High Sierra Topix

Exactly who is it that does the "research" that results in "studies" that further result in restrictive regulations? While reading over some stuff regarding the trout/frog issue, I came across one "researcher" that didn't know ducks swim under water. Is it these kind of "qualified" people doing the research? Who appoints them to do the research? I am sure most people are well qualified, it is just that some of them seem a little out of touch.

Thanks in advance.

Follow the money. Researchers interpret their results to satisfy the source of the grant. This applies to environmental industry funded studies as well as private companies.

But more important than who does or who funds is how many.

One study does not make a scientific fact. To be considered valid and accepted by the scientific community, results must be replicated by others, preferably multiple times with different parameters.

Also learn the difference between the media article about the study, and the original research itself. Too many times I have found the media news article claims the study 'proves' one thing, but upon reading the original source paper the findings are the opposite.

Dave54,

You hit the nail on the head, I don't how many times I have read a media report which sights a certain study and they have twisted the data to make a sensational claim. I have seen this on "global warming" articles more than any other.

Mountaineer,

I remember your comment on the ducks, Im with you on this Gill netting issue (frogs-Trout). The researchers have to protect there grant income in order to keep employed, I don't think they would ever admit to snagging ducks or Bald eagles in these gill nets, the public outcry would probably dry-up there funding.

The Frog contingent is probably sincere in its efforts to preserve the MYLF, whether the science is "spot on" is another question. The real truth is probably somewhere in the middle, its more likely a mix of trout feeding on the tad-poles, the fungus,pollution and something else yet undiscovered. I just hope these radical steps in removing the trout doesn't cause another enviromental problem or kill fowl.

There are so many lakes in the sierra which are already sterile of trout you'd think they would start there, I guess thats to logical.

Right on Dave and Mike. I concur with your views. Chaparral burns. Like night follows day. You add wind to the mix and you have an unstoppable conflaggration. Scary and sad. The map of the mexican fire pattern is instructive. Hopefully that kind of thing will sink in to some collective heads . Sometimes simple solutions are best. This has never been an unknown idea. It's just been ignored north of the border for a hundred years. jls

mountaineer wrote:Exactly who is it that does the "research" that results in "studies" that further result in restrictive regulations? While reading over some stuff regarding the trout/frog issue, I came across one "researcher" that didn't know ducks swim under water.

I think what you really have in instances like this is evidence that science isn't flawless. And you should point this example out every time you are in a discussion and you are belittled for your ignorance of the issue simply because you are a layman and shouldn't meddle with the business of science and heaven forbid you question the techniques, conclusions, or the action plans of a scientist

Here's a good exmple of wasted research Funding.

I studied Horticulture, green house production, commercial flower forcing at cal Poly SLO. Before the "global Warming" frenzy, it was "repeated" at many universities that by injecting a Greenhouse with C02 you would increase a plants growth, and speed up a production cycle, larger flowers etc.

Injections of 1000-1500ppm of C02 show a marked increase in tomato and a few other types of plants. This is a commercially viable and practiced process.

From what I can find, current World C02 levels are somewhere around 340-380ppm depending what you read, how they figure this accurately I have no clue.

So what does this say? Plants already have the genetic imprint to absorb and benefit from much higher C02 levels than we have historically known.
So maybe the Earth at one time has had super high levels of C02 with out mans help.

So I was watching a global warming show and they wanted to no if Plants would benefit from higher C02 levels. This researcher receieved a grant for 5 mllion dollars to study this, he was shooting C02 into a bunch of pine tree's. His conclusion, yes they grew faster than the control...

Wow could have saved 5 million dollars by simply reviewing previous Flower forcing studies.

I don't want to sound like I am Knocking scientists or science, I love science and the vast majority of science professionals probably perform excellent work.

Like Caddis said its not perfect, so we shouldn't stand by and let it happen if we no its wrong or imperfect.

I studied the effects of elevated CO2 on tree growth for a couple of years and have been following the literature since. It's not simple: long-term (therefore more expensive) research shows much less growth enhancement than short-term, some plants respond a lot more than others and not in obvious patterns, life-cycle stage makes a huge difference, and so on. People in the field definitely knew about fumigating greenhouses with CO2, and the studies took that as a starting point. And frankly five million bucks doesn't sound like much to me in the grand scheme of things. It's certainly more scientific research money than I'll ever see in my lifetime (more's the pity), but it'd only run the Iraq war for a few seconds. Like the man said, "a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking real money."

I agree about media reports -- the media seem generally to be looking for headlines and 4-second sound bites, and if the story is more complex than that, well, nobody will probably care very much, right? Print media seem to be a lot better than broadcast, and generally (but certainly not always) the usual suspects seem better: NY Times, Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor (excellent recent series on global climate change in that paper, by the way), and so on.

IMO, most of the above posts show a nearly total ignorance of what science and research are about. This thread just further illustrates the validity of the old addage that "there is nothing like ignorance to strengthen one's opinion".

Bsquared,

Thats an eloquent response I appreciate your input and I can tell you have studied the subject in detail and I also would rather see money spent on research than a war. I agree nothing is ever simple and straight forward, from my limited college research on the subject, maybe my initial view was a bit "knee-jerk".

Thanks