Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey!
Czech, Brian wrote: Surely the key to environmental protection and economic security is not to maximize scientific credibility or minimize social responsibility, but rather to optimize the mixture. An interesting survey on self-censorship was forwarded to me this week. It's an good idea and I'd be curious to see the results, especially if others on this list participate. Here's the link: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=F1xytz_2fF_2fPl31pjFaIMzcg_3d_3d
[ECOLOG-L] Climate regulation CO2 and CH4 Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey!
With respect to Robert's statement: Increased CO2 in the air, along with the resultant increased temperature and water vapor has to increase primary productivity, as we all know from basic principles that precipitation and temperature are the prime regulators of primary productivity. I see increasdPPP as a good thing overall. The catastophic predictions, the Al Gore sorts of things, are embarassing to me as an ecologist, as the public does see me as a person supporting such nonsense. Perhaps someone has looked critically at the actual and potential effects of increased atmospheric CO2 on primary productivity (I think Walt Ochel was looking at this several years ago) and why CO2 levels have risen. Is this due to deforestation and perhaps diminishment of plankton or? What about other carbon forms such as methane? Have they increased in rough proportion to anthropogenic influences or is CH4 concentration limited/modulated by methanotrophs, and what fraction of atmospheric CO2 comes from their oxidizing activity? Lucky for us that these archaea are still around, eh? Even though fluctuations occur, it seems that the earth ecosystem takes stab at a kind of homeostasis, though, and while CO2 smites the mighty for their sins against the system, it's probably nothing new. Similarly, at least in the general lexicon, beer can ecologists do seem to be outnumbering those who question the precepts of pop-ecology, eh? Hang in there, Robert. WT Btw, my previous reference to the precautionary principle was intended to make the point that if the UNNECESSARY fraction of anthropogenic carbon emissions were reduced, no harm would be done (except to the wasters-for-profit), CO2 would (measurably or immeasurably) go down, and there would still be plenty available for photosynthesis, even if the conversion of ecosystems to switchgrass farms, landscaping, and deep injection, etc. was abandoned and nobody got any carbon credits. (Do I presume correctly that CO2 emissions from volcanic regions sufficient to kill vegetation and researchers disappear into the background and there is no cause for alarm that such conditions might be mimicked, in effect, from injection sites--or does anyone know?) - Original Message - From: Robert Hamilton rhami...@mc.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 8:26 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey! That is a reasoned response, IMHO. However! I see no evidence that increased CO2 in the atmosphere, and global warming is destructive. A lot of anecdotal hyperbole more directed at pseudoscientific social engineering than scientific inquiry. Where I live Hurricane Katrina did a lot of damage. We had no power for over a week. I hear people passionately insisting that Katrina was caused by global warming; there is no evidence of this, of course. Increased CO2 in the air, along with the resultant increased temperature and water vapor has to increase primary productivity, as we all know from basic principles that precipitation and temperature are the prime regulators of primary productivity. I see increasdPPP as a good thing overall. The catastophic predictions, the Al Gore sorts of things, are embarassing to me as an ecologist, as the public does see me as a person supporting such nonsense. The type of lifestyle we live, especially in urban modern centers, requires massive imports of energy, and the price is always paid by people in rural areas. People in urban centers need cheap food, so farmers must farm large tracts of land for low per unit return. We then charge farmers outrageous prices for things like education, for example. Same thing holds for energy. We want cheap energy from Louisiana and Kentucky. We then charge outrageous prices for things like banking and asset management. The most outrageously priced urban resource, entertainment, be it sports or movies or television is absolutely inconsequential when compared to rural resources such as food, energy, building materials and minerals, all which are taken at minimal cost. So it seems we want to drive the socio-economic status of the people of Appalachia, for example, down lower because we don't like coal, and want to enact policies to discourage and possibly eliminate the use of coal because we don't like CO2 in the air; lacking any solid scientific evidence that the CO2 does any damage, but go on taking the resource we want as cheaply as possible from people like those in Appalachia as suits our needs and prejudices. To my minds eye, it's just a furtherance of attacking the weak to sooth our guilt on these issues. We need a 20 dollar loaf of bread and 2 dollar DVDs more than we need to reduce CO2 emissions. Even the urban poor, who where I live seem to have no problem buying 20 dollar DVDs, would be better to transfer the wealth to farmers than movie producers...that's JMHO of course, and we'd be better
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey!
It looks like there was an ironic exchange on ECOLOG this week. While the discussions about scientists and policy ensued, dozens of ESA members were signing the CASSE position on economic growth. The announcement that Gus Speth, David Orr, Paul Ehrlich et al. had recently signed the position clearly empowered and encouraged ESA members to do likewise. (Meanwhile, the NCSE was asking ECOLOGers to call their legislators about the Holdren/Lubchenco appointments.) ECOLOGers may also be interested that Vandana Shiva and Wendell Berry also signed the CASSE position this week. The CASSE position continues to attract a productive mix of prominent scientists and other leaders among its signatories. If you're an ecologist, these are leaders worth following. Many scientists, though, seem to think that we do science, others use it. Hopefully others will use it, but it should be clear to scientists that their voices on matters of public policy are some of the most potent, especially when the science is crucial for identifying helpful policy goals. Why leave their findings and insights to those less prepared to explicate them, or to those not inclined to consider them at all? I think we owe a great deal of gratitude to the scientists who USE their scientific and political capital for the public's welfare instead of mothballing their credibility. Surely the key to environmental protection and economic security is not to maximize scientific credibility or minimize social responsibility, but rather to optimize the mixture. Brian Czech, Visiting Professor Natural Resources Program Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University National Capital Region, Northern Virginia Center 7054 Haycock Road, Room 411 Falls Church, Virginia 22043 From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Tom Cuba Sent: Wed 2009-03-04 13:51 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey! Maiken writes: the debate so intense, the answers so contradictory, I would say the first results are in - there is no consensus. Not on the problem and not on what to do about it. Maiken Winter wrote: I owe you all a short explanation - I developed the survey I posted yesterday (http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=S2Q7Cyxa8xmJSiRNn_2b8Opw_3d_3d) not for a scientific study but to get a quick overview over the thoughts of scientists about their role in climate action. I plan to use the results to write a commentary ona blog, the Clean Energy Project (www.cleanenergy-project.de). Obviously, the survey is not perfect at all; but it does give interesting results so far. As it turns out, the responses are so many, the debate so intense, the answers so contradictory, that I do want to improve this survey and repeat it professionally to be able to have a more scientific debate on an issue that is - in my opinion - of major importance. Basically, I believe it is high time what we seriously rethink and debate our role as scientists in society, and about the prioritization of our work. Is it true that scientists have no more responsibility to act than any other citizen - as some people commented? But isn't it also true that we are privileged to be educated and wealthy enough to have the means and freedom to think through the scientific evidence, and to understand what that evidence truly means? If we, as scientists, feel that we understand science better than other people, isn't it our uttermost responsibility to pass on this knowledge and understanding on to others? Not only to other scientists, but also to the public and politicians as well. Science is not politics, and scientists should stay away from politics, one scientist commented. But relying on politicians and media to interpret our data got us in the trouble we are in today. I hope this survey stimulates further discussion (but please more friendly; I love debate, but only when it is based on mutual respect) and helps us to step a bit further out of our science glasshouse to take responsibility for what we all work for - a deeper understanding of nature so that future generations can admire and witness what we discover. Many of those discoveries will be useless if we do not act quickly on climate change together. Please do know that I am well aware of the danger to lose credibility when getting active in public affairs, and that I absolutely do not pretend to know the solution of how to best balance both sides. But I do believe that at the moment we are not courageous enough to try out how to best stand on that rope, and that our priorities at the moment are often too selfish and short-sighted, myself included. Thank you to all those who have participated in the survey so far! And thanks for those who will. Maiken Winter -- Thomas R. Cuba, Ph.D., CEP, CLM President, Delta Seven Inc. http://www.delta
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey!
The effects of overcomsumption and overdevelopment on the part of people in modern cities are very obvious, and one does not need to make the sorts of arguments that Miller makes below to show the effects. The obscene amount of energy required to maintain people living in modern cites would be greatly ameliorated if people moved onto less arable lands and became more responsible for their own existence. Grow some of your own food for example, or at least support local food producers rather than forage on food shipped in from Thailand and Chile. I wonder if that practice is factored into people's carbon footprint?. IMHO, nothing does more ecological harm than maintaining populations in large urban centers. I could equally argue that Birkenstock shoes have caused global warming. The effects are difficult to see, but if you were a nuclear physicist you could see them. If you remain unconvinced, get a degree in nuclear physics and do some research. There is no side to this thing, IMHO. Science is a particular type of philosophy. You must have an explanation that makes a risky prediction, and you must have empirical evidence to show that nature behaves in accordance with your risky prediction. What we see with CO2 arguments is akin to Freudian psychology. The data are explained regardless; the hypothesis cannot be wrong. Explanations are changed to suit each particular contigency. We have seen, with CFC's, that science can make meaningful contributions in related areas, with real evidence. Here, with CO2, there is none. What is most disturbing to me is the presentation of evidence spun to support one view or another, be they some weatherman saying there is no human generated increase in CO2 levels, which is ridiculous to me, or some environmentalist saying that increased CO2 levels will destroy our civilization, equally ridiculous, to me. I can understand them as political arguments. As science, they are invalid, and the shadow cast when people who are scientists make these arguments, falls across all scientists, and ecologists in particular get painted as quacks by this pseudoscientific political spin. Rob Hamilton Robert Miller rjmill...@gmail.com 3/5/2009 11:20 AM The problem with CO2 and climate change is that they are not visible. A city is visible, and easily vilified, even though spreading its citizens over the countryside would do far more damage. There is abundant evidence that global warming is a problem, but it's not easy to understand. To people who claim the evidence is weak I suggest talking with an experienced biogeochemist. If you're still not convinced, maybe you should become a biogeochemist and do some science to see if your views hold up. Bob On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 1:42 AM, William Silvert cien...@silvert.org wrote: I don't have the reference available, but I recall a talk from an AAAS meeting some years ago dealing with the impacts of increased CO2 on PP. The findings were that scurb grasses, weeds basically, responded well to increased CO2 levels, while cereals and trees did not do as well. Perhaps someone on the list could add more facts and details. In the marine ecosystem we know that increased sedimentation of carbon and nutrients increases benthic productivity but there is a loss of biodiversity to the point where eventually the bottom is covered with slug worms (Capitella) and little else. Beyond this point anoxia sets in and the bacteria take over. Although the overall impacts of increased CO2 are still controversial, a lot of people seem ready to characterise any views other than their own as nonsense. This too can be an embarassment for the rest of the science community. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Robert Hamilton rhami...@mc.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 4:26 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey! Increased CO2 in the air, along with the resultant increased temperature and water vapor has to increase primary productivity, as we all know from basic principles that precipitation and temperature are the prime regulators of primary productivity. I see increasdPPP as a good thing overall. The catastophic predictions, the Al Gore sorts of things, are embarassing to me as an ecologist, as the public does see me as a person supporting such nonsense. -- Robert J. Miller, Ph.D. Bren School of Environmental Science and Management University of California Santa Barbara Santa Barbara CA 93109-5131
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey!
I disagree with, what I perceive to be, the sentiment that cities are bad. Is it not the case that one of the best predictors of diminished ecosystem integrity is the presence of humans, e.g. roads, resorts, etc.? I would argue that confining the human footprint to the smallest area possible is crucial to preserving natural systems. As one of my professors put it many years ago, cities can be an efficient use of the land. Unfortunately, as a species we have neglected to enact policy that optimizes the potential efficiency of urban systems. Instead of encouraging dense, mix-used development along mass transit corridors, the contemporary model is, and has been, to build more roads, McMansions, and strip malls. (There are numerous exceptions, but I challenge anyone to name a metropolitan area that doesn't include a disgustingly suburban area). I dread the notion of humans occupying every square hectare of land, disturbing and modifying native flora to grow crops and polluting the nearest stream with whatever waste is deemed unseemly by the local tenant. In my opinion, cities provide valuable bottlenecks for pollution and the human/nature interface. Phil M. Man brings all things to the test of himself, and this is notably true of lightning. -Aldo Leopold --- On Fri, 3/6/09, Robert Hamilton rhami...@mc.edu wrote: From: Robert Hamilton rhami...@mc.edu Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey! To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Date: Friday, March 6, 2009, 8:36 AM The effects of overcomsumption and overdevelopment on the part of people in modern cities are very obvious, and one does not need to make the sorts of arguments that Miller makes below to show the effects. The obscene amount of energy required to maintain people living in modern cites would be greatly ameliorated if people moved onto less arable lands and became more responsible for their own existence. Grow some of your own food for example, or at least support local food producers rather than forage on food shipped in from Thailand and Chile. I wonder if that practice is factored into people's carbon footprint?. IMHO, nothing does more ecological harm than maintaining populations in large urban centers. I could equally argue that Birkenstock shoes have caused global warming. The effects are difficult to see, but if you were a nuclear physicist you could see them. If you remain unconvinced, get a degree in nuclear physics and do some research. There is no side to this thing, IMHO. Science is a particular type of philosophy. You must have an explanation that makes a risky prediction, and you must have empirical evidence to show that nature behaves in accordance with your risky prediction. What we see with CO2 arguments is akin to Freudian psychology. The data are explained regardless; the hypothesis cannot be wrong. Explanations are changed to suit each particular contigency. We have seen, with CFC's, that science can make meaningful contributions in related areas, with real evidence. Here, with CO2, there is none. What is most disturbing to me is the presentation of evidence spun to support one view or another, be they some weatherman saying there is no human generated increase in CO2 levels, which is ridiculous to me, or some environmentalist saying that increased CO2 levels will destroy our civilization, equally ridiculous, to me. I can understand them as political arguments. As science, they are invalid, and the shadow cast when people who are scientists make these arguments, falls across all scientists, and ecologists in particular get painted as quacks by this pseudoscientific political spin. Rob Hamilton Robert Miller rjmill...@gmail.com 3/5/2009 11:20 AM The problem with CO2 and climate change is that they are not visible. A city is visible, and easily vilified, even though spreading its citizens over the countryside would do far more damage. There is abundant evidence that global warming is a problem, but it's not easy to understand. To people who claim the evidence is weak I suggest talking with an experienced biogeochemist. If you're still not convinced, maybe you should become a biogeochemist and do some science to see if your views hold up. Bob On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 1:42 AM, William Silvert cien...@silvert.org wrote: I don't have the reference available, but I recall a talk from an AAAS meeting some years ago dealing with the impacts of increased CO2 on PP. The findings were that scurb grasses, weeds basically, responded well to increased CO2 levels, while cereals and trees did not do as well. Perhaps someone on the list could add more facts and details. In the marine ecosystem we know that increased sedimentation of carbon and nutrients increases benthic productivity but there is a loss of biodiversity to the point where eventually the bottom is covered with slug worms (Capitella) and little else. Beyond this point anoxia sets in and the bacteria take over
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey!
Phil challenges us to name a metropolitan area that doesn't include a disgustingly 'suburban' area so let me offer one (assuming that his definition of a disgustingly suburban area is one with uncontrolled sprawl converting farms and wildlands into lawns): I live in a suburb of the Portland (Oregon) metropolitan area where the required density is 5 homes per acre, which is rapidly being met (it used to be 1 home per 2 acres). There are other parts of the suburban metro area where density requirements are even higher. And much of the inner city is experiencing considerable redevelopment and upgrading (what some call gentrification). Much of this is due to an established urban growth boundary which limits the spread of development into adjacent farm, forest and open land. As a result, the Portland metro area has one of the nation's lowest degree of urban sprawl in proportion to population size. And yes, there are challenges in trying to maintain my neighborhood's natural values such as trees, green spaces, and stream corridors in the face of increased suburban density. Warren W. Aney Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu]on Behalf Of Phil Morefield Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 20:09 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey! I disagree with, what I perceive to be, the sentiment that cities are bad. Is it not the case that one of the best predictors of diminished ecosystem integrity is the presence of humans, e.g. roads, resorts, etc.? I would argue that confining the human footprint to the smallest area possible is crucial to preserving natural systems. As one of my professors put it many years ago, cities can be an efficient use of the land. Unfortunately, as a species we have neglected to enact policy that optimizes the potential efficiency of urban systems. Instead of encouraging dense, mix-used development along mass transit corridors, the contemporary model is, and has been, to build more roads, McMansions, and strip malls. (There are numerous exceptions, but I challenge anyone to name a metropolitan area that doesn't include a disgustingly suburban area). I dread the notion of humans occupying every square hectare of land, disturbing and modifying native flora to grow crops and polluting the nearest stream with whatever waste is deemed unseemly by the local tenant. In my opinion, cities provide valuable bottlenecks for pollution and the human/nature interface. Phil M. Man brings all things to the test of himself, and this is notably true of lightning. -Aldo Leopold --- On Fri, 3/6/09, Robert Hamilton rhami...@mc.edu wrote: From: Robert Hamilton rhami...@mc.edu Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey! To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Date: Friday, March 6, 2009, 8:36 AM The effects of overcomsumption and overdevelopment on the part of people in modern cities are very obvious, and one does not need to make the sorts of arguments that Miller makes below to show the effects. The obscene amount of energy required to maintain people living in modern cites would be greatly ameliorated if people moved onto less arable lands and became more responsible for their own existence. Grow some of your own food for example, or at least support local food producers rather than forage on food shipped in from Thailand and Chile. I wonder if that practice is factored into people's carbon footprint?. IMHO, nothing does more ecological harm than maintaining populations in large urban centers. I could equally argue that Birkenstock shoes have caused global warming. The effects are difficult to see, but if you were a nuclear physicist you could see them. If you remain unconvinced, get a degree in nuclear physics and do some research. There is no side to this thing, IMHO. Science is a particular type of philosophy. You must have an explanation that makes a risky prediction, and you must have empirical evidence to show that nature behaves in accordance with your risky prediction. What we see with CO2 arguments is akin to Freudian psychology. The data are explained regardless; the hypothesis cannot be wrong. Explanations are changed to suit each particular contigency. We have seen, with CFC's, that science can make meaningful contributions in related areas, with real evidence. Here, with CO2, there is none. What is most disturbing to me is the presentation of evidence spun to support one view or another, be they some weatherman saying there is no human generated increase in CO2 levels, which is ridiculous to me, or some environmentalist saying that increased CO2 levels will destroy our civilization, equally ridiculous, to me. I can understand them as political arguments. As science, they are invalid, and the shadow cast when people who are scientists make these arguments, falls across all scientists, and ecologists in particular get painted
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey!
I don't have the reference available, but I recall a talk from an AAAS meeting some years ago dealing with the impacts of increased CO2 on PP. The findings were that scurb grasses, weeds basically, responded well to increased CO2 levels, while cereals and trees did not do as well. Perhaps someone on the list could add more facts and details. In the marine ecosystem we know that increased sedimentation of carbon and nutrients increases benthic productivity but there is a loss of biodiversity to the point where eventually the bottom is covered with slug worms (Capitella) and little else. Beyond this point anoxia sets in and the bacteria take over. Although the overall impacts of increased CO2 are still controversial, a lot of people seem ready to characterise any views other than their own as nonsense. This too can be an embarassment for the rest of the science community. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Robert Hamilton rhami...@mc.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 4:26 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey! Increased CO2 in the air, along with the resultant increased temperature and water vapor has to increase primary productivity, as we all know from basic principles that precipitation and temperature are the prime regulators of primary productivity. I see increasdPPP as a good thing overall. The catastophic predictions, the Al Gore sorts of things, are embarassing to me as an ecologist, as the public does see me as a person supporting such nonsense.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey!
The problem with CO2 and climate change is that they are not visible. A city is visible, and easily vilified, even though spreading its citizens over the countryside would do far more damage. There is abundant evidence that global warming is a problem, but it's not easy to understand. To people who claim the evidence is weak I suggest talking with an experienced biogeochemist. If you're still not convinced, maybe you should become a biogeochemist and do some science to see if your views hold up. Bob On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 1:42 AM, William Silvert cien...@silvert.org wrote: I don't have the reference available, but I recall a talk from an AAAS meeting some years ago dealing with the impacts of increased CO2 on PP. The findings were that scurb grasses, weeds basically, responded well to increased CO2 levels, while cereals and trees did not do as well. Perhaps someone on the list could add more facts and details. In the marine ecosystem we know that increased sedimentation of carbon and nutrients increases benthic productivity but there is a loss of biodiversity to the point where eventually the bottom is covered with slug worms (Capitella) and little else. Beyond this point anoxia sets in and the bacteria take over. Although the overall impacts of increased CO2 are still controversial, a lot of people seem ready to characterise any views other than their own as nonsense. This too can be an embarassment for the rest of the science community. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Robert Hamilton rhami...@mc.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 4:26 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey! Increased CO2 in the air, along with the resultant increased temperature and water vapor has to increase primary productivity, as we all know from basic principles that precipitation and temperature are the prime regulators of primary productivity. I see increasdPPP as a good thing overall. The catastophic predictions, the Al Gore sorts of things, are embarassing to me as an ecologist, as the public does see me as a person supporting such nonsense. -- Robert J. Miller, Ph.D. Bren School of Environmental Science and Management University of California Santa Barbara Santa Barbara CA 93109-5131
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey!
Maiken and others, don't get me wrong. I am a strong proponent for using good science to inform our decision makers. I have presented or helped present statements along this line for many agency and legislative hearings and deliberations. Usually I find it most effective to present the science without advocating a particular action or decision. However, in many or most cases the best available science so obviously indicates what must be done that I don't have to advocate -- the science does it for me -- and the climate change/energy use issue is a prime example of this. Warren W. Aney Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu]on Behalf Of Maiken Winter Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 23:43 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey! I owe you all a short explanation - I developed the survey I posted yesterday (http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=S2Q7Cyxa8xmJSiRNn_2b8Opw_3d_3d) not for a scientific study but to get a quick overview over the thoughts of scientists about their role in climate action. I plan to use the results to write a commentary ona blog, the Clean Energy Project (www.cleanenergy-project.de). Obviously, the survey is not perfect at all; but it does give interesting results so far. As it turns out, the responses are so many, the debate so intense, the answers so contradictory, that I do want to improve this survey and repeat it professionally to be able to have a more scientific debate on an issue that is - in my opinion - of major importance. Basically, I believe it is high time what we seriously rethink and debate our role as scientists in society, and about the prioritization of our work. Is it true that scientists have no more responsibility to act than any other citizen - as some people commented? But isn't it also true that we are privileged to be educated and wealthy enough to have the means and freedom to think through the scientific evidence, and to understand what that evidence truly means? If we, as scientists, feel that we understand science better than other people, isn't it our uttermost responsibility to pass on this knowledge and understanding on to others? Not only to other scientists, but also to the public and politicians as well. Science is not politics, and scientists should stay away from politics, one scientist commented. But relying on politicians and media to interpret our data got us in the trouble we are in today. I hope this survey stimulates further discussion (but please more friendly; I love debate, but only when it is based on mutual respect) and helps us to step a bit further out of our science glasshouse to take responsibility for what we all work for - a deeper understanding of nature so that future generations can admire and witness what we discover. Many of those discoveries will be useless if we do not act quickly on climate change together. Please do know that I am well aware of the danger to lose credibility when getting active in public affairs, and that I absolutely do not pretend to know the solution of how to best balance both sides. But I do believe that at the moment we are not courageous enough to try out how to best stand on that rope, and that our priorities at the moment are often too selfish and short-sighted, myself included. Thank you to all those who have participated in the survey so far! And thanks for those who will. Maiken Winter
Re: [ECOLOG-L] CLIMATE CHANGE Anthropogenic ignition? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey!
Since Wayne cited the precautionary principle, I'll second what he says with some simpler and more direct language: If we act now under the premise that climate change is human-caused, and we are wrong about this cause, then the costs will be high but the benefits could still be tremendous in terms of reduced pollution and reductions in reliance on non-renewable carbon based energy sources. If we fail to act now under the premise that climate change is not human-caused, and we are wrong, the human and environmental costs could be catastrophic, particularly in third world and developing countries. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, OR -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson Sent: Tuesday, 03 March, 2009 20:48 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] CLIMATE CHANGE Anthropogenic ignition? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey! Y'all: Hamilton's point is well-taken--the devil is in the details. Speaking of circularity, the boy who cried wolf phenomenon might be on the opposite side of the clock diagram from crying in the wilderness, each on the other side of the vertical or midnight position, i.e., worlds apart in one sense, but in the apparent sense close together. While I maintain a state of suspended judgment in the absence of evidence, neither do I recognize absence of evidence as evidence of absence. While CO2 well might be a surrogate for habitat destruction that is at once sufficiently vague and sufficiently (or vaguely) scientific, I have decided to not cloud the issue just in case the right things get done, even if for the wrong reasons. It may well be true that one can't add up all the carbon emissions directly caused by culture, the possibility of a sort of keystone or domino effect might be laid in the lap of Homo sapiens, and there is little doubt that there is prima facie evidence that the contributions therefrom have increased for the last ten millennia or so. So . . . a case in absolute refutation is similarly difficult. Therein might lie the (evil or saintly?) genius behind the carbon obsession? In any case, it seems clear that, particularly given the probable futility of sufficient actual reduction (credits and other means of capitalizing upon the rage), the precautionary principle is probably preferable to the needless and heedless fraction of the unique human talent for consuming outside energy/mass cycles. That is, no matter how inevitably nutty human expression may be, no matter how wrong some might be, a change in current trends could benefit the earth and its life--even, perhaps, including the guilty parties. A Pax upon us all, great and small . . . WT The suspension of judgment is the highest exercise in intellectual discipline. --Raymond Gilmore - Original Message - From: Robert Hamilton rhami...@mc.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 9:11 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey! Don't know if you want to post a contrasting view, but I'll offer one up. No question that human generated CO2 is causing global warming, in my opinion. There is, however, no evidence of a deleterious effect, especially given the fact that the climate does and will change one way or another anyways. Models predicting catastrophes have been overblown to a degree that is embarrassing to an informed scientist, and results a in classic boy who cried wolf type loss of credibility for informed scientists. With respect to our ecological impact, habitat destruction is the #1 negative human impact, and the overall ecological footprint is the real issue, not just the carbon footprint. There is no activity we engage in as humans that is worse than the building of modern cities, especially when you factor in the type of agricultural practices needed to support those cities. The carbon footprint approach also strongly discriminates against those living in poorer, more rural areas, singling out the activities that support the economies in those areas as the major problem, as opposed to the much more destructive activities of people who live in urban areas, particularly modern urban areas. It's obvuiously more politically prudent to attack the weak. There is an issue with global warming, but it is relatively minor, as far as we know at this point in time, and it appears to be just another way of deflecting the real issue, habitat conversion. Allowing people in large modern cities to feel good about themselves re environmental issues while continuing on with the most destructive of lifestyles. I recall reading many months ago about Leonardo DeCaprio wanting to buy a tropical island and build an eco friendly resort being presented as evidence of some sort of environmentally responsible act. Ridiculous, of course, but one of the best examples
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey!
That is a reasoned response, IMHO. However! I see no evidence that increased CO2 in the atmosphere, and global warming is destructive. A lot of anecdotal hyperbole more directed at pseudoscientific social engineering than scientific inquiry. Where I live Hurricane Katrina did a lot of damage. We had no power for over a week. I hear people passionately insisting that Katrina was caused by global warming; there is no evidence of this, of course. Increased CO2 in the air, along with the resultant increased temperature and water vapor has to increase primary productivity, as we all know from basic principles that precipitation and temperature are the prime regulators of primary productivity. I see increasdPPP as a good thing overall. The catastophic predictions, the Al Gore sorts of things, are embarassing to me as an ecologist, as the public does see me as a person supporting such nonsense. The type of lifestyle we live, especially in urban modern centers, requires massive imports of energy, and the price is always paid by people in rural areas. People in urban centers need cheap food, so farmers must farm large tracts of land for low per unit return. We then charge farmers outrageous prices for things like education, for example. Same thing holds for energy. We want cheap energy from Louisiana and Kentucky. We then charge outrageous prices for things like banking and asset management. The most outrageously priced urban resource, entertainment, be it sports or movies or television is absolutely inconsequential when compared to rural resources such as food, energy, building materials and minerals, all which are taken at minimal cost. So it seems we want to drive the socio-economic status of the people of Appalachia, for example, down lower because we don't like coal, and want to enact policies to discourage and possibly eliminate the use of coal because we don't like CO2 in the air; lacking any solid scientific evidence that the CO2 does any damage, but go on taking the resource we want as cheaply as possible from people like those in Appalachia as suits our needs and prejudices. To my minds eye, it's just a furtherance of attacking the weak to sooth our guilt on these issues. We need a 20 dollar loaf of bread and 2 dollar DVDs more than we need to reduce CO2 emissions. Even the urban poor, who where I live seem to have no problem buying 20 dollar DVDs, would be better to transfer the wealth to farmers than movie producers...that's JMHO of course, and we'd be better off to use coal, but pay more for it, at the expense of lower costs to banking services and football tickets..again, JMHO. Higher cost translates to lower energy use. That's what we need. Anyone wants to put up windmills is also doing a good thing, IMHO. If my homeowners association allowed it, I'd have one in my yard, they aren't all that expensive. Rob Hamilton Gene Hannon gene.han...@gmail.com 3/3/2009 5:55 PM Rob, I think we all agree with the importance of habitat preservation (species conservation, preserving ecosystem functions, etc). And I think we all are on the same page about the disproportionate tax on the environment that urban areas have compared to rural areas (or for that matter: developed countries vs less developed countries). Furthermore, I think we can all agree that there is a lot of hype related to most issues *including global climate change. But I feel it worth saying that it might be unproductive and imprudent (in my humble opinion) to make this problem into one of a false dichotomy: into either human habitat destruction or human climate warming. They are both worrisome. And they are both symptomatic of the same problem *a non sustainable life style (economy, or what have you); by me, you, us, them. Furthermore, while there are lots of anthropogenic (as well as non-anthropogenic) processes that result DIRECTLY in habitat destruction NOW, why not be concerned about those effects that will indirectly (and or directly) result in habitat destruction later? Such as our carbon foot print. But perhaps this is all circular. I guess I see this as a spin off of the chicken and the egg argument. If we truly did stop habitat destruction it probably means we are living sustainably, which might then cause carbon in the atmosphere to drop to or below 350 ppm (or some ideal value: see 350.org). Or we could save habitat, not live sustainably, and have weather patterns change ecological patterns and processes in a way that will result in those saved habitats being for a collection of species that are different than originally intended. Or we could destroy habitat, to make carbon neutral bioenergy, to live sustainably so that carbon in the atmosphere goes back down to 350 ppm, but species diversity and ecosystem processes still go to pot because we have destroyed habitat (i.e. the means does not justify the end in this scenario). ETC. So really, it is not so much what the impending or
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey!]
Dear Robert, You are absolutely right that habitat loss is one of the major problems of today. Focus on climate change is not because it is the only problem the world faces. There is a number of planetary boundaries that all will lead to catastrophic outcomes if we continue on our non-sustainable path. See: http://www.tallbergfoundation.org/T%C3%84LLBERGFORUM/T%C3%A4llbergForum2008/Exploringplanetaryboundaries/tabid/487/Default.aspx Habitat loss and climate change are just one of them. However, climate change is likely the one closest to irreversible tipping points, see http://researchpages.net/ESMG/people/tim-lenton/tipping-points/ The extreme challenge of avoiding such tipping points is that climate change is a symptom of our unsustainable way of living - in all areas, not just in the way we burn fossil fuels, but in how we overfish the oceans, destroy habitats, add chemicals to our groundwaters, etc pp. Stopping coal-fired power plants is absolutely essential to avoid passing tipping points in the climate system. But even that will not help if we continue to exploit the rest of the earth and destroy all natural habitats, poison the groundwater, I hope that by thinking and feeling through the climate crisis we learn to better understand our place on earth. BTW, the fact that the poor have to endure the worst effects of climate change although they least caused it, is a major issue in climate policies, and one of the huge issues that urgently needs to get resolved at the UN climate conference in Copenhagen this December. I don't know where you heard that the rich are supposed to be causing fewer emissions than the poor. Of course that's completely wrong. Just all the stuff we buy causes almost 1/3 of the CO2 emissions of the average German. For sure the rich buy and use up a lot more than the poor, no? I am also not sure where you get the information that effects of climate change are not extremely worrisome. Check out the IPCC 4'th assessment report (http://www.ipcc.ch/) from 2007. To appreciate what you read you need to know that recent research has demonstrated that the increase in global temperature, in CO2 concentration and in sea level rise, as well as the melting of the Arctic sea-ice and the disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet is as fast or faster than the most pessimistic models of the IPCC described. Because the IPCC report is outdated, there will be an emergency conference on climate science next week in Copenhagen (which I am luckily to be able to attend). You might want to check out its webpage (http://climatecongress.ku.dk/) to see the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence for the increasing speed of climate change impacts that will be presented. For an interesting reading, also see: http://www.tallbergfoundation.org/Default.aspx?tabid=555 I will summarize my findings from the survey next week and send it to you all. Thanks for all the input! Maiken Don't know if you want to post a contrasting view, but I'll offer one up. No question that human generated CO2 is causing global warming, in my opinion. There is, however, no evidence of a deleterious effect, especially given the fact that the climate does and will change one way or another anyways. Models predicting catastrophes have been overblown to a degree that is embarrassing to an informed scientist, and results a in classic boy who cried wolf type loss of credibility for informed scientists. With respect to our ecological impact, habitat destruction is the #1 negative human impact, and the overall ecological footprint is the real issue, not just the carbon footprint. There is no activity we engage in as humans that is worse than the building of modern cities, especially when you factor in the type of agricultural practices needed to support those cities. The carbon footprint approach also strongly discriminates against those living in poorer, more rural areas, singling out the activities that support the economies in those areas as the major problem, as opposed to the much more destructive activities of people who live in urban areas, particularly modern urban areas. It's obvuiously more politically prudent to attack the weak. There is an issue with global warming, but it is relatively minor, as far as we know at this point in time, and it appears to be just another way of deflecting the real issue, habitat conversion. Allowing people in large modern cities to feel good about themselves re environmental issues while continuing on with the most destructive of lifestyles. I recall reading many months ago about Leonardo DeCaprio wanting to buy a tropical island and build an eco friendly resort being presented as evidence of some sort of environmentally responsible act. Ridiculous, of course, but one of the best examples of the sort or poor thinking that drives a lot of the pop culture based environmental movement. Rob Hamilton So easy it seemed once found, which yet unfound most would
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey!
Maiken writes: the debate so intense, the answers so contradictory, I would say the first results are in - there is no consensus. Not on the problem and not on what to do about it. Maiken Winter wrote: I owe you all a short explanation - I developed the survey I posted yesterday (http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=S2Q7Cyxa8xmJSiRNn_2b8Opw_3d_3d) not for a scientific study but to get a quick overview over the thoughts of scientists about their role in climate action. I plan to use the results to write a commentary ona blog, the Clean Energy Project (www.cleanenergy-project.de). Obviously, the survey is not perfect at all; but it does give interesting results so far. As it turns out, the responses are so many, the debate so intense, the answers so contradictory, that I do want to improve this survey and repeat it professionally to be able to have a more scientific debate on an issue that is - in my opinion - of major importance. Basically, I believe it is high time what we seriously rethink and debate our role as scientists in society, and about the prioritization of our work. Is it true that scientists have no more responsibility to act than any other citizen - as some people commented? But isn't it also true that we are privileged to be educated and wealthy enough to have the means and freedom to think through the scientific evidence, and to understand what that evidence truly means? If we, as scientists, feel that we understand science better than other people, isn't it our uttermost responsibility to pass on this knowledge and understanding on to others? Not only to other scientists, but also to the public and politicians as well. Science is not politics, and scientists should stay away from politics, one scientist commented. But relying on politicians and media to interpret our data got us in the trouble we are in today. I hope this survey stimulates further discussion (but please more friendly; I love debate, but only when it is based on mutual respect) and helps us to step a bit further out of our science glasshouse to take responsibility for what we all work for - a deeper understanding of nature so that future generations can admire and witness what we discover. Many of those discoveries will be useless if we do not act quickly on climate change together. Please do know that I am well aware of the danger to lose credibility when getting active in public affairs, and that I absolutely do not pretend to know the solution of how to best balance both sides. But I do believe that at the moment we are not courageous enough to try out how to best stand on that rope, and that our priorities at the moment are often too selfish and short-sighted, myself included. Thank you to all those who have participated in the survey so far! And thanks for those who will. Maiken Winter -- Thomas R. Cuba, Ph.D., CEP, CLM President, Delta Seven Inc. http://www.delta-seven.com 727-823-2443
Re: [ECOLOG-L] CLIMATE CHANGE Anthropogenic ignition? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey!
Honorable Forum: Ecosystems are resilient; cultural systems are brittle. Nature is indifferent, not caring. The ecosystem adapts (by structural alterations, aka extinction and population shifts in ratio) to change, whether culture survives or not. Que sera, sera. WT 'Cause suicide is painless, It brings on many changes, And I can take or leave it if I please --Mike Altman - Original Message - From: Warren W. Aney a...@coho.net To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 9:58 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] CLIMATE CHANGE Anthropogenic ignition? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey! Since Wayne cited the precautionary principle, I'll second what he says with some simpler and more direct language: If we act now under the premise that climate change is human-caused, and we are wrong about this cause, then the costs will be high but the benefits could still be tremendous in terms of reduced pollution and reductions in reliance on non-renewable carbon based energy sources. If we fail to act now under the premise that climate change is not human-caused, and we are wrong, the human and environmental costs could be catastrophic, particularly in third world and developing countries. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, OR -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson Sent: Tuesday, 03 March, 2009 20:48 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] CLIMATE CHANGE Anthropogenic ignition? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey! Y'all: Hamilton's point is well-taken--the devil is in the details. Speaking of circularity, the boy who cried wolf phenomenon might be on the opposite side of the clock diagram from crying in the wilderness, each on the other side of the vertical or midnight position, i.e., worlds apart in one sense, but in the apparent sense close together. While I maintain a state of suspended judgment in the absence of evidence, neither do I recognize absence of evidence as evidence of absence. While CO2 well might be a surrogate for habitat destruction that is at once sufficiently vague and sufficiently (or vaguely) scientific, I have decided to not cloud the issue just in case the right things get done, even if for the wrong reasons. It may well be true that one can't add up all the carbon emissions directly caused by culture, the possibility of a sort of keystone or domino effect might be laid in the lap of Homo sapiens, and there is little doubt that there is prima facie evidence that the contributions therefrom have increased for the last ten millennia or so. So . . . a case in absolute refutation is similarly difficult. Therein might lie the (evil or saintly?) genius behind the carbon obsession? In any case, it seems clear that, particularly given the probable futility of sufficient actual reduction (credits and other means of capitalizing upon the rage), the precautionary principle is probably preferable to the needless and heedless fraction of the unique human talent for consuming outside energy/mass cycles. That is, no matter how inevitably nutty human expression may be, no matter how wrong some might be, a change in current trends could benefit the earth and its life--even, perhaps, including the guilty parties. A Pax upon us all, great and small . . . WT The suspension of judgment is the highest exercise in intellectual discipline. --Raymond Gilmore - Original Message - From: Robert Hamilton rhami...@mc.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 9:11 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey! Don't know if you want to post a contrasting view, but I'll offer one up. No question that human generated CO2 is causing global warming, in my opinion. There is, however, no evidence of a deleterious effect, especially given the fact that the climate does and will change one way or another anyways. Models predicting catastrophes have been overblown to a degree that is embarrassing to an informed scientist, and results a in classic boy who cried wolf type loss of credibility for informed scientists. With respect to our ecological impact, habitat destruction is the #1 negative human impact, and the overall ecological footprint is the real issue, not just the carbon footprint. There is no activity we engage in as humans that is worse than the building of modern cities, especially when you factor in the type of agricultural practices needed to support those cities. The carbon footprint approach also strongly discriminates against those living in poorer, more rural areas, singling out the activities that support the economies in those areas as the major problem, as opposed to the much more destructive activities of people who live in urban areas, particularly modern urban areas. It's obvuiously more politically prudent to attack
Re: [ECOLOG-L] CLIMATE CHANGE Anthropogenic ignition? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey!
Are all natural systems resilient? What about the early successional systems that human agriculture approximates? Are all cultural systems, including hunter-gatherer societies or the Catholic Church, brittle? Jane On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: Honorable Forum: Ecosystems are resilient; cultural systems are brittle. Nature is indifferent, not caring. The ecosystem adapts (by structural alterations, aka extinction and population shifts in ratio) to change, whether culture survives or not. Que sera, sera. WT 'Cause suicide is painless, It brings on many changes, And I can take or leave it if I please --Mike Altman - Original Message - From: Warren W. Aney a...@coho.net To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 9:58 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] CLIMATE CHANGE Anthropogenic ignition? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey! Since Wayne cited the precautionary principle, I'll second what he says with some simpler and more direct language: If we act now under the premise that climate change is human-caused, and we are wrong about this cause, then the costs will be high but the benefits could still be tremendous in terms of reduced pollution and reductions in reliance on non-renewable carbon based energy sources. If we fail to act now under the premise that climate change is not human-caused, and we are wrong, the human and environmental costs could be catastrophic, particularly in third world and developing countries. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, OR -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson Sent: Tuesday, 03 March, 2009 20:48 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] CLIMATE CHANGE Anthropogenic ignition? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey! Y'all: Hamilton's point is well-taken--the devil is in the details. Speaking of circularity, the boy who cried wolf phenomenon might be on the opposite side of the clock diagram from crying in the wilderness, each on the other side of the vertical or midnight position, i.e., worlds apart in one sense, but in the apparent sense close together. While I maintain a state of suspended judgment in the absence of evidence, neither do I recognize absence of evidence as evidence of absence. While CO2 well might be a surrogate for habitat destruction that is at once sufficiently vague and sufficiently (or vaguely) scientific, I have decided to not cloud the issue just in case the right things get done, even if for the wrong reasons. It may well be true that one can't add up all the carbon emissions directly caused by culture, the possibility of a sort of keystone or domino effect might be laid in the lap of Homo sapiens, and there is little doubt that there is prima facie evidence that the contributions therefrom have increased for the last ten millennia or so. So . . . a case in absolute refutation is similarly difficult. Therein might lie the (evil or saintly?) genius behind the carbon obsession? In any case, it seems clear that, particularly given the probable futility of sufficient actual reduction (credits and other means of capitalizing upon the rage), the precautionary principle is probably preferable to the needless and heedless fraction of the unique human talent for consuming outside energy/mass cycles. That is, no matter how inevitably nutty human expression may be, no matter how wrong some might be, a change in current trends could benefit the earth and its life--even, perhaps, including the guilty parties. A Pax upon us all, great and small . . . WT The suspension of judgment is the highest exercise in intellectual discipline. --Raymond Gilmore - Original Message - From: Robert Hamilton rhami...@mc.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 9:11 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey! Don't know if you want to post a contrasting view, but I'll offer one up. No question that human generated CO2 is causing global warming, in my opinion. There is, however, no evidence of a deleterious effect, especially given the fact that the climate does and will change one way or another anyways. Models predicting catastrophes have been overblown to a degree that is embarrassing to an informed scientist, and results a in classic boy who cried wolf type loss of credibility for informed scientists. With respect to our ecological impact, habitat destruction is the #1 negative human impact, and the overall ecological footprint is the real issue, not just the carbon footprint. There is no activity we engage in as humans that is worse than the building of modern cities, especially when you factor in the type of agricultural practices needed to support those cities. The carbon footprint
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey!
See www.realclimate.org. Jane On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Tom Cuba tom.c...@delta-seven.com wrote: Maiken writes: the debate so intense, the answers so contradictory, I would say the first results are in - there is no consensus. Not on the problem and not on what to do about it. Maiken Winter wrote: I owe you all a short explanation - I developed the survey I posted yesterday (http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=S2Q7Cyxa8xmJSiRNn_2b8Opw_3d_3d) not for a scientific study but to get a quick overview over the thoughts of scientists about their role in climate action. I plan to use the results to write a commentary ona blog, the Clean Energy Project (www.cleanenergy-project.de). Obviously, the survey is not perfect at all; but it does give interesting results so far. As it turns out, the responses are so many, the debate so intense, the answers so contradictory, that I do want to improve this survey and repeat it professionally to be able to have a more scientific debate on an issue that is - in my opinion - of major importance. Basically, I believe it is high time what we seriously rethink and debate our role as scientists in society, and about the prioritization of our work. Is it true that scientists have no more responsibility to act than any other citizen - as some people commented? But isn't it also true that we are privileged to be educated and wealthy enough to have the means and freedom to think through the scientific evidence, and to understand what that evidence truly means? If we, as scientists, feel that we understand science better than other people, isn't it our uttermost responsibility to pass on this knowledge and understanding on to others? Not only to other scientists, but also to the public and politicians as well. Science is not politics, and scientists should stay away from politics, one scientist commented. But relying on politicians and media to interpret our data got us in the trouble we are in today. I hope this survey stimulates further discussion (but please more friendly; I love debate, but only when it is based on mutual respect) and helps us to step a bit further out of our science glasshouse to take responsibility for what we all work for - a deeper understanding of nature so that future generations can admire and witness what we discover. Many of those discoveries will be useless if we do not act quickly on climate change together. Please do know that I am well aware of the danger to lose credibility when getting active in public affairs, and that I absolutely do not pretend to know the solution of how to best balance both sides. But I do believe that at the moment we are not courageous enough to try out how to best stand on that rope, and that our priorities at the moment are often too selfish and short-sighted, myself included. Thank you to all those who have participated in the survey so far! And thanks for those who will. Maiken Winter -- Thomas R. Cuba, Ph.D., CEP, CLM President, Delta Seven Inc. http://www.delta-seven.com 727-823-2443 -- - Jane Shevtsov Ecology Ph.D. student, University of Georgia co-founder, a href=http://www.worldbeyondborders.org;World Beyond Borders/a Check out my blog, a href=http://perceivingwholes.blogspot.com;Perceiving Wholes/a Political power comes out of the look in people's eyes. --Kim Stanley Robinson, _Blue Mars_
[ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey!
I owe you all a short explanation - I developed the survey I posted yesterday (http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=S2Q7Cyxa8xmJSiRNn_2b8Opw_3d_3d) not for a scientific study but to get a quick overview over the thoughts of scientists about their role in climate action. I plan to use the results to write a commentary ona blog, the Clean Energy Project (www.cleanenergy-project.de). Obviously, the survey is not perfect at all; but it does give interesting results so far. As it turns out, the responses are so many, the debate so intense, the answers so contradictory, that I do want to improve this survey and repeat it professionally to be able to have a more scientific debate on an issue that is - in my opinion - of major importance. Basically, I believe it is high time what we seriously rethink and debate our role as scientists in society, and about the prioritization of our work. Is it true that scientists have no more responsibility to act than any other citizen - as some people commented? But isn't it also true that we are privileged to be educated and wealthy enough to have the means and freedom to think through the scientific evidence, and to understand what that evidence truly means? If we, as scientists, feel that we understand science better than other people, isn't it our uttermost responsibility to pass on this knowledge and understanding on to others? Not only to other scientists, but also to the public and politicians as well. Science is not politics, and scientists should stay away from politics, one scientist commented. But relying on politicians and media to interpret our data got us in the trouble we are in today. I hope this survey stimulates further discussion (but please more friendly; I love debate, but only when it is based on mutual respect) and helps us to step a bit further out of our science glasshouse to take responsibility for what we all work for - a deeper understanding of nature so that future generations can admire and witness what we discover. Many of those discoveries will be useless if we do not act quickly on climate change together. Please do know that I am well aware of the danger to lose credibility when getting active in public affairs, and that I absolutely do not pretend to know the solution of how to best balance both sides. But I do believe that at the moment we are not courageous enough to try out how to best stand on that rope, and that our priorities at the moment are often too selfish and short-sighted, myself included. Thank you to all those who have participated in the survey so far! And thanks for those who will. Maiken Winter
[ECOLOG-L] CLIMATE CHANGE Anthropogenic ignition? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey!
Y'all: Hamilton's point is well-taken--the devil is in the details. Speaking of circularity, the boy who cried wolf phenomenon might be on the opposite side of the clock diagram from crying in the wilderness, each on the other side of the vertical or midnight position, i.e., worlds apart in one sense, but in the apparent sense close together. While I maintain a state of suspended judgment in the absence of evidence, neither do I recognize absence of evidence as evidence of absence. While CO2 well might be a surrogate for habitat destruction that is at once sufficiently vague and sufficiently (or vaguely) scientific, I have decided to not cloud the issue just in case the right things get done, even if for the wrong reasons. It may well be true that one can't add up all the carbon emissions directly caused by culture, the possibility of a sort of keystone or domino effect might be laid in the lap of Homo sapiens, and there is little doubt that there is prima facie evidence that the contributions therefrom have increased for the last ten millennia or so. So . . . a case in absolute refutation is similarly difficult. Therein might lie the (evil or saintly?) genius behind the carbon obsession? In any case, it seems clear that, particularly given the probable futility of sufficient actual reduction (credits and other means of capitalizing upon the rage), the precautionary principle is probably preferable to the needless and heedless fraction of the unique human talent for consuming outside energy/mass cycles. That is, no matter how inevitably nutty human expression may be, no matter how wrong some might be, a change in current trends could benefit the earth and its life--even, perhaps, including the guilty parties. A Pax upon us all, great and small . . . WT The suspension of judgment is the highest exercise in intellectual discipline. --Raymond Gilmore - Original Message - From: Robert Hamilton rhami...@mc.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 9:11 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey! Don't know if you want to post a contrasting view, but I'll offer one up. No question that human generated CO2 is causing global warming, in my opinion. There is, however, no evidence of a deleterious effect, especially given the fact that the climate does and will change one way or another anyways. Models predicting catastrophes have been overblown to a degree that is embarrassing to an informed scientist, and results a in classic boy who cried wolf type loss of credibility for informed scientists. With respect to our ecological impact, habitat destruction is the #1 negative human impact, and the overall ecological footprint is the real issue, not just the carbon footprint. There is no activity we engage in as humans that is worse than the building of modern cities, especially when you factor in the type of agricultural practices needed to support those cities. The carbon footprint approach also strongly discriminates against those living in poorer, more rural areas, singling out the activities that support the economies in those areas as the major problem, as opposed to the much more destructive activities of people who live in urban areas, particularly modern urban areas. It's obvuiously more politically prudent to attack the weak. There is an issue with global warming, but it is relatively minor, as far as we know at this point in time, and it appears to be just another way of deflecting the real issue, habitat conversion. Allowing people in large modern cities to feel good about themselves re environmental issues while continuing on with the most destructive of lifestyles. I recall reading many months ago about Leonardo DeCaprio wanting to buy a tropical island and build an eco friendly resort being presented as evidence of some sort of environmentally responsible act. Ridiculous, of course, but one of the best examples of the sort or poor thinking that drives a lot of the pop culture based environmental movement. Rob Hamilton So easy it seemed once found, which yet unfound most would have thought impossible John Milton Robert G. Hamilton Department of Biological Sciences Mississippi College P.O. Box 4045 200 South Capitol Street Clinton, MS 39058 Phone: (601) 925-3872 FAX (601) 925-3978 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.6/1981 - Release Date: 03/03/09 07:25:00
