciences Lab 5985 Hwy K Rhinelander, WI 54501 Office phone: 715-362-1108 Cell phone: 715-367-5258 Fax: 715-362-1166 email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Swalker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Sent by: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Ecologicalcc Society of America: grants, Subject jobs, news Re: NSTA's response to OpEd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Effect of taxonomic splitting on diversity measures
I have been working on a long term project to assess diversity in local forests (in Mississippi). One of the problems that is always bothering me is what seems to be excessive taxonomic splitting, especially with taxa like Oaks. Black Oak, Water Oak, Blackjack Oak, a polytypic species that has occupied a number of niches, or three separate species? How about Post Oak and Swamp Post Oak, two species? Chestnut Oak and Swamp Chestnut Oak? It seems the polytypic species idea is as dead as it's author! So what happens is that if I go into a community with a good Oak representation, I get more diversity than an area with more Hickory, Sweetgum and Magnolia ...but is it more diverse, or really less diverse? I could look at just genera, but then the oaky areas look less diverse; after all, a Red Oak and a White Oak are at least different species (but is a Cherrybark Oak really a different species from a regular Red Oak?). Is there some way to mitigate the effect of taxonomic splitting in some of these lineages? So easy it seemed once found, which yet unfound most would have thought impossible John Milton Robert G. Hamilton Department of Biological Sciences Mississippi College P.O. Box 4045 200 South Capitol Street Clinton, MS 39058 Phone: (601) 925-3872 FAX (601) 925-3978
Re: group selection
I don't know if too many people would have much trouble with the sort of thing you describe. However, what I see as somewhat insidious is the repackaging of the old discredited Wynne-Edwards arguments with concepts of memes, which I guess started with Dawkins' Extended Phenotype to produce really wooly ideas about cultural evolution whereby memes replace genes as the units of selection. This gets us into the notion that certain good memes are right and should be promoted, and bad memes are wrong and should be expunged. While one can take certain rhetorical high roads here, the idea that someone is supposed to decide which ideas are good and which are bad is rather chilling. While we have had eugenics movements in the past, we have also had applications of the ideas of cultural evolution in places like Cambodia and China, and quite frankly, they don't look too appealing to me. There is, of course, no data to support the memes evolution idea, and lots of data to support the idea of the evolution of human behaviors by natural selection (of course you can't ever PROVE anything). IMHO, the cultural evolution types use the same tactics as creationists when they present their arguments. It is really odd for me to see someone like Sober debunking creationist style arguments in one part of a recent book on the philosophy of science, while using the same sort of rhetoric creationists use to promote the idea of cultural evolution in another part of the book. Rob Hamilton So easy it seemed once found, which yet unfound most would have thought impossible John Milton Robert G. Hamilton Department of Biological Sciences Mississippi College P.O. Box 4045 200 South Capitol Street Clinton, MS 39058 Phone: (601) 925-3872 FAX (601) 925-3978 Bill Silvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2/14/2006 5:35 PM I've seen lengthy arguments about group selection, most of which border on the religious. I really don't understand why it is such an outrageous idea. Consider chemical defenses which presumably evolve randomly and persist if they enhance fitness. If a chemical makes an organism smell bad, then it is clearly a case of individual selection. But suppose that the chemical is a poison so that the predators can eat the organisms, but then they die. Predators that like that kind of prey will be selected against, and although the toxic individuals get consumed, after a while the group's survival is enhanced. Is this so outlandish? There are after all lots of living organsims out there which are edible but toxic. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: isab972 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 8:49 PM Subject: Re: current natural selection pressures Your reasoning on selection is almost correct but there is one important flow: natural selection does not act on clans or groups but only on individuals. Group selection indeed does not work in nature. In very few cases, there might be traits selected under kin-selection, but very very few. This message has been scanned by GWGuardian on GWGuardian.mc.edu and found to be virus free.
