Re: [ECOLOG-L] Education Public Science Media Writing Speaking Ecology Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Puhleeze -- do your homework, student. Listen to the interview again. Solotaroff does NOT link Evert's death to whitebark pine and climate change. He describes it as an accident involving improper marking of a site after another team had released a drugged bear. With respect to trout, introduced trout are a problem, but that does not negate any relationship between rising water temperatures, diminution of streamflow, and trout population declines. In the interview, Solotaroff seems to adequately appreciate the complexity of the ecosystem, that several factors affect bear food supply. He does not make the propellerhead mistake of assuming that if X influences Z, then Y cannot. If Y influences Z, Y influences Z. It doesn't matter what X does, except in the case of interactive effects. Here is what the Greater Yellowstone Coalition says about climate change and trout populations: On top of the existing suite of threats, the climate is changing in Greater Yellowstone and aquatic systems are already showing a response. As temperatures have warmed, snowpack is on a downward trend and peak spring runoff in the Intermountain West is occurring on average 10 to 20 days earlier than the historical average. This translates to lower and warmer summer flows, which is bad news for cold-water fisheries. When water temperatures warm, thermal thresholds for native cutthroat trout are exceeded and warm-water fish species such as small mouth bass readily move in to occupy new habitat. It is highly likely that over the next 50 years, the world-renowned cold-water fishery of the Yellowstone River below Livingston, Mont. will shrink considerably as the small mouth [sic] population of the lower river moves upstream. A predator such as a grizzly bear may have difficulty switching to another prey species, such as smallmouth bass, that exhibits different behavior. Solotaroff seems to be spot on by noting that the bear in the other fatal attack in Yellowstone was severely underweight. There seems to be some significant food supply issues affecting their behavior, and I am inclined to agree with him that climate change plays A role. Dave On 4/17/2011 11:15 PM, Lynn M. Moore wrote: Thank you for the sources Dave, for the most part they support my assertion that Mr Solotaroff exaggerated his conclusions that the recent bear attacks in the greater yellowstone area are a direct result of climate change. Dr. Everts death, was not caused by an attack from a hungry bear, but was an unfortunate accident caused by a bear recovering from sedation. It is likely that bear-human encounters will increase as the pine bark nuts decrease (as your google sources suggest), but this particular death, which Mr. Solotaroff mentioned specifically in his interview, was not a result of the pine beetle epidemic. Mr. Solotaroff claimed that all the trout species (cutthroat, brook, and rainbow) in Yellowstone were diminished, because the streams were warming due to climate change, the google sources you provided mention no evidence of warming waters. The cutthroat numbers have decreased, but as a result of the invasive species lake trout, not because the waters are warming as Mr Solotaroff claimed in the interview on NPR. Climate change is a real problem for our western ecosystems, for all ecosystems. But putting forth a scare tactic, that climate change is causing grizzly bears to attack humans does not win over the climate deniers. The climate deniers solution would be to shoot more grizzly bears, not trade in their SUV for a Prius. Grizzly bears are always dangerous. Non-fatal bear attacks (and occasionally fatal ones) happen every year. Anyone going into bear country, whether it is in the park or not does so with the knowledge of risk. The tone of the interview was wrong. I still hold that Solotaroff made too many linkages that are not supported, and they appear as smoke. Journalists, especially those who are not scientists (such as Solotaroff) should learn from journalists who are scientists (such as you Dave, i recall your posts from last week). My problem with journalism is not influenced by any bias I have against journalists, I am biased against exaggerated statements. NPR generally consults scientists when presenting pieces such as this. i am disappointed that NPR did not follow up with scientists who are actually doing the work. LM On Apr 17, 2011, at 3:27 PM, David M. Lawrence wrote: Before attacking journalists, Lynn, maybe you should do some fact-checking on your own. It seems Solotaroff is not too far off base -- there certainly seems to be enough proverbial smoke to make the claims you attack him for: From Scientific American: Lack of food drives human-grizzly conflicts—and human-grizzly fatalities (http://bit.ly/gEteZB) From Billings Gazette: Scarce pine nuts leaves Yellowstone grizzlies hungry, more dangerous (http://bit.ly/eql2yl) From the U.S. Fish
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Education Public Science Media Writing Speaking Ecology Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
The hypothesis that Yellowstone grizzlies have lost pine-nuts as a major seasonal diet component due to a massive climate-related beetle kill of whitebark pine and are therefore forced to seek other sources of protein (including humans) seems valid and worthy of further study. The serious losses of certain species of pines due to bark beetle population increases has been pretty well documented and accepted by forest scientists as a climate-warming result. However, the source quoted in the NPR broadcast, Paul Solotaroff, is not a scientist. He is primarily a sports writer/journalist, so he is probably more interested in developing a good story than parsing the facts. Nevertheless, he seems to communicate the situation better than most scientists would be able to. And, if valid, it is important information that needs to be communicated to both the public and our policy makers. You can also read about it at this site: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/08/hungry-bears-in-yellowstone-coming-i nto-conflict-with-people.php I'm interested in seeing what others have to say about this. 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 Wayne Tyson Sent: Saturday, 16 April, 2011 20:13 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Education Public Science Media Writing Speaking Ecology Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Ecolog While the Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? discussion thread contained some very useful discussion of principles, nothing illustrates principle like specific examples. I would be interested in Ecolog's evaluation of a current example of scientific writing, speaking, and media production. Here's an interesting example of how the public is being informed by a respected source: http://www.npr.org/2011/04/16/135468901/climate-change-making-the-nations-be ars-hungry For those who have time to listen to the item, I'd be interested especially in your analysis of the tone of the featured authority. WT - Original Message - From: David L. McNeely mcnee...@cox.net To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 5:09 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Martin Meiss mme...@gmail.com wrote: A reasoned argument that when scientists have an important point to make to the public, they should find a way to do it repeatedly, somewhat like a television commercial is repeated over and over to get the words out to the public. The idea is that a claim made often enough becomes true in the collective mind, without consideration for whether it is true or not. Implicit in Martin's recommendation is that the point that scientists have to make is true, and thus the drum of repetition would not lead to acceptance of a non-truth. If my understanding is correct, then perhaps Martin is correct. But then again, wouldn't the public begin to think about science as just another one of the myriad of interests groups that bombards it with a barrage of claims, regardless of veracity, but only for the benefit of the group doing the bombardment? Methinks the studied, careful delivery of properly vetted information has the greatest chance of doing real, lasting service to truth. Now, should we deny interest groups (say Union of Concerned Scientists, or American Wildlife Federation) the privilege we deny to ourselves of advertising for welfare? No. Nor should we never toot our own horn. We sometimes should. mcneely - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3511 - Release Date: 03/16/11 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Education Public Science Media Writing Speaking Ecology Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
I heard the NPR interview yesterday and was left angered. I have been a public radio supporter for many years. NPR has been under attack for presenting unbalanced coverage. For the first time, I have to agree. The only part of the interview with Paul Solotaroff that may represent current scientific hypotheses is the mountain pine beetle epidemic. Ten years of drought in Wyoming is linked to the pine beetle epidemic, and is a significant departure from the historical range of variability in this system. The loss of the pine nuts represents a significant loss of food source to the grizzly. But the accuracy of the interview stops there. Paul Solotaroff is speculating about the loss of trout (brook, cutthroat, and rainbow) numbers. While there may be an effect upon these populations from climate change, I do not think that scientists have enough data as yet to make that statement. Most fish research concerning climate change is focused upon downstream areas where the warming trend is more pronounced. Anyone who has ever hunted outside of Yellowstone Park knows that for decades, for as long as managed hunting has occurred, the grizzly bears of Yellowstone Park have learned the gun shot dinner bell. The bears have not suddenly learned this behavior over the last ten years. Finally, if you read the original Ghost Park article by Solotaroff in Men's Journal, two paragraphs are devoted to the gory details concerning the bear fatalities last year. Not even the right wing conservative newspapers in Wyoming detailed how Dr. Evert was killed. He does not seem to mention the fact that bear attacks occur every year in the Rocky Mountain Region and are largely a result of the bear-human interface. This interview is a blatant example of why the public questions our science. If a journalist's job is to fact check using multiple sources, then what Solotaroff does is not journalism, it is sensationalism. Soltaroff does not communicate important information to the public and policymakers; what he communicates is an opinion not fact. Lynn Moore Graduate Student Program in Ecology University of Wyoming On Apr 16, 2011, at 10:16 PM, Warren W. Aney wrote: The hypothesis that Yellowstone grizzlies have lost pine-nuts as a major seasonal diet component due to a massive climate-related beetle kill of whitebark pine and are therefore forced to seek other sources of protein (including humans) seems valid and worthy of further study. The serious losses of certain species of pines due to bark beetle population increases has been pretty well documented and accepted by forest scientists as a climate-warming result. However, the source quoted in the NPR broadcast, Paul Solotaroff, is not a scientist. He is primarily a sports writer/journalist, so he is probably more interested in developing a good story than parsing the facts. Nevertheless, he seems to communicate the situation better than most scientists would be able to. And, if valid, it is important information that needs to be communicated to both the public and our policy makers. You can also read about it at this site: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/08/hungry-bears-in-yellowstone-coming-i nto-conflict-with-people.php I'm interested in seeing what others have to say about this. 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 Wayne Tyson Sent: Saturday, 16 April, 2011 20:13 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDUmailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Education Public Science Media Writing Speaking Ecology Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Ecolog While the Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? discussion thread contained some very useful discussion of principles, nothing illustrates principle like specific examples. I would be interested in Ecolog's evaluation of a current example of scientific writing, speaking, and media production. Here's an interesting example of how the public is being informed by a respected source: http://www.npr.org/2011/04/16/135468901/climate-change-making-the-nations-be ars-hungry For those who have time to listen to the item, I'd be interested especially in your analysis of the tone of the featured authority. WT - Original Message - From: David L. McNeely mcnee...@cox.net To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 5:09 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Martin Meiss mme...@gmail.com wrote: A reasoned argument that when scientists have an important point to make to the public, they should find a way to do it repeatedly, somewhat like a television commercial is repeated over
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Education Public Science Media Writing Speaking Ecology Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Before attacking journalists, Lynn, maybe you should do some fact-checking on your own. It seems Solotaroff is not too far off base -- there certainly seems to be enough proverbial smoke to make the claims you attack him for: From Scientific American: Lack of food drives human-grizzly conflicts—and human-grizzly fatalities (http://bit.ly/gEteZB) From Billings Gazette: Scarce pine nuts leaves Yellowstone grizzlies hungry, more dangerous (http://bit.ly/eql2yl) From the U.S. Fish Wildlife Service -- in 2003!: How will the supply of Whitebark Pine Nuts affect Grizzlies in Yellowstone? (http://1.usa.gov/gRPLBf) From National Parks Traveller: Bison, Pine Nuts, Trout and Grizzlies: Perfect Storm For Yellowstone National Park's Wildlife Managers? (http://bit.ly/hvimcP) From Deseret News -- in 2003: Bumper crop of pine nuts for grizzlies (http://bit.ly/id9v0v) From Environment360 -- in 2009: Yellowstone’s Grizzly Bears Face Threats on Two Fronts (http://bit.ly/eeavZx) From Yellowstone Science -- in 2006: Grizzly Bear Nutrition and Ecology Studies in Yellowstone National Park (http://bit.ly/dOLbYV) All this is from the first 10 hits of a Google search on the subject -- all of it supports the notion that loss of important forage may drive bears into regions where they are more likely to come into contact and confrontation with humans. If you know of contrary evidence, we'd love to hear it. Otherwise, your attack on journalism seems driven more by your own bias than on any actual fault with the work journalists do. Journalists do NOT have to wait until the scientific community makes up its mind -- which it almost never does on anything -- before drawing their own conclusions about an issue. Journalists are supposed to be independent, too, and sometimes they might (heaven forbid!) come to different conclusions that scientists will. Nevertheless, what they say and write should should be based on evidence, or at least on reasonable inference drawn from available evidence. It appears Solotaroff's statements are journalistically -- even scientifically -- valid at this point. Dave On 4/17/2011 12:17 PM, Lynn M. Moore wrote: I heard the NPR interview yesterday and was left angered. I have been a public radio supporter for many years. NPR has been under attack for presenting unbalanced coverage. For the first time, I have to agree. The only part of the interview with Paul Solotaroff that may represent current scientific hypotheses is the mountain pine beetle epidemic. Ten years of drought in Wyoming is linked to the pine beetle epidemic, and is a significant departure from the historical range of variability in this system. The loss of the pine nuts represents a significant loss of food source to the grizzly. But the accuracy of the interview stops there. Paul Solotaroff is speculating about the loss of trout (brook, cutthroat, and rainbow) numbers. While there may be an effect upon these populations from climate change, I do not think that scientists have enough data as yet to make that statement. Most fish research concerning climate change is focused upon downstream areas where the warming trend is more pronounced. Anyone who has ever hunted outside of Yellowstone Park knows that for decades, for as long as managed hunting has occurred, the grizzly bears of Yellowstone Park have learned the gun shot dinner bell. The bears have not suddenly learned this behavior over the last ten years. Finally, if you read the original Ghost Park article by Solotaroff in Men's Journal, two paragraphs are devoted to the gory details concerning the bear fatalities last year. Not even the right wing conservative newspapers in Wyoming detailed how Dr. Evert was killed. He does not seem to mention the fact that bear attacks occur every year in the Rocky Mountain Region and are largely a result of the bear-human interface. This interview is a blatant example of why the public questions our science. If a journalist's job is to fact check using multiple sources, then what Solotaroff does is not journalism, it is sensationalism. Soltaroff does not communicate important information to the public and policymakers; what he communicates is an opinion not fact. Lynn Moore Graduate Student Program in Ecology University of Wyoming -- -- David M. Lawrence| Home: (804) 559-9786 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: d...@fuzzo.com USA | http: http://fuzzo.com -- All drains lead to the ocean. -- Gill, Finding Nemo We have met the enemy and he is us. -- Pogo No trespassing 4/17 of a haiku -- Richard Brautigan
[ECOLOG-L] Education Public Science Media Writing Speaking Ecology Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Ecolog While the Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? discussion thread contained some very useful discussion of principles, nothing illustrates principle like specific examples. I would be interested in Ecolog's evaluation of a current example of scientific writing, speaking, and media production. Here's an interesting example of how the public is being informed by a respected source: http://www.npr.org/2011/04/16/135468901/climate-change-making-the-nations-bears-hungry For those who have time to listen to the item, I'd be interested especially in your analysis of the tone of the featured authority. WT - Original Message - From: David L. McNeely mcnee...@cox.net To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 5:09 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Martin Meiss mme...@gmail.com wrote: A reasoned argument that when scientists have an important point to make to the public, they should find a way to do it repeatedly, somewhat like a television commercial is repeated over and over to get the words out to the public. The idea is that a claim made often enough becomes true in the collective mind, without consideration for whether it is true or not. Implicit in Martin's recommendation is that the point that scientists have to make is true, and thus the drum of repetition would not lead to acceptance of a non-truth. If my understanding is correct, then perhaps Martin is correct. But then again, wouldn't the public begin to think about science as just another one of the myriad of interests groups that bombards it with a barrage of claims, regardless of veracity, but only for the benefit of the group doing the bombardment? Methinks the studied, careful delivery of properly vetted information has the greatest chance of doing real, lasting service to truth. Now, should we deny interest groups (say Union of Concerned Scientists, or American Wildlife Federation) the privilege we deny to ourselves of advertising for welfare? No. Nor should we never toot our own horn. We sometimes should. mcneely - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3511 - Release Date: 03/16/11 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
