tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post955637121988884810..comments2023-09-28T08:13:11.489-07:00Comments on Only In It For The Gold: Are Invasive Species a Threat?Michael Tobishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-70925020985891986682010-11-16T03:16:55.283-08:002010-11-16T03:16:55.283-08:00I don't know how available it is to non-UK res...I don't know how available it is to non-UK residents, but episode 29 of this BBC R4 programme is on this exact subject:<br /><br />http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00rt8qqskankyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14584908320777937193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-91811401726417889252010-11-10T21:01:21.239-08:002010-11-10T21:01:21.239-08:00> deep answer
Once you get your hands dirty, i...> deep answer<br /><br />Once you get your hands dirty, it's the only kind.<br /><br />Buy the book:<br /><br />http://www.alibris.com/search/books/qwork/1862149/used/The%20Earth%20Manual%3A%20How%20to%20Work%20on%20Wild%20Land%20Without%20Taming%20It<br /><br />Then find some place -- an empty lot, an overgrown or barren parcel somewhere. Buy it. Start trying to figure out what it used to be like and what it wants to become. Hire some biology grad students to come and make you a flora and fauna list for the place, visiting it off and on for whatever time they have available. Call your local college and ask, someone will be interested. Once you have their short list you won't be overwhelmed by the huge species lists and keys.<br /><br />Then think, about MT's question. Think about what's trying to live there and what used to live there.<br /><br />Discourage what you want less of--or want to take longer to spread. Encourage or leave alone what you want more of. <br /><br />--> Rates of change <---<br /><br />Read the book.<br /><br />Everybody needs a hobby.Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-28856847171159455692010-11-10T20:44:53.598-08:002010-11-10T20:44:53.598-08:00Byron. Why SA was different? Because SA was even...Byron. Why SA was different? Because SA was even less suited to European style farming than the eastern states. And human stubbornness - we had that wonderful man Goyder who went out on a horse and worked out the crop carrying limitations of SA soils and rainfall. Need I point out that some people are still grumbling about not getting a good crop off land that was determined to be marginal more than 100 years ago. They still contest the "Goyder line".<br /><br />As for cattle. Remember in the days before refrigeration, all farms and settlements ran dairy cattle with varying success. Mainly because the land and rainfall were too poor to sustain year round pasture. Saved! by Salvation Jane.adeladyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02019930864931919369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-35881930829478847332010-11-10T19:53:54.946-08:002010-11-10T19:53:54.946-08:00For all those who think that the climate system is...For all those who think that the climate system is complex, try studying ecology for a while. It will blow your mind.<br /><br />Keystone species anyone?Rattus Norvegicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03449457204330125792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-930042035959850132010-11-10T07:53:18.491-08:002010-11-10T07:53:18.491-08:00"We do the opposition's recruiting for th..."We do the opposition's recruiting for them. They tell us this. Yet we keep doing it anyway."<br /><br />They tell us this out of the goodness of their hearts?<br /><br />This is where the comment thread veers definitively away from the original subject, so I should let it go. But in brief, only really nonserious people take positions because someone was mean to them on a comment thread somewhere. Ressentiment is important, yes, but it only works as long as there is focussed propaganda keeping these nonserious people stirred up. And, of course, suppression works -- you don't think of it as intellectual bullying when you explain the science to some clueless skeptic, but functionally, that's really what you're doing, and the potential for ressentiment is there just as much as if someone did the whole process more quickly with an insult.<br /><br />Even further off-thread, the way that industry keeps a coherent group of skeptics together isn't because we insult them, but because industry encourages them to create an alternate community. Look at the histories of prominent skeptics some day: it's all about them socializing to a greater and greater degree with people who reinforce the worldview.Rich Puchalskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13565210317964576866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-56103991557656752962010-11-09T21:02:58.526-08:002010-11-09T21:02:58.526-08:00I'm with Eli, Jeff H could probably summarise ...I'm with <a href="http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2010/11/are-invasive-species-threat.html?showComment=1289140415356#c7019582918352823126" rel="nofollow">Eli</a>, Jeff H could probably summarise the principles of invasive species and their effects on local ecology and drive holes in the article big enough to get a bus through, all in one post.<br /><br />It goes a lot further than invasives simply out-competing local natives (especially in human-disturbed environments). It's also the knock-on effects on multiple levels of heterotrophs (many of whose life-cycles depend, often critically, on particular plants doing particular things) and then those effects feeding back in various ways giving a net negative result (for instance, on flower pollination or fruit/ seed dispersal). Not to mention effects on lower-order heterotrophs affecting other organisms that depend on them, and so on and so on. Then there's effects of exotics on often delicately-poised fire regimes (eucalypts in California anyone? Melaleucas in the Florida Keys?), alterations to soil chemistry and soil water and soil fauna, reductions in soil seed bank, erosion (willows in inland Oz river systems) yada yada yada.<br /><br />Yes things will <b>eventually</b> "settle" in some highly altered state, and I guess we'll just have to work with what's left.Ludditehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02535555707494541168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-86504288504732737662010-11-09T14:09:49.199-08:002010-11-09T14:09:49.199-08:00"it has larger implications for the same kind..."it has larger implications for the same kind of public education that he wants to do. And I don't think he's going to be scared off by me telling him that."<br /><br />I quite agree<br /><br />"this is a continuation of questions that he first asked more than a decade ago."<br /><br />Well, yes, but I haven't spent the past ten years looking at them! In fact, I was actively discouraged at the time by Alan calling me names. (I can't exactly recall if you helped.)<br /><br />Let's note that we are losing; that short term thinking is triumphant, that nobody with any inclination to the long view has much of a plan.<br /><br />So in this case I can do a reasonably good job of being the clueless outsider. I am interested in how my cluelessness is received.<br /><br />Jim's approach is much better than Brian's.<br /><br />"Nope, that's not how it works. Corporate propaganda on these matters, ever since tobacco, works by raising "reasonable doubt". That's exactly what you did. ... That's how global climate change becomes something that is debated, in the public mind, rather than something that is settled."<br /><br />That's part of it. Part of it is also me being insulted for raising the question. It's hopelessly naive to assume that we had no hand at all in our humiliating defeat. <br /><br />We do the opposition's recruiting for them. They tell us this. Yet we keep doing it anyway.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-5482667664334289692010-11-09T13:58:41.673-08:002010-11-09T13:58:41.673-08:00Jim, saying that we all know Michael's not in ...Jim, saying that we all know Michael's not in that category means that we know something about him as an individual. Yes, I agree with that -- otherwise I would be saying that this is a case of someone who refuses to listen and learn, because as Michael mentions, this is a continuation of questions that he first asked more than a decade ago.<br /><br />So since I'm addressing a specific person here, it has to be recognized that I'm not roughing up a teenager asking questions for his or her science project. Or a college student working on a term paper. Or a journalist, G-d help us, cluelessly writing to deadline after a working lifetime of covering celebrities and sports and he said/she said political scandals.<br /><br />Michael should know better than this by now. And it's instructive that he doesn't -- it has larger implications for the same kind of public education that he wants to do. And I don't think he's going to be scared off by me telling him that.Rich Puchalskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13565210317964576866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-30681898631002392502010-11-09T12:18:03.581-08:002010-11-09T12:18:03.581-08:00Rich, if we get to the point where people have to ...Rich, if we get to the point where people have to be scared of asking their legitimate questions--or exactly how to phrase them so as to not piss off somebody or other--then we are already in real trouble. If somebody refuses to listen or learn, then we can walk away, but I think we all know that Michael's not in that category.Jim Bouldinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10062200124702011010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-1952345842690980052010-11-09T09:44:22.109-08:002010-11-09T09:44:22.109-08:00"But there is nothing wrong with questioning ..."But there is nothing wrong with questioning a consensus; indeed science begins there."<br /><br />Boilerplate crud. Science does not begin with people saying "Hey, the Earth doesn't move. I don't feel it moving! Those scientists must be all wrong."<br /><br />I already made the distinction between informed and uninformed skepticism, while your statement above elides.<br /><br />"It's only rude when you dismiss it or try to replace it with fringe opinion. I simply raised the fringe opinion; I didn't advocate it."<br /><br />Nope, that's not how it works. Corporate propaganda on these matters, ever since tobacco, works by raising "reasonable doubt". That's exactly what you did. You said that you didn't trust Bailey, but you trusted him sufficiently to bring up his points as if they were points. That's how global climate change becomes something that is debated, in the public mind, rather than something that is settled.<br /><br />As for whether Jim should have criticized instead of engaging, how should I know what he should do? In any case I'm here to criticize you, so we jointly have that covered. He might as well engage.Rich Puchalskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13565210317964576866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-23230335048615588772010-11-09T09:22:40.987-08:002010-11-09T09:22:40.987-08:00The latter heuristic was very much in force. I don...The latter heuristic was very much in force. I don't trust Bailey or Reason magazine. I'm torn about libertarian philosophy in theory; I see the appeal. In practice it usually is based on wishful thinking. There is a fellow called Tokyo Tom who occasionally shows up here who is exceptional in this regard.<br /><br />Which consensus should I trust? There are consensus opinions among economists which I do not accept. The consensus opinions among chiropractors are of no interest to me.<br /><br />Consensus is important and is the right place to start. I did start there. But there is nothing wrong with questioning a consensus; indeed science begins there. It's only rude when you dismiss it or try to replace it with fringe opinion. I simply raised the fringe opinion; I didn't advocate it.<br /><br />There are many occasions when this conflation of asking questions and having bad faith actually bites back and reduces credibility.<br /><br />I certainly appreciate Jim's taking the time to engage. Are you suggesting instead that he should have citicized me for raising Bailey's article even in a skeptical way? I strongly disagree.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-66514186219521285452010-11-09T09:11:45.722-08:002010-11-09T09:11:45.722-08:00"btw I thought your questions were fine-they&..."btw I thought your questions were fine-they're likely shared by many."<br /><br />I didn't think they were fine. They are questions that are shared by many people who haven't looked into the issues at all. Not by people who have been involved in related issues in depth for more than a decade.<br /><br />Again, this is an example of heuristics that must be adopted if science education is going to work not being adopted. It's not the biodiversity people's fault that they e.g. somehow didn't explain well or accessibly enough. They did. But their listener, in this case, didn't adopt the heuristic "trust the consensus of a scientific field unless you really know enough to evaluate it." As well as the heuristic "someone who has tried to deceive you in the past will try to deceive you in the future" in Bailey's case.Rich Puchalskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13565210317964576866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-88197906112336645312010-11-08T22:02:06.984-08:002010-11-08T22:02:06.984-08:00NOT nearly well enough addressed that isNOT nearly well enough addressed that isJim Bouldinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10062200124702011010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-5205718763702623202010-11-08T22:00:20.702-08:002010-11-08T22:00:20.702-08:00"Indeed, a point to make better on our side o..."Indeed, a point to make better on our side of the aisle. The bigger the forcing, the less reliable the prediction."<br /><br />Absolutely. I'm a very big proponent of exactly that argument. It's nearly well enough addressed IMO.<br /><br />btw I thought your questions were fine-they're likely shared by many. Just very difficult to answer simply.Jim Bouldinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10062200124702011010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-75690929119884465862010-11-08T18:55:05.360-08:002010-11-08T18:55:05.360-08:00> Jim Bouldin has left a new comment on your po...> Jim Bouldin has left a new comment on your post "Are Invasive Species a Threat?":<br /><br /><em>It's difficult to tell what your main question(s) is/are. This is no simple topic, to be addressed in a paragraph. </em><br /><br />Outsider questions are like that. I thank you for your patience.<br /><br /><br /><em>invasives, like any ecological<br />forcing agent, are (by def of that term) destabilizing, and decreased<br />stability combined with high complexity = high system unpredictability.</em><br /><br />Makes sense. Indeed, a point to make better on our side of the aisle. The bigger the forcing, the less reliable the prediction.<br /><br /><em> The ecological equivalent of the IPCC assessment reports is the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). And fully as important.</em><br /><br />Thanks. I think I may have been very dimly aware of that. Again, one shouldn't take any knowledge for granted in one's listener.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-7603888915732862162010-11-08T18:29:10.794-08:002010-11-08T18:29:10.794-08:00It's difficult to tell what your main question...It's difficult to tell what your main question(s) is/are. This is no simple topic, to be addressed in a paragraph. If you want the extremely simple bottom line, Kooiti hit it on the head: invasives, like any ecological forcing agent, are (by def of that term) destabilizing, and decreased stability combined with high complexity = high system unpredictability. Sam's points about defining values are also absolutely critical to any biodiversity discussion.<br /><br />The ecological equivalent of the IPCC assessment reports is the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). And fully as important.Jim Bouldinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10062200124702011010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-81531607555968969392010-11-08T17:20:32.393-08:002010-11-08T17:20:32.393-08:00Yes, I'm aware it has two popular names (any i...Yes, I'm aware it has two popular names (any idea why the positive one is mainly associated with SA?). Nonetheless, it is toxic, <a href="http://www.petalia.com.au/templates/StoryTemplate_Process.cfm?Story_No=1869" rel="nofollow">particularly to horses</a> (and also <a href="http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/scienceandeducation/factsheets/factsheets2004/consumersadvisedtoli2347.cfm" rel="nofollow">to humans via honey</a>, as well as pigs, cattle and to a lesser extent, goats and sheep). Interestingly, it is also generally only able to become established through the actions of other introduced species (rabbits, cattle and horses) in disturbing native vegetation.byron smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17938334606675769903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-6409738590850311842010-11-08T16:31:08.449-08:002010-11-08T16:31:08.449-08:00Byron. There are differing views about some invas...Byron. There are differing views about some invasive pest plants. Remember that "Paterson's Curse" was known in South Australia as "Salvation Jane" - because it kept the cattle alive through the low pasture season. (I actually remember the taste of affected milk - very strange.)<br /><br />It is being eradicated but there are occasional patches of brilliant purple on hillsides in the mid-north in spring.adeladyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02019930864931919369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-73345241661077455132010-11-08T14:07:43.061-08:002010-11-08T14:07:43.061-08:00Do you teach at UT because your questions on invas...Do you teach at UT because your questions on invasive species are the same as a good friend of mine who does.<br /><br />Global diversity waxes and wanes according to the division and separation of its land masses. There is good evidence that Pangea resulted in lower biodiversity. Evolution produces more types of life when they are physically unable to interact with one another for several reasons.<br /><br />Different creatures are created to fill the same biochemical/physical niche through random mutations when evolution occurs on separate continents or on the same one where the populations are kept separate by some physical barrier. To breach that barrier means the loss of this redundancy.<br /><br />Coevolution of defense and competition systems occurs amongst interacting species. Species brought new to the battlefield often have an evolved set of systems for which their new neighbors have no defense. The overkill hypothesis (homo sapien colonization of the continents and islands) would point to hundreds if not thousands of species of animals and plants made exinct by this action alone.<br /><br />As to examples: European honeybee has caused the loss of native N American pollinators and probably a bird species - the Carolina Parakeet.<br /><br />Hawaii - many, many species of birds and plants are extinct because of new species introductions, esp. humans but also pigs, rats and mosquitos. Over half of the birds for example with the colonization of Polynesians, many not directly by man, but by the animals brought along.<br /><br />It isn't that exinctions from introduced biota are rare, but the documentation of it is relative to its frequency.<br /><br />Preventing the global biota from moving around isn't that hard. It can be done. The connection is tenuous and even hundreds of years of constant ship travel has allowed only a tiny fraction of the earth's species to hop continents successfully.Andy Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00576797599310627089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-15181141977006729782010-11-08T11:30:07.388-08:002010-11-08T11:30:07.388-08:00Oh phooey. Signed on to post this snippet but forg...Oh phooey. Signed on to post this snippet but forgot:<br /><br />"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -<a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000095/" rel="nofollow">Woody Allen</a>Brian Hayeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07685476905189798246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-78459118582839575772010-11-08T11:24:03.751-08:002010-11-08T11:24:03.751-08:00Fine folks here. Thank you. The muddle of values i...Fine folks here. Thank you. The muddle of values is outright slog, I think, likely mediated as much by shock & suffering than by promulgating vision. I'm asserting it's the scientific reports that do the yeoman work, the massive learning where motive takes root. Increasing and defending models and accuracy is the true challenge. I'm grateful for that very dedicated work; voting it up. I'm merely wee nervous about distraction along the lines of fixing voices here and there. The receptive do not battle.Brian Hayeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07685476905189798246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-92205430879535522222010-11-08T09:40:46.655-08:002010-11-08T09:40:46.655-08:00"The enemy, in my opinion, is Rupert Murdoch,..."The enemy, in my opinion, is Rupert Murdoch, not Exxon. It's about misinformation, not about malice."<br /><br />That's nonsensical. Exxon used Murdoch's networks to spread the lies that Exxon itself authored, as part of the usual horse-trading that goes on among right-wing groups. The idea that they are innocent victims of their own misinformation is just not serious. Unless you mean the general beliefs about market fundamentalism, which Exxon and Murdoch have a joint interest in spreading.<br /><br />Also unserious is the bit about them "destroying the world." No one is saying that we're going to have a runaway greenhouse effect a la Venus. No one is saying that human life is going to cease. Therefore the incentives for major Exxon stockholders and management are, under rational self-interest, all in favor of global warming. The problems that they and their families will face as individuals are far outweighed by the additional wealth that they will gain as individuals. Even if the wealth of society shrinks, overall, they will end up owning a much larger piece of a smaller pie.<br /><br />The idea that by being nice to Exxon they may see the light is delusive. Technology is going to go on, and they are going to fall, because they aren't an energy company -- they can only do oil. Resisting them and hastening their fall is an important part of what we have to do.Rich Puchalskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13565210317964576866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-44100510835684130462010-11-08T08:58:44.351-08:002010-11-08T08:58:44.351-08:00Sam raises an interesting point, which ties into w...Sam raises an interesting point, which ties into why I resist demonization of petroleum industry or particular corporations.<br /><br />Some people in any energy corporation understand that they are in the energy business, not the carbon business. By demonizing the entire community (a community to which I myself have social ties) we ensure that the balance of financial influence remains as asymmetric as ever.<br /><br />Corporations are capable of understanding that sound regulation can as easily be in their interests as anarchy. <br /><br />The problem is not the corporate structure, it is the corporate culture. Not the Exxon ledger, but the copies of the Wall Street Journal's lies in their boardroom.<br /><br />The enemy, in my opinion, is Rupert Murdoch, not Exxon. It's about misinformation, not about malice. Corporations are not so stupid as to want to destroy the world. No world, no return on shareholder investment, after all. Corporations are, however, stupid enough to take <br />the wrong ideas seriously.<br /><br />It is a battle of ideas.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-9355405620168129842010-11-08T08:50:57.290-08:002010-11-08T08:50:57.290-08:00Michael,
Well, there is little enough to do with ...Michael,<br /><br />Well, there is little enough to do with those who dispute or do not understand the science, except keep stating the truth. I consider those uninteresting arguments, and also consider them eminently winnable, as scientific truth eventually wins out. Flat-earthers will dwindle in importance. <br /><br />The policy debate among those who accept the science (large carbon tax and energy shift advocates vs the small-ball Lomborgs and Pielkes of the world) will continue to increase in importance as the decarbonization rates get harder to achieve for stabilization.<br /><br />Regarding the budget of Exxon being a first-order determinant of policy - it is undoubtedly true. Exxon's corporate values are in direct conflict with increasing decarbonization, and they can buy more senators than Greenpeace. So we must work to bring their values into alignment with increasing decarbonization. Consumers and corporations are quite good at responding to their incentives. It will be easier to bring the values of utilities into line with decarbonization than it will oil companies, however, so perhaps <a href="http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/environment/oil-producers-mood-begins-to-shift-over-carbon-tax" rel="nofollow"> this </a> is good news.Samhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17922596325453582359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-52096638961573346592010-11-08T08:27:09.356-08:002010-11-08T08:27:09.356-08:00"I fully understand your answer by analogy, b..."I fully understand your answer by analogy, but even so I find it unsatisfactory. Is there nothing we can learn from this quandary?"<br /><br />That you can't escape from politics. Anthropogenic global climate change is a political problem, not a scientific one. I'm referring here to e.g. your previously stated reluctance to talk about there being two sides, and your statements about how damaging that is. Well, it may be preferable to discourage rhetoric about there being sides if you're trying to get everyone to come together to act on a common problem. (See how well that is working for Obama?) But analytically, it's worthless. Worse than worthless, it actively obscures what's going on.<br /><br />To the first order of importance, the reason that we can't do anything about climate change has everything to do with the many-orders-of-magnitude difference in the respective budgets of ExxonMobil vs. Greenpeace. It has nothing to do with science or the communication thereof. <br /><br />I mean, look at Bailey, since this started with his article. He writes about how he was never paid off by ExxonMobil <a href="http://reason.com/archives/2006/09/22/confessions-of-an-alleged-exxo/" rel="nofollow">in this article</a>. It's really kind of amusing. His described trajectory careers from one corporate-funded think tank to another, from one corporate cultivated sceptic scientist to another, and all the while he asserts that he did nothing wrong because no bags of money changed hands. And then finally he congratulates himself on giving up on scientific skepticism just before the worst hacks like Easterbrook supposedly did. Leaving him free to go on to other, more currently rewarding forms of skepticism like the biodiversity article that fooled you. Exxon basically created an entire alternate universe for Bailey that he could traverse with the smug satisfaction that he wasn't corrupt.Rich Puchalskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13565210317964576866noreply@blogger.com