From: Automatic digest processor <LISTSERV@UMDD.UMD.EDU>
Subject: ECOLOG-L Digest - 2 Apr 2001 to 3 Apr 2001
To: Recipients of ECOLOG-L digests <ECOLOG-L@UMDD.UMD.EDU>
Status: R
There are 38 messages totalling 1977 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. The Ecological Society's role in Bush's environmental agenda (22)
2. Modelling programme enquiry
3. Distance between two points
4. Small Grants Available for Invasive Species Risk Assessments
5. Who know the maillist on marine ecology or oceanography?
6. signature tag
7. Tropical Marine Biology Summer Course
8. ANNOUNCING ENVIROSOFT 2002 CONFERENCE
9. Graduate Student RA Announcement
10. job announcement
11. Summer Technician Jobs
12. Summer field course near Montreal
13. Seed information request
14. Fw: [ee-internet] Greenway Grants
15. Bush, Kyoto and environmentalism
16. Conference announcement
17. Politics, science and the wider issues
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 22:38:08 -0700
From: "Keith W. Larson" <keith_w_larson@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Re: The Ecological Society's role in Bush's environmental agenda
Farrand, D T wrote:
> ... I must counter Ms. Weis' assertion that the
president is making decisions by ignoring scientific
information. Her position implies that economics is
not science.
I'm a wildlifer by training and personally would like
to see economics take a back seat in policy decisions.
But I cannot be so egocentric as to think that if he
did not rely solely on my science that he "ignored
scientific information."
I feel I must counter the previous statements, as I
have both an economics and wildlife biology
background.
Clearly any decision made in our human centered
society will be based on economic, social, and
enviromental considerations (the order of priority are
inverse of my values!). But the fact is that the
fields of biological and ecological sciences are held
unfairly to the task of proving over and over AND OVER
the shortcomings of our human-centered fossil
fuel-ways (economy).
I for once would like to have economics scrutinized
the same way. How about our economic paradigm of
discounting the future. This is the one concept in a
market based global economy that virtually guarentees
that no corporation or government will protect the
fabric of our biosphere. Economics roughly means
"management of the house". Fifty years ago maybe we
could justify our (ignorance) reversing billions of
years of evolution where carbon was gradually taken
from the atmosphere and concentrated underground
creating the environment for us to evolve. The US
recently pointed out at meetings that the US is
meeting it's obligations to the Kyoto Agreement
because we are planting trees!
The failures of our economic system are not merely
environmental. As we biologists and ecologists fret at
the economic forces that are destroying our planet we
feel relieved that our retirement plans have been
doing very well (stock market up until a month ago!)
in recent years.
Shall we all take comfort that we will not be live in
100 years to see the folly of our economic
pseudo-science based policies. I for one do not.
Thankfully we have "sustainable development" to look
forward too.
Please realize that these were just my two cents are
not meant as a personal attack on anyone. Just a bit
of frustration after reading Gale Norton's statements
found under the section "Secretary" at www.doi.gov.
Peace,
Keith Larson
Human/Wildlife Biologist
The above comments are mine and mine alone and do not
reflect the views of my employer, or mother!
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 09:31:02 +0300
From: "Peter N. Mwangi" <pmwangi@UONBI.AC.KE>
Subject: Modelling programme enquiry
This is a MIME-encapsulated message.
--------------057636439325183428338324
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thanks to everyone who have responded to my enquiry about the Stella Program
e
for ecological modelling.
The general consensus was to visit the High Performance Systems's Web site
'http://www.hps-inc.com'
Peter N. Mwangi
Dept. of Botany
University of Nairobi
P.O.Box 30197 Nairobi
Tel: +254 (0)2 449004
Mobile: +254 (0)72 700 231
Email: pmwangi@uonbi.ac.ke
--------------057636439325183428338324--
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 10:13:50 +0100
From: Alessandro Gimona <A.Gimona@MARLAB.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: The Ecological Society's role in Bush's environmental agenda
> ----------
> >To my knowledge, President Bush has NOT IGNORED scientific informat
on.
> >Instead, he has decided not to implement the scientific information
into
> >policy initiatives.. ....
> ..................
>
> >There is a clear distinction between acknowledging/understanding
> scientific
> >information and implementing it to particular policy.
> >Acknowledging/understanding scientific information does not imply t
at
> one
> >should take a particular action.
>
>
> I agree. As Hume said "is" does not imply "ought".
>
> This means that , ultimately, what drives policy is a set of values, an
> not just the facts.
> But this is not very flattering for Bush. It also implies that, althoug
> he knows "the facts", his set of values are at odds with those of milli
ns
> of world citizens and possibly with those of the majority of american
> ones, since both presidential candidates pledged to implement the Kyoto
> Protol.
> In other words Bush cares more about the agenda of his sponsors -the oi
> industry and big business- than about the consequences of climate chang
.
> Here's the rub, and more hard facts are not likely to change much the
> situation.
>
>
>
> Alessandro Gimona
> FRS,
> Aberdeen, Scotland UK
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 14:53:35 +0200
From: Sabine Heinz <heinz@POLLUX.WEIHENSTEPHAN.DE>
Subject: Distance between two points
Ecologgers,
To analyse the populationstructure in a stand of Typha, I need to
measure the distance between shoots of different age.
Can anyone point me to a computer program to measure the distance
between two points in a coordinate system. The application should be
able to determine the distance from each member of a group A to the
closest member of a group B. The output should preferably come as a
table giving a distance for each member of group A.
Thanks for any help in advance
Sabine Heinz
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 21:57:14 -0400
From: "David M. Bryant" <dmbryant@CISUNIX.UNH.EDU>
Subject: Re: The Ecological Society's role in Bush's environmental agenda
The question at hand here is not whether the current administration is
ignoring scientific information. This is done on both sides of the fence
on every political issue. The fear of the ESA, which I as a member and a
scientist agree with, is that our organization may lose its objective
stance. The hazard is that we will lose credibility through support, or
criticism of political issues.
I strongly believe that the information by which we make policy should be
based in science. Whether such policy is applied is a political decision,
one that is incumbent upon all of us, as informed citizens, to comment on.
The forum for such comment is political as the decision is determined by
the consensus of opinion among our fellow citizens. We as scientists also
have a responsibility to educate the electorate so that they may form
intelligent opinions and informed decisions.
If scientific organizations were to influence politics directly,
politically rather than educationally, our credibilty and reputation would
suffer. This is a dangerous ledge to walk. But if we, as a scientific
community, make the decision to jump we should be aware that there may not
be a net at the bottom.
David M. Bryant dmbryant@cisunix.unh.edu
Dept. of Natural Resources 603-862-4433
215 James Hall
University of New Hampshire
Durham, NH 03824
"Not all that is counted counts
and not all that counts can be counted"
A. Einstein
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 10:19:24 -0400
From: "David W. Inouye" <di5@umail.umd.edu>
Subject: Small Grants Available for Invasive Species Risk Assessments
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Scientific Authority
invites submission of invasive
species risk assessment grant proposals. Our program is interested in
assessing the risk of
intentional importation of priority species of wildlife.
See http://international.fws.gov/grants/invasive.html
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 11:56:51 +0800
From: Shang CHEN <shangchen@NETEASE.COM>
Subject: Who know the maillist on marine ecology or oceanography?
Hello everyboy
Why are there few discussion on marine ecology? Who know the maillist on mar
ne
ecology or oceanography?
Thank you all in advance
Best regards
Yours
Shang Chen
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 07:35:38 -0400
From: Brad Robbins <robbins@MOTE.ORG>
Subject: signature tag
To all who post on ECOLOG. Please put a signature tag at the end of your
email, including your affiliation and credentials. The latest thread
concerning ANWR has had several postings that sound very canned and I would
be interested in whether we are having a debate or being given "talking
points."
Brad Robbins, Ph.D.
Mote Marine Laboratory
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 10:28:33 -0400
From: Danny Gleason <dgleason@GASOU.EDU>
Subject: Tropical Marine Biology Summer Course
Greetings,
We only have 4 spots left in our Tropical Marine Biology summer field
course that will be held at Lee Stocking Island, Bahamas July 23 - August
6, 2001! Students will receive 4 semester hours credit and transfer credit
is available. Cost of the course is $2,000 + tuition. If you are interested
in taking this course please contact me soon and I will forward more
information!
Best wishes,
Danny Gleason
Daniel F. Gleason, Visiting Professor
School of Biology
Georgia Institute of Technology
310 Ferst Drive
Atlanta, GA 30332-0230
Phone: 404-385-2528
FAX: 404-894-0519
E-mail: dgleason@gasou.edu
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 10:56:32 -0400
From: Brad Robbins <robbins@MOTE.ORG>
Subject: Re: The Ecological Society's role in Bush's environmental agenda
-----Original Message-----
[U]ltimately, what drives policy is a set of values, and not just facts.
[Although Bush] knows "the facts", his set of values are at odds with those
of millions of world citizens and possibly with those of the majority of
American ones, since both presidential candidates pledged to implement the
Kyoto Protol. In other words Bush cares more about the agenda of his
sponsors -the oil industry and big business- than about the consequences of
climate change. Here's the rub, and more hard facts are not likely to change
much the situation.
Alessandro Gimona
FRS, Aberdeen, Scotland UK
-----Reply-----
Although *Gore may have implemented the Kyoto Treaty, Bush never said he
would. During Bush's successful bid for office he stated that he would not
implement the Kyoto treaty as written with its tight limits on the emission
of so-called greenhouse gases, especially of carbon dioxide from the burning
of fossil fuels because of the negative impact this policy would have on our
economy and because all countries would not have to comply. The Kyoto
agreement is dead and was so prior to Bush's pronouncement. Congress,
specifically the Senate, voted 95 to 0 to assert its opposition to any
treaty that endangers the U.S. economy and spares developing countries from
constraints imposed on developed nations. Bush simply confirmed this.
I also must take Alessandro and others to task concerning "the facts." While
it may be romantic to think that there is one truth, realistically we all
know that there are many truths, each colored by our individual biases (e.g.
**global warming). Bush isn't ignoring "the facts" he is simply working from
a different perspective. As Keith Larson stated in a previous post, "...any
decision made in our human centered society will be based on economic,
social, and environmental considerations..." Bush never implied that he
would set American policy based on environmental concerns. As our first
MBA-holding president and he looks at the bottom line before he sets policy.
Is this the best way to run a country? I don't know, but it is refreshing to
have a president that doesn't take a poll before he makes a decision. Is he
going to get everything right? No, nor will he get everything wrong. My
responsibility as an ecologist and scientist is to provide unbiased data
accompanied by an educated opinion based on those data and then let the
politicians make the decisions. Will I agree with all those decisions? Of
course not but I must use my knowledge to craft compelling arguments that
include viable alternatives to influence political decisions.
*Gore's promise to implement the Kyoto policy may or may not have happened.
Although he professes to be "environmental" may I remind everyone about the
little zinc mine on Gore's land not to mention his ties with Occidental Oil.
Specifically, his family has massive holdings in Occidental Oil (8% of
Occidental's shares are owned by Gore albeit "controlled" by his mother).
Occidental is the company that wanted to drill for oil on land claimed by
the 5000 member U'wa tribe in Colombia. That raises the question, is it
better to dirty your own backyard or your neighbor's? I would also remind
everyone that both parties are in debt to the oil industry and big
business -- where do you think they get the millions of dollars to run
campaigns?
**Contrary to the commonly touted rhetoric that there is a consensus in the
scientific community concerning global warming, the evidence against the
global warming theory is overwhelming: weather satellite observations, the
only truly global measurements, independently confirmed by weather balloon
data, show little if any rise in mean temperature. This is further supported
by data from the network of U.S. weather stations that show no appreciable
rise in global temperatures since about 1940 after removal of urban
heat-island effects. Non-thermometer data from various "proxies," like tree
rings, ice cores, ocean sediments, etc., all show no warming trend in the
past 60 years and in fact some suggest we are headed the other way (Roig et
al. 2001; Nature 410:567). The global warming hypothesis is not a "generally
accepted If you have never heard of the Leipzig Declaration on Global
Climate Change (http://www.sovereignty.net/p/clim/leipzig97.htm) then you
might want to give it a look.
Brad Robbins, Ph.D.
Mote Marine Laboratory
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 18:05:02 +0100
From: Lucy Southcott <lsouthcott@WESSEX.AC.UK>
Subject: ANNOUNCING ENVIROSOFT 2002 CONFERENCE
Dear Colleague
Please find below the Call For Papers for Envirosoft 2002, which is
taking place from 6 - 8 May 2002 Bergen, Norway
Full details can be viewed at
http://www.wessex.ac.uk/conferences/2002/env02/
If you are not the right point of contact for this material I apologise,
and would appreciate you forwarding this to the correct person or
providing me with the contact details.
Sincerely
Lucy Southcott
Conference Secretariat
=================================================
CALL FOR PAPERS AND PARTICIPATION
=================================================
Ninth International Conference on The Modelling, Monitoring and
Management of Environmental problems
ENVIROSOFT 2002
6 - 8 May 2002 Bergen, Norway
Organised by
Wessex Institute of Technology, UK
FOR THE LATEST CONFERENCE INFORMATION VISIT
OUR WEB SITE AT:
http://www.wessex.ac.uk/conferences/2002/env02
INTRODUCTION
=================================================
Envirosoft 2002 is the ninth conference in this major international
series on The Modelling, Monitoring and Management of
Environmental problems . The meeting provides a unique forum for
the interaction of managers and engineers involved in the creation,
development or application of computer software related to
environmental problems. The conference aims to establish a useful
connection between originators of environmental software programs
and their possible users, thus reducing the present large
duplication of effort in software development.
The continuing objective of this conference series is to present the
most recent developments and practical implementations in the
theoretical, numerical and applicable aspects of computer
analysis, simulation, modelling, control and forecasting for
environmental applications. Papers are encouraged in these areas
including environmental modelling, algorithms, software codes and
other topics related to the scope and application of computer
programmes to environmental issues.
Envirosoft 2002 follows on from the other successful meetings in
this series, which first started in USA (1986) and continued in
Greece (1988), Canada (1990), UK (1992), USA (1994), Italy
(1996), USA (1998) and Spain (2000).
WHO SHOULD ATTEND
Environmental scientists, planners and administrators, program
developers, regulators and industrialists.
CONFERENCE TOPICS
=================================================
Air Pollution
Water and Soil Pollution
Mathematical Modelling
Environmental Sciences and Engineering
Meteorology
Surface and Groundwater Hydrology
Environmental Management and Decision Analysis
Data and Web Mining
Satellite Data, Image Processing and Remote Sensing
Software Engineering
Health and Pollution
High Performance Computing
Software Packages
Experimental and Computational Methods
INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE
View the International Scientific Committee at:
http://www.wessex.ac.uk/conferences/2002/env02
CALL FOR PAPERS
=================================================
Papers are invited on the topics outlined above and others falling
within the scope of the meeting. Abstracts of no more than 300
words should be submitted by mail, fax, email or via our website as
soon as possible.
Abstracts should clearly state the purpose, results and
conclusions of the work to be described in the final paper. The final
acceptance will be based on the full-length paper. The author must
attend the conference to present the paper, if accepted. Each
submitted paper is subject to a separate registration.
ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION
We strongly encourage the submission of abstracts electronically.
Please complete the ABSTRACT SUBMISSION FORM on our
website at:
http://www.wessex.ac.uk/conferences/2002/env02
OR submit your abstract via email to the Conference Secretariat at:
lsouthcott@wessex.ac.uk. Please insert ENVIROSOFT 2002 in
the subject line and also include your name, full address and
conference topic in the main body of your email.
For further instructions on paper submission, please see:
http://www.witpress.com/authors.htm#Conference
TIME SCHEDULE
Submit Abstract (300 words):
As soon as possible
Submit Final Camera-ready Paper:
18 December 2001
PROCEEDINGS
=================================================
The Proceedings of this conference will be published in hard cover
book form by WIT Press and will be available to delegates at the
time of registration. In addition the Proceedings will be widely
distributed after the conference through the international book
trade. The language of the conference will be English.
DETAILS OF PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS IN THE SERIES are
available at: http://www.witpress.com
CONFERENCE SECRETARIAT
=================================================
Lucy Southcott
Conference Secretariat
ENVIROSOFT 2002
Wessex Institute of Technology
Ashurst Lodge, Ashurst
Southampton, SO40 7AA, UK
Tel: + 44 (0) 238 029 3223
Fax: + 44 (0) 238 029 2853
Email: lsouthcott@wessex.ac.uk
=================================================
If you do not wish to receive future updates on conferences within
this field please email: REMOVE@wessex.ac.uk
=================================================
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 20:57:44 -0400
From: "Karl E. Miller" <karlos@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU>
Subject: Re: The Ecological Society's role in Bush's environmental agenda
A point of information: Bush HAS SAID and CONTINUES TO SAY that global
warming needs more study, and that the science is not strong enough to
justify substantive action. The opinion that was expressed below is simply
not factual.
I think we are all making this issue a bit too complicated. The current
political leadership (both individually and collectively) is bought and sold
by the oil companies, so they will take no action that threatens their
special interests. If y'all think that signing some petition is going to
change that, then I've got some mosquito-free Florida swamp property I can
sell you.
If we want to change natural resource policy in the US then we have to get
off our damn asses and vote these individuals out of office.
Respectfully,
Karl Miller
__________________________________
Karl E. Miller, Ph.D.
Dept. of Wildlife Ecology & Conservation
P.O. Box 110430
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
>To my knowledge, President Bush has NOT IGNORED scientific information.
>Instead, he has decided not to implement the scientific information into
>policy initiatives. For example, he did not say that he would not ratif
>Kyoto protocol because global warming does not happen. Instead, he said
>that he would not ratify Kyoto protocol because he thinks that protocol
s
>unfair to the US.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 10:06:07 -0500
From: Martha Desmond <mdesmond@NMSU.EDU>
Subject: Graduate Student RA Announcement
M.S. Graduate Research Assistantship
Wintering Ecology of Coastal Grassland Birds in South Texas and Northern
Mexico
New Mexico State University
Department of Fishery and Wildlife Sciences
Las Cruces, NM
Project: Avian use of coastal grasslands on Padre Island National Seashore,
Texas and northern Tamaulipas Mexico during the winters of 2002 and 2003.
Project involves mist-netting and use of radio telemetry during an intensive
field season from January through April. This project involves all
grassland birds utilizing the sites, with an emphasis on Ammodramus
sparrows. Must be able and willing to coordinate a team of volunteers to
assist in weekly flush netting of birds.
Qualifications: BS in wildlife biology, ecology or closely related field.
Ability to communicate in both English and Spanish. Knowledge and
identification skills related to grassland birds. Minimum GPA of 3.0.
Stipend: $16,135/year
Closing Date: May 31, 2001
Starting Date: August 2001
To Apply: Request an application packet from the Department of Fishery and
Wildlife Sciences, PO Box 3003, MSC 4901, New Mexico State University, Las
Cruces, NM 88003-0003. Or access that information over the web at
http://leopold.nmsu.edu/graduate_program/graduate_applications.htm
Application materials include a letter of application containing a statement
related to your interest in this project, application forms, official copies
of all transcripts, GRE scores, 3 letters of recommendation, and the
financial aid form.
Policies and procedures for graduate applications are also outlined in our
graduate student handbook available on the web at
http://leopold.nmsu.edu/graduate_program/grad_handbook2000.htm
Direct Questions To:
Martha Desmond
Department of Fishery and Wildlife Sciences,
P.O. Box 3003, MSC 4901
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM 88003-0003
505-646-1217
mdesmond@nmsu.edu
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 11:52:42 -0600
From: David McNeely <mcneely@UTB1.UTB.EDU>
Subject: Re: The Ecological Society's role in Bush's environmental agenda
I agree with everything Karl Miller said below. This is not a position that
Ecolog-l or the ESA can take. We are scientific, not political organization
.
Individuals can advocate through this forum, but as a collective, we have
another purpose -- objective scientific advocacy, not political action.
Me personally -- I am also a member of and active with political groups.
"Karl E. Miller" wrote:
> A point of information: Bush HAS SAID and CONTINUES TO SAY that global
> warming needs more study, and that the science is not strong enough to
> justify substantive action. The opinion that was expressed below is si
ply
> not factual.
> I think we are all making this issue a bit too complicated. The curren
> political leadership (both individually and collectively) is bought and
sold
> by the oil companies, so they will take no action that threatens their
> special interests. If y'all think that signing some petition is going
o
> change that, then I've got some mosquito-free Florida swamp property I
an
> sell you.
> If we want to change natural resource policy in the US then we have to
et
> off our damn asses and vote these individuals out of office.
>
===============================================
"Are we there yet?" Source unknown
See my web page at http://unix.utb.edu/~mcneely
===============================================
David L. McNeely (Dave)
Professor and Graduate Coordinator
Biological Sciences
The University of Texas at Brownsville
80 Fort Brown
Brownsville, TX 78520
Telephone (956) 544-8289 or 983-7578
FAX (956) 983-7115
mailto:mcneely@utb1.utb.edu
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 09:23:01 +0000
From: Patrick Foley <patfoley@CSUS.EDU>
Subject: Re: The Ecological Society's role in Bush's environmental agenda
Ecologists,
We represent the knowledge base critical for many political decisions.
We must change as many minds as possible as soon as posssible. Little
time remains before irreversible environmental and biodiversity
disasters.
Politicians see everything as politics. We may pose as disinterested
scientists, but a few minutes listening to Rush Limbaugh reveals the
obvious. The right wing of this country is anti-intellectual,
anti-knowledge, anti-science except for the production of money or
weapons. Rush, W, and those guys scientists might hope to impress laugh
at us because we are disenfranchised.
I say, every ecologist should clearly state, as strongly as the evidence
allows, just how ignorant and stupid the environmental policies of this
(or any) administration are. And as an organization, so should the ESA.
We do not need to embrace a party or reject a party. We do not and
should not be partisan. But we should bring the full weight of whatever
prestige we have to bear. If we don't speak up, who will. There are
plenty of talk show hosts and mediocre minds who fill the gap we leave.
Patrick Foley
patfoley@csus.edu
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 10:31:15 -0700
From: Vicky Hollenbeck <hollenbv@UCS.ORST.EDU>
Subject: Re: The Ecological Society's role in Bush's environmental agenda
I doubt that anyone is surprised by the current administrations actions
concerning environment vs. economics. Whether or not Bush REALLY won the
election, a hell of a lot of people voted for him. What's disheartening
to me is the sad commentary this makes about what is valued by so many in
our country.
On Mon, 2 Apr 2001, Karl E. Miller wrote:
> If we want to change natural resource policy in the US then we have to
et
> off our damn asses and vote these individuals out of office.
>
> Respectfully,
> Karl Miller
Vicky Hollenbeck
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 12:46:51 -0500
From: "Mark E. Kubiske" <mkubiske@CFR.MSSTATE.EDU>
Subject: Re: The Ecological Society's role in Bush's environmental agenda
on 4/2/01 7:57 PM, Karl E. Miller at karlos@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU wrote:
>... If we want to change natural resource policy in the US then we have
o get
> off our damn asses and vote these individuals out of office.
With all due respect, we did that already. Al Gore is not president.
Boldly submitted by an
>anti-intellectual, anti-knowledge, anti-science
member of the vast right-wing conspiracy.
--
Mark E. Kubiske
Assistant Professor
Forestry Department
Box 9681
Mississippi State University
Mississippi State, MS 39762
Phone: 662-325-3550
Fax: 662-325-8726
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 12:37:18 -0500
From: srosenth <srosenth@ND.EDU>
Subject: job announcement
Greetings,
Following is a job announcemnt for the summer of 2001. It is hoped that it c
n
be posted on ecolog. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Sadie Rosenthal
Job announcement:
Summer Opportunities in Aquatic Ecology
The lab of Dr. David Lodge, the University of Notre Dame, is seeking to hire
full time research technicians for the summer of 2001 (mid-late May through
late August) at a pay scale of $6.10-7.05 per hour, commensurate with
experience. Positions will focus on the effects of nonnative species in lake
.
Upper division undergraduates or recent graduates with an educational
background in biology, ecology, or environmental sciences are encouraged to
apply. All applicants should be able to work independently and as part of a
team, have patience doing meticulous work, and have a positive attitude. Job
descriptions are as follows:
1-2 technicians to participate in studies of the nonnative rusty crayfish in
lakes in northern Wisconsin and the Ottawa National Forest, Upper Peninsula
Michigan. The objectives of these studies are to evaluate ecosystem level
effects of the crayfish and to explore measures of control. Duties include:
conducting field experiments, sampling lakes and observing crayfish;
processing lake samples in the laboratory (identification and enumeration of
invertebrates and plants). SCUBA certification required. Previous experience
with aquatic sampling and identification of aquatic biota are desirable but
not essential. Housing will be provided at UNDERC
(http://129.74.130.84/underc/index.cfm).
1-2 technicians to participate in an ongoing research project studying the
invasion of the Great Lakes by exotic species transmitted in ballast water.
The objectives of this study are to identify species with a high potential f
r
future invasions and to predict the conditions under which invasion will
occur. Duties include: assisting in laboratory experiments to induce growth
n
resting stages and determine conditions for successful invasion;
identification and enumeration of preserved samples taken from ships; data
gathering and database management. Previous experience with identification o
phytoplankton and zooplankton, microscopes, and statistical analysis would b
advantageous, but are not essential.
To apply, indicate which position(s) you are interested in, and send hard
copies of your resume, an unofficial copy of your transcripts, and a list of
three references with telephone numbers and e-mail addresses to:
Sadie Rosenthal
University of Notre Dame-Department of Biological Sciences
P.O. Box 369
Notre Dame, IN 46556
For further information please contact Sadie Rosenthal at srosenth@nd.edu.
For more information regarding the research interests of David Lodge, please
visit http://www.science.nd.edu/biology/faculty/lodge.html
Closing Date: April 20, 2001
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 12:59:46 -0400
From: "E. Ann Poole" <eann@JUNO.COM>
Subject: Re: The Ecological Society's role in Bush's environmental agenda
Ignorance serves the interests of those for whom knowledge is a threat.
As I see it, the ESA's role should be 1) to enlighten and inform on the
basis of sound ecological science and 2) point out deficiencies and
inconsistensies in policy where they exist. This is not exactly the kind
of thing that can be well done when the panic button's been pushed, and
they (the threatened) know it.
Ann
E. Ann Poole, Ecologist & Environmental Planner
Concord, NH
SBE / DBE, CAGE 1QFD5
~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~
- Helping Communities Meet the Challenges of Growth -
~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~
On Tue, 3 Apr 2001 09:23:01 +0000 Patrick Foley <patfoley@CSUS.EDU>
writes:
>The right wing of this country is anti-intellectual,
>anti-knowledge, anti-science except for the production of money or
>weapons.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 11:40:50 -0700
From: "Keith W. Larson" <keith_w_larson@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Re: The Ecological Society's role in Bush's environmental agenda
Toshihide Hamazaki wrote:
"To my knowledge, President Bush has NOT IGNORED
scientific information. Instead, he has decided not to
implement the scientific information into policy
initiatives."
..
Has not ignored scientific information! How can it be
anything but ignorance? Who did Bush name Scientific
Advisor to the President? Who did he name Scretary of
the Interior? Acting on the advice of his corporate
cronies that Kyoto is unfair to the US or any other
ludicrous act in ingnorance of scientific information
should not be treated as a valid "management decision"
and/or simply ignoring scientific information.
Further, Mr. Toshihide Hamazaki states, "There is a
clear distinction between acknowledging/understanding
scientific information and implementing it to
particular policy."
.. What gives him or any of us the feeling that Bush
either acknowledges or understands the scientific
information on had regarding issues such as global
warming, or endangered species and landscapes. As a
matter of fact, what gives us any indication that this
man understands anything about economics! Is he not
the man who before his inauguration made media
statements preparing us for an economic downturn.
I do believe that their is a fine line between
advocacy and just presenting as unbiased as possible
scientific information to the social and economic
community at large. But, are we simply to accumulate
facts while we give our selves cancer and exterminate
life on this planet!
My two cents.
Best,
Keith
These opinions are mine and mine allow and not of my
employer and clearly not of Bush's.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 11:27:16 -0700
From: Jeremy O'Leary <jeremy@BIOHABIT.COM>
Subject: Re: The Ecological Society's role in Bush's environmental agenda
I would like to point out that there is a marginally functional
environmental majority in both houses of congress, it is just there is no
political leadership on the issue.
The issue, as I see it, is how we managing related issues separately and
basing much of federal policy on reaction to disasters. The current
timber practices are largely a reaction to the grazing and farming
practices that led to the Dust Bowl. Water management is a combination
of pork barrel politics, special interest entrenchment, and not wanting
nature to be in control.
We have spent 100's of billions of dollars on water projects and species
protection and for our efforts we have failing groundwater tables,
accelerated habitat destruction, west coast salmon on the endangered
species list, energy shortages, etc.
I'm quite sure that as a species, we could survive without a healthy,
functioning biosphere, but it would be a pretty miserable existence. The
real reason natural resource management counts for anything is if as a
global society we want to stick around for a while and have a good quality
of life in the process. To do this we need to maintain a healthy,
functioning biosphere, or more simply put, ensure that our biosphere is
sustainable. Note that there is a very sharp distinction between
surviving and being sustainable. Someone could likely survive on nothing
but Twinkies and PowerBars, but I doubt anybody would really choose to do
so. No one chose to have the Dust Bowl, but it happened because ranchers,
farmers, and government officials failed to act appropriately to conserve
and protect resources and did not fully understand the impact of their
actions until it was too late. Now that we understand the impacts of our
actions better than ever, the question is will we choose to act
appropriately and protect our biosphere.
_______________
Jeremy O'Leary
Banging your head against a wall uses 150 calories an hour.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 12:15:43 -0400
From: Andy Park <andrew.park@UTORONTO.CA>
Subject: Re: The Ecological Society's role in Bush's environmental agenda
Dear Ecologers,
What I have to say may be seen as redundant by some,
offensive by others, and who knows, could easily cost me job
opportunities in the future. Oh well, here goes.
I sympathize, I really do, with the position that the ESA should
restrict itself to providing objective interpretation of scientific data to
inform policy making, but leave the making of policy up to the
politicians. However, I submit that this is both unwise and naive in
this (and possibly other) cases, for the following reasons:
[1] - By clinging to the mantle of objectivity, and refusing to
advocate on the basis of the precautionary principle, we as
scientists are ham-stringing any potential influence we may have
over policy. Oil companies, farmers' associations and US softwood
lumber interests are not the least bit shy about advocating for their
interests in political circles. The question is: can scientists warn of
the probable consequences of climate change as a body while
remaining credible.
[2] - The Bush administrations position (and that of Canada,
Australia and Japan) are untenable based both on the weight of
evidence and current scientific philosophy. The much abused
precautionary principle says that elements of doubt should not be a
barriere top taking action in the best interests of the public when
the costs of not doing so are catastrophic. I would bet good (oil)
money, that if the IPPC report had said that burning more and
dirtier fossil fuel would be good for humanity, that the Bush
government would have trumpeted their "civic duty" to follow the
dictates of that panel!
[3] - Following from [2], Bush says enacting Kyoto would be
bad for the "economic interests of the US people". Well, clearly
the economic interests he is thinking of are short term and do not
include those of future generations (or even current generations
who will be left to clean up the mess that he (and we, see below)
are helping to create. Also, it is always a politician's tendency to
look at up-front costs and not the potential benefits of adopting an
action. What about the potential economic beenfits of innovative
new technologies and the reduced health costs of having cleaner
air. Could it be that the economic benefits of following Kyoto would
outweigh the costs?
[4] - Following from [3], I have to point out that the short term
economic interests of the USA do not necessarily coincide with the
long or short term interests of the rest of us. The rest of the World
(ROW) is consistently shocked at the habitual insularity of the
Republicans. To name but one example: the ice caps are thinning
dramatically in the Canadian Arctic, changing both the migratory
patterns Caribou and the feeding opportunities of polar bears,
potentially threatening the VITAL interests of the Inuit up there who
still reap serious economic benefits (up to $10,000.00) a year from
the hunting of wildlife. IF Arctic climate change is the result of
CO2 emissions, then the US short term interest would seem to
threaten the long term interests of a significant minority of
Canada's citizens. Bush may feel he is being responsible to his
citizens, but on a planetary scale he is being delinquent. This is
not just my opinion but that of the European Community too.
OK, now comes the potentially offensive bit.
Having thought over both the environment and human behaviour
within the environment for a good number of years, I believe that we
need to devote a good chunk of resources to studying and better
understanding an ecological model of human behaviour.
If we were to do this scientifically with respect to, say,
humanity and oil, we might set up a null model that we seek to
falsify - say "Humanity has no particular emotional dependance on
oil". The alternative hypothesis would be "humanity (and north
American humanity in particular, is addicted to oil". I offer some
unscientific observations in support of the alternative.
* Addicts have an oil dependancy. OK does our economy run on a
base of fossil fuels or not?
** This dependancy grows over time. Undoubtedly! Canada is
pumping 15% more CO2 from fossil fuels into the atmosphere than
in 1990. I assume the figures for the USA are similar. Of course,
the Bush administration would have a special dependancy,
considering the $10 million pumped into his campaign by oil money
(Eric Reguly in Globe and Mail Report on Business).
*** The addict will stop at nothing to get a fix. Well, look at plans to
go into the ANWR to get at what is, in the big scheme of things, a
fairly paltry amount of oil. And there's another characteristic.
We've all heard stories of how addiction destroys families and
personal relationships, and for what - the temporary relief of a hit!
And isn't that potentially what we are talking about in the case of
the ANWR - the potential damage to or destruction of something
priceless for the sake of something rather temporary?
**** The addict will lie - Bush has been promoting gas exploration
and pipelines from the Northwest territories to respond to (his
words) an "energy crisis". What crisis? I believe, as do many
outside commentators, that there is far less evidence for a US
energy crisis than there is for anthropogenic global warming........
Of course, not all the blame can be put on Bush. Afterall, USA
produces 25% of Greenhouse emissions. We have all been
enthusiastically partaking of this great uncontrolled experiment by
driving cars (unnecessarily for the most part), running air
conditioners (what's wrong with a bit of perspiration), leaving lights
on unnecessarily (my housemates take note etc etc). President
Bush is just the chief addict and pusher.
Of course, being humans and, scientist or not, addicted to oil,
its very difficult for any of us to be truly objective about global
warming (in the sense of offering a dispassionate, neutral opinion,
based only on the evidence). Some of us will deny the need for
action based on an inherently optimistic character. Others will see
their comfortable retirement as being based on economic growth
(ahh, caught by the old RSPs). Still others may align themselves
with the Republican position, based on political leanings or serious
skepticism about global warming science.
Me, my values (and this submission) are mainly motivated by
FEAR. I fear that the motivation of short term interests has too
powerful a hold on all of us for individuals or associations to take
the necessary leadership. I fear that most of the things I, and
many others who describe to this server value will be sacrificed on
the altar of this short term expediency. I also fear that most of the
rest of humanity is rushing towards this potentially miserable future
in blissful ignorance of the consequences of their own lifestyles. I
would be truly interested to know what proportion of people in north
America had actually heard of Global warming, and of those, how
many could make the connection between global warming and their
own habits. Anyone?
With apologies for the length of the submission,
Andy Park
(Ph.D. candidate, Faculty of Forestry, University of Toronto,
Canada)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 15:43:44 -0400
From: Brad Robbins <robbins@MOTE.ORG>
Subject: The Ecological Society's role in Bush's environmental agenda
Although this wasn't posted to the group but to me personally, I thought it
informative that I reply to the group.
-----Original Message-----
So if there is no global warming why are coral reefs disappearing at an
alarming rate (as a result of unprecedented increasing SST's in the
tropics). There are at least 3 recent papers in Science and Nature that
are consistent with a future warming scenario of 3.5 C or more over the
next 100 years. Even the IPCC recognizes this as an eventuality if we
continue doing business as usual. You are also wrong about lack of evidence
for warming in the recent paleo-record. Coral records show clear evidence
of warming. Bush is an idiot of the third order - can't expect much from
him. He seems willing to risk global catastrophy in order to maintain the
conspicious consumption enjoyed most Americans Are you a biologist?
----Reply----
If you'll reread my missive you'll see that I didn't say that we aren't
experiencing global warming, I simply refute the rhetoric that global
warming theory is accepted by all scientists -- it isn't -- and suggest that
it is premature to make such a call. As a trained Ph.D.-level marine
biologist, I am aware of the loss of coral reefs and do not know the cause.
However, I would forward the argument that if corals are dieing because of
increasing sea temperatures then this may be explained by natural climatic
variability [changes in the sunspot cycle would explain the average
temperature change of about 0.5 degree Celsius in the past 100 years. The
timing of the sun's changes agrees especially well with the timing of the
global warming early in the century]. Is this global warming? Yes, but not
in the sense that we have been using the term. My understanding is that you
and others believe the an increase in the emission of CO2 and other
greenhouse gases has caused an increase in global temperature. Although
this may be true, the evidence suggests that while greenhouse gases have
increased over the last century, the rate of CO2 increase has slowed
considerably in the last decade or so, and methane (another greenhouse gas)
has stopped increasing altogether (Hansen et al. 1998). It is also difficult
to accept global warming as a viable theory when global temperatures are
less now then they were 1000 years ago regardless of the warming trend over
the last century. Before you blindly accept the IPCC pronouncements, ask
what motives they may have other than environmental security [I'm sure that
that makes me sound paranoid but the truth is that I'm merely skeptical of
political motives].
As for your paleo-data argument -- the data are not exactly global, nor
always of the best quality. However, if we look at these data then we might
conclude that the Earth's climate is highly variable without anthropogenic
input with variations often being large and rapid - larger and more rapid
than those predicted by climate models for the year 2100. For example,
during recorded human history (about 3000 years), temperatures in the North
Atlantic have changed by as much as 3?C over a very short time (within a few
decades) (Keigwin 1996). During the most recent Ice Age, the variability has
been even greater. So what are we seeing today, global warming or natural
variability in our global climate? I don't know and contend that neither do
you regardless of what you may want to believe. Should this preclude our
efforts to be environmentally sensitive? Of course not but there are better
ways to change how we do things then to scare people with a false boogey
man.
I have also been taught to review all the data in an unbiased [again
recognizing the I am inherently biased] manner and then base my conclusions
on the complete data set. Case in point, the IPCC is hauling out horror
stories about global warming based on climate models. But isn't it
interesting that they only discuss the worst case scenarios. Again this
makes me wonder what their agenda is.
I don't include politics in my science nor do I name call when trying to win
an argument. Your comments and those by others concerning Bush's mental
capacity are unwarranted. Regardless of his political persuasion, the man
has degrees from both Harvard and Yale -- accept the fact he is not dumb. If
you're best argument is that your opponent is stupid or smells funny or has
hair growing out his ears or whatever then you don't have a very strong
argument. The posted ranting about how "the right wing of this country is
anti-intellectual, anti-knowledge, [and] anti-science..." is also less than
intellectual, obviously untrue and not warranted. I'm curious who we should
listen to? The Hollywood crowd? The networks or NPR? How about listening to
all sides and forming your own opinion. If you don't agree with Limbaugh
then call him and present an intellectual argument based on sound data and
not personal feelings. If you can afford to wait on hold, he'll let you
speak your mind.
Brad Robbins, Ph.D.
Mote Marine Laboratory
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 14:33:51 -0500
From: Laurie E Kellogg <lkellogg@ND.EDU>
Subject: Summer Technician Jobs
DO NOT respond to me. There is contact information at the end of this email
Please post the following job announcement.
Thank you,
Laurie Kellogg
Summer Opportunities in Wetland and Upland Ecology
The lab of Dr. Scott Bridgham, University of Notre Dame, is seeking to hire
3 full time research technicians for the summer of 2001 (mid-late May throug
late August) at a pay scale of $7.05 per hour. No experience is necessary.
All applicants should be able to work independently and as part of a team,
have patience doing meticulous work, and have a positive attitude.
Each position will participate in three projects. Responsibilities will
include, but are not limited to, nutrient analysis of soils and plants and
potentially some plant identification.
DUNE ECOLOGY: This project examines the organic and nutrient dynamics of the
Indiana dunes over a successional chronosequence. This entails approximatel
25% field and 75% laboratory work.
WETLAND PLANT ECOLOGY: The project examines the effects of increasing
nutrients (fertilization) on plant communities and soil dynamics in wetlands
located in the Potato Creek State Park, IN. This position will be primarily
a
laboratory position with approximately 1-2 weeks spent in the field.
PEATLAND ECOLOGY: The project examines the effects of changing environmental
conditions (pH, water levels, and nutrient inputs) on plant communities and
soil dynamics. This position is a laboratory position at the University of
Notre Dame with the possibility of 5 days in the University of Notre Dame
Environmental Research Center located in the upper peninsula of Michigan.
To apply, send hard copies of your resume, an unofficial copy of your
transcripts, and a list of three references with telephone numbers and e-mai
addresses to:
Ryan Murray
University of Notre Dame-Department of Biological Sciences
P.O. Box 369
Notre Dame, IN 46556
For further information please contact Ryan Murray at
"Edward.R.Murray.72@nd.edu".
For more information regarding the research interests of Scott Bridgham,
please
visit http://www.science.nd.edu/biology/faculty/bridgham.html
Closing Date: April 20, 2001
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 14:40:16 -0500
From: Laurie E Kellogg <lkellogg@ND.EDU>
Subject: Re: The Ecological Society's role in Bush's environmental agenda
There is another issue from Brad Robbins earlier email that I would like
input. He states at the end of his message that global climate change is
still debated. For evidence refuting (or at least not acknowledging) the
ground-level temperature changes, he states that weather satellites and
balloons indicate no change in temperature. I was under the impression that
this issue was no longer under debate and that it was no longer "is it
happening" but "how quickly and what can we do?" I would like to hear from
others on this point.
Laurie Kellogg, Ph.D Candidate
Ecosystem Ecology
Department of Biological Sciences
University of Notre Dame
P. O. Box 369
Notre Dame, IN 46556-0369
Phone: (219)631-9644
Fax: (219)631-7413
Email: "kellogg.6@nd.edu"
"Who the h*** wants to hear actors talk?" -- H.M. Warner, Warner Brothers, 1
27
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 13:07:33 -0700
From: "Baker, Jack" <Jack.Baker@SJECCD.CC.CA.US>
Subject: Re: The Ecological Society's role in Bush's environmental agenda
As so many of these recent postings reveal, much of the objection to Bush
and his policy transcend his policy and descend into simple partisanship.
Keep it up and we'll be the Sierra Club - without the colorful calendars.
To suggest that science, and science alone, should dictate policy; that
science should trump economics or politics is ... well, ignorant. It also
implies a level of certainty in the "science" that simply doesn't exist.
Bush's policy regarding implementing the Kyoto accord *may* be wrong, i.e.
*may* not give adequate weight to the "science" behind these accords. But
the agreement itself was the product of politics and economics, and not just
science.
All the name-calling and allusions to an ignorant right-wing will simply
marginalize the Society even further. You want ignorance, try hanging
around with the mavens of everything PC on my campus. Not exactly an
right-wing bunch either! ;-)
--jbII
-----Original Message-----
From: Keith W. Larson [mailto:keith_w_larson@YAHOO.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 11:41 AM
To: ECOLOG-L@UMDD.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: The Ecological Society's role in Bush's environmental
agenda
Toshihide Hamazaki wrote:
"To my knowledge, President Bush has NOT IGNORED
scientific information. Instead, he has decided not to
implement the scientific information into policy
initiatives."
.
Has not ignored scientific information! How can it be
anything but ignorance? Who did Bush name Scientific
Advisor to the President? Who did he name Scretary of
the Interior? Acting on the advice of his corporate
cronies that Kyoto is unfair to the US or any other
ludicrous act in ingnorance of scientific information
should not be treated as a valid "management decision"
and/or simply ignoring scientific information.
Further, Mr. Toshihide Hamazaki states, "There is a
clear distinction between acknowledging/understanding
scientific information and implementing it to
particular policy."
. What gives him or any of us the feeling that Bush
either acknowledges or understands the scientific
information on had regarding issues such as global
warming, or endangered species and landscapes. As a
matter of fact, what gives us any indication that this
man understands anything about economics! Is he not
the man who before his inauguration made media
statements preparing us for an economic downturn.
I do believe that their is a fine line between
advocacy and just presenting as unbiased as possible
scientific information to the social and economic
community at large. But, are we simply to accumulate
facts while we give our selves cancer and exterminate
life on this planet!
My two cents.
Best,
Keith
These opinions are mine and mine allow and not of my
employer and clearly not of Bush's.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 16:34:00 -0400
From: Marcia Waterway <waterway@MACDONALD.MCGILL.CA>
Subject: Summer field course near Montreal
Undergraduate Summer Course
(July 22-August 3, 2001):
Monteregian Flora - Biology 240T,
McGill University Summer Studies.
This 3-credit, university-level course in the Faculty of Science is open to
both science and non-science students who have some knowledge of basic
botany. The primary goal of the course is to teach recognition of the common
woody and herbaceous plants in the St. Lawrence River Valley at the northern
edge of the deciduous forest biome. Information also will be given about the
ethnobotany, conservation status, and ecology of the species. Louise
Gratton, who leads the teaching team, has 20 years experience in
environmental consulting and biological survey work in eastern Canada. She
is one of the best field botanists in Quebec.
The course will be taught at Mont St. Hilaire, near Montreal, Quebec,
Canada. This is the largest remaining tract from the primeval forests of the
St. Lawrence Plain. The site has a wide variety of habitats, rugged and
diverse topography, and an exceptionally rich flora. Students live in small,
chalet-style dormitories on the mountain.
There is a course fee of $350 Cdn (~$230 US), which covers course materials,
room and partial board. Tuition fees depend on your residency and student
status -- to review fees and/or register consult McGill Summer Studies:
(514-398-5212; summer@550Sherb.Lan.McGill.CA; http://www.mcgill.ca/Summer/).
If you are interested in the course and want more information or if you are
signing up for the course, please be in touch with Professor Martin
Lechowicz to discuss logistic arrangements and details:
(Martin@Bio1.lan.mcgill.ca; 514-398-6456, fax - 5069).
Images & Additional Info:
http://www.mcgill.ca/Biology/undergra/courses/c240t.htm
Dr. Marcia J. Waterway
Associate Professor and
Curator, McGill University Herbarium
Plant Science Department
McGill University, Macdonald Campus
21,111 Lakeshore Road
Ste. Anne de Bellevue, QC H9X 3V9
Fax: 514-398-7897
Telephone: 514-398-7851 ext. 7864
Plant Family Album software: http://www.agrenv.mcgill.ca/plant/pfa
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 16:26:19 EDT
From: Steve Goodman <SGood33@AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: The Ecological Society's role in Bush's environmental agenda
objectivity...sound science...thorough research...more study...unbiased and
informed decision making...unbiased third parties...guaranteed scientific
accuracy...informed citizens etc...
While all the above are worthy ideals and pursuits, perfect knowledge and
absolute objectivity will continue to be elusive. Interpretations of even th
best scientific research often result in differing opinions, dependant on
individual values and motivations. Case in point is the dispute over core
calving areas in ANWR. As scientists it is imperative that we strive to
conduct our studies, and report subsequent findings with unprejudicedness,
thus maintaining our integrity and credibility. But, as subjective beings a
higher paradigm exists. Science may move us forward but at the end of the
day, as caring and compassionate individuals, our hearts still need to guide
the way.
For many issues the objectivity of science only brings us to that "dangerous
ledge." It is our conscience that will ultimately guide our decision whethe
to jump off or continue up the mountain. Aldo Leopold wrote of the classic
paradox among scientists, "man the conqueror versus man the biotic citizen;
science the sharpener of his sword versus science the searchlight on his
universe; land the slave and servant versus land the collective organism."
The supposed true objectivist dispassionately lays claim to the point of
"cleavage" or middle ground, a safe haven by which no action or stance need
be taken.
Again Aldo Leopold, "When the logic of history hungers for bread and we hand
it out a stone, we are at pains to explain how much the stone resembles the
bread." The stone today is the proposed drilling in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge. The bread is a conservation that goes beyond expedience and
selfishness and is leavened with values other than economic.
Thanks to all for the thought provoking exchanges of the last few weeks.
With regards,
Steve Goodman
field biologist
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 20:39:58 -0000
From: Markus Dyck <markus_dyck@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: The Ecological Society's role in Bush's environmental agenda
Dear friends:
I have followed this discussion as long as it has been on this server. We
are starting to criticise ourselves or research findings that are uncertain
or speculative. Critique is useful and good, but requires energy. Instead,
we should focus on what the facts are, what the potential implications are
of Bush's decisions, and what can be done. Since most agree that there will
be many negative implications, solutions should be sought.
Sorry, I just thought it should be said.
Best of luck to all of us that have to live with uneducated, ignorant,
nepotistic or otherwise conflicting political decisions of our leaders that
some of us publicly elected.
Regards,
Markus G. Dyck
Natural Resources Institute
303 Sinnott Building
University of Manitoba
Winnipeg, MB
R3T 2N2
Phone: [B](204) 474-6395
Fax: [B](204) 261-0038
Phone: [H](204) 255-8714
Email: Markus_Dyck@hotmail.com
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 16:53:52 -0400
From: Oliver Kilian <oliver@CENTTEL.COM>
Subject: Re: The Ecological Society's role in Bush's environmental agenda
An outsider's perspective:
The following snippets are from other posts on this topic.
"Bush HAS SAID and CONTINUES TO SAY that global
warming needs more study, and that the science is not strong enough to
justify substantive action."
Bush sounds like he's been reading:
a) Reagan's list of favorite acid rain comments, or
b) tobacco company press releases on lung cancer
Congratulations, America, you've put another bonehead in office.
"Congress, specifically the Senate, voted 95 to 0 to assert its opposition
to any
treaty that endangers the U.S. economy ...."
I stand corrected: you've put many boneheads in office. This statistic is
enough to
scare me out of having kids. Makes environmental advocacy seem pretty
hopeless.
"The right wing of this country is anti-intellectual,
anti-knowledge, anti-science except for the production of money or
weapons."
The right wing? This statement pretty much sums up the nation. I'll wager
that that's how much of the world sees the USA. As a group of
environmentally-friendly
"thinking people" of any nationality, I feel that we will lose out to those
focussed purely on
power and money every time so long as we don't pursue a "green agenda" with
the same
focussed intensity.
Take care,
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 16:53:08 -0400
From: "Regina S. Baucom" <gbaucom@ARCHES.UGA.EDU>
Subject: Seed information request
Dear Ecologgers --
I am trying to quantify seed coat hardness. I am interested in using
a penetrometer to measure this trait, but have run in to
penetrometers for soil, fleshy fruits and leaves only. I would
appreciate any input about penetrometers in general and ways of
measuring seed coat hardness specifically.
Thanks!
Gina Baucom
gbaucom@arches.uga.edu
--
Regina S. Baucom
Department of Genetics
University of Georgia
Life Sciences Building
(706) 542-1417
"If life is just a grain of sand I'm telling you man this grain of
sand is mine" Iris Dement
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 17:53:04 -0400
From: Karen Claxon <kclaxon@EARTHLINK.NET>
Subject: Fw: [ee-internet] Greenway Grants
----- Original Message -----
From: <Burnett.Andrew@epamail.epa.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 11:18 AM
FYI These grants cover a wide variety of activities. Worth a quick
read
of the website.
------------------------------------
The Conservation Fund and Eastman Kodak Company announced that they are
now
accepting applications for the 2001 Kodak American Greenways Awards
program.
Applications for the awards, which provide important seed money to
stimulate greenway planning and design, may be submitted to the
Conservation Fund until June 1, 2001.
The award recipients, announced in early fall, will receive grants of
$500
to $2500 to support their pioneering work in linking the nation's
natural
areas, historic sites, parks and open space.
To learn more about the American Greenway's Program or to obtain an
application, visit the Fund's website at www.conservationfund.org, click
on
American Greenway, then click on Kodak award.
You can also contact Leigh Anne McDonald, American Greenways
Coordinator,
The Conservation Fund, 1800 North Kent Street, Ste. 1120, Arlington, Va
22209, tel. 703-526-6300, email lmcdonald@conservationfund.org. [the
first
letter in the email address is a lower case L].
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 15:45:15 -0600
From: Michael Kreuzer <kreumich@ISU.EDU>
Subject: Re: The Ecological Society's role in Bush's environmental agenda
First, let me say to Brad Robbins that I am glad you joined this thread,
and I applaud your willingness to be a voice of opposition. I just
don't agree with you.
With all due respect, I think you are being unnecessarily condescending
to the folks on this list. You implicitly assume that the folks who are
coming out against Bush and/or his policies have not considered all
sides of the argument. I am willing to give them the benefit of the
doubt that their opinions are based on "all of the facts". It is
possible, indeed likely, that after considering all sides of this
particular argument, they still feel that global warming (climate change
is perhaps a better term) is real. Please don't assume that folks whose
opinions lean to the left ignore facts unless they agree with them.
When that same criticism has been leveled against the right, I hear
howls of protest. To turn around and do the same is a little
hypocritical.
As regards your suspicions about the agendas of groups that do recognize
climate change as a real phenomenon, I find that unusual. I'm not name
calling; I just wonder what you might be suspicious of. Perhaps I am
just naive, but I think it is a little more realistic to question of the
motives of someone who stands to profit by taking a particular action.
But to question the motives of scientists or scientific groups seems
odd. Note that I don't mean that because they are scientists we should
have more respect for them or anything like that, I just mean that I
can't see a rational ulterior motive for these people. Please enlighten
me. Or are you simply trying to cast doubt on the science?
Finally, to Brad and to a lesser extent the rest of the list, I find it
sort of interesting that we are so willing to argue that we "know" what
is going on in an ecological or biological system based on relatively
few facts (that is, the study being published) when we are publishing
papers, but when it comes to issues like this thread all I read are
people who want to take the high ground and claim that "I don't pretend
to know what the answer is". Why the difference?
Michael Kreuzer, Jr.
PhD Candidate
Idaho State University
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 19:26:02 -0400
From: "David M. Bryant" <dmbryant@CISUNIX.UNH.EDU>
Subject: Re: The Ecological Society's role in Bush's environmental agenda
.. in response to the comments of Andy Park et al...
> I sympathize, I really do, with the position that the ESA should
>restrict itself to providing objective interpretation of scientific data
to
>inform policy making, but leave the making of policy up to the
>politicians.
> [1] - By clinging to the mantle of objectivity, and refusing to
>advocate on the basis of the precautionary principle, we as
>scientists are ham-stringing any potential influence we may have
>over policy.
Perhaps I should clarify my point on political advocacy.
We as a community of scientists should not risk the credibility of our
organization (read ESA) by suggesting that it support a political agenda.
We as educated and informed citizens (i.e. individuals) have the OBLIGATION
to communicate scientific knowledge, however constructivist, to our
communities so that our fellow citizens may become better informed.
So if you really feel that ecologists should be advocates; write your
congressmen, speak at your local schools and town meetings, write op-eds,
become active where your voice has the greatest chance of being heard and
having an impact. To quote Tip O'Neil "all politics is local".
David M. Bryant dmbryant@cisunix.unh.edu
Dept. of Natural Resources 603-862-4433
215 James Hall
University of New Hampshire
Durham, NH 03824
"Not all that is counted counts
and not all that counts can be counted"
A. Einstein
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 11:53:54 +1200
From: Dr Brendan Moyle <B.J.Moyle@MASSEY.AC.NZ>
Subject: Bush, Kyoto and environmentalism
It may be appropriate to point out that it was a Democrat administration
that presided over the longest period (9.5 years) of US economic expansion
in history. In global terms, since 1997 1/3 of the output-growth has
occured directly through the US economy- with indirect effects generating
around half of the global growth. From the perspective of someone from
"Her Majesties' Commonwealth", the difficulty of getting the US to meet
Kyoto targets is neither a sudden or Republican problem.
Similarly, tax credits in the US to encourage natural-gas extraction were
implemented in the wake of the Global 2000 report to President Carter. To
take one (extreme) example from New Mexico, gas costs 85c/mcf to produce
while the credit was 96c/mcf. In short, if the market price was zero- if
these companies gave the gas away- they would still make a profit.
The point of this epistle is not however, to point fingers. Rather, both
major political parties in the US have pursued a mix of policies with often
conflicting environmental outcomes. Both parties need to be encouraged to
adopt policies that are scientifically-informed- unless you can adopt the
twin beliefs that Democrats always have superior policies and will enjoy an
uninterrupted hold of the Oval Office for the next 50 years ;-).
In terms of Kyoto, well one has to admit that the US tends to adopt a
fairly unique global position on international treaties. That is, the US
does not tend to sign treaties that are not feasible to fulfill. Such
straightforward honesty is not appreciated by many states in the world for
whom non-compliance presents no like problem...<wry grin> For instanc
, I
am hard pressed to think of any country that has come close to meeting the
Kyoto targets.
The Kyoto agreement is also a triumph of optimism over sound political
realities. In the first case, it tries to be too prescriptive while
simultaneously lacking any teeth. This is aggravated by the sheer number
of countries that have joined up. Attempts to increase its flexibility
have been resisted. Kyoto is largely about imposing adjustment costs on
various countries. At the very outset, taking a common past level of
emissions meant the different parties faced different costs. Some
countries as a result of pre-existing energy policies or resource
endowments will find it more costly to meet the Kyoto targets. For
countries facing relatively high costs, the Kyoto targets will not appear
fair. The lack of teeth in the agreement makes forcing adjustment on these
states impossible. Bush has made this flaw explicit.
respectfully contributed...
Brendan
Dr Brendan Moyle
Bioeconomist
Massey University (Albany), NEW ZEALAND
http://www.massey.ac.nz/~bjmoyle/
"What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man
has tried to make it his heaven."- F. Hoelderlin
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 18:48:32 -0400
From: "E. Ann Poole" <eann@JUNO.COM>
Subject: Conference announcement
May 6-12, 2001
Economics and the Environment: A Course for the Non-Economist,
Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.; call Gail E. Danckert at
617-495-4375; email KSG_ExecEd@harvard.edu; website:
www.execprog.org
Ann
E. Ann Poole, Ecologist & Environmental Planner
SBE / DBE, CAGE 1QFD5
~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~
- Helping Communities Meet the Challenges of Growth -
~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 12:46:03 +1200
From: Ross Thompson <thoro364@STUDENT.OTAGO.AC.NZ>
Subject: Politics, science and the wider issues
Hi all,
To take the discussion of science and politics in a slightly more general
direction ...
Are we (as scientists) victims of our own vocabulary? Are we so tied up in
the hypothesis testing/95% confidence interval mentality that we never say
anything with certainty?
Scientist: 'We can be 95% certain that human-induced global change is
happening'
Policy maker: 'But can you be absolutely sure?'
Scientist: 'Well, there is some doubt....'
Policy maker: 'Come back when the doubt is gone'
To have an influential role in policy making and management, maybe we need
to adjust our thinking from the testing of null hypotheses to a 'weight of
evidence' approach. Conservation scientists have already learnt that you
can't be certain of answers, but that inaction has consequences
(extinction, mainly). Sometimes we have to act based on hunches, incomplete
data and unclear trends. Because sometimes the concequences of not doing so
are too awful.
It's not REALLY science. But is it what we need to do to avoid becoming
irrelevant in making policy?
Oh, and thanks for this discussion, it is a revelation to those of us
outside the loop of US environmental policy.
Ross.
Ross Thompson
Doctoral candidate
Dept. of Zoology
University of Otago
P.O.Box 56
Dunedin
NEW ZEALAND
ph. 64-03-479-7987
fax.64-03-479-7584
Visit our research Homepage: http://www.otago.ac.nz/Zoology/tsrp/tsrp.htm
Visit our Ecology Research Group Homepage: http://www.otago.ac.nz/erg
IMPORTANT: This email is intended for the use of the individual
addressee(s)named above and may contain information that is confidential
privileged or unsuitable for overly sensitive persons with low self-esteem,
no sense of humour or irrational religious beliefs. If you are not the
intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
email is not authorised (either explicitly or implicitly) and constitutes
an irritating social faux pas. Unless the word absquatulation has been used
in its correct context somewhere other than in this warning, it does not
have any legal or grammatical use and may be ignored. No animals were
harmed in the transmission of this email, although the kelpie next door is
living on borrowed time, let me tell you. Those of you with an overwhelming
fear of the unknown will be gratified to learn that there is no hidden
message revealed by reading this warning backwards, so just ignore that
Alert Notice from Microsoft. However, by pouring a complete circle of salt
around yourself and your computer you can ensure that no harm befalls you
and your pets. If you have received this email in error, please add some
nutmeg and egg whites and place it in a warm oven for 40 minutes. Whisk
briefly and let it stand for 2 hours before icing.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 22:46:54 -0400
From: Judith Weis <jweis@ANDROMEDA.RUTGERS.EDU>
Subject: Re: The Ecological Society's role in Bush's environmental agenda
It's interesting that those of us supporting the consensus of science on
climate change vs the Bush agenda are supported by a strong editorial by
Don Kennedy in this weeks' Science magazine, which has published a fair
number of the studies.
1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert
1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss,
and pollution. \ \
\ \ \
- - _ - \ \ \ \ ----\
- _ - \
- - ( O \
_ - -_ __ /
- - /
-/// _ ______ ___/
/// /
Judith S. Weis Department of Biological Sciences
Rutgers Univ. Newark NJ 07102 jweis@andromeda.rutgers.edu
------------------------------
From: "David W. Inouye" <di5@umail.umd.edu>
Subject: NSF funding
To: ESANEWS@UMDD.UMD.EDU
Status: R
Dear ESA Member:
In an effort to keep you apprised of national budget initiatives, ESA is
tracking the budgetary developments of various agencies as the federal
budget season gets underway. At this time, a window of opportunity exists
to exercise your clout as a constituent and help support a number of
congressional efforts to increase the budget of the National Science
Foundation. (As you may know, the Bush Administration has proposed only a
1 percent increase for this agency in fiscal year 2002). We will alert you
as other opportunities arise for other agencies.
1) The chairman and ranking member of the Senate VA/HUD appropriations
subcommittee, Christopher "Kit" Bond (R-MO) and Barbara Mikulski (D-MD),
have circulated a "Dear Colleague" letter supporting a doubling of the
National Science Foundation budget over five years. Senators Bond and
Mikulski are asking their Senate colleagues to cosign a letter to be sent
to Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott and Democratic Minority Leader Thomas
Daschle advocating a doubling of the NSF budget over five years.
If you wish to support this effort, please write or call your two Senators
and urge them to cosign the Bond/Mikulski letter. A copy of the letter is
available at: http://www.cnsfweb.org/bondmikulski0301.pdf
2) On the House side, Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) will soon
introduce a NSF authorization bill which calls for an increase of 15
percent for NSF in fiscal years 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005. A summary of
the draft bill is available at: http://www.cnsfweb.org/NSF01_001summary.pdf.
If you wish to support this bill, please contact your Representative and
urge him/her to support the Bernice Johnson NSF authorization bill (it does
not yet have a number).
3) In a complementary effort focused on fiscal year 2002, Congressman David
Wu (D-OR) is circulating a letter to President Bush, urging a 15 percent
increase for NSF in his final budget request. To date 95 Members of
Congress have signed this letter. Wu sent a similar letter to Congressman
Jim Nussle, Chair of the House Budget Committee, with 78
signatures. Again, more signatures are needed to help show support for
this effort to boost funding for the agency in the coming fiscal year.
If you wish to support this effort, please contact your Representative and
urge him/her to sign on to Wu's letter.
To find and write your member of Congress, visit
http://congress.nw.dc.us/c-span/elecmail.html
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at
nadine@esa.org; 202/833-8773.
Sincerely,
Nadine Lymn
ESA Director of Public Affairs
Subject: ECOLOG-L Digest - 3 Apr 2001 to 4 Apr 2001
To: Recipients of ECOLOG-L digests <ECOLOG-L@UMDD.UMD.EDU>
Status: R
There are 22 messages totalling 1065 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. From the AIBS public policy office
2. Political? You betcha!
3. Tenure-track position
4. The Ecological Society's role in Bush's environmental agenda (3)
5. a bit of list protocol
6. Job PostingOhio GAP vegetation classification specialist
7. Seminar, Newark NJ, 4/18: Adaptive Restoration: An Approach For Advanci
g
Both Restoration Science and Practice, by Dr. Joy Zedler
8. Last Call for Papers for BALTIC 2001
9. plant ecology postdoc and internship available
10. job: seasonal field biologist
11. Position Announcement
12. database design book suggestions (2)
13. Statistical tests for community differences with categorical data
14. database design book suggestions with signature line
15. Job: Fisheries Policy Analyst
16. Politics, science and the wider issues
17. measures of leaf toughness
18. Discounting and the environment
19. The Ivy's and "Being Smart"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 11:44:25 -0400
From: "David W. Inouye" <di5@umail.umd.edu>
Subject: From the AIBS public policy office
BOND AND MIKULSKI RENEW EFFORTS TO DOUBLE NSF FUNDING - The chairman and
ranking member of the Senate VA/HUD appropriations subcommittee,
Christopher "Kit" Bond (R-MO) and Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), have again
circulated a "Dear Colleague" letter supporting a doubling of the National
Science Foundation budget over five years. Senators Bond and Mikulski are
asking their Senate colleagues to cosign a letter to be sent to Senate
Majority Leader Trent Lott and Democratic Minority Leader Thomas Daschle
advocating a doubling of the NSF budget over five years.
PLEASE WRITE OR CALL YOUR SENATORS AND URGE THEM TO COSIGN THIS LETTER TO
SENATORS LOTT AND DASCHLE.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 23:57:20 -0400
From: Thom Cate <tcate@ZOO.UVM.EDU>
Subject: Political? You betcha!
Date: 4/3/01 3:53 PM
From: Lotspeich, Jim
When the Bush team took office, the Fish and Wildlife Service faced a
small dilemma with the content of their Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
Web site, which was chock-full of information showing how disastrous oil
drilling would be to wildlife. Fortunately they were able to separate
the purely scientific information from mere interpretations of the data.
For example, a summary of a Fish and Wildlife Service study (1987) on
the impact of oil drilling on wildlife simply vanished. Also
"disappeared" were sentences critical of oil drilling like the
following: "Increased freezing depths of rivers and lakes as a result of
water extraction (for ice road and pad construction and for oil well
reinjection), killing overwintering (sic) fish and aquatic
invertebrates." Other sections have been "improved," like their
description of the need for a network of roads through the wildlife
refuge, which changed from "would" be required to a more diplomatic "may
likely" be required. This advance in "objectivity" was discovered by an
organization called Defenders of Wildlife. (Wired News 3/23/01)
The Bush Administration unveiled a new press management strategy
emphasizing a "theme of the week." Highlighting "defense week" were
announcements on the new Pentagon budget and the bombing of Iraq.
Presidential spokesperson George Bush proved his parentage when he
described the bombings near civilians in Baghdad as a "routine mission"
-- a little like getting up in the morning and brushing your teeth.
Welcome to the New World Order. Meanwhile we need to correct a common
misperception that Bush's tax reform is a bonanza for the rich. As
Lawrence Lindsay, Bush's chief economic advisor carefully explained,
"We're not giving it to the wealthy, we're repairing problems in the tax
code." Understand? (NYT 2/15/01, WSJ 10/5/00)
Oh Well!
jim
Jim Lotspeich
Code 531200E
(805) 989-5928
DSN 351-5928
Lotspeichje@navair.navy.mil
--
_______________________________________________________________________
|
Thom Cate | ÎBiology is the study of plants and
Graduate Research Fellow | their parasites¼
Proctor Maple Research Center | --unknown
|
University of Vermont | Î...that goat doesn t love YOU!¼
120-B Marsh Life Science | --Weird Al Yankovic
Burlington, VT 05405 |
| ÎFencers only recognise fencers,
Office: 802.656.8938 | potential fencers and hopeless
Lab: 802.656.0638 | individuals.¼
| - Aldo Nadi
_______________________________________________________________________
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 09:38:17 +0200
From: Gidi Ne'eman <gneeman@RESEARCH.HAIFA.AC.IL>
Subject: Tenure-track position
Dear David Inoye,
A couple of days ago I have sent the list the following message, but I di=
d
not get it in the mail.
Thanks for taking care
Gidi
Dear all
Department of Biology, The University of Haifa - Oranim, Israel Invites
applications for tenure-track position beginning October 2001. Candidates
should be trained in terrestrial vertebrate biology with excellent resear=
ch
expertise. Teaching includes undergraduate courses (Hebrew) in zoology,
zoogeography, nature conservation and elective classes. The position
requires a Ph.D., postdoctoral and teaching experience. Applicants should
submit: cover letter with teaching and research interests, CV and two
letters of recommendation to: Dr. Gidi Ne=92eman, Department of Biology,
University of Haifa at Oranim, Tivon 36006, Israel (E-mail
gneeman@research.haifa.ac.il) no later than June 1, 2001.
*******************************************************************
Dr. Gidi Ne'eman
Head Department of Biology, University of Haifa at Oranim,
Tivon 36006, ISRAEL
Phone +972 4 9838820, +972 4 9838819, Fax +972 4 9832167
E-mail: gneeman@research.haifa.ac.il
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 11:52:18 +0100
From: Alessandro Gimona <A.Gimona@MARLAB.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: The Ecological Society's role in Bush's environmental agenda
....
........
>While it may be romantic to think that there is one truth, realistically
we
all
>know that there are many truths, each colored by our individual biases
(e.g.
**global warming). Bush isn't ignoring "the facts" he is simply working from
>a different perspective.
I appreciate the post-modern spin :-).
Readers can find an interesting evaluation of this prospective in a
Financial Time special report
http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?pagename=View&c=Article&cid=FT3FL9G4XKC&liv
e=true
>My responsibility as an ecologist and scientist is to provide unbiased d
ta
>accompanied by an educated opinion based on those data and then let the
>politicians make the decisions.
I agree. ..and this is what the IPCC scientists have done.
**>Contrary to the commonly touted rhetoric that there is a consensus in
he
>scientific community concerning global warming, the evidence against the
>global warming theory is overwhelming: weather satellite observations, t
e
>only truly global measurements, independently confirmed by weather ballo
n
>data, show little if any rise in mean temperature.
Of course every scientist is entitled to form an opinion having reviewed the
data, models etc..
.and, again, this is what the IPCC scientists did.
I would like to point out that either they have missed this "overwhelming"
evidence or they don't think that, on balance, it is enough to change their
conclusions.
Hundreds of climate scientists from all over the world heve worked at the
last IPCC report.
This has been co-authored by over 400 scientists and has been reviewed by
some 1,000 experts.
It does not seem rethorical to say that there is a large amount of
consensus.
Of course there is uncertainty [and there will always be], but the Panel
has concluded that it is very likely that not only warming is happening, but
also that anthropogenic effects are the *main* forcing factor which
outweights solar effects and other possible natural co-factors.
Also, as they put it, CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel burning are "virtually
certain" to be the principal influence on the trends in atmospheric CO2
concentrations in this century.
Ecologists can help decision makers to understand the implications of
these findings and conclusions.
Environmental policy making nearly always has some element of
uncertainty...one has to decide whether doing nothing is right [..insert
values here ], considering all of what is at stake if the present warming
trend -forced by emissions- continues.
Alessandro Gimona
FRS,
Aberdeen Scotland UK
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 09:28:07 -0400
From: Alison Gillespie <Alison@ESA.ORG>
Subject: a bit of list protocol
I'd like to respectfully ask that everyone posting things on Ecolog-l =
please tell us your full name and your professional affiliation in your =
signature.
Thanks.
___________________
Alison Gillespie
Public Affairs Officer
Ecological Society of America
1707 H Street NW
Suite 400
Washington, DC 20006
202-833-8773 ext 211
alison@esa.org
fax: 202-833-8775=20
http://esa.sdsc.edu
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 11:13:12 EDT
From: Steve Goodman <SGood33@AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: The Ecological Society's role in Bush's environmental agenda
Hello,
A few folks recently posted addresses for websites that deal with the ANWR
issue - petition signing etc. I inadvertently deleted those messages. Can yo
please provide those again?
Thanks,
Steve Goodman
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 10:14:46 -0400
From: Kendra Cipollini <kcipollini@TNC.ORG>
Subject: Job PostingOhio GAP vegetation classification specialist
**********************************
Please contact The Ohio State University Center for Mapping
if you are interested in this position. They can be reached by
calling 614.292.1600.
Title: Research Associate 2 - Physical (Land Cover Specialist)
The Ohio State University Center for Mapping is looking for a Land Cover
Specialist for the Ohio GAP project. This expert will help
develop strategy for Ohio vegetation identification, and will identify
vegetation in Ohio; prepare progress reports, presentations, and
reports for distribution.
Time Distribution
55% - Identify vegetation species in Ohio in agreement with the National
Vegetation Classification.
20% - Collaborate with remote sensing experts to combine image
processing
techniques and direct vegetation classification to
produce a statewide vegetation classification.
10% - Cooperate in other activities related to his/her field of
expertise.
5% - Collaborate in developing a strategy to produce a statewide
vegetation
classification.
5% - Generate reports describing the work performed.
5% - Attend meetings, collaborates with other experts, and makes
presentations as needed.
Qualifications:
B.S. in Geography or Natural Resources, M.S. in Geography or Natural
Resources preferred. Coursework and practical experience in
remote sensing and geographic information systems required; experience
with
Arc/Info, ArcView, ERDAS Imagine software in UNIX
based and PC-based computer systems preferred; coursework or knowledge
of
the vegetation communities of Ohio highly desirable,
experience with GPS equipment will be considered helpful. Attention to
detail and accuracy is essential. Excellent oral and written
communication skills and good interpersonal skills are preferred.
Salary Range: $27,468-$34,992
Donna N. Myers
U.S. Geological Survey
6480 Doubletree Ave.
Columbus, Ohio 43229-1111
614/430-7715
dnmyers@usgs.gov
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 22:33:35 -0500
From: Joe Gathman <gathmanj@UWW.EDU>
Subject: The Ecological Society's role in Bush's environmental agenda
Hi Brad. Just a friendly reaction to some of your points...
>If you'll reread my missive you'll see that I didn't say that we aren't
>experiencing global warming, I simply refute the rhetoric that global
>warming theory is accepted by all scientists -- it isn't -- and suggest
hat
>it is premature to make such a call.
I agree with you on that, though the majority seem to have considerable
concerns.
>Before you blindly accept the IPCC pronouncements, ask
>what motives they may have other than environmental security [I'm sure t
at
>that makes me sound paranoid but the truth is that I'm merely skeptical
f
>political motives].
I agree with you here too. My opinions aren't based on IPCC
pronouncements. As scientists, I hope we can rely on better and more
diverse sources, even if we are not climate specialists (I'm definitely not)
>...there are better
>ways to change how we do things then to scare people with a false boogey
>man.
Ooooh, I really wish I could believe that... ;)
Human behavior seems to suggest that crises are necessary to motivate
change (though I don't advocate creating false crises)
>Your comments and those by others concerning Bush's mental
>capacity are unwarranted. Regardless of his political persuasion, the ma
>has degrees from both Harvard and Yale -- accept the fact he is not dumb
I disagree. I don't know what degrees from Harvard and Yale really mean,
but more to the point, it's not that he's actually stupid, but that he
appears to be, as they say, lacking intellectual curiosity. Not a thinker.
Doesn't appear to have ever valued intellectual endeavors. And it bugs me
when obviously unqualified people make public statements about scientific
uncertainties and such. And there's no reason to give him the benefit of
the doubt (that he understands the issue) since things scientific are
hardly common knowledge.
>The posted ranting about how "the right wing of this country is
>anti-intellectual, anti-knowledge, [and] anti-science..."...If you don't
agree with Limbaugh
>then call him and present an intellectual argument based on sound data a
d
>not personal feelings. If you can afford to wait on hold, he'll let you
>speak your mind.
I really disagree here. Limbaugh represents A PORTION of the right wing.
One that IS anti-intellectual (proudly so, in fact). And no, he will not
let you speak your mind. It's his little radio fiefdom and he shuts down
anybody he doesn't want to listen to - behavior that is proof that he is
not open to fair, rational debate. He's only really interested in
self-aggrandizement. (and I remember years ago when he was, believe it or
not, non-partisan and wickedly funny; now he's just an over-bearing bore -
which I've probably become by now too)
Joe Gathman, PhD
UW-Whitewater
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 11:34:19 -0400
From: "Kirk R. Barrett" <kbarrett@CIMIC3.RUTGERS.EDU>
Subject: Seminar, Newark NJ,
4/18: Adaptive Restoration: An Approach For Advancing Both Restorat
on
Science and Practice, by Dr. Joy Zedler
NEW JERSEY WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH INSTITUTE
in cooperation with the Meadowlands Environmental Research Institute
(http://cimic.rutgers.edu/meri)
presents ...
ADAPTIVE RESTORATION: AN APPROACH FOR ADVANCING BOTH
RESTORATION SCIENCE AND PRACTICE
by DR. JOY ZEDLER, Aldo Leopold Professor of Restoration Ecology
University of Wisconsin-Madison, Botany Department and Arboretum
Joy Zedler serves as Director of Research for the University of
Wisconsin-Madison Arboretum
and works with colleagues at UW's Center for Restoration Ecology. She
helps edit three
peer-reviewed journals (Ecological Applications, Wetlands Ecology and
Management, and
Ecological Engineering). She is a member of The Nature Conservancy
Governing Board, The Environmental Defense Board of Trustees, and the
Wisconsin Natural Areas Preservation Council. Her research interests
include restoration and wetland ecology, role of biodiversity in ecosystem
function, use of mesocosms in wetland research, invasive plants and
adaptive management.
Wednesday, April 18, 2001, 1:00 p.m.
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Newark Campus
Robeson Campus Center, Room 226
Dr. ML King Jr. Dr. and Bleeker St., Newark, NJ
~ Reception to Follow ~
A map of the Rutgers Newark campus is available at
http://www.kiosk.rutgers.edu/Topology/Newark/
(Note that demand for parking is high, try parking in "Deck II"; RU-N is
also well served by transit.)
A larger scale map and directions are available at
http://maps.yahoo.com/py/maps.py?BFCat=&Pyt=Tmap&newFL=Use+Address+Below
&addr=king+drive+and+bleeker+st.&csz=07102&country=us&Get%A0Map=Get+Map
For further information on the seminar, contact NJWRRI (732) 932 -9632 or
derbedrosian@aesop.rutgers.edu
The reception will be followed by a tour of estuarine wetland restoration
sites in the Hackensack Meadowlands. A small number of spaces may be
available for additional tour participants. If you are interested in
accompanying the tour, contact Dr. Kirk R. Barrett, Research Director of
the Meadowlands Environmental Research Institute (MERI) at 973-353-5026 or
kbarrett@cimic.rutgers.edu.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 18:06:58 +0200
From: "Prof. Walter Leal Filho" <leal@TU-HARBURG.DE>
Subject: Last Call for Papers for BALTIC 2001
Last Call for Papers for BALTIC 2001
The project BEIDS kindly reminds interested colleagues that the deadline
for the submission of papers for BALTIC 2001, a regional internet-based
environment
conference to be held on 2-4 May 2001, is approaching. Papers may be
submitted until the 15th
April 2001. Further details are available at
http://www.beids.de/baltic2001
A briefing from the project BEIDS (http://www.beids.de)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 07:41:19 -0500
From: lgough <lgough@BAMA.UA.EDU>
Subject: plant ecology postdoc and internship available
POSTDOCTORAL FELLOW AND INTERNSHIP IN PLANT COMMUNITY ECOLOGY AND CLONAL
BIOLOGY
Dear Colleagues,
We will be hiring a postdoc (minimum of one year) and at least one intern
(minimum of 5 months) to work on a project involving the community
consequences of interactions among clonal plants at the University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor. Both positions could start as soon as May 1, 2001 and
will join a group of two faculty (D. Goldberg, Univ. of Michigan and L. Goug
,
Univ. of Alabama) and several graduate and undergraduate students.
Although clonal plant species are recognized as important and frequently
dominant components of many plant communities and ecosystems, their role in
plant community structure and ecosystem function as clonal organisms is
poorly understood. This NSF-sponsored research explores the influence of two
important clonal attributes, clonal integration and ramet aggregation, on th
outcome of interspecific interactions among clonal plants from calcareous
peatland communities (fens) of southeastern Michigan, using a combination of
observations in natural systems and experiments in mesocosms. Several
experiments are already underway, including a large mesocosm experiment
involving manipulations of competitive environment, as well as ramet
aggregation pattern (natural or evenly distributed) and integration
(connections between ramets intact or severed). We expect to establish more
detailed experiments this summer, to explore the patterns and consequences o
physiological integration and clonal architecture in these eight sedge
species. A related project involves study of the patterns and mechanisms of
invasion of exotics into the fens and the role of clonality in regulating
invasions.
The postdoc will have major responsibility for running aspects of the
already established field program and will be expected to initiate and
design new experiments. S/he will also have some lab manager
responsibilities. We are especially interested in someone with expertise
in aspects of clonal biology, such as foraging studies or modeling of
clonal growth patterns. While we prefer someone who would be able to
begin in May, we will also consider candidates who will not be available
until later in the summer or early fall. Please send a CV, summary of
research interests, and names and telephone/emails of 3 references.
The intern(s) will assist with conducting all observations and experiments
in the field and experimental garden and will also be expected to spend
some time on a related, independent research project. Residence in Ann
Arbor from early May through the end of September is required. Please
send a CV and names and telephone/email of 2 references.
For further information, contact:
Deborah Goldberg (degold@umich.edu)
Department of Biology (as of July 1: Department of Ecology and Evolutionary
Biology)
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
USA
Tel: 734.764.1490
Fax: 734.647.0884
We will begin reviewing applications for both positions on April 13th,
although later applications will be accepted.
*******************************
Deborah Goldberg, Professor
Department of Biology
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1048
TEL 734-764-1490
FAX 734-647-0884
degold@umich.edu
******************************
-----------------------------------------
Laura Gough, Assistant Professor
Department of Biological Sciences
University of Alabama
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0206
phone: 205-348-9034
fax: 205-348-1403
LGough@biology.as.ua.edu
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 08:57:05 -0500
From: Cathy Johnson <cjohnson@NRRI.UMN.EDU>
Subject: job: seasonal field biologist
SEASONAL FIELD BIOLOGIST POSITION
We are still seeking a field biologist for an amphibian study in Duluth, MN
we
had
previously posted an ad for 4 5 biologists). We need someone who can start i
mid April and work through mid late July. The primary focus of this job is
o
assist
with the mark recapture portion of a study looking at the potential effects
f
forest
fragmentation on vernal pool communities; other duties may include nocturnal
call
surveys, macroinvertebrate sampling and ID, water quality sampling, and data
entry. Applicants must be able to work closely with others, and maintain an
enthusiastic attitude despite long days, extremes in temperature and hungry
mosquitoes. Individuals should be prepared to work some weekends and holida
s;
wages will be approx. $1500/month. If you are interested, please email your
resume
and three references (including phone numbers and email addresses)
IMMEDIATELY (by April 7 at the latest) to Cathy Johnson
(cjohnson@nrri.umn.edu).
_____________________________________
Cathy Johnson, PhD
Natural Resources Research Institute
5013 Miller Trunk Highway
Duluth, MN 55811-1442
Phone: (218) 720-2733
Fax: (218) 720-4328
cjohnson@nrri.umn.edu
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 08:17:35 -0500
From: Mark Hilton <mark_hilton@USGS.GOV>
Subject: Position Announcement
Please share this position announcement with your friends and colleagues.
Regards,
Mark
***************************************************
Mark D. Hilton
NWRC Program Manager
Johnson Controls Inc.
USGS National Wetlands Research Center
700 Cajundome Blvd.
Lafayette, LA 70506
(337)266-8565 or
(337)266-8829
(337)266-8595 FAX
***************************************************
Position Announcement
Posting Date: 01 Mar 01
Closing Date: Until filled
Johnson Controls World Services Inc. has an excellent opportunity for a
full-time Biological
Technician II to perform contract work at the National Wetlands Research
Center in Lafayette, Louisiana. Qualified individuals must have education,
laboratory, and field experience in a discipline related to ecology,
botany, biology, or a related discipline. Experience assisting with field
data collection, greenhouse experiments, and plant identification is
desired. The ideal candidate will have knowledge of standard laboratory
practices, data management, literature research, data analysis, and report
writing. The candidate will assist Dr. Jim Grace with the following:
- Acquire biological and environmental data in the field, including plant
collection, plant identification, vegetation sampling, water and soil
sampling, elevation surveys, and continuous monitoring of conditions.
Field work shall be conducted principally in Louisiana, Texas, Florida and
Mississippi, with occasional trips to other locations within the US.
Assist in the conduct of greenhouse studies and experiments as well as
assist with prescribed burning at field sites.
- Process plant and soil samples in the laboratory, including plant
identification, dry biomass, biomass allocation and phenometric
measurements, tissue sample preparation, chemical analyses, soil organic
matter determination, soil extractions, and other standard soil analyses.
- Develop databases for biological and environmental field data, and
greenhouse data, including plant collections, vegetation, water quality,
and soil characteristics. Assist in the analysis and interpretation of
data as well as the dissemination of research results. This may
occasionally include travel to give presentations at meetings, the writing
of research reports and publications, and the preparation of multimedia
products.
- Assist with routine office activities including information acquisition,
management, and
dissemination.
Johnson Controls offers an excellent benefits package including healthcare,
dental, vision, 401(k) and other employee selected options.
Individuals with the above experience are requested to submit resumes
(including name, address, and phone numbers) for consideration to:
Johnson Controls World Services Inc.
National Wetland Research Center
700 Cajundome Blvd., Lafayette, LA 70506
Fax: (318)266-8595, E-mail: Mark_Hilton@usgs.gov
Please send letters, faxes, or e-mail messages only
Johnson Controls Inc. is an Equal Opportunity Employer. We promote a
drug-free work environment, and we highly value diversity in our workforce.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 10:42:51 -0600
From: Kris McCleary <kris.mccleary@TELUSPLANET.NET>
Subject: database design book suggestions
Hello list:
I am looking for suggestions for good books on database design that are
written for the layperson (or at least not a computer programer). Please
send replies to kris.mccleary@telusplanet.net.
Thanks!
Kris McCleary
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 13:55:25 -0400
From: Ian Dickie <iad1@PSU.EDU>
Subject: Statistical tests for community differences with categorical data
Statistical tests for community differences with categorical data
We are currently designing an experiment on fungal community structure, and
would greatly appreciate some advice on a statistical question.
Our hypothesis is that different substrates (e.g., pine needles, wood,
animal dung) will be colonized by different communities of fungi. The
catch is that our data are categorical: a species may be present or absent
in a sample, but abundance is unknown.
Our null hypothesis is therefore:
Pai = Paj = Pak and Pbi = Pbj = Pbk and Pci = Pcj = Pck
Where P = the proportion of samples with species a, b, or c and the three
substrates are i, j and k. This is conceptually similar to a MANOVA,
except that the data are categorical.
We are considering analyzing the data as a 3 dimensional contingency table,
using PROC CATMOD in SAS. The three axes would be substrate type, fungal
species, and presence/absence. (A blocking factor might be added as a
fourth dimension). A significant species X substrate interaction would (I
think) be a rejection of the null hypothesis. If we found an overall
significant pattern we would then proceed with chi-square analysis on
individual species.
Any advice on this approach to community analysis would be greatly
appreciated. We are at the design stage, so criticism would be very
helpful. Please send input/advice to iad1@psu.edu.
Thank you,
Ian Dickie
Penn State University
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 12:31:14 -0600
From: Kris McCleary <kris.mccleary@TELUSPLANET.NET>
Subject: database design book suggestions with signature line
Hi list:
Sorry, I forgot my signature line- here it is.
Kris McCleary
Bandaloop Landscape Ecosystem Services
Foothills Model Forest
P O Box 6330
Hinton, AB T7V 1L8
Canada
phone 780.865.8218
fax 780.865.8331
website www.fmf.ab.ca
-----Original Message-----
From: Kris McCleary [SMTP:kris.mccleary@telusplanet.net]
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 10:43 AM
To: 'ECOLOG-L@UMDD.UMD.EDU'
Subject: database design book suggestions
Hello list:
I am looking for suggestions for good books on database design that are
written for the layperson (or at least not a computer programer). Please
send replies to kris.mccleary@telusplanet.net.
Thanks!
Kris McCleary
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 14:50:00 -0400
From: "COOPER, Andy" <ACOOPER@AUDUBON.ORG>
Subject: Job: Fisheries Policy Analyst
Please send all responses to Dr. Merry Camhi, mcamhi@audubon.org (postal
address below)
Sorry for the cross-postings.
********************************************
Since 1993, the Living Oceans Program of the National Audubon Society has
been a leader in improving the management of marine fisheries and the
conservation status of marine wildlife, through reforming U.S. and
international fishing laws and policies, legally challenging ineffective
regulations, promoting progressive fisheries science, and raising public
awareness. With staff in New York, D.C., Oregon, and Hawaii, the
Sustainable Fishing Program of Living Oceans, in particular, works to
rebuild overfished populations of large pelagic (sharks, tunas, and
billfishes) and other fishes (e.g., flounder) in both the Atlantic and
Pacific, to promote a shift from species-specific to ecosystem management,
to recover endangered salmon, and to reduce bycatch of non-target species
including seabirds.
The Sustainable Fishing Program is seeking to hire a full-time Fisheries
Policy Analyst to assist in the coordination and development of our marine
fisheries policy, science, and legal projects.
QUALIFICATIONS:
Master's in marine fisheries policy, science, or conservation, or Bachelor's
degree with at least 3 years experience in fisheries policy advocacy. This
position requires excellent written and oral communication for diverse
audiences; strong organizational and strategic skills, and the ability to
juggle an array of tasks and priorities. The position reports directly to
the Assistant Director and interacts regularly with Living Oceans staff, as
well as other conservation organizations, government agencies, the media,
and the public. The position is based in Islip, New York (Long Island), and
involves some travel.
RESPONSIBILITIES:
* Assist in the development of policy decisions and strategies with other
staff and draft written position statements
* Handle special projects, such as developing presentation materials, fact
sheets, meeting coordination, data acquisition and analysis, and report
drafting
* Represent the program and present our positions at policy meetings, such
as by serving on advisory panels
* Assist with administrative tasks, including preparing proposals and
reports to funders, tracking expenditures and budget, scheduling, and
information organization
* Draft memos and alerts, and handle correspondence, information, and media
requests in support of outreach efforts
* Develop and lead independent fisheries-related projects
APPLICATION: By May 7th, please send the following: (1) your resume or
c.v.; (2) a letter of interest; (3) contact information for at least 3
references; and (4) a relevant writing sample to:
Merry Camhi, Ph.D.
Assistant Director, Living Oceans Program
National Audubon Society
550 South Bay Ave.
Islip, NY 11751
E-mail: mcamhi@audubon.org No calls please.
Website: www.audubon.org/campaign/lo
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 12:22:39 -0600
From: "J. Tomasz Giermakowski" <tomas@UNM.EDU>
Subject: Re: database design book suggestions
Dear Kris,
I found
Ecological data : design, management, and processing / edited by
William K. Michener and James W. Brunt
Publisher Oxford ; Malden, MA : Blackwell Science, 2000
to be a good book on databases and their design, without going into
programming details.
hope that helps
tom giermakowski
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Kris McCleary wrote:
> Hello list:
>
> I am looking for suggestions for good books on database design that ar
> written for the layperson (or at least not a computer programer). Plea
e
> send replies to kris.mccleary@telusplanet.net.
>
> Thanks!
> Kris McCleary
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^
J. Tom Giermakowski
Department of Biology tel: 505.277.5130
Castetter Hall 167 fax: 505.277.0304
The University of New Mexico email: tomas@unm.edu
ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87131-1091, USA web: www.unm.edu/~msbherp
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 11:54:00 -0700
From: Robert Taylor <rtaylor@GEOG.UCSB.EDU>
Subject: Re: Politics, science and the wider issues
> Scientist: 'We can be 95% certain that human-induced global change is
> happening'
> Policy maker: 'But can you be absolutely sure?'
> Scientist: 'Well, there is some doubt....'
> Policy maker: 'Come back when the doubt is gone'
A better response might be, "If I were this certain about a stock pick,
I'd sink every penny I had into it and so should you. If I were this
certain about results of a poll, you could take a strong position on this
issue with confidence. If I were this certain that the building I was in
were on fire, I would get the hell out NOW and seek confirmation later
and so would you."
Businessmen and politicians routinely make decisions in the face of
uncertainties greater than this in other arenas. It is the essence of good
management and good leadership.
> To have an influential role in policy making and management, maybe we n
ed
> to adjust our thinking from the testing of null hypotheses to a 'weight
of
> evidence' approach.
Certainly. See INSERT REF HERE for a nicely written opinion piece about
who should bear the burden of proof WRT fisheries management decisions.
Somehow scientists have gotten stuck with bearing the burden to prove that
a proposed economic development will not be harmful before the project
proponents can be asked to desist. And as noted, they ask for very high
standards of proof that scientists cannot generally meet with their
existing budgets in a meaningful amount of time. It's a very uneven
playing field tipped strongly towards business.
> Conservation scientists have already learnt that you
> can't be certain of answers, but that inaction has consequences
> (extinction, mainly). Sometimes we have to act based on hunches, incomp
ete
> data and unclear trends. Because sometimes the concequences of not doin
so
> are too awful.
Most introductory statistics courses include some discussion of these
notions as they pertain to setting acceptable alpha and beta error
probabilities for statistical tests. One important question is what is the
consequence of experiencing an error of each type?
> It's not REALLY science. But is it what we need to do to avoid becoming
> irrelevant in making policy?
In some senses, it is a very essential part of science. And if we ignore
it, we can just about guarantee that we will be irrelevant in making
policy.
Robert Taylor
Biogeography Lab
Department of Geography
University of California, Santa Barbara
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 15:59:29 -0400
From: Jon Seal <seal@BIO.FSU.EDU>
Subject: measures of leaf toughness
I'm looking for a leaf penetrometer or suggestions of how to quantify the
toughness of oak leaves.
I'd be interested in getting some opinions with respect to certain brands
of penetrometers or references to publications where one was customized.
Many thanks,
Jon Seal
-------------
Jon N. Seal
Department of Biological Science
The Florida State University
Tallahassee, Florida 32306
USA
email: seal@bio.fsu.edu
lab (850) 644-9811
office (850) 644-4047
home (850) 574-9428
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:45:57 +1200
From: Dr Brendan Moyle <B.J.Moyle@MASSEY.AC.NZ>
Subject: Discounting and the environment
As this topic has reared its head, a few comments may be appropriate.
First of all, governments and firms are not the only institutions to
discount the future. If you have a credit-card, a mortgage or a student
loan, you are discounting. I think given the effort that is put into
saving species that are in imminent risk of extinction, many conservation
biologists (implicitly) use high discount rates also. Discounting I'm
afraid, cannot be classed as a problem peculiar to economics.
Second, if discount rates were zero, this would have the non-trivial effect
of making all species recovery work pointless. Discounting works off an
infinite time horizon but with species having a positive probability of
extinction, a period of infinite length will always follow extinction.
This period implies there can be no net conservation benefits from recovery
work. Some non-zero and positive discount rate is necessarily required.
Of course, this does not mean that for public policy lower discount rates
shouldn't be adopted.
Many classic instances of stock-depletion (Baleen whales in the 1960-70s,
federal forests) etc are not a consequence of discounting but of
rent-dissipation (open-access resource) or rent-seeking. These
exploitation paths would occur irrespective of the discount rates and I
note that during the 1970s, real interest rates were often actually
negative. In real terms, private discount rates are 3-5% and in line with
slow-growing species. The problem may be a confusion between real and
nominal interest rates and the derivation of dicount rates. For instance,
in terms of optimal extinction models, a wildlife stock with a 5% rate of
increase is a better investment than a financial asset earning 12%- if
inflation is 4% and taxation rates 33%.
Periods of famine or similar crisis may result in 'wildlife plundering' but
this is better explained in terms of subsistence and credit constraints.
In short, what is often referred to as a discounting problem is not in fact
a consequence of discounting. A slightly more elaborate exposition of
these points can be found at my web-site
(http://www.massey.ac.nz/~bjmoyle/research.html).
Respectfully submitted
Brendan
Dr Brendan Moyle
Bioeconomist
Massey University (Albany), NEW ZEALAND
http://www.massey.ac.nz/~bjmoyle/
"What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man
has tried to make it his heaven."- F. Hoelderlin
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 17:40:58 -0700
From: Allan Shanfield <anshanfield@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: The Ivy's and "Being Smart"
Having a master's from Yale, I can testify that being "smart" has nothing
to do whatsoever with having any moral compass.
It's amazing, granted how interesting and open-minded the undergraduate
Yale curricula was, that some emerge from the program with virtually
unimaginative minds. There are some fascinating calsses running there.
Pat Robertson graduated from Yale law while Peter Matthiessen graduated in
English from Yale during the 50s. Any difference?
Best,
Allan Shanfield
_________________
PhD. Candidate
Grad. Group in Geography
UC Davis
------------------------------
End of ECOLOG-L Digest - 3 Apr 2001 to 4 Apr 2001
*************************************************
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
Thanks to discussion with TVR, I have decided to put a link to back files of the discussion group. This months back files.
The link to complete archives is available elsewhere.
This text was originally an e-mail. It was converted using a program
RUPANTAR- a simple e-mail-to-html converter.
(c)Kolatkar Milind. kmilind@ces.iisc.ernet.in