Re: [ECOLOG-L] overpopulation and the abuse of facts by religon
You make some good points, Christian, deserving a better response than I'm going to provide right now at 11 p.m. First, the basic problem is not so much overpopulation as it is overconsumption. According to one source I've read, the average U.S. citizen has a consumption footprint as large as 90 Bangladeshis. Second, many religions, including mainstream Protestants, promote or at least tolerate birth control and other limits on procreation. Third, I can teach (and have taught) cosmological, geological and biological evolution in my church's youth and adult education programs. The myths and metaphors of our religious heritage (what you call lies) frequently parallel current science. And they try to answer questions that current science cannot answer, e.g., Why is there something instead of nothing? Why is there life? Why is their human intelligence and cognition? Why are humans altruistic to other humans outside their genetic clan? Why are we here? Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, OR 97223 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Christian Vincenot Sent: Thursday, 08 December, 2011 18:56 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] overpopulation and the abuse of facts by religon Why is this forum arguing about the influence of Judaic religions on population growth? I believe that Nathan answered this question in the very first post. Simply because there is indeed an obvious dogma coming with these religions (and a few other ones) that forbids abortion and/or promotes uncontrolled procreation while spreading flat lies about the carrying capacity of our Earth. This in turn obviously impacts demography. I find the link straightforward and the original question raised in this thread legitimate. If the population growth of the earth is going to be impacted it won't be by coaxing popular religions like Catholicism and Christianity to be lessfruitful. Will it be by acknowledging or even ignoring what these religions preach then? Despite the predominance of these religions in countries like the U.S. and Britain, the growth rate in these countries are decreasing and have been steadily for years. Why? Of course, education and birth control played a role... but the decrease of power of religions also did. Actually the two are linked. Education generally lowers the belief in archaic mysticisms like religions. (Actually, I am pretty sure that the strength of belief in religions could be seen as a metric to measure the level of education of countries.) Also, note that the US or GB are not really examples of extremely religious countries relatively to the rest of the world (although they definitely are compared to other developed countries). On the other hand, the countries with the highest population growth rates such as Liberia, Burundi, Afghanistan, W. Sahara, E. Timer, Niger, Eritrea, Uganda, DR Congo, and the Palestinian Territories, etc have what sort of women's rights? What do you know, (...) With all due respect, most of the countries that you cite are Christian countries (i.e. Liberia, Burundi, DR Congo, Uganda, East Timor), and on top of this, all of them are way more religious than the US or GB. Take a look at all the countries with growth rates higher than 2% and then look at how women are treated in that nation. Take a look at all the countries with growth rates higher than 2%, and then look at how religious they are. You will also be surprised. Again, your argumentation against the importance of religions in this issue does not stand. Take a look at this survey: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3423/3277768007_e06378be14_b.jpg What you are ignoring is the opposition between religion and education. Of course education would and hopefully will solve the issue of overpopulation, but it will do so by explaining the flat lies that religions carry, and which prevent women from enjoying their rights and freedom in terms of birth control (and others). Therefore, you cannot deny the fact that, in many cases (like in the one originally brought up by Nathan), there is a link between religion (especially what you refer to as Judaic religions) and demography. You cannot fight one without fighting the other. Best regards, Christian Vincenot
Re: [ECOLOG-L] overpopulation and the abuse of facts by religon
Dear Warren, First, the basic problem is not so much overpopulation as it is overconsumption. I totally second your point of view. Nevertheless, we sadly have to recognise that the two problems are basically entangled and synergistic. Second, many religions, including mainstream Protestants, promote or at least tolerate birth control and other limits on procreation. Indeed, some of them do, but the fact is that the Christian church on the whole does not. Moreover, most of the religions that tolerate birth control also promote the idea that having a large family is healthy. Finally, religion is a factor of quarrels (not to say wars...), and pushes its members directly or indirectly to overwhelm the other religions through nativity. This is a real problem that can be observed as much in radical Islamic movements, as in mainstream Christianity. For example, even among the US Protestants that you mention, I don't need to tell you that the Quiverfull openly state that it is part of their missionary duty to procreate as much as possible to propagate their beliefs. Third, I can teach (and have taught) cosmological, geological and biological evolution in my church's youth and adult education programs. I disagree quite strongly on this, but I am afraid that this discussion is off-topic anyway. Still, I will summarise my point of view. Religion is based on a process of belief that is TOTALLY antagonistic and incompatible with scientific reasoning and methodology. Our predecessors have learned to the cost of their lives how much religions have been deceiving and incompatible with a methodological scientific approach to the analysis of our world. This has been true since Copernicus and Galileo until nowadays. Therefore, I do not know how one can sincerely teach science and religion at the same time without seeing any internal conflict or contradiction. With all due respect, what would somebody like you have taught a few centuries ago then? That the Earth was flat or not? What do you teach nowadays? Creationism or Darwinism? Also, ultimately, what prevails inside of you: the scientific proof or the religious belief? (Do not get me wrong. Believing inside of oneself that something MAY be true withtout any proof is one acceptable thing I think. We do it as scientists ourselves. On the other hand, what is unacceptable is the formation of lobbying groups from which a real diktat emerges to enforce their groundless suppositions as a truth and which create visions of the world and rules of how to live which shall be applied to everyone. THIS is what the mainstream religions have always been about, and this is also what distinguishes philosophy from religion.) The myths and metaphors of our religious heritage (what you call lies) frequently parallel current science. With all due respect, what I call lies ARE lies and not metaphors. The list of all the facts that have been openly stated and ENFORCED by religions and which proved to be blatantly false would be too long to enumerate (just a few random examples: flat Earth, the heretical nature of medical sciences, the Evil inside divorced or even pregnant women, possession and exorcism, etc). Let's not have such a short-term memory... Also, this dual nature of the religious teachings - once metaphoric, once strictly unequivocal and direct - is in my opinion an ultimate way of fooling people. Sure, this was told and enforced stricto sensu by our church during centuries, but actually people were misunderstanding the metaphoric nature of the holy statements at that time. Sincerely... And they try to answer questions that current science cannot answer, e.g., Why is there something instead of nothing? Why is there life? Why is their human intelligence and cognition? Why are humans altruistic to other humans outside their genetic clan? Why are we here? The problems are the methodology for hypothesis creation and what is done with this so-called truth afterwards. First, proofing these hypothesises can only be done by science. If you can propose any religious methodology for proofing any of the groundless suggestions that can be made based on the theological approach, I would be glad to discuss it. As a consequence, religions do not generate knowledge and never will. Second, philosophy can help develop theories for subjects that science is unable to tackle due to their nature. Actually, some questions that you mention are typical philosophical questions. No religion is needed for this. Third, religion would in no way bring any satisfying answer to these problems. Actually, it has never done so. You mention about the origin of life... if we were still believing the Catholic church, we would still be thinking that life was created by an omnipotent omniscient god in six days. Catholic theology has never challenged this point of view (and AFAIK it still defends it). The only reason why we progressed on this is thanks to Cartesian reasoning. I am sure that you will
Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from Paul Ehrlich
Greetings Ecologgers, I'm a masters student at Tufts University, and we (my classmates and me) have recently been discussing just this topic (what are the problems behind the climate change debate and what are the solutions that we can actually work on) in class. We had some thoughts (some of which have already been eloquently expressed here) that seemed worth sharing with the general listserv. What's the problem, why can't we get the data to motivate change??? -It's too abstract and not immediate enough. -It's too scary, so people resort to denial. -The culture science and the culture of the general public don't communicate well with each other, leading to room for misunderstanding and misapprehension. -Our brains pay attention to extremes, and encourage us to take sides in moral debates (like climate change is often seen to be). -The single solution bias. -Not everyone is in a secure enough livelihood to have motivation to spare for this. When it comes to motivating change, what can we do? -Make sure climate events are correctly attributed to global warming. -Communicate clearly and respectfully to the general public--I've seen this in discussion here many times. -Make it about empathy for the next generation who will have to deal with not just climate change but resource shortages as well, instead of about whether or not CO2 from humans is or isn't the source of our problems--this is essentially Barnett's point from before. -Operationalize that empathy. -Empower people to participate in specific (ideally tangible) positive action, instead of discouraging/depressing them with terrifying predictions. -Identify key players and work together with them (politicians, religious leaders, community leaders, etc.) -Focus on places where local action can actually make a significant difference (like coal-mining country or states with a large electoral presence). There's more, but having a list of ideas can be a good place to start when a large issue like climate change seems so out of control. I've found the much of the Ecolog discussion thought-provoking and helpful--I can only hope our thoughts are more of the same. Best, Jeanne Coffin Student Masters of Conservation Medicine Tufts University cell: 608.770.9686 On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Abdel Halloway abdel.hallo...@gmail.comwrote: Dr. Hamilton, The problems of global warming are not anything to do with specific heat but absorption of infrared radiation. I would suggest watching the Potholer54 Climate Change videos, especially from the beginning. Video#1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo Video#2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoSVoxwYrKI -- Jeanne Coffin Canidate Masters of Conservation Medicine Tufts University 35 Langley Rd. Apt.1 Brighton, MA 02135 cell: 608.770.9686
[ECOLOG-L] Postdoc position: Tropical Plant Ecology Diversity (Gottingen/Sumatra)
The *Biodiversity, Macroecology Conservation Biogeography Group* at the *Georg-August-University Gottingen* is offering a *Postdoc position* in the Scientific Project of the CRC 990 B06 / *Taxonomic, phylogenetic, functional, and biogeographical diversity of vascular plants in rainforest transformation systems on Sumatra (Indonesia)* The position will be limited for 3 years and should be filled as soon as possible. Salary: Pay grade 100 % TVL 13 of German state regulated public service salary scale. *Your duties* The project will investigate local to landscape-level changes in plant diversity and community composition across four different land use systems (rainforest, jungle rubber, rubber and oil palm plantations) in the lowlands of Sumatra (Indonesia). The postdoctoral researcher will be responsible for establishing jointly investigated plots, organizing and conducting the collection of occurrence and abundance data as well as select plant traits, species identification and the integration of morphological identifications and DNA barcoding data (collected by other groups in the CRC). The project includes extensive field work in Sumatra and analytical work in Germany. In collaboration with other projects of the CRC, this project aims at providing a scientific basis to assess ecological and socioeconomic changes associated with the transformation of lowland rainforest. *Your profile* . PhD degree in biology, ecology, or a related field . research focus on the ecology and diversity of tropical plant communities . experience in determination of plant species; knowledge of the SE Asian flora is a plus . strong quantitative skills and advanced knowledge of statistical packages such as R . compelling publication record . strong communicative skills and willingness to collaborate with other researchers of the CRC and local partners .proficiency in English; basic knowledge of Bahasa Indonesia is a plus .working experience in the tropics, ability to work in the tropics and under field conditions The University of Gottingen is an equal opportunities employer and places particular emphasis on fostering career opportunities for women. Qualified women are therefore strongly encouraged to apply as they are underrepresented in this field. Disabled persons with equivalent aptitude will be favoured. Please send your application electronically as a single pdf containing the usual documents by January 06, 2012 to hkr...@uni-goettingen.de. If you have any questions about the position, please contact Mr. Holger Kreft (phone: +49-551-3910727, e-mail: hkr...@uni-goettingen.de).
Re: [ECOLOG-L] overpopulation and the abuse of facts by religon
Dear Christian, My response is more about the confusion between the terms religion cosmological, rather than the original thread on overpopulation/over consumption. I think you misunderstood the 3rd point that Warren made regarding teaching ...cosmological, geological and biological evolution in my church's youth and adult education programs. Your response to this teaching used the term religion when the term was COSMOLOGICAL. These are not the same. Cosmological, geological biological origins are often mirrors of one another and are complimentary processes. These are not to be confused with religion - which is a construct of man that is not only used to attempt to give meaning to life, but also to control mankind. I am a scientist that strongly believes there are too few that contemplate our science in the cosmological context. If the fact that Warren is teaching about these complimentary processes in a church educational program is the source of trouble, I will simply ask this: ! Are we to ignore an opportunity to educate others simply because the venue is a church? If a church is open to this line of education, I see that as a good thing. I do agree with you that the scientific method is a wonderful tool -not your words, but the take-home of your message. Instead of using the scientific method to shoot holes into religious theology, why are we not using it to find the similar patterns represented in the mathematical nature of cosmology, biology geology in conjunction with the corresponding patterns/validations in our mythologies ancient civilizations (lumping all religions here)? I agree with Warren on this. I think it is time to reconcile science spirituality, which is ultimately how we are going to answer the biggest question posted, Why are we here? Very interesting dialog. Sorry if this took things a bit off the main topic. Marnie E. Rout, Ph.D. Affiliate Research Faculty The University of Montana Division of Biological Sciences 32 Campus Dr Missoula, MT 59870 marnie.r...@mso.umt.edu From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] on behalf of Christian Vincenot [vince...@bre.soc.i.kyoto-u.ac.jp] Sent: Friday, December 09, 2011 2:03 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] overpopulation and the abuse of facts by religon Dear Warren, First, the basic problem is not so much overpopulation as it is overconsumption. I totally second your point of view. Nevertheless, we sadly have to recognise that the two problems are basically entangled and synergistic. Second, many religions, including mainstream Protestants, promote or at least tolerate birth control and other limits on procreation. Indeed, some of them do, but the fact is that the Christian church on the whole does not. Moreover, most of the religions that tolerate birth control also promote the idea that having a large family is healthy. Finally, religion is a factor of quarrels (not to say wars...), and pushes its members directly or indirectly to overwhelm the other religions through nativity. This is a real problem that can be observed as much in radical Islamic movements, as in mainstream Christianity. For example, even among the US Protestants that you mention, I don't need to tell you that the Quiverfull openly state that it is part of their missionary duty to procreate as much as possible to propagate their beliefs. Third, I can teach (and have taught) cosmological, geological and biological evolution in my church's youth and adult education programs. I disagree quite strongly on this, but I am afraid that this discussion is off-topic anyway. Still, I will summarise my point of view. Religion is based on a process of belief that is TOTALLY antagonistic and incompatible with scientific reasoning and methodology. Our predecessors have learned to the cost of their lives how much religions have been deceiving and incompatible with a methodological scientific approach to the analysis of our world. This has been true since Copernicus and Galileo until nowadays. Therefore, I do not know how one can sincerely teach science and religion at the same time without seeing any internal conflict or contradiction. With all due respect, what would somebody like you have taught a few centuries ago then? That the Earth was flat or not? What do you teach nowadays? Creationism or Darwinism? Also, ultimately, what prevails inside of you: the scientific proof or the religious belief? (Do not get me wrong. Believing inside of oneself that something MAY be true withtout any proof is one acceptable thing I think. We do it as scientists ourselves. On the other hand, what is unacceptable is the formation of lobbying groups from which a real diktat emerges to enforce their groundless suppositions as a truth and which create visions of the world and rules of how to live which shall be applied to everyone. THIS is what the mainstream
[ECOLOG-L] Yale University Faculty Position in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
The Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Yale University invites applications for a tenure track faculty position at the junior level. We seek outstanding applicants working in any area of ecology and evolutionary biology and are particularly interested in applicants whose research has a strong focus in ecology. A record of outstanding achievement and a promising research program are more important than specific research area. Application materials including a CV, three manuscripts or reprints, brief research and teaching statements and contact information for three evaluators should be submitted online at https://academicjobsonline.org/ajo/Yale/EEB. The search will remain open until the position is filled. The review of applications will begin January 13, 2012. Yale University is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer. Yale values diversity among its students, staff, and faculty and strongly welcomes applications from women and underrepresented minorities.
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: 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from Paul Ehrlich
I think there is a similar debate occurring in regards to the safety of GMO crops. In fact, there are several topics of similar importance that many of you might be involved in or know about outside of ecology and could have some useful parallels. It might be worthwhile to include those here. Just a thought... Steve Young Weed Ecologist University of Nebraska-Lincoln From: Jeanne Coffin jeanne.cof...@tufts.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Date: 12/09/2011 07:07 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from Paul Ehrlich Greetings Ecologgers, I'm a masters student at Tufts University, and we (my classmates and me) have recently been discussing just this topic (what are the problems behind the climate change debate and what are the solutions that we can actually work on) in class. We had some thoughts (some of which have already been eloquently expressed here) that seemed worth sharing with the general listserv. What's the problem, why can't we get the data to motivate change??? -It's too abstract and not immediate enough. -It's too scary, so people resort to denial. -The culture science and the culture of the general public don't communicate well with each other, leading to room for misunderstanding and misapprehension. -Our brains pay attention to extremes, and encourage us to take sides in moral debates (like climate change is often seen to be). -The single solution bias. -Not everyone is in a secure enough livelihood to have motivation to spare for this. When it comes to motivating change, what can we do? -Make sure climate events are correctly attributed to global warming. -Communicate clearly and respectfully to the general public--I've seen this in discussion here many times. -Make it about empathy for the next generation who will have to deal with not just climate change but resource shortages as well, instead of about whether or not CO2 from humans is or isn't the source of our problems--this is essentially Barnett's point from before. -Operationalize that empathy. -Empower people to participate in specific (ideally tangible) positive action, instead of discouraging/depressing them with terrifying predictions. -Identify key players and work together with them (politicians, religious leaders, community leaders, etc.) -Focus on places where local action can actually make a significant difference (like coal-mining country or states with a large electoral presence). There's more, but having a list of ideas can be a good place to start when a large issue like climate change seems so out of control. I've found the much of the Ecolog discussion thought-provoking and helpful--I can only hope our thoughts are more of the same. Best, Jeanne Coffin Student Masters of Conservation Medicine Tufts University cell: 608.770.9686 On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Abdel Halloway abdel.hallo...@gmail.comwrote: Dr. Hamilton, The problems of global warming are not anything to do with specific heat but absorption of infrared radiation. I would suggest watching the Potholer54 Climate Change videos, especially from the beginning. Video#1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo Video#2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoSVoxwYrKI -- Jeanne Coffin Canidate Masters of Conservation Medicine Tufts University 35 Langley Rd. Apt.1 Brighton, MA 02135 cell: 608.770.9686
[ECOLOG-L] Rarefaction in Program R
Hello all, I have a quick question regarding data format when using the vegan package in program R for rarefaction. I have played around a bit with the sample data links and can get these to run fine, but I am having a problem getting my own data to load properly. When I try to run the rarefaction command, I get this message, Error in as.matrix(x) : object 'x' not found. Not sure if this error is due to the way I am setting up my data or the pathway to my dataset. Could someone weigh in and let me know what I am doing incorrectly? Any input on data format would be great. Thanks in advance for any help. Bill
[ECOLOG-L] Desert Tortoise Naturalist
The Great Basin Institute, working cooperatively with the California Bureau of Land Management and the Desert Tortoise Preserve Committee (DTPC), is seeking a seasonal Naturalist for the Desert Tortoise Research Natural Area (DTRNA) from mid-March until early June 2012. The Naturalist will be stationed at the preserve's Interpretive Center. Specific tasks include: * Interacting with the public and leading educational programs to provide information about the area's natural history, desert tortoise ecology, and threats to the tortoise and the Mojave Desert ecosystem; * Monitor visitor attendance and activity; * record wildlife observations; * participate in habitat restoration efforts; and * perform basic site maintenance Compensation and Timeline: o Rate of Pay: $18.25/hour; housing provided o March 13, 2012 June 2, 2012 o Full time, Tuesday - Saturday, 40 hours per week Location: The Naturalist will be stationed in California City, CA. California City (about 5 miles SW of the site) is pretty small, but it has a quite a few restaurants, a library, a small market and some gas stations. Major stores are about 30 minutes away. Qualifications: 1. Demonstrated commitment to environmental conservation, public outreach, and/or scientific research. 2. Strong interpersonal skills and ability to communicate with a diversity of interest groups, public and private agencies, and members of the general public. 3. Strong understanding of ecology; knowledge of desert ecosystems and ecology of desert tortoises preferred. 4. Ability to maintain accurate and complete records and incorporate information into Microsoft Excel Spreadsheets and Microsoft Access databases. 5. Ability to live on-site in the DTPC's motor home at the Desert Tortoise Research Natural Area, Kern County, California during the work week. 6. Ability to administer basic first-aid. 7. Possessing and maintaining a valid driver's license. 8. Having and maintaining eligibility to work in the United States pursuant to federal law; along with submission of employment eligibility documentation. How to Apply: Applicants should forward a cover letter, their résumé, and a list of three professional references to Bridget Walden, Great Basin Institute Recruitment Specialist at bwal...@thegreatbasininstitute.org. Please include where you found this position posted. This position is available to all, without regard to race, color, national origin, disability, age, sex, sexual orientation, political affiliation, or religion. Persons with disabilities are encouraged to apply.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from Paul Ehrlich
JC and Ecolog: Coffin et al make some good points; it remains to be seen whether or not replies will be responsive to them. I'm a bit rushed this morning, so will have to be brief (thank your lucky stars!). With respect to scary, maybe it should be, maybe not. It all depends upon where the science actually is with respect to reality. First, the relevant phenomena are certainly worthy of careful study, but scientists should not go off half-cocked. There seems to be a lot of cocksureness in the rhetoric, usually without solid logic and data being presented in favor of citing authority. On the denial side, true, there is a lot of comparably cocksureness there too. It seems that the second one touches on something beyond the level of propaganda, the prates clam up, hide out, refuse to respond on point. So what's a poor skeptic to do? It would seem that the spokespersons for the sides could gain some respect by, as Coffin points out, by giving some respect. People tend to be suspicious of others who take the shrill index beyond human hearing. And, it might help to lower the preening of egos and stick to the points of greatest relevance. Let's see if we can start a sub-thread that sticks to the science, and see if we can get somewhere with the facts. Talk about SCARY! WT - Original Message - From: Jeanne Coffin jeanne.cof...@tufts.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 6:53 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from Paul Ehrlich Greetings Ecologgers, I'm a masters student at Tufts University, and we (my classmates and me) have recently been discussing just this topic (what are the problems behind the climate change debate and what are the solutions that we can actually work on) in class. We had some thoughts (some of which have already been eloquently expressed here) that seemed worth sharing with the general listserv. What's the problem, why can't we get the data to motivate change??? -It's too abstract and not immediate enough. -It's too scary, so people resort to denial. -The culture science and the culture of the general public don't communicate well with each other, leading to room for misunderstanding and misapprehension. -Our brains pay attention to extremes, and encourage us to take sides in moral debates (like climate change is often seen to be). -The single solution bias. -Not everyone is in a secure enough livelihood to have motivation to spare for this. When it comes to motivating change, what can we do? -Make sure climate events are correctly attributed to global warming. -Communicate clearly and respectfully to the general public--I've seen this in discussion here many times. -Make it about empathy for the next generation who will have to deal with not just climate change but resource shortages as well, instead of about whether or not CO2 from humans is or isn't the source of our problems--this is essentially Barnett's point from before. -Operationalize that empathy. -Empower people to participate in specific (ideally tangible) positive action, instead of discouraging/depressing them with terrifying predictions. -Identify key players and work together with them (politicians, religious leaders, community leaders, etc.) -Focus on places where local action can actually make a significant difference (like coal-mining country or states with a large electoral presence). There's more, but having a list of ideas can be a good place to start when a large issue like climate change seems so out of control. I've found the much of the Ecolog discussion thought-provoking and helpful--I can only hope our thoughts are more of the same. Best, Jeanne Coffin Student Masters of Conservation Medicine Tufts University cell: 608.770.9686 On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Abdel Halloway abdel.hallo...@gmail.comwrote: Dr. Hamilton, The problems of global warming are not anything to do with specific heat but absorption of infrared radiation. I would suggest watching the Potholer54 Climate Change videos, especially from the beginning. Video#1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo Video#2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoSVoxwYrKI -- Jeanne Coffin Canidate Masters of Conservation Medicine Tufts University 35 Langley Rd. Apt.1 Brighton, MA 02135 cell: 608.770.9686 - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1415 / Virus Database: 2102/4067 - Release Date: 12/08/11
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:
[ECOLOG-L] International Conference on Applications of Stable Isotope Techniques to Ecological Studies
Dear isotope lovers, We are pleased to announce that the next (8th) ISOECOL conference will be held in Brest, France (20-24 August 2012). The www.isoecol2012.com website finally went live, in which you can find all the necessary information (travelling advice, accomodation, registration details ...). We invite you to submit abstracts. Keep in mind that the deadline for submitting your abstract is the 15th April. Please also keep in mind that the number of slots for talks is limited, so do not miss the cutoff date. We compiled a mailing list from the three previous conferences but please, spread the word! Attached is a flyer of the 2012 conference you can pin up in your lab as a reminder. So mark your calendar right now and book your flight to France for next summer! We are looking forward to welcoming you in Brest. We promise you lots of isotopes and fun. Isotopically yours, The organisers, Stan, Antoine, Jacques, Sandrine and Caroline. Stanislas DUBOIS stanislas.dub...@ifremer.fr
[ECOLOG-L] Job: Professor and Head Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas AM University
Professor and Head Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences Applications are invited for the position of Professor and Head for the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences. As an administrative unit of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Texas AgriLife Research and Texas AgriLife Extension Service within The Texas AM University System, the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences has a diverse and dynamic mission with 42 faculty and 19 staff members engaged in teaching, research, and extension at several locations throughout the state, nation, and world. Departmental facilities include the Texas Cooperative Wildlife Collection, Aquatic Research and Teaching Facility, Biosystematics and Biodiversity Center, Small Upland-bird Research Facility, Ecological Systems Laboratory, and the Land Information Systems Laboratory. Department personnel are based mostly in College Station but also at affiliated institutions and several research and extension centers across the state. The Department currently enrolls approximately 400 undergraduates and approximately 200 graduate students in M.S. or Ph.D. programs. The Department conducts research in five general areas: Aquatic Ecology and Fisheries Science; Conservation Biology; Ecology, Evolutionary Biology and Systematics; Marine Mammal Biology; and Wildlife Ecology, Conservation and Management. The Wildlife and Fisheries Extension Program is the largest in the nation and has been nationally recognized for its expertise in the areas of wildlife, fisheries, aquaculture, marine science, related enterprises, youth and adult education, and spatial technologies for natural resource management. More information can be obtained at http://wfsc.tamu.edu/ The successful candidate will have a Ph.D. and record of distinction in wildlife and fisheries conservation, ecology and evolutionary biology, aquaculture or related field. The candidate’s record should demonstrate effective leadership and management of multidisciplinary programs, and familiarity with and appreciation of basic and applied research, teaching, extension, and service missions. The candidate should possess outstanding leadership skills as well as demonstrated success in communicating effectively with diverse clientele and stakeholders. Prior experience in the Land Grant University System is desirable. Applications should be sent in electronic format (preferred) to sea...@biobioubunto.tamu.edu. Applications should include a letter of interest, statement of administrative philosophy, curriculum vitae, and the names and contact information for at least three references. References will be contacted only upon approval by the applicant. Review of applications will begin January 1, 2012, and continue until the position is filled. The Texas AM University System is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer. The University is committed to building a culturally diverse and pluralistic faculty and staff and strongly encourages applications from women, minorities, individuals with disabilities, and covered veterans. Raul F. Medina Assistant Professor Texas AM University Department of Entomology College Station TX 77843-2475 USA Phone: (979) 845-8304 Fax: (979) 845-6305
[ECOLOG-L] Reminder: Abstract Submission Deadline Approaching (Friday, Dec 16th): US Regional Association of the International Association for Landscape Ecology (US-IALE) Annual Meeting
All (apologies for cross-postings), The USIALE annual meeting abstract submission deadline is approaching. Abstracts need to be submitted by Friday, Dec 16. For more information about the meeting, visit http://www.usiale.org/newport2012 To submit an abstract, visit http://www.usiale.org/newport2012/abstract-submission Cheers, Jeff Hollister USIALE 2012 Program Chair *** Dr. Jeffrey W. Hollister US EPA Atlantic Ecology Division 27 Tarzwell Drive Narragansett, RI 02882 (401) 782-9655 ***
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Rarefaction in Program R
This kind of question is far more suitable for the r-sig-ecology email list than for ECOLOG. For one thing, the authors of vegan regularly answer questions there. https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-ecology Also, to be able to answer your question we need to know more about what your data look like - str(yourdata) - being a good start, and what commands you're using. Sarah On 12/09/2011 12:04 PM, Bill Sutton wrote: Hello all, I have a quick question regarding data format when using the vegan package in program R for rarefaction. I have played around a bit with the sample data links and can get these to run fine, but I am having a problem getting my own data to load properly. When I try to run the rarefaction command, I get this message, Error in as.matrix(x) : object 'x' not found. Not sure if this error is due to the way I am setting up my data or the pathway to my dataset. Could someone weigh in and let me know what I am doing incorrectly? Any input on data format would be great. Thanks in advance for any help. Bill -- Dr. Sarah Goslee USDA-ARS Pasture Systems and Watershed Management Research Unit Adjunct Associate Professor, Crop and Soil Sciences Department Penn State Building 3702, Curtin Road University Park, PA 16802 Phone: 814-863-0887 Fax: 814-863-0935 sgos...@psu.edu
Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from Paul Ehrlich
Dr. Hamilton, The specific heat of water actually runs counter to your argument. If you look at what is being measured it is temperature not heat. Because it takes more heat/energy to raise the temperature of a molecule of water compared to CO2, we expect any heat coming in from the sun to cause a greater rise in the temperature in the CO2 than water. Similarly, why do you feel the point on infrared radiation to be wrong? On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Robert Hamilton roberthamil...@alc.eduwrote: 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
[ECOLOG-L] Volunteers Needed for Toucan Research in Costa Rica
I am currently seeking 3-4 volunteers to assist me in tracking toucans for movement and home range quantification in a fragmented landscape in Turrialba, Costa Rica, as part of my dissertation research on seed dispersal at the University of Louisiana Lafayette. POSITION: Volunteer (unpaid) field assistants DURATION: Start dates are flexible and can begin at any time from immediately to as late as spring 2013, but a minimum commitment of 6 weeks is required. Applications will be considered immediately. STUDY SITE: The campus and adjacent farm of the Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza (CATIE). CATIE is located at the edge of Turrialba, at about 2,000 ft above sea level on the Caribbean slope of the central valley in Costa Rica. Additional information can be found at: http://www.catie.ac.cr. QUALIFICATIONS: Assistants must be in good physical condition and willing to work in the field for up to 8 hours a day several days a week, often in hot and humid weather. Preference will be given to applicants with the following skills and experience, but they are not necessary to apply: radio telemetry, mist-netting, tropical seed and plant identification, tropical field experience, GPS, Spanish. LIVING CONDITIONS/EXPENSES: Volunteers must be able to cover their own lodging and living expenses, as well as insurance, vaccinations, and transportation to and from the study site. However, the cost of living in Turrialba is relatively inexpensive and is within 3 km of the field site. Temperatures range from the mid 60s (F) to the mid 80s and modern conveniences are readily accessible. MAIN DUTIES: Assistants will be tracking toucans in a landscape of tropical forest fragments and agricultural habitats such as pasture, sugarcane, coffee, and chocolate plantations. Additional projects may develop, but assistants will gain valuable experience in the following field methods: -radio telemetry -mist-netting -behavioral sampling -tropical bird identification -GPS use Those interested should send a current CV or resume to Landon Jones at lrj1...@louisiana.edu with Volunteer Toucan Assistant in the subject line.
[ECOLOG-L] Audience polling device recommendations
Hi all, Does anyone have a recommendation on relatively inexpensive electronic polling devices (*e.g., *brands, rental vs. purchase, etc.)? I'm looking to use them for interactive breakout group sessions at an upcoming conference. Any advice/direction will be appreciated. Thanks in advance, Cassie Bradley _ Cassie D. Bradley Sea Grant Fellow Great Lakes Commission Ann Arbor, Mich. e: cbrad...@glc.org p: 734.971.9135 w: www.glc.org
Re: [ECOLOG-L] overpopulation and the abuse of facts by religon
In light of the discussion on the phrase be fruitful and multiple, you may enjoy this cartoon. http://lemna.unl.edu/bizaroo-human-population-growth.jpg Chad Brassil Assistant Professor School of Biological Sciences http://www.unl.edu/cbrassil cbrass...@unl.edu 402-419-0076 416 Manter Hall University of Nebraska-Lincoln Lincoln, NE 68588-0118
[ECOLOG-L] Research Technician - Southern Illinois University
Researcher Technician. The Department of Forestry, Southern Illinois University Carbondale invites applications for a full time, term, professional researcher position on a funded project assessing soil, water, and air quality associated with cover crops and tillage practices in agricultural watersheds near Decatur, Illinois. The position will involve: independent field and laboratory work with soil, water, and air quality measurements and analysis, assisting teams of graduate and undergraduate students with research, and database management. The position requires significant overnight travel and field work in all weather conditions; must maintain a valid drivers license. Qualifications (Required): B.S./B.A. degree in Forestry, Soil Science/Agronomy, Environmental Science, Hydrology, or a related discipline. Preferred: Experience in soil sampling and quality characterization, surface and ground water quality monitoring, hydrologic assessments, and geographic information systems. This is a 12 month grant-funded position and could be extended dependent upon funding availability and workload needs for at least six years. Application deadline: December 16, 2011 or until filled, with an anticipated start date ASAP. To apply: submit a letter of application, resume, unofficial transcripts (official required prior to hire), and names and contact information of three references to: Dr. Karl Williard, Department of Forestry, Mail Code 4411, SIU Carbondale, 1205 Lincoln Dr., Carbondale, IL 62901 Tel: (618) 453-7478, Fax: (618) 453-7475. Electronic submissions not accepted. SIU Carbondale is an affirmative action/equal opportunity employer that strives to enhance its ability to develop a diverse faculty and staff and to increase its potential to serve a diverse student population. All applications are welcomed and encouraged and will receive consideration.
[ECOLOG-L] Final Call for Abstracts: Wetland Carbon Session at 2012 INTECOL-SWS Meeting, June 3-8 Orlando, FL
Final Call Abstract submission deadline: Friday, December 16, 2011 We invite abstracts for an organized session entitled Patterns and Drivers of Carbon Storage in Peatlands at the 2012 INTECOL-SWS Joint Meeting (June 3-8, 2012) in Orlando, FL. The objective of this session is to highlight recent research on the drivers, processes, and magnitude of carbon storage in wetland ecosystems, with the intent of bringing together researchers in natural resource and land management and academic climate change and carbon cycling as well as policymakers. Empirical studies and integrative models examining the effects of ecology, hydrology, biogeochemistry, and resource management on peatland carbon cycling are invited, with the goal of bringing together scientific and management communities. Submissions presenting novel findings on carbon exchange processes or climate change impacts on peatland carbon balance are particularly encouraged. Feel free to contact the session organizers Brian Benscoter (bbens...@fau.edumailto:bbens...@fau.edu) or Tiffany Troxler (troxl...@fiu.edumailto:troxl...@fiu.edu) for more information on the session or visit the conference website (http://conference.ifas.ufl.edu/INTECOL/) for information on the conference and instructions for abstract submission. ** Brian W. Benscoter, MSc PhD Assistant Professor Department of Biological Sciences Florida Atlantic University 3200 College Ave Davie, FL 33314 USA Office: DW437 Lab: DW434 Tel: 954.236.1141 Fax: 954.236.1099 Email: brian.bensco...@fau.edumailto:brian.bensco...@fau.edu Webpage: www.science.fau.edu/benscoterlabhttp://www.science.fau.edu/benscoterlab
Re: [ECOLOG-L] overpopulation and the abuse of facts by religon
Dear Marnie, I think you misunderstood the 3rd point that Warren made Ok, I felt that Warren was implicitly defending the usefulness of the Christian religion (he used the word religious heritage) alongside science, as well as the compatibility between the teaching of the two, in his third point. I may have inferred this a bit fast indeed. If this is not the case, then my comments are irrelevant. I am a scientist that strongly believes there are too few that contemplate our science in the cosmological context. I can only agree with the intent. Now it depends what methodology you use to get to this point. If the fact that Warren is teaching about these complimentary processes in a church educational program is the source of trouble Oh definitely not. Such endeavours are utterly positive in my opinion. Again, I probably misunderstood, but I was feeling that Warren was defending the compatibility between the preaching of catholic catechism and the teaching of science. Even if it is desirable to teach science to believers, I believe that it should always remain clear that science and Christian teachings are incompatible. @Warren: I am sorry if I misunderstood your position. Instead of using the scientific method to shoot holes into religious theology, why are we not using it to find the similar patterns represented in the mathematical nature of cosmology, biology geology in conjunction with the corresponding patterns/validations in our mythologies ancient civilizations (lumping all religions here)? I have to disagree here. First, science will always shoot holes into religious beliefs when these are wrong (which has almost always been the case in the last two millennia, as they are groundless). It is precisely the essence of the scientific method to differentiate what is true from what is false. As a consequence, when the scientific method is presented with groundless and false religious ideas, it is its duty and its nature to disprove them (if it can) and to bring to public knowledge the wrongfulness of the ideas. Second, why do you absolutely want to merge two things which are opposite by nature and incompatible (again, I persist, but please show me how to conciliate the process of belief with the scientific method)? I see no logical reason for this, only political (not to say religious) ones. The idea of merging science and what you call mythologies reminds me of Freud's nonsensical scientific myth. I think it is time to reconcile science spirituality, which is ultimately how we are going to answer the biggest question posted, Why are we here? Science and philosophy, certainly. Science and spirituality, I doubt it. Please give me one single example of advancement of our knowledge about the universe or enhancement of the condition of Mankind that has been brought by several millennia of spirituality. Spirituality is not based on anything rational, which is why, like religions, it has always been conflicting with science, and science always won. Please give us any counter-example. As illustration, you talked about cosmology before. The only results in this area have been coming from physical cosmology (the Big-Bang theory), while metaphysical cosmology has never given any result. Again, I agree about the need to reintegrate more Holism in scientific thinking, and to reintroduce philosophical thinking in science teachings, but in no way can I support religions/mythologies/spirituality as anything more than stories to distract the mind. (By the way, you will notice that what were considered as religions thousands of years ago (Greek mythology, Celtic mythology, etc) have remained nowadays only as simple stories studied in literature...) Sincerely, Christian Vincenot On 12/09/2011 11:06 PM, Rout, Marnie wrote: Dear Christian, My response is more about the confusion between the terms religion cosmological, rather than the original thread on overpopulation/over consumption. I think you misunderstood the 3rd point that Warren made regarding teaching ...cosmological, geological and biological evolution in my church's youth and adult education programs. Your response to this teaching used the term religion when the term was COSMOLOGICAL. These are not the same. Cosmological, geological biological origins are often mirrors of one another and are complimentary processes. These are not to be confused with religion - which is a construct of man that is not only used to attempt to give meaning to life, but also to control mankind. I am a scientist that strongly believes there are too few that contemplate our science in the cosmological context. If the fact that Warren is teaching about these complimentary processes in a church educational program is the source of trouble, I will simply ask this: Are we to ignore an opportunity to educate others simply because the venue is a church? If a church is open to this line of education, I see that as a good thing. I do
Re: [ECOLOG-L] overpopulation and the abuse of facts by religon
Dear Emily, I think that when we generalize and start debasing spirituality that corresponds with an organized religion we lessen our arguments by being ignorant to the fact that it is the Religion as an Institution that has become corrupt and dogmatic, not necessarily the individuals. In the case of the mainstream religions, the issues already appear when reading the holy texts themselves. The institutions are only the part of the war machine responsible for adapting and interpreting the metaphors to have the groundless statements of the holy texts survive the embarrassment of being proved wrong by science and common knowledge. The problems are as much the holy texts, as the process of belief, as the institution. All of them are incompatible with the scientific method. It is true that many wars or hostilities have been based on religious conflicts, or carried out in the name of a religion, but it is ridiculous to say that religion is /based/ on being /antagonistic/ to science. Religion and Science were born of the same Philosophical questions, but diverged when the questions began to be asked in different ways. /Why/ does this exist vs /How/ does this exist? First, they are antagonistic for the reasons that I gave in all my previous posts. Feel free to counter all my arguments one by one. Second, it is not because they were born from the same curiosity and tackle the same questions that they are compatible. The way that they propose to study the issues is incompatible. As a consequence, religion and science are antagonistic. To summarise the most obvious antagonism: Religions claim to tell the truth (and refuse to discuss it), the scientific method tries to uncover it (and encourages to challenge its results). Best regards, Christian Vincenot On 12/10/2011 12:20 AM, Emily Bingham wrote: I think that this mass generalization of the use of the words religions and religious are confusing the sentiment of this discussion. On a whole, having spirituality in the form of a religious faith or belief system does not inherently clash with having scientific understanding. I think that when we generalize and start debasing spirituality that corresponds with an organized religion we lessen our arguments by being ignorant to the fact that it is the Religion as an Institution that has become corrupt and dogmatic, not necessarily the individuals. christian says Religion is based on a process of belief that is TOTALLY antagonistic and incompatible with scientific reasoning and methodology It is true that many wars or hostilities have been based on religious conflicts, or carried out in the name of a religion, but it is ridiculous to say that religion is /based/ on being /antagonistic/ to science. Religion and Science were born of the same Philosophical questions, but diverged when the questions began to be asked in different ways. /Why/ does this exist vs /How/ does this exist? etc etc. Religion and Politics as institutions have both become bastardized versions of their model pursuits --I do not believe that even Democracy truly exist in practice-- and anyone in power, whether political or religious, becomes corrupt with their own agendas. On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 4:03 AM, Christian Vincenot vince...@bre.soc.i.kyoto-u.ac.jp mailto:vince...@bre.soc.i.kyoto-u.ac.jp wrote: Dear Warren, First, the basic problem is not so much overpopulation as it is overconsumption. I totally second your point of view. Nevertheless, we sadly have to recognise that the two problems are basically entangled and synergistic. Second, many religions, including mainstream Protestants, promote or at least tolerate birth control and other limits on procreation. Indeed, some of them do, but the fact is that the Christian church on the whole does not. Moreover, most of the religions that tolerate birth control also promote the idea that having a large family is healthy. Finally, religion is a factor of quarrels (not to say wars...), and pushes its members directly or indirectly to overwhelm the other religions through nativity. This is a real problem that can be observed as much in radical Islamic movements, as in mainstream Christianity. For example, even among the US Protestants that you mention, I don't need to tell you that the Quiverfull openly state that it is part of their missionary duty to procreate as much as possible to propagate their beliefs. Third, I can teach (and have taught) cosmological, geological and biological evolution in my church's youth and adult education programs. I disagree quite strongly on this, but I am afraid that this discussion is off-topic anyway. Still, I will summarise my point of view. Religion is based on a process of belief that is TOTALLY antagonistic and incompatible with scientific reasoning and methodology. Our
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Paired Logistic Regression for Resource Selection
Sidra, I don't know of any specific programs, but the approach I have taken to doing logistic regression on paired observations is simply to do a logistic regression on the following two of the four possibilities for each pair: 1,0 and 0,1. You can disregard the 1,1 and 0,0 options, and the corresponding observations can be omitted from the analysis. This approach is based on the same principle that applies to chi-square tests of paired, non-independent samples (i.e., McNemar Asymmetry tests). Done this way, the analysis is just a simple logistic regression, wherein the 1,0 combination can be treated as one of the response categories and the 0,1 combination as the other. I'm sure there will be some statistical hotshots on the forum who will criticize this approach and have better (more sophisticated) suggestions, but this approach seems reasonable to me and is familiar and easy to understand. Good luck, Steve Brewer From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] on behalf of Sidra Blake [sidra.bl...@email.wsu.edu] Sent: Friday, December 09, 2011 3:08 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Paired Logistic Regression for Resource Selection Ecologgers, I wondered if any eco-statters could provide their opinion in statistics if they don't mind. I require a statistical program that conducts matched (paired) logistic regression , which I believe is equivalent to conditional logistic regression (case-control) for a resource selection study. Most of the ecological papers that use this statistical approach cite STATA or other software that I , nor any local lab I know of, do not have licenses for. I have not seen anyone cite R for this approach in the literature I consult. And online I am unable to find examples, in R, that are in similar context to my own data. I live and learn from examples via scientific literature and online code examples, so I am a bit discouraged at this point, hung up I guess. However, conditional logistic regression does appear possible in R, from one source I found online via the survival package. Though, that example was very limited in depth. This leads me to a few questions. 1) What are my statistical software options for matched logistic regression (with categorical and continuous data) - and which do users seem to prefer? 2) Has anyone used R for this statistical approach? 3) And, has anyone been able to incorporate random effects (or mixed effects see Duchesne et al. 2010) by the experimental unit (ie-individual) into this design? I admit I am new to logistic regression and resource selection analysis. This means, I would deeply benefit from detailed examples for this approach. I appreciate any feedback. Please feel free to email me off the listserve at the email address below, and please use the subject heading of this post. Thanks, Sidra Sidra Blake Land Management and Demonstration Program Mid-Columbia River NWRC US Fish and Wildlife Service MS Student Natural Resource Sciences Washington State University sidra.blakeATwsu.edu We shall never achieve harmony with land, any more than we shall achieve absolute justice or liberty for people. In these higher aspirations, the important thing is not to achieve but to strive. ~Aldo Leopold
