date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 14:41:04 -0400 from: "Henri D. Grissino-Mayer" subject: Re: [ITRDBFOR] should we, as a discipline, respond to Climate Audit to: ITRDBFOR@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU Many of us on this forum make our living as academics, so we're required to write proposals, bring in grant money to our university, publish our findings in peer-reviewed outlets, and mentor the next generation of scientists. The reality is that delving into controversy and policy, for many of us, could wreak havoc on our careers. Early in my academic career, I had a habit of speaking my mind, and time and again found myself in a world of trouble. A *few* scientists can pull this off and continue to make the rounds testifying in front of the policy- and decision-makers, but the majority can not. Scientists (in my mind) must be objective, lest their beliefs start driving their research and their findings (Chamberlin's "pet hypotheses"). If I were to let my beliefs drive my science, then I have no doubt that my ability to succeed in grantsmanship and publication would be seriously curtailed. Just yesterday, I was talking with a reporter from Jacksonville who was certain my research on hurricanes supported the theory of global warming, and tried as such to get me to commit to his statement (be *very* careful talking to reporters). The reality is that my research on hurricanes neither supports nor refutes this theory, but in the future can be used to provide supporting evidence one way or another. Here's the kicker: the fact that my research doesn't currently support the theory of global warming will be interpreted as supporting the other side then. I strongly recommend objectivity, as does Huxley below... Henri At 12:53 PM 3/28/2007, you wrote: >This discussion brings to mind a quote from Huxley... > > >"Science . . . warns me to be careful how I adopt a view which jumps >with my preconceptions, and to require stronger evidence for such belief >than for one to which I was previously hostile. My business is to teach >my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts >harmonize with my aspirations". > - Thomas Huxley, 1860 > > >**************************************************************** >Dr. Timothy E. Lewis >Senior Ecologist >National Center for Environmental Assessment >Office of Research and Development >U.S. Environmental Protection Agency > >MAILING ADDRESS: COURIER ADDRESS: >Mail Drop B-243-01 4930 Page Road >RTP, NC 27711 RTP, NC 27703 > >PHYSICAL ADDRESS: 919.541.0673 >109 T.W. Alexander Dr. 919.541.1818 (FAX) >RTP, NC 27709 lewis.timothy@epa.gov >****************************************************************** > >"We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give." > > Winston Churchill, 1874 - >1965 > > > > Tommy Wils > .COM> To > Sent by: ITRDB ITRDBFOR@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU > Dendrochronology cc > Forum > RV.ARIZONA.EDU> Re: [ITRDBFOR] AW: [ITRDBFOR] > should we, as a discipline, > respond to Climate Audit > 03/28/2007 11:37 > AM > > > Please respond > to > ITRDB > Dendrochronology > Forum > RV.ARIZONA.EDU> > > > > > > >Some quotes: > >'he does not seem to play by the rules' >'dendro bible' >'authoritative backing' >'The job of a scientist is producing knowledge' > >Rules, bible, authority? This is the wrong rhetorics. If we claim that >established science (we) is the and the only access to knowledge or >truth, >we become quite arrogant or even tyrannical. About creationists: I don't >have any trouble with people believing that God created the world if >that >helps them facing their existential life questions (anyway I don't know >whether science can ever say more about metaphysics than that it doesn't >exist, based on the assumption that what cannot be perceived by the >senses >is not real). About climate change: the problem with people believing >that >it is a lie are dangerous if it turns out that we are right. Solution: >scientists talk about probabilities, not about truth or knowledge (read >some >postmodern philosophers). I think we have to 'teach' society that and >how to >deal with it - see my Ethiopia example. > >As science is not neutral but based on numerous assumptions, we cannot >just >stand aside as 'knowledge producers'. We are part of society, we have >the >duty to be humble, explain our assumptions and results in a realistic >and understandable >way and to put it into a broader context. > >"Hey, forest decline was a stupid lie, so climate change must be too." >What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural >fluctuation? They'll kill us probably... > >Back to McIntyre: what to do? Get away from the YES and NO camp, find >the >humble, middle road. There is a passage in the bible: if someone hits >you on >your cheek, turn him your other cheek... > >Tommy > > >On 3/28/07, David M. Lawrence wrote: > > > > The more I listen to scientists claim that their (our) job is to >report on > > science and avoid politics, the more I wonder about the historical > > validity > > of the alleged separation between science and politics. > > > > I'm starting to suspect that the alleged separation is purely a >fantasy > > from > > a historical point of view. Scientists have always been engaged in > > politics, sometimes for good (advocating vaccination campaigns against > > smallpox, for example) and sometimes for ill (arguing for the >improvement > > of > > the "white" race by eugenics), but scientists have had their >"meddling" > > fingers in politics for centuries, maybe millennia, without any >lasting > > ill > > effects on our current ability to investigate the workings of the >world or > > > > to influence the development of public policy today. > > > > Dave > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786 > > 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 > > Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: dave@fuzzo.com > > USA | http: http://fuzzo.com > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > > "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo > > > > "No trespassing > > 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ITRDB Dendrochronology Forum [mailto: >ITRDBFOR@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU] > > On > > Behalf Of Dr. Constantin Sander > > Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 6:55 AM > > To: ITRDBFOR@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU > > Subject: [ITRDBFOR] AW: [ITRDBFOR] should we, as a discipline, respond >to > > Climate Audit > > > > The job of a scientist is producing knowledge and reporting it. If >there > > is > > incidence for future developments, that could be harmful, it should >also > > be > > his/her job to point this out. But it is not the job of a scientist to >act > > on the a political scene, if he/she wants to keep its independence. It >is > > the job of politicians to draw conclusions from science. > > > > In Germany we had a big discussion about forest decline in the 1980s. >Some > > scientist warned that the forests would die within a few decades. This >was > > a > > pure guess, not based on any serious models. They discredited their > > subject > > this way and we now get the reply: "Hey, forest decline was a stupid >lie, > > so > > climate change must be too." > > > > Thus, we should rely on our scientific results, not on any political > > conclusions. > > > > My two cents. > > > > Best regards > > Constantin > > > > RINNTECH - Frank Rinn Distribution > > Bierhelderweg 20, D-69126 Heidelberg > > phone: +49-(0)6221-314 387, fax: +49-(0)6221-314 388 > > web: www.rinntech.com > > > > > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: ITRDB Dendrochronology Forum > > [mailto:ITRDBFOR@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU ]Im Auftrag von Tommy Wils > > Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. März 2007 18:40 > > An: ITRDBFOR@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU > > Betreff: Re: [ITRDBFOR] should we, as a discipline, respond to Climate > > Audit > > > > > > Dear forum, > > > > I think that we (as a discipline) are facing 2 problems: the ignoring > > (McIntyre c.s.) and the panicking (Guardian, etc.) sides. I think we >face > > the problem of uncertainty, which can be used by everybody in the way >they > > > > want. The balance from the perspective of our discipline is that there >is > > evidence that human-induced global warming is going on. However there >is > > more. > > > > - We cannot stop carbon emissions at once. We would induce a global >civil > > war far worse than global warming itself. > > - Reducing carbon emissions from just the climate change point of view >is > > living in a non-real world: there is more. Fossil fuels are getting > > scarcer > > and thus more expensive. If we do not start changing our energy regime > > NOW, > > we will run into economical problems from shortage of fuels next > > tosuspected global warming. > > - Replacing fossil fuels by agriculturally produced oils will endanger > > food > > security in the world, we have to search for real alternatives. > > - Cars driving on electricity will save the cities from pollution. > > - Politicians like Al Gore are abusing the fear for global warming to >get > > into power (while having a huge carbon footprint himself), as Bush >abused > > the fear for muslim terrorism to attack Iraq and Afghanistan. Fear is >far > > more dangerous than the fact itself! > > - American and European need for oil leads to imperialism and >subsequent > > resistence (terrorism as they call it). Changing this dependence is > > crucial > > for world peace. > > - Climate is a naturally varying system: what would we do if global > > warming > > was natural? It would be still as dangerous... > > - The UK raised taxes on flights, e.g. £20 of additional tax on a >flight > > to > > Australia, pure nonense. The only effect it has is that people are >being > > robbed by the government and hence the stability of the democracy is > > threatened. Nobody will cancel a £1200 flight for £20. > > - etc. etc. > > > > I think we have to try to get the balance, the nuance into the >discussion, > > even though it is not our specialism - the problem is that it is >nobody's > > specialism and so we live in a fragmented world flying from one >extreme to > > > > the other. If you reply to McIntyre in a scientific way you will only > > increase this fragmentation. For society, it is the bigger picture >that > > counts, not just what David said, but also the bigger bigger picture >of > > which I have given some examples. Statistically we simply cannot >defend > > global warming, therefore it is going on too short and it is too >complex, > > but if we wait we are too late. I think actually that the tendency of > > scientists to insist that global warming is real and dangerous to >convince > > stubborn governments is the primary cause of existence of such >radicals > > like > > McIntyre. We must admit our uncertainties, but also paint the bigger > > bigger > > picture. > > > > (It is like going on fieldwork to Ethiopia. You don't argue well the > > chances > > that I get yellow fever are relatively small, I don't do a >vaccination. > > But > > you also don't argue I am going to spend £10.000 on medical >preparations > > to > > protect yourself from everything. The chances that global warming is >real > > are high enough to act accordingly, but too low to panick and ruin the > > world > > from the causes of anti-global-warming measures) > > > > Tommy > > > > > > > > On 3/27/07, David M. Lawrence wrote: > > > > > > McIntyre's work is a conclusion in search of evidence to support it: > > > namely > > > that all the proxy evidence for warmer temperatures in recent >decades > > are > > > statistical artifacts. (From what I've seen, it seems the only >proxy > > > studies he is statistically satisfied with are those that don't show > > such > > > warming.) > > > > > > All of us know that once we embark upon ANY statistical work, we >accept > > > the > > > possibility of error. We try to control the sources and acknowledge >the > > > uncertainty in our work, and then get to work rather than wallow in > > > methodological angst. > > > > > > As with evolution, certain types of studies have limitations that in >any > > > > > individual study could prove problematic for the conclusions we draw > > from > > > it. But when many independent lines of evidence, employing many > > different > > > > > > types of data and methodologies, point toward the same conclusion, >it's > > > hard > > > to reach any but that specific conclusion. > > > > > > McIntyre ignores the convergence of evidence regarding the link >between > > > greenhouse gases and climate change. He by undermining individual > > studies > > > > > > while studiously ignoring the big picture that renders his >criticisms > > > moot. > > > > > > I don't know whether or not it is worth engaging him on ground of >his > > own > > > choosing. Remember what happened to Bonnie Prince Charlie at >Culloden? > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > P.S. for Rob: Don't ask me about the signalman strike! > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786 > > > 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 > > > Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: dave@fuzzo.com > > > USA | http: http://fuzzo.com > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo > > > > > > "No trespassing > > > 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: ITRDB Dendrochronology Forum [mailto: > > ITRDBFOR@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU] > > > On > > > Behalf Of Rob Wilson > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 7:39 AM > > > To: ITRDBFOR@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU > > > Subject: [ITRDBFOR] should we, as a discipline, respond to Climate >Audit > > > > > > Dear All, > > > I am not sure if you are aware of the Blog ClimateAudit by Steve > > McIntyre: > > > http://www.climateaudit.org/ > > > > > > Dendrochronology (mainly dendroclimatology) is often criticised as a > > > discipline for a variety of reasons. > > > > > > Against advice from many of my dendro friends/colleagues, I often >delve > > > into > > > this world to try and defend dendro practises and correct > > misinformation. > > > It > > > is a thankless task and, to be frank, I doubt I make much difference >as > > > many > > > of my criticisms of McIntyre get turned around and transformed into > > fairly > > > aggressive attacks on my own work. See latest posts from just this >past > > > week. > > > > > > So - should I (we) ignore this Blog? > > > > > > Personally, I cannot do this. Although some of the criticisms and > > > commentary > > > are valid, some of it is simply wrong and misinformed, and in my >mind, > > it > > > is > > > dangerous to let such things go. > > > > > > Some of the criticism comes simply from misinformed individuals who >may > > > not > > > have access to relevant basic literature and I was wondering if it >would > > > > > be > > > worth while putting a simple web page together with links to >relevant > > PDFs > > > > > > with regards to sampling strategies, data processing, calibration >and > > > verification methodologies etc. Some links to some case study >examples > > > might > > > also be a good idea, although that may lead to an 'audit' of these > > studies > > > > > > on the CA Blog. > > > > > > Overall, this is a matter of outreach. I believe that tree-rings are >one > > > > > of > > > the most powerful palaeo proxies available. However, we cannot allow >the > > > discipline to be muddied by a few 'loud' individuals who's motives >may > > be > > > suspect. > > > > > > comments and suggestions welcome > > > best regards > > > Rob > > > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Dr. Rob Wilson > > > School of GeoSciences, > > > Grant Institute, > > > Edinburgh University, > > > West Mains Road, > > > Edinburgh EH9 3JW, > > > Scotland, U.K. > > > Tel: +44 131 650 8524 > > > > > > Home Page: http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/people/person.html?indv=930 > > > > > > ".....I have wondered about trees. > > > > > > They are sensitive to light, to moisture, to wind, to pressure. > > > Sensitivity implies sensation. Might a man feel into the soul of a >tree > > > for these sensations? If a tree were capable of awareness, this >faculty > > > might prove useful. " > > > > > > "The Miracle Workers" by Jack Vance > > > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Tommy H.G . Wils M.Sc. > > > > Postgraduate Researcher and Demonstrator > > School of the Environment and Society, Department of Geography, >University > > of Wales Swansea > > Singleton Park, SWANSEA SA2 8PP, United Kingdom > > Telephone: +441792513065, Fax: +441792295955, E-mail: >tommywils@gmail.com > > > > > >-- >Tommy H.G. Wils M.Sc. > >Postgraduate Researcher and Demonstrator >School of the Environment and Society, Department of Geography, >University >of Wales Swansea >Singleton Park, SWANSEA SA2 8PP, United Kingdom >Telephone: +441792513065, Fax: +441792295955, E-mail: >tommywils@gmail.com Henri D. Grissino-Mayer Associate Professor of Geography Department of Geography 1000 Phillip Fulmer Way The University of Tennessee Knoxville, Tennessee 37996 865-974-6029 http://web.utk.edu/~grissino/