[Coral-List] On talking good
Kaufman, Leslie S
lesk at bu.edu
Wed May 21 10:40:50 EDT 2014
Hi all. I guess this resolves the issue as to whether or not we discuss politics on Coral List!
If you are interested in learning to talk good, or just wish to commiserate, then Daphne is on the right track. Also see Nancy Baron's "Escape From the Ivory Tower" and consider applying for an Aldo Leopold Fellowship. One of the great things that came out of the Pew Marine Fellows Program was several years of us being used as guinea pig trainees for explaining truth to Everyman without misleading, confusing, or boring him or her to death, by the likes of Steve Schneider, Vicki Spruill and Nancy Baron, and a host of obliging top journalists over the years. Plus many if us know of Randy Olson and Jeremy Jackson's efforts, as well as Nancy Knowlton and Sylvia Earle's projects to not only talk good but also talk about good stuff- success stories, hope spots. Jane Lubchenco and others were inspired to found the Aldo Leopold Fellowship for Environmental Leadership. Check it out. I haven't done the Leopold but I have been a Pew lab rat and look how good I talk!
Seriously, imagine being a doctor with bad bedside manner- you wouldn't want to be or visit him (see the TV show Doc Martin). So we must aspire to good beachside manner. All of us, at least a little bit, despite our antisocial tendencies (speaking for myself).
Les
Sent from my iPhone
> On May 21, 2014, at 9:52 AM, "coral-list-request at coral.aoml.noaa.gov" <coral-list-request at coral.aoml.noaa.gov> wrote:
>
> Send Coral-List mailing list submissions to
> coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> coral-list-request at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> coral-list-owner at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Coral-List digest...", e.g., cut and paste the
> Subject line from the individual message you are replying to. Also,
> please only include quoted text from prior posts that is necessary to
> make your point; avoid re-sending the entire Digest back to the list.
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: political arguments on coral-list (Fautin, Daphne G.)
> 2. political arguments on coral-list (Eugene Shinn)
> 3. Re: political arguments on coral-list (Jim Hendee)
> 4. Re: political arguments on coral-list
> (Billy Causey - NOAA Federal)
> 5. Re: political arguments on coral-list (Steve Mussman)
> 6. Re: political arguments on coral-list (Richard Plate)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 19:40:25 +0000
> From: "Fautin, Daphne G." <fautin at ku.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Coral-List] political arguments on coral-list
> To: Nicole Crane <nicrane at cabrillo.edu>, Michael Risk
> <riskmj at mcmaster.ca>, Douglas Fenner <douglasfennertassi at gmail.com>
> Cc: Eugene Shinn <eugeneshinn at mail.usf.edu>, coral list
> <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
> Message-ID:
> <022C672DB61D524E9A9A39094F9006557990C7A9 at EXCH10-MBX-02.home.ku.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
>
> The late Steve Schneider wrote a book entitled "Science as a Contact Sport." Part of a blurb I found on it: "Science as a Contact Sport is Stephen Schneider?s first-hand account of a scientific odyssey, navigating in both the turbulent waters of the world?s power structures and the arcane theatre of academic debaters. From the initial stages of understanding the science of human-induced climate change to predicting the consequences of our actions 10, 50 and even 250 years out, Dr. Schneider has been there to experience it all. Few people know more about the struggles and knockdown, drag-out fights that have taken place behind the scenes and the people who try to repair the damage as .." I heard him speak -- and it reminded me is that we are not all so gifted. (He died shortly afterwards.)
>
> Randy Olson is another who has been beating that drum. He spoke at this year's SICB meeting: "Storytelling Skills: Now mandatory for a career in science" -- see http://thebenshi.com/?p=4865.
>
> Some of us can do it, some of us who can choose not to do it, some of us cannot do it -- and all of us have other skills. So saying we need to be able to get into the fight is not new; how we do so and who does so are real issues.
>
>
> Daphne G. Fautin
> Professor, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
> Curator, Natural History Museum (Biodiversity Institute)
> University of Kansas
> 1200 Sunnyside Avenue
> Lawrence, Kansas 66045 USA
>
> telephone 1-785-864-3062
> fax 1-785-864-5321
> skype user name daphne.fautin
> evo user name fautin
> website: invertebratezoology.biodiversity.ku.edu/home
> cv: www.nhm.ku.edu/inverts/daphne.html
>
> database of hexacorals, including sea anemones
> newest version released 2 January 2013
> hercules.kgs.ku.edu/Hexacoral/Anemone2/index.cfm
>
> ________________________________________
> From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov [coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml..noaa.gov] on behalf of Nicole Crane [nicrane at cabrillo.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 9:18 AM
> To: Michael Risk; Douglas Fenner
> Cc: Eugene Shinn; coral list
> Subject: Re: [Coral-List] political arguments on coral-list
>
> The bigger problem really lies in the fact that we are indeed losing the
> battles, and likely the war, for the simple reason that we are not
> trained to fight (so to speak). If you are waging a battle (to carry on
> the analogy here), you need soldiers. I think this is partly due to the
> kind of people who are attracted to the field of science. In this
> battle, it seems that in your face, loud, repeated "yelling", along with
> getting ourselves on many talk shows and in political arenas is what is
> needed. Not sure about you all, but few of 'us' seem the type for
> this. It might be time to address this in our academic (teaching)
> environment. Perhaps our curriculum needs some direct aspects of the
> political (and environmental) battle that is very real. Not that we
> should push an ideology, but that we should push the importance of
> educating the public about the facts, and nudging them to action.
>
> Back to the discussion here - I guess I do value some political
> discussion, since it is so very central to many of our work. True - an
> ideological battle is not useful though.
>
> Nicole
>
>> On 5/20/14, 6:32 AM, Michael Risk wrote:
>> Hello Doug.
>>
>> This is a slope of incredible slipperiness. I think I see where you are going here-you would like this forum to be restricted to discussion of coral reefs. This is all good and proper.
>>
>> On the other hand, it is incumbent on all of us to recognize that globally, coral reefs are perhaps 50 years from extinction. It is therefore important to consider all of the factors impinging upon this, many of which are political.
>>
>> I see Gene telling us that scientific results are often not as objective as we would like to believe, but are coloured by the preconceptions of the operator. This is quite true, and something that our social science friends have been trying to tell us for a generation. I see Gene urging us to keep an open mind and read the peer-reviewed sections of the NIPCC report. Nothing wrong there.
>>
>> The larger concern here is not the stifling of annoying people (not that Gene could ever be annoying), but the realization that we scientists have lost most of the battles and are in danger of losing the war.
>>
>> Mike
>>> On May 19, 2014, at 5:42 PM, Douglas Fenner <douglasfennertassi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Coral-listers,
>>>
>>> Below you can read two recent postings by Gene Shinn. The most recent
>>> talks more about ideology and religion than about the climate change
>>> argument. The previous one appears to be completely about politics, I
>>> couldn't find a mention of coral reefs.
>>> If I think Gene is spreading things that aren't true, I think it is
>>> incumbent on someone to respond to his assertions, or else he gets to
>>> spread things that appear to be untrue, unchallenged. (Same goes for me,
>>> by the way) If no one else will respond, I feel I must. Gene has a
>>> history of posts on geology of coral reefs or other aspects of reefs, and
>>> posts that argue about climate change and politics. I appreciate his
>>> geology and reef posts, I learn from them, I thank Gene for them. I think
>>> they are totally appropriate for coral-list.
>>>
>>> The question is, do coral-listers want to see lots of messages
>>> arguing about politics?
>>>
>>> What do people think, is coral-list the best place to argue over
>>> Gene's political views? Or would "coral reef free-for-all" be better, or
>>> perhaps a political discussion list-serve? Are we here to argue politics
>>> or discuss coral reefs?
>>>
>>> What do people think?
>>>
>>>
>>> Gene wrote:
>>>
>>> "Steve, Have you ever met a scientist that did not have an ideology? In
>>> my experience with thousands of scientists both industry, government,
>>> and academia, I can't recall any who did not have an ideology of one
>>> sort or another be they Christians, Moslems, Buddists, Hindu, atheist,
>>> etc. A scientist can always claim his or her results are statistical
>>> correct and pure but remember the scientist still decides what subject
>>> to work on in the first place. It can work both ways. We both pretty
>>> much know where most coral reef scientists heads are. I would not expect
>>> them to read the
>>> NIPCC report even thou it has a large coral reef section based on peer
>>> reviewed literature. You can find that in chapter 6
>>> http://climatechangereconsidered.org/ The reader should be remindned
>>> that all the media buzz about the IPCC report is based on the Summary
>>> for Policy Makers which was not written by the scientists who wrote the
>>> IPCC report. Gene"
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>> No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS)
>>> ------------------------------------ -----------------------------------
>>> E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor
>>> University of South Florida
>>> College of Marine Science Room 221A
>>> 140 Seventh Avenue South
>>> St. Petersburg, FL 33701
>>> <eugeneshinn at mail.usf.edu>
>>> Tel 727 553-1158
>>> ---------------------------------- -----------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> "Richard asked why I had not addressed several posting. Well, one has to
>>> wonder if these rants gets us anywhere? I am reminded of the following
>>> lines I pirated from a recent blog. " The crisis we face is not one of
>>> politics in just one sphere, that of government. Even more sinister
>>> politics have long been afoot in the scientific sphere from whence this
>>> whole knowing of the matter of anthropogenic carbon sprang. The world of
>>> science is a most unpleasant guild-like, politically active, and
>>> aggressive world. It has its warring sides and those sides have
>>> territories they claim and fiercely defend." This rang a bell because I
>>> have seen many hypotheses come and go. By the time one is gone few even
>>> remember it.
>>> Back to one of the postings which asked, Is the Pew foundation any
>>> different than the Heritige foundation? Of course its like night and
>>> day. One is left wing and the other on the right. Both have lots of
>>> money. You believe what you want to believe. Its like comparing Mother
>>> Jones magazine to the Wall Street Journal. Take your pick. I have come
>>> to believe there really are two kinds of people and it is not simply
>>> Male and Female. We are wired differently from birth and yes it helps to
>>> follow the money. Education seldom changes the wiring.
>>> Regardless of what one might feel about Craig Idso people should
>>> evaluate the papers he cited in the Heritage website I posted and stop
>>> the ad hominem/kill the messenger attacks. Those were peer reviewed
>>> papers. IPCC papers are peer reviewed (mainly by each other). An IPCC
>>> member writer would not send his coral reef paper to Idso for review and
>>> visa versa. The lines have been drawn. Gene"
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS)
>>> ------------------------------------ -----------------------------------
>>> E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor
>>> University of South Florida
>>> College of Marine Science Room 221A
>>> 140 Seventh Avenue South
>>> St. Petersburg, FL 33701
>>> <eugeneshinn at mail.usf.edu>
>>> Tel 727 553-1158
>>> ---------------------------------- -----------------------------------
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>> Douglas Fenner
>>> Contractor with Ocean Associates, Inc.
>>> PO Box 7390
>>> Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA
>>>
>>> phone 1 684 622-7084
>>> website: http://independent.academia.edu/DouglasFenner
>>> Blog:
>>> http://cctus.org/conservation-science/2014-expedition-scholar/2014-expedition-scholar-douglas-fenner-ph-d/2014-expedition-scholar-blog/
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Coral-List mailing list
>>> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
>>> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>> Michael Risk
>> riskmj at mcmaster.ca
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Coral-List mailing list
>> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
>> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>
> --
> Nicole L. Crane
> Cabrillo College
> Division of Natural and Applied Sciences
> 831-479-5094
> nicrane at cabrillo.edu
> www.cabrillo.edu/~ncrane
>
> Oceanic Society
> Senior Conservation Scientist
> www.oceanicsociety.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 16:33:18 -0400
> From: Eugene Shinn <eugeneshinn at mail.usf.edu>
> Subject: [Coral-List] political arguments on coral-list
> To: "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov" <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
> Message-ID: <537BBC0E.9070602 at mail.usf.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Thank you Chris and Daphne. Yes it is a contact sport but one we have
> all created. I well remember when the coral-list began. It was for
> scientists trading technical information...then it began to change and
> it started to bother some that so much space was used advertising reef
> management jobs and the like. When climate and acidification became an
> issue things became even more political and complicated. I might mention
> here that global warming came after the 1970s when Steve Schneider was
> predicting we were headed into another ice age. The problem I constantly
> worry about is that NOAA, which claims to be a
> technical/science-oriented agency, sponsors the coral-list. At the same
> time the Coral reef Sanctuaries are part of NOAA and they are mainly
> about management/enforcement. Both are under the dept. of Commerce so
> that adds another level of restraints and unintended consequences. What
> if science uncovers a problem, for example that aerial spraying of
> mosquito pesticides is harming the reef, would that activity is made
> illegal? Not likely because it would drastically affect the
> Economy/Commerce of the Florida Keys. Another example would be
> sunscreen, which some published research suggest causes coral bleaching.
> (The stuff is banned in Mexican coral reef parks) If NOAA/dept. of
> Commerce banned sunscreen in the Keys might they be accused of promoting
> more skin cancers? The tourism/economy would certainly be affected. We
> can't have that. There are many such examples because the economy of the
> keys is greatly dependent on natural resources such as the
> fishing/lobster industry. Again the same political problem! The
> Sanctuary controls those activities by enforcing rules set up by another
> NOAA agency, National Marine Fisheries. And right next door is
> Everglades National Park, which is the dept. of Interior with a very
> different philosophy. Mosquito spraying is not allowed on their property
> and they have their own fishery rules/regulations and enforcement
> officers. And lets not forget Fish and Wildlife Service, yet another
> part of the dept. of Interior. And of course there are the State Parks
> such as Pennekamp. See what a convoluted political situation we have! We
> just do it to ourselves. Does anyone really expect all these diverse
> parts of government to operate seamlessly especially at their
> headquarters back in Washington DC where each is constantly trying to
> increase its funding and influence? It's clear we can't take politics
> out of coral reef science and research. A friend of mine used to say the
> definition of mixed emotions is when your mother in law drives your new
> Cadillac over a cliff. We certainly seem to have created a lot of mixed
> emotions to deal with. Gene
>
> --
>
>
> No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS)
> ------------------------------------ -----------------------------------
> E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor
> University of South Florida
> College of Marine Science Room 221A
> 140 Seventh Avenue South
> St. Petersburg, FL 33701
> <eugeneshinn at mail.usf.edu>
> Tel 727 553-1158
> ---------------------------------- -----------------------------------
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 18:19:20 -0400
> From: Jim Hendee <jim.hendee at noaa.gov>
> Subject: Re: [Coral-List] political arguments on coral-list
> To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> Message-ID: <537BD4E8.7050905 at noaa.gov>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>> On 5/20/14, 4:33 PM, Eugene Shinn wrote:
>> The problem I constantly worry about is that NOAA, which claims to be a
>> technical/science-oriented agency, sponsors the coral-list. At the same
>> time the Coral reef Sanctuaries are part of NOAA and they are mainly
>> about management/enforcement. Both are under the dept. of Commerce so
>> that adds another level of restraints and unintended consequences.
> Just what are you getting at, Gene? NOAA IS a
> technical/science-oriented agency, which seeks to serve management, as
> well as you, the public, but what does this have to do (in your same
> sentence) with sponsoring Coral-List? You imply that because NOAA is
> under the Department of Commerce, that Coral-List is under some kind of
> restraint. Like, we shouldn't be sponsoring public discourse to improve
> coral conservation? Say what?
>
> As if you needed reminding, the rules specified at the Coral-List
> sign-up page only restrict bad (or inappropriate) behavior and lobbing
> Congress, mostly, We, the administrators, try very hard to allow
> contrasting viewpoint and dissent, and also TRY to keep things in line
> with coral reef conservation. I challenge you to show an instance in
> which a post of yours (or anybody else) has been squelched because it
> goes against some political belief or viewpoint (unless of course, it
> strays significantly from the purpose of the list). I mean, some might
> say that professing that most of coral reefs' ills can be traced to
> African dust is a bit odd, but we let that one out of the bag, too.
>
> Yours,
> Jim
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 19:03:22 -0400
> From: Billy Causey - NOAA Federal <billy.causey at noaa.gov>
> Subject: Re: [Coral-List] political arguments on coral-list
> To: Eugene Shinn <eugeneshinn at mail.usf.edu>
> Cc: "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov" <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
> Message-ID: <-4571267496318409294 at unknownmsgid>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Gene,
> Please don 't pretend you know what Sanctuary management is about.
> You are way off the mark and have no idea of the complexity in
> managing 2900 sq nautical miles (9800 sq k) of some of the nation 's
> most significant and heavily- used marine resources with about 28
> different jurisdictions.
>
> The solutions and answers are no where close to as simple as you imply.
>
> When is sailing off into the sunset on your agenda?
> Billy
>
>
>
> Billy D. Causey, Ph.D.
> Southeast Regional Director
> NOAA's Office of National Marine Sanctuaries
>
> 33 East Quay Road
> Key West, Florida 33040
>
> Phone:
> 305 809 4670 office
> 305 395 0150 mobile
> 305 293 5011 fax
>
> Email:
> billy.causey at noaa.gov
>
>
>> On May 20, 2014, at 6:02 PM, Eugene Shinn <eugeneshinn at mail.usf.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you Chris and Daphne. Yes it is a contact sport but one we have
>> all created. I well remember when the coral-list began. It was for
>> scientists trading technical information...then it began to change and
>> it started to bother some that so much space was used advertising reef
>> management jobs and the like. When climate and acidification became an
>> issue things became even more political and complicated. I might mention
>> here that global warming came after the 1970s when Steve Schneider was
>> predicting we were headed into another ice age. The problem I constantly
>> worry about is that NOAA, which claims to be a
>> technical/science-oriented agency, sponsors the coral-list. At the same
>> time the Coral reef Sanctuaries are part of NOAA and they are mainly
>> about management/enforcement. Both are under the dept. of Commerce so
>> that adds another level of restraints and unintended consequences. What
>> if science uncovers a problem, for example that aerial spraying of
>> mosquito pesticides is harming the reef, would that activity is made
>> illegal? Not likely because it would drastically affect the
>> Economy/Commerce of the Florida Keys. Another example would be
>> sunscreen, which some published research suggest causes coral bleaching.
>> (The stuff is banned in Mexican coral reef parks) If NOAA/dept. of
>> Commerce banned sunscreen in the Keys might they be accused of promoting
>> more skin cancers? The tourism/economy would certainly be affected. We
>> can't have that. There are many such examples because the economy of the
>> keys is greatly dependent on natural resources such as the
>> fishing/lobster industry. Again the same political problem! The
>> Sanctuary controls those activities by enforcing rules set up by another
>> NOAA agency, National Marine Fisheries. And right next door is
>> Everglades National Park, which is the dept. of Interior with a very
>> different philosophy. Mosquito spraying is not allowed on their property
>> and they have their own fishery rules/regulations and enforcement
>> officers. And lets not forget Fish and Wildlife Service, yet another
>> part of the dept. of Interior. And of course there are the State Parks
>> such as Pennekamp. See what a convoluted political situation we have! We
>> just do it to ourselves. Does anyone really expect all these diverse
>> parts of government to operate seamlessly especially at their
>> headquarters back in Washington DC where each is constantly trying to
>> increase its funding and influence? It's clear we can't take politics
>> out of coral reef science and research. A friend of mine used to say the
>> definition of mixed emotions is when your mother in law drives your new
>> Cadillac over a cliff. We certainly seem to have created a lot of mixed
>> emotions to deal with. Gene
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS)
>> ------------------------------------ -----------------------------------
>> E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor
>> University of South Florida
>> College of Marine Science Room 221A
>> 140 Seventh Avenue South
>> St. Petersburg, FL 33701
>> <eugeneshinn at mail.usf.edu>
>> Tel 727 553-1158
>> ---------------------------------- -----------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Coral-List mailing list
>> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
>> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 20:53:59 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
> From: Steve Mussman <sealab at earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [Coral-List] political arguments on coral-list
> To: Eugene Shinn <eugeneshinn at mail.usf.edu>,
> "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov" <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
> Message-ID:
> <7102135.1400633639429.JavaMail.root at elwamui-huard.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
>
> Sorry Gene, but NOAA, government bureaucracy and Stephen Schneider's
> short-lived and candidly retracted warnings pertaining to a potential global
> ice age are not the real problem. Increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 and
> ocean acidification are. As Walter Goldberg clearly pointed out, the
> reports and sources you insist on citing are more sophistry
> than science. That is a fact that anyone participating in
> this particular contact sport needs to be made aware of before they try to
> pass them off as credible and valid. By the way, I really like my mother in
> law, but if Craig Idso drove my new Prius over a cliff, well then . . .
> I might have mixed emotions. Steve
> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Eugene Shinn
>> Sent: May 20, 2014 4:33 PM
>> To: "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov"
>> Subject: [Coral-List] political arguments on coral-list
>>
>> Thank you Chris and Daphne. Yes it is a contact sport but one we have
>> all created. I well remember when the coral-list began. It was for
>> scientists trading technical information...then it began to change and
>> it started to bother some that so much space was used advertising reef
>> management jobs and the like. When climate and acidification became an
>> issue things became even more political and complicated. I might mention
>> here that global warming came after the 1970s when Steve Schneider was
>> predicting we were headed into another ice age. The problem I constantly
>> worry about is that NOAA, which claims to be a
>> technical/science-oriented agency, sponsors the coral-list. At the same
>> time the Coral reef Sanctuaries are part of NOAA and they are mainly
>> about management/enforcement. Both are under the dept. of Commerce so
>> that adds another level of restraints and unintended consequences. What
>> if science uncovers a problem, for example that aerial spraying of
>> mosquito pesticides is harming the reef, would that activity is made
>> illegal? Not likely because it would drastically affect the
>> Economy/Commerce of the Florida Keys. Another example would be
>> sunscreen, which some published research suggest causes coral bleaching.
>> (The stuff is banned in Mexican coral reef parks) If NOAA/dept. of
>> Commerce banned sunscreen in the Keys might they be accused of promoting
>> more skin cancers? The tourism/economy would certainly be affected. We
>> can't have that. There are many such examples because the economy of the
>> keys is greatly dependent on natural resources such as the
>> fishing/lobster industry. Again the same political problem! The
>> Sanctuary controls those activities by enforcing rules set up by another
>> NOAA agency, National Marine Fisheries. And right next door is
>> Everglades National Park, which is the dept. of Interior with a very
>> different philosophy. Mosquito spraying is not allowed on their property
>> and they have their own fishery rules/regulations and enforcement
>> officers. And lets not forget Fish and Wildlife Service, yet another
>> part of the dept. of Interior. And of course there are the State Parks
>> such as Pennekamp. See what a convoluted political situation we have! We
>> just do it to ourselves. Does anyone really expect all these diverse
>> parts of government to operate seamlessly especially at their
>> headquarters back in Washington DC where each is constantly trying to
>> increase its funding and influence? It's clear we can't take politics
>> out of coral reef science and research. A friend of mine used to say the
>> definition of mixed emotions is when your mother in law drives your new
>> Cadillac over a cliff. We certainly seem to have created a lot of mixed
>> emotions to deal with. Gene
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS)
>> ------------------------------------ -----------------------------------
>> E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor
>> University of South Florida
>> College of Marine Science Room 221A
>> 140 Seventh Avenue South
>> St. Petersburg, FL 33701
>>
>> Tel 727 553-1158
>> ---------------------------------- -----------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Coral-List mailing list
>> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
>> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 09:30:26 -0400
> From: Richard Plate <richarp33 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Coral-List] political arguments on coral-list
> To: Dennis Hubbard <dennis.hubbard at oberlin.edu>
> Cc: Eugene Shinn <eugeneshinn at mail.usf.edu>, coral list
> <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
> Message-ID:
> <CAEELCHrXf9K3ZApX3TryS-7UnFcnOGVJVO0HY+xyM1dHxugGxw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> As a social scientist, I subscribe to this list as one tool to help me stay
> abreast of scientific discussions about corals. Much of my work is at the
> intersection of politics and science, and I agree with Gene, Dennis, and
> others that it can be an awfully fuzzy line.
>
> So, I agree that some political discussion is expected and appropriate.
>
> That said, I am a little surprised by the general lack of response to
> postings of the unsound scientific reports and the all-science-is-political
> comments. Steve Mussman refers to it more eloquently as the "reticence and
> quietude" of the list regarding these posts.
>
> If you are concerned about the failure of scientists to convince a
> significant portion of society (including many US policy makers) that
> climate change is a vitally important issue, then I suggest that this
> reticence and quietude is part of the problem, and I encourage those
> scientists who have the necessary expertise not to be reticent or quiet
> when it comes to reports like the NIPCC.
>
> Dennis Hubbard describes that report as incredibly valuable because
> the "bibliography
> of mis-used papers was still a collection of great sources, many of which I
> had not seen before." I think that's a healthy attitude to take and I
> agree the report has value as an educational tool for identifying faulty
> logic and bad science. This type of assessment, preferably in as direct
> response to the postings of report involving bad science, ie important to
> distinguish the NIPCC report from papers that are not mis-using sources.
> Dennis provides some great detail in his posting about where specifically
> the NIPCC report runs off the rails.
>
> Failure to identify the NIPCC report (or others like it, usually by the
> same set of authors) as bad science (i.e. science that mis-uses credible
> sources in order to support conclusions used to justify complacency
> regarding our policy response to climate change) suggests tacit approval by
> the thousands (I'm guessing at the number) of scientists on this list.
>
> I realize that this list is not designed as an outreach tool and that
> scientists have other demands on their time that preclude responding to
> every report or posting that's using cherry-picked data to conclude climate
> change is not an important issue. But I hope you will begin to view
> calling out the faulty logic in such reports as an important part of
> increasing the impact that science has on policy.
>
> Sincerely,
> -Richard Plate
>
>
> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Dennis Hubbard <dennis.hubbard at oberlin.edu
>> wrote:
>
>> Doug, Steve and others:
>>
>> I apologize for a long post. However, If I add up all the short, bulleted
>> submissions I've read on this one topic I'd challenge an encyclopedia
>> volume.
>>
>> I have to admit that I found Steve's most recent post a bit troubling.
>> First, I'm not sure that Gene was holding the authors of the
>> IPCC-look-alike up as saints, but rather was pointing out that science (and
>> scientists) is not the totally objective and apolitical affair that we'd
>> all like to believe. I had decided to be uncharacteristically quiet until
>> Doug's most recent post. I very carefully looked over the two posts by
>> Gene and frankly find nothing that particularly worries me. Steve argues
>> that scientists "don't seem to be particularly inclined to group think" and
>> Doug obviously feels that politics and science do not mix - at least they
>> shouldn't on this list-serve... and asks for opinions. So, here is mine.
>>
>> Let me start with a couple of stories (sorry, I was born in Maine and rocks
>> tell stories, so it's in my DNA). Not too many years ago, a colleague
>> published a carefully researched and written paper that compared isotopic
>> measurements from opposire calical walls. Along one wall, the traditional
>> drilling method was used for sampling. Along the other, the wall was
>> manually scraped away using a dental pick until a small spire of aragonite
>> was left for sampling. Which side was which was determined by a coin toss.
>> In 19 out of 19 pairs, the one sampled by micro-drill showed an isotopic
>> shift consistent with both heating and pressure from the drill; these
>> shifts rivaled the temperature shifts we have been arguing about for years.
>> Also, back-scatter showed neomorphism to calcite. The alpha value was 0.01
>> (i.e., at medical levels of confidence). The manuscript was submitted to
>> Science and was declared "not newsworthy" (i.e., it never even went out for
>> technical review). Consider this sa "conspiracy theory" if you wish, but I
>> can just see all those paleo-climate folks seeing the gravy train pulling
>> out of the station if their main tool was questioned in Science (just for
>> the record, I am a huge believer in climate change and a fan of isotope
>> geochemistry"). Anyway, the paper ended up in Geology and predictably was
>> repudiated by an "unbiased" researcher who used this particular isotope
>> widely. Arguments ranged from "the sample size is too small" (if I remember
>> my stats correctly, sample size is built into that confidence level) to
>> "maybe, but not in my lab". The published retort was simple, "if you walked
>> into a casino in Vegas and rolled craps 19 straight times, would you ask
>> for a new set of dice?"
>>
>> Going back further, when Wegner proposed what eventually became plate
>> tectonics in the 20s, he was basically laughed off the continent. The
>> "skeptics" were not some band of right-wing non-believers, but the
>> mainstream scientific community. Then, in the 60s it started to gain
>> traction. There were still skeptics, but because the scientific community
>> was increasingly buying into "continental drift", albeit with
>> miogeosynclines and the like, the skeptics were now portrayed as gnomes
>> turning big wheels in the center of a hollow earth. Yes, the data were
>> better, but the idea essentially gained traction because the scientific
>> community was ready to accept it. My point here is simply that skepticism
>> is not limited to non-believing right-wingers; it is the basic underpinning
>> of the scientific method. At the same time, "objective scientists" let what
>> we want to see get in the way of objectively collecting, analyzing and
>> interpreting the data - in effect, the strategy behind the report that
>> started all of this.
>>
>> So, on to that NIPCC report. I read Gene's comments to argue that, whether
>> we believe in the overall conclusions (and I don't), don't just toss it in
>> the trash (and I didn't). The report reflects a typical and transparent
>> strategy.... take legitimate scientific articles and package them together
>> in a way that casts doubt.... "so, you think corals just bleach from
>> warming - they have done so due to cold as well." The stated message is
>> that it's not just "global warming". The irony is that they are right;
>> that's why we now use "climate change" to reflect the inherent instability
>> associated with net warning. They also argue that solar insolation is the
>> main driver of climate change.... and again, they are absolutely correct..
>> Of all the possible drivers, solar insolation is the gorilla in the room..
>>
>> However, what they ignore is that, as insolation stabilizes near the tops
>> an bottoms of the SL curve, things like GHGs come to the fore, even without
>> the insane contributions we are presently making via emissions. The report
>> does not cite the reality that insolation has been either flat or
>> declineing recently - it's a problem for their argument. So.... the
>> skeptics are absolutely correct about the longer-term solar forcing, we've
>> spent a lot of time proving that since Milankovitch's initial calculations.
>> However, they conveniently leave out recent trends - that's the strategy..
>>
>> Nevertheless, both a scientist and an educator, I find the report very
>> useful. First, despite all of its considerable warts, the NIPCC report is
>> better sourced and written than many papers I am asked to review for
>> publication. Arguments are made about differential reef damage based on
>> hurricanes spinning the wrong way. The reply to my review comes back that
>> I, and not the author, do not understand atmospheric dynamics. When I
>> provide a basic paper for the author to read, the response is, "well, maybe
>> you're right, but that doesn't matter".
>>
>> To put this into context, read Gene's autobiography. In a manuscript that
>> won "paper of the year" he argued for submarine cementation. Despite the
>> award, the paper was widely criticized - not by wacko left-wing skeptics
>> but by the mainstream and "objective" scientific community - it just
>> couldn't be so. Now, marine cement is paradigm and if one were to question
>> it, would be labeled as extremist. I'm not sure whether it was this
>> incident or one of the several others where Gene's whacky ideas came to be
>> true, but he describes the "three stages of discovery": 1) you can't be
>> right and I can prove it" 2) "well maybe, but not in my area", and 3)
>> "heck, we knew that all along, so what's the big news there?" (sorry if
>> these aren't verbatim quotes, Gene). Way back when I was a new, out-of-the
>> box scientist, we wrote a paper that challenged traditional views of reef
>> building. As was the case with Gen'e publication, it received a "paper of
>> the year" award but was widely challenged and pretty unpopular. People
>> argued that we didn't have enough cores.... then that we were drilling in
>> the wrong places... then that "maybe it works where you cored, but not in
>> most places." Then, one day, a colleague sent me an email from the Bathurst
>> Conference. It contained an abstract that started with, "Building on the
>> long-accepted concept that most Holocene reefs contain as much sediment as
>> coral...." Voila, the idea that Holocene reefs are trash piles had reached
>> stage 3.
>>
>> So, what do we do? We can declare that the scientific method makes us
>> impervious to huge leaps of "faith". We can also argue that dealing with
>> things like the NIPCC report is a waste of time. I disagree on all points
>> and read Gene's posts as making that same argument. For me, this report is
>> an incredibly valuable document. The bibliography of mis-used papers was
>> still a collection of great sources, many of which I had not seen before..
>> Also, I ask my students to look at the arguments and to counter them. I
>> don't want them growing up as citizen scientists who simply brand reports
>> like this as right-wing propaganda and feel that by refusing to read them
>> they are in a position of superiority.
>>
>> It has been an eye-opening and incredibly useful exercise to ask them to
>> critically review the argument made in the report, find possible faults and
>> make up their own minds. Many of them find it difficult to argue against
>> the findings based on what they actually know (remember that while they are
>> some of the most talented undergraduates in the country, that is often a
>> lot less than they think they know) and this sends them an important
>> message - *you have dismissed this report out of hand, but do not
>> understand the science well enough to actually tell me why they are wrong.
>> So... all you are left with is a belief structure*. We probably "know" more
>> than they do, but are not impervious to the syndrome. I again think that
>> this is imbedded in Gene's posts and argues that if we are going to to just
>> dismiss the report and replace it with our opinions, we are going to
>> continue to get our collective butts kicked in debates, be they over
>> climate change or evolution.
>>
>> Insert your favorite political ideology here and we come (finally) to my
>> answer to Doug's survey question. Science today is all about politics and
>> ideology. We can all sit in a room and poke fun at right-wing skeptics -
>> and we will have no impact. This also goes for the populist stage.
>>
>> So, I have commented on Gene's assertions. I don't totally agree, but I
>> don't see oil company money an cronies lurking in the background either.
>> These come from a healthy skepticism of a talented scientist who has been
>> dismissed too many times for what eventually became our dogma. And,
>> remember that, more often that not, his skeptics have been the folks who
>> write all those objective scientific papers. Are we here to argue politics
>> or discuss coral reefs? My answer is either "both" or "how are they
>> separate".
>>
>> Dennis (the other geologic curmudgeon)
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Douglas Fenner <
>> douglasfennertassi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Coral-listers,
>>>
>>> Below you can read two recent postings by Gene Shinn. The most
>> recent
>>> talks more about ideology and religion than about the climate change
>>> argument. The previous one appears to be completely about politics, I
>>> couldn't find a mention of coral reefs.
>>> If I think Gene is spreading things that aren't true, I think it is
>>> incumbent on someone to respond to his assertions, or else he gets to
>>> spread things that appear to be untrue, unchallenged. (Same goes for me,
>>> by the way) If no one else will respond, I feel I must. Gene has a
>>> history of posts on geology of coral reefs or other aspects of reefs, and
>>> posts that argue about climate change and politics. I appreciate his
>>> geology and reef posts, I learn from them, I thank Gene for them. I
>> think
>>> they are totally appropriate for coral-list.
>>>
>>> The question is, do coral-listers want to see lots of messages
>>> arguing about politics?
>>>
>>> What do people think, is coral-list the best place to argue over
>>> Gene's political views? Or would "coral reef free-for-all" be better, or
>>> perhaps a political discussion list-serve? Are we here to argue politics
>>> or discuss coral reefs?
>>>
>>> What do people think?
>>>
>>>
>>> Gene wrote:
>>>
>>> "Steve, Have you ever met a scientist that did not have an ideology? In
>>> my experience with thousands of scientists both industry, government,
>>> and academia, I can't recall any who did not have an ideology of one
>>> sort or another be they Christians, Moslems, Buddists, Hindu, atheist,
>>> etc. A scientist can always claim his or her results are statistical
>>> correct and pure but remember the scientist still decides what subject
>>> to work on in the first place. It can work both ways. We both pretty
>>> much know where most coral reef scientists heads are. I would not expect
>>> them to read the
>>> NIPCC report even thou it has a large coral reef section based on peer
>>> reviewed literature. You can find that in chapter 6
>>> http://climatechangereconsidered.org/ The reader should be remindned
>>> that all the media buzz about the IPCC report is based on the Summary
>>> for Policy Makers which was not written by the scientists who wrote the
>>> IPCC report. Gene"
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>> No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS)
>>> ------------------------------------ -----------------------------------
>>> E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor
>>> University of South Florida
>>> College of Marine Science Room 221A
>>> 140 Seventh Avenue South
>>> St. Petersburg, FL 33701
>>> <eugeneshinn at mail.usf.edu>
>>> Tel 727 553-1158
>>> ---------------------------------- -----------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> "Richard asked why I had not addressed several posting. Well, one has to
>>> wonder if these rants gets us anywhere? I am reminded of the following
>>> lines I pirated from a recent blog. " The crisis we face is not one of
>>> politics in just one sphere, that of government. Even more sinister
>>> politics have long been afoot in the scientific sphere from whence this
>>> whole knowing of the matter of anthropogenic carbon sprang. The world of
>>> science is a most unpleasant guild-like, politically active, and
>>> aggressive world. It has its warring sides and those sides have
>>> territories they claim and fiercely defend." This rang a bell because I
>>> have seen many hypotheses come and go. By the time one is gone few even
>>> remember it.
>>> Back to one of the postings which asked, Is the Pew foundation any
>>> different than the Heritige foundation? Of course its like night and
>>> day. One is left wing and the other on the right. Both have lots of
>>> money. You believe what you want to believe. Its like comparing Mother
>>> Jones magazine to the Wall Street Journal. Take your pick. I have come
>>> to believe there really are two kinds of people and it is not simply
>>> Male and Female. We are wired differently from birth and yes it helps to
>>> follow the money. Education seldom changes the wiring.
>>> Regardless of what one might feel about Craig Idso people should
>>> evaluate the papers he cited in the Heritage website I posted and stop
>>> the ad hominem/kill the messenger attacks. Those were peer reviewed
>>> papers. IPCC papers are peer reviewed (mainly by each other). An IPCC
>>> member writer would not send his coral reef paper to Idso for review and
>>> visa versa. The lines have been drawn. Gene"
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS)
>>> ------------------------------------ -----------------------------------
>>> E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor
>>> University of South Florida
>>> College of Marine Science Room 221A
>>> 140 Seventh Avenue South
>>> St. Petersburg, FL 33701
>>> <eugeneshinn at mail.usf.edu>
>>> Tel 727 553-1158
>>> ---------------------------------- -----------------------------------
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>> Douglas Fenner
>>> Contractor with Ocean Associates, Inc.
>>> PO Box 7390
>>> Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA
>>>
>>> phone 1 684 622-7084
>>> website: http://independent.academia.edu/DouglasFenner
>>> Blog:
>> http://cctus.org/conservation-science/2014-expedition-scholar/2014-expedition-scholar-douglas-fenner-ph-d/2014-expedition-scholar-blog/
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Coral-List mailing list
>>> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
>>> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dennis Hubbard
>> Chair, Dept of Geology-Oberlin College Oberlin OH 44074
>> (440) 775-8346
>>
>> * "When you get on the wrong train.... every stop is the wrong stop"*
>> Benjamin Stein: "*Ludes, A Ballad of the Drug and the Dream*"
>> _______________________________________________
>> Coral-List mailing list
>> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
>> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>
> End of Coral-List Digest, Vol 69, Issue 17
> ******************************************
>
More information about the Coral-List
mailing list