How Science Suppresses the Sex Lives of Republicans

According to Utah State Representative Mike Noel, global climate change is a conspiracy theory. He insists that the whole idea of shifting climates was put together by the world’s biologists, climatologists and other scientists as an elaborate effort to control his sex life.



Speaking to climate change, Republican Mike Noel (at left) explained recently that, “This is absolutely, in my mind, in fact a conspiracy to limit population not only in this country but across the globe."


Being both a Republican and an enthusiast of the equestrian arts, Noel isn’t the type to quietly lie down and let the lefties fondle his reproductive liberties! To the contrary, he has been an outspoken proponent of Utah’s House Joint Resolution 12; a proposition that aims to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from establishing policies that reduce carbon dioxide. Noel’s good friend, Republican Kerry Gibson, sponsored Resolution 12 because… Well…

Well, because there’s a global conspiracy going on!


Here are a few proofs of the conspiracy as listed in House Joint Resolution 12:

1. “…Climategate, indicate[s] a well organized and ongoing effort to manipulate and incorporate "tricks" related to global temperature data in order to produce a global warming outcome…”

2. “…there has been a concerted effort by climate change alarmists to marginalize those in the scientific community who are skeptical of global warming by manipulating or pressuring peer-reviewed publications to keep contrary or competing scientific viewpoints and findings on global warming from being reviewed and published…”

3. “…the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a blend of government officials and scientists, does no independent climate research but relies on global climate researchers”

4. “…the climate change "gravy train," estimated at more than $7 billion annually in federal government grants, may have influenced the climate research focus and findings that have produced a "scientific consensus" at research institutions and universities”


In addition to deducing the above listed ‘hard facts,’ Noel and Gibson also arranged for a hired gun to testify as an expert witness at Utah’s legislative proceedings. The hired gun was non other than the infamous Roy “shunned by the system” Spencer, a climatologist from Alabama whose work has been continuously rejected by the scientific community – yet further evidence of the conspiracy!

Checking Roy's facts during the proceedings was a group of 18 scientists from Brigham Young University. The group unanimously concluded that he was full of crap and even “patently false.” Accordingly, they put their findings into an open letter (available here), which each scientists signed. The letter was mailed to the State legislature in hopes of dissuading them from passing the resolution.

What was the result of this unified effort?

Republican chairman of the Utah farm group Randy Parker publicly demanded a formal apology from Brigham Young University. Parker in part stated that, "I guess the bottom line here, from my perspective, is that science is an open process of ongoing research and debate, and a group of scientists should not make these kinds of statements about another scientist…” (Note: I couldn’t agree more with this sentiment. The art of debating without debating is under-appreciated.)

So unfortunately, it looks as though Mike Noel, Kerry Gibson, and Randy Parker’s fight for breeding rights has paid-off for the republicans. House Joint Resolution 12 passed committee yesterday morning. The state of Utah is about to tell the Federal Government that climate change is nothing but a conspiracy theory, take the EPA regulations and shove 'em!

This should be great for tourism: Welcome to Utah – the State of Denial!




References & Credits:
Sovacool, B., & Brown, M. (2009). Scaling the policy response to climate change Policy and Society, 27 (4), 317-328 DOI: 10.1016/j.polsoc.2009.01.003

Chris Vanocur-ABC Channel 4


Judy Fahys- Salt Lake Tribune

Photo: Mike Noel

Rush Limbaugh: How the existence of god disproves climate change

Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh - a proponent of creationism and intelligent design - detailed to his radio listeners that because his god wouldn’t have created us humans with a capacity to destroy our own environment, he doesn’t ‘believe’ in climate change.

As scientific evidence of this assertion, he explained that plants need carbon dioxide to produce oxygen for humans; thus, there is no way that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could be a harmful thing…

Who needs science, when you have such astute republicans! I wonder if Rush would be willing to be sealed in a carbon dioxide filled chamber with a lovely bouquet of flowers to prove his point?



I hereby rest my case against the fallacy that evolution progresses towards human perfection.

The Inflation of Infantile Denialism

I felt that the below article was worth re-posting here, especially after just having watched Jesse Ventura’s ‘documentary’ on the global warming conspiracy - give me a break…

The below was written by Steven Newton; the public information project director for the National Center for Science Education. It originally appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer on 12/24/09.


Science denial is on the rise
From evolution to global warming to vaccines, science is under assault from denialists - those who dismiss well-tested scientific knowledge as merely one of many competing ideologies. Science denial goes beyond skeptical questioning to attack the legitimacy of science itself.

Recent foment over stolen e-mails from a British research group inspired an American creationist organization to pronounce that "a cabal of leading scientists, politicians, and media" has sought to "professionally destroy scientists who express skepticism" about climate change. The Discovery Institute usually uses this kind of over-the-top language to attack evolution, so it was remarkable to see it branch out to climate-change denial.

Despite such misleading hyperbole, science is meritocratic. Once at a minimum level of education and competence, anyone can participate, ask a challenging question of even the most respected scientist, or submit papers to scientific journals, where research is judged by the data and methodology. Esteemed scientists face relentless criticism. This is how science works.

Even when a scientific consensus based on evidence emerges - as it has for evolution and climate change - there is opportunity for dissent. As the great physicist Richard Feynman noted, "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."

Science requires conclusions about how nature works to be rooted in evidence-based testing. Sometimes progress is slow. But through a difficult and often frustrating process, we learn more about the world.

Science denialism works differently. Creationists are unmoved by the wealth of fossil, molecular, and anatomical evidence for evolution. Global-warming denialists are unimpressed by climate data. Denialists ignore overwhelming evidence, focusing instead on a few hoaxes, such as Piltdown Man, or a few stolen e-mails. For denialists, opinion polls and talk radio count for more than thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles.

Denialists often appeal to the ideal of fairness, arguing schools should "teach the controversy" and address "evidence for and against" science, as in then-Sen. Rick Santorum's proposed amendment to the No Child Left Behind bill in 2001. But they apply the ideal selectively to science they dislike: evolution, climate change, vaccines. They hope to cloak themselves in the mantle of science without being restricted by its requirements.

If denialists had evidence disproving global warming or evolution, they could submit it to scientific conferences and journals, inviting analysis by scientists. But, knowing their arguments don't hold water, they spread misinformation in arenas not subject to expert scrutiny: mass-market books, newspapers, talk radio, and blogs.

Understanding science has never been more important than it is today. Critical issues such as climate change and the threat of newly evolved flu strains demand greater scientific literacy among the public and politicians. As long as scientists must squander their time defending their work from denialism, we will fall behind on our fundamental responsibilities.

Climate Change and the Velocity of the Shifting Niche

A little more than a month ago, I posted a three-part series on the topic of ecological niches with specific reference to their ability to track the ever shifting variables of climate. In large part drawn from research out of UC Berkeley and the ongoing Grinnell Project, those posts focused on the weather patterns associated with the mountainous terrain of Yosemite National Park. Today, Nature published a letter in which other California based scientists have extrapolated the shifting niche model in order to estimate the anticipated ‘velocity’ of temperature change across different biomes.

The ability of an organism to confront ever-shifting environmental attributes with resilience and flexibility is critical to maintaining lineages with the capacity to undergo the morphological and behavioral modifications required for continued survival. Regardless if such elastic traits are realized through major swings in ontogenic development, or through the advent of novel life-history strategies, the ability of an organism to accommodate ecological variability is essential. This biological tenet is certainly true today as anthropogenically incited climate change is forcing accelerated rates of ecological alteration.

Just how fast are these alterations occurring? How fast are the biomes moving?

In tropical and subtropical coniferous forests at a rate of 0.08 km/yr

In flooded grasslands at about 1.26 km/yr

In tropical and subtropical dry broadleaf forests at 0.42 km/yr

Mangroves forests 0.95 km/yr

Within Mediterranean forests, woodlands and scrub at around 0.26 km/yr

In tropical and subtropical moist broadleaf forests 0.33 km/yr

In temperate broadleaf and mixed forests at 0.35 km/yr

In temperate grasslands, savannas and shrublands at 0.59 km/yr

Etc… The paper offers more biome classifications.

In looking at the rates of spatially shifting biomes, the researchers found that only about “8% of global protected areas have residence times exceeding 100 years.” Niche’s are definitely on the move.


ALSO SEE: Adapting to Climate Change, the Uphill Pursuit of the Shifting Niche


Loarie, S., Duffy, P., Hamilton, H., Asner, G., Field, C., & Ackerly, D. (2009). The velocity of climate change Nature, 462 (7276), 1052-1055 DOI: 10.1038/nature08649

Rick Santorum: the High Priests of Darwinism went berserk

Another Science Lesson from Rick Santorum...

I think that I ruffled Rick Santorum’s feathers. Last week I published an article in which Christian fundamentalist and presidential hopeful Rick Santorum was used as a metaphor to dispel one of the commonly held misconceptions about biological evolution. In that post, “What an Unlearned Presidential Hopeful can teach us about Evolution ,” Santorum’s science illiteracy was presented as a ‘proof’ that humans do not occupy the top rung of an evolutionary ladder. On Thursday, just five days later, Rick Santorum published an opinion in the Philadelphia Inquirer in which he argued that evolution and climate change are ideological beliefs used to indoctrinate children and to promote socialism.

At first glance, I thought that the appearance of Santorum’s ‘science based' article a mere five days after mine was coincidental, but then I read his closing, “In some respects, the case for evolution is improving: We may indeed have evolved to the point where we can detect hot air of a different kind.” Now, I may be reading into this a wee bit, but Santorum’s metaphorical use of humans evolving towards an improved state suggests - to me at least - that he read the article here (or at the Faster Times). In addition to his closing lines, Crazy Rick also used the Philadelphia Inquirer as a soapbox to defend his 2001 “Santorum Amendment” that was criticized in my previous post. In his own defense he explained that his “teach the controversy” based amendment was initially well received by the Senate, but then, the next day “the High Priests of Darwinism went berserk” with assertions that there is no controversy. With the “berserk” assertions of scientists, the tides turned, dooming the amendment – luckily for us.

In Santorum’s new post, “The Elephant in the Room: Challenging science dogma,” he argued against science generally, and both evolution and climate science specifically. Far from being bound by conjecture, Santorum brings what he believes to be hard scientific facts to bear in disputing the “ideology” of science. Here are his facts:

“A recent Gallup poll found that only 14 percent of Americans agreed that "humans developed over millions of years" and "God had no part." A Zogby poll this year found that 78 percent of Americans agreed that schoolteachers "should teach Darwin's theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it." The same poll also found that 86 percent of self-identified liberals agreed that "teachers and students should have the academic freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution as a scientific theory." But the scientific "community" claims there is no controversy, and that debate should be banned. …only 37 percent of respondents agreed that man is causing global warming in a recent Rasmussen poll.”

That’s Santorum argument; scientific facts should be determined by opinion polls, not by scientists! So, in addition to disproving the notion of human evolutionary perfection, Santorum has now taught us how to employ incorrect reasoning. To hold a proposition as true simply because many people happen to believe it, is a logical fallacy - argumentum ad populum.


Incidentally, Crazy Rick’s numbers don’t give the whole picture. Setting aside for a moment the fact that ‘belief’ has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with reality or what is true, consider and compare the below 2009 Gallop statistics to those provided by Crazy Rick:

Overall ‘Belief’ in Evolution - Rick's Stats Only Show Atheist

‘Belief’ in Evolution by Level of Education

‘Belief’ in Evolution Cross-referenced to Knowing Darwin


‘Belief’ that Humans are Factors in Climate Change (View at Gallup)

Just for the fun of it – Here’s Belief in Witches, Astrology and Haunted Houses

Then, after irrationally linking popular belief to scientific validly, Santorum goes on to produce even more nonsensical non sequitars; he correlates climatology and global climate change to a socialist conspiracy!

“It is one thing for ideologically driven science to indoctrinate children in classrooms. It is another for politicians to use science to destroy national economies and redistribute global wealth. I refer, of course, to the latest scientific non-controversy, man-made global warming.”

How can one argue with that kind of reasoning? What world does Rick Santorum live in?

In closing, there are about 15,000 independent school districts in the United States and although science education standards are gradually improving, there is still much work to do (check-out the US standing below, listed as #2 from bottom). Rick Santorum, his minions, and others like them are out there, actively working to insert creationist propaganda into textbooks and classrooms – stay watchful! As can be read from the above tables education is a critical factor in promoting rationality.

(source)

Scott, E. (2009). Science Standards Evolve Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2 (3), 538-540 DOI: 10.1007/s12052-009-0153-0

Adapting to Climate Change, the Uphill Pursuit of the Shifting Niche

This post represents the final in a three part series discussing Joseph Grinnell, climate change and ecological niches. The initial post can be found here: Joseph Grinnell, Climate Change and the Legacy of the California Thrasher, and the second here: Tracking the Niche, a Project of Grinnellian Proportions.



Having adopted Joseph Grinnell’s vision as their own, the current Director of the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology at Berkeley and his colleagues have taken on the challenge of following in Grinnell’s footsteps – quite literally. The group, headed by current Director Craig Moritz, has begun the process of resurveying the 700-plus localities that were originally surveyed by Grinnell in the early 20th Century. Their goal is to compare the newly collected data to that inherited from Grinnell in aspirations of gaining insight into how a century of environmental change has impacted California’s avian, mammalian and herpetological faunas. Through application of carefully recalibrated Grinnellian field-methods, and the employment of modern techniques, the group is expanding biology’s understanding of the ecological niche.

As discussed during the first post on this topic (available HERE), the effects of average changes in global climate can be dramatically amplified at local levels. As a case in point, consider the region of California that was originally surveyed by Grinnell between the years 1914 and 1920. Over the past 100 years an approximate one-degree rise in global temperatures has resulted in a 3.7°C increase in minimum monthly temperature! A four-degree change in temperature has undoubtedly altered the ecology of this region - Yosemite National Park – in substantial and quantifiable ways. Such quantification has been precise goal of Grinnell’s successor.

Pulling data from Grinnell’s field-notes and DNA from his collected specimens, Craig Moritz has used climate models, modern genetics and biodiversity informatics to decipher and compare the demographies of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians of past and present. The analysis rendered from this research clearly indicates that the link between environment-and-species has remained true since its inception in Grinnell’s 'The Niche-Relationships of the California Thrasher'. More specifically, as the 3.7°C increase in minimum monthly temperature pushed Yosemite’s available habitats towards new equilibriums its fauna followed suit.

Yosemite’s geologic and geographic setting entails a range of elevations that extend from about 50 meters to well over 3000 meters above sea level. As is typical for diverging elevations, as altitude increases average temperatures decrease. So, if moving towards the top of a mountain one could anticipate encountering bands of cooler micro-climates. The relationship that exists between a specific temperature range and its corresponding physical components allow for identification of specific ‘life zones’. For example, the hydrology found on a mountain’s glacial peaks will differ in type and quantity to that located near the base of the mountain. In considering this natural phenomenon of elevational transition with specific regard to an overall increase in temperature across the mountainous region as a whole, an upward shift in ‘life zones’ could be predicted. In other words, as a temperature increase reaches a certain threshold, the glaciers capping a mountain will recede as to reduce the total area occupied by ice, and to increase the availability of liquid water. With increased access to water, life zones that had been previously locked in a frozen state will become biologically available to plants formerly bounded to lower glacier-free altitudes.

Moritz’s comparison of the life zones documented by Joseph Grinnell to those surveyed by his research group demonstrated that as Yosemite’s temperature increased over the past century, its life zones moved upwards. Significantly, the research showed that the uphill advance of life zones induced pursuit by those avian and mammalian faunas found below. The general pattern discovered by Moritz was that as temperatures increased in the park, the majority of wildlife populations found at high elevations contacted upwards, abandoning previously occupied portions of their lower habitat range. Correspondingly, those animals occupying lower altitudes shifted their habitats uphill.

The ability of Yosemite’s wildlife to confront ever-shifting environmental attributes with resilience and flexibility is critical to maintaining lineages with the capacity to undergo the morphological and behavioral modifications required for their continued survival. The study of the processes driving this evolution, provides more than just a greater understanding of natural history, it also imparts the tools to ensure species conservation as global climate change accelerates environmental fluctuation. Luckily, field scientists such as Joseph Grinnell have, and will continue, to provide insight into the plasticity of adaptation.


See: The Grinnell Project's website.



Moritz, C., Patton, J., Conroy, C., Parra, J., White, G., & Beissinger, S. (2008). Impact of a Century of Climate Change on Small-Mammal Communities in Yosemite National Park, USA Science, 322 (5899), 261-264 DOI: 10.1126/science.1163428

Tingley, M., Monahan, W., Beissinger, S., & Moritz, C. (2009). Colloquium Papers: Birds track their Grinnellian niche through a century of climate change Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106 (Supplement_2), 19637-19643 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0901562106

Joseph Grinnell (1917). The Niche-Relationships of the California Thrasher The Auk, 34 (4), 427-433

Joseph Grinnell (1924). Geography and Evolution Ecology, 5 (3), 225-229

Tracking the Niche, A Project of Grinnellian Proportions

This post is the second in a mini-series discussing Joseph Grinnell, climate change and ecological niches. The previous post is available here: Joseph Grinnell, Climate Change and the Legacy of the California Thrasher



Joseph Grinnell was THE quintessential field biologist. From the time of his birth in 1877 (or, roughly thereabouts), until his to death in 1939 he marveled at the natural world. He reveled in nature’s aesthetic splendor, and he contemplated its immense mystery. He dedicated his entire life to the field of biology; birds, reptiles, mammals and amphibians – he studied them all, and he did so with great detail.

Grinnell’s philosophy of scientific inquiry focused intently on the task of accumulating as much raw data as possible. For example, during the biological survey he carried out in Yosemite National Park between the years 1914 and 1920, Grinnell and his field crews collected 817 photographs, nearly 3000 animal specimens and more than 2000 pages of notes! Being organized and detail oriented is one thing, but Grinnell’s drive for thoroughness approached the obsessive.

As testimony to Grinnell’s view on taking accurate field notes, consider the following precept that he was known for continuously repeating as a mantra for meticulousness;

“Put it all down. You might not think it’s important, but somebody else may.” (1)

It may very well have been the sheer bulk of his available data that guided Joseph Grinnell to develop the concept of the ‘ecological niche’ discussed during the last post in this series (Available HERE). After all, he collected information on everything from the individual behavioral characteristics and morphology of observed animals to the daily weather patterns of Yosemite; all of these informational axes have been incorporated into the ecological niche concept. Even if the ‘niche’ wasn’t born of the data directly, the huge quantity of collected information would certainly have been useful during the writing of Grinnell’s numerous research papers and species descriptions, which are more than 500 in number.

Yet greater evidence to Grinnell’s tenacity can be found in the fact that despite his time spent collecting, he still managed to teach and perform administrative duties as the first Director of the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology at Berkeley. An absolutely astonishing scientist!

In considering Grinnell’s knack for field work, another of his now famous quotes comes to mind. This one (from 1910) relates to the long-term value of the data that he and his colleagues were collecting.

“This value will not, however, be realized until the lapse of many years, possibly a century, assuming that our material is safely preserved. And this is that the student of the future will have access to the original record of faunal conditions in California and the West, wherever we now work.”

This quote would turn out to be very prophetic…

What possible value could be reaped in modern times for century-old data collected during Grinnell’s survey of the ‘Yosemite Tract’? What would comprehensive and weather-correlated descriptions of wildlife niches tell us about contemporary linkages of climate-and-niche?

A few steps are required in order to assess the above questions. As an initial step, there would be a need to quantify the climate-to-niche relationships of current systems. Once such modern data was in-hand, comparisons could be made between the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ to identify any patterns or inconsistencies. In other words, to gauge change compare Grinnell’s data with what is exhibited by Yosemite’s ecosystems today.



This is precisely what the present Director of the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology at Berkeley has done. He and his colleagues went to field, and using Grinnell’s notes and methods collected new data for the purpose of comparison. Their resurvey - The Grinnell Project - and findings will be discussed during the next post...


UPDATE: The 3rd and final installment of this series is available HERE.


1-As told to Ward Russell during a field survey; an audio recording of Ward’s 1992 interview can be found at the MVZ @ Berkeley website – HERE



Joseph Grinnell (1917). The Niche-Relationships of the California Thrasher The Auk, 34 (4), 427-433

Joseph Grinnell (1924). Geography and Evolution Ecology, 5 (3), 225-229

Moritz, C., Patton, J., Conroy, C., Parra, J., White, G., & Beissinger, S. (2008). Impact of a Century of Climate Change on Small-Mammal Communities in Yosemite National Park, USA Science, 322 (5899), 261-264 DOI: 10.1126/science.1163428

Joseph Grinnell, Climate Change and the Legacy of the California Thrasher

Adaptive plasticity is a predictor of future reproductive fitness. The ability of an organism to confront ever-shifting environmental attributes with resilience and flexibility is critical to maintaining lineages with the capacity to undergo the morphological and behavioral modifications required for continued survival. Regardless if such elastic traits are realized through major swings in ontogenic development, or through the advent of novel life-history strategies, the ability of an organism to accommodate ecological variability is essential. This biological tenet is certainly true today as anthropogenically incited climate change is forcing accelerated rates of ecological alteration.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has reported that mean global temperatures could increase by more than six-degrees over the course of the next century. Six degrees of global change translates to extremely dramatic transformations of biotic and abiotic conditions at the local level. Even if the ‘worse case scenario’ of six-degrees doesn’t come to pass changes in hydrology, periodic weather, seasonal patterns, emigration, extinction and in the availability of resources at regional and local levels are almost certainly inevitable during the next century. To cope with these changes it will be necessary for organisms to adjust their tolerances to environmental variability, they may need to more-efficiently utilize the resources on-hand, or they may need to physically relocate to habitats for which they are better suited. To better understand how these impending organism-to-environment adjustments will occur, it's important to seek understanding as to how organisms fit into their ecosystem. It is the relative position of an organism in its environment and the way in which it behaviorally responds to its surroundings that is referred to as the organism’s ‘niche’.

With respect to etymology, the word ‘niche’ is derived from the French word ‘nicher’ which literally means ‘to nest,’ as in a bird going to nest. In regards to the word’s use in biology – broadly defined above - this literal translation is very appropriate, because the term was first introduced by an ornithologist in a publication describing the distribution of a bird - the California thrasher (Toxostoma redivivum).

The California thrasher is the largest member of the Mimidae Family and can grow to be uupwards of 30 cm in length and weigh as much as 85 grams. The bird’s coloration is fairly non-descript; its body is brown and it has a tan or buff-colored ventral side. There are however a couple of characteristics that make T. redivivum especially unique. One is the bird's restriction to a very narrow geographic range in California, and another is its habitat preference for densely vegetated brushlands. It was the thrasher’s limited distribution and fondness for the concealment offered by shrubs that first attracted the interest of the celebrated naturalist and scientist Joseph Grinnell.

In the October 1917 issue of The Auk, Joseph Grinnell published his work 'The Niche-Relationships of the California Thrasher'. In that enduring contribution Grinnell explained that the reason for the thrasher’s

“…restricted distribution is probably to be found in the close adjustment of the bird in various physiological and psychological respects to a narrow range of environmental condition.”

In other words, Grinnell clearly recognized that the bird’s morphological and behavioral traits linked it to the specific ecosystem that it inhabited. Furthermore, Grinnell identified that

“[t]hese various circumstances, which emphasize dependence upon cover, and adaptation in physical structure and temperament thereto, go to demonstrate the nature of the ultimate associational niche occupied by the California Thrasher.”

In Grinnell’s mind, the relative position of the thrasher in its environment, as well as its distinctive behaviors, established a general rule that could be extrapolated and used as a tool for detailing and predicting the spatial and temporal relationships held between organisms and their environments. The ‘niche’ would quickly become a tool for not only itemizing individual life-history traits, but also for interpreting the evolutionary and adaptive implications of the organism-to-environment dynamic.

Building on his idea of an ecological niche, in July of 1924 Grinnell went on to publish ‘Geography and Evolution,’ a work in which he fathered what are contemporarily known as the competitive exclusion principle and the concept of ‘vacant niches.’

“Some of us have concluded that we can usefully recognize, as measures of distributional behavior, the realm, the region, the life-zone, the fauna, the subfauna, the association, and the ecologic or environmental niche. The latter, ultimate unit, is occupied by just one species or subspecies; if a new ecologic niche arises, or if a niche is vacated, nature hastens to supply an occupant, from whatever material may be available. Nature abhors a vacuum in the animate world as well as in the inanimate world.”

The competitive exclusion principle is the idea that two species occupying the same habitat and fighting for the same resources will not obtain equilibrium until one species overcomes, or out-competes, the other. These ideas are front-and-center to modern biology and are both credited to Grinnell.

Serving as the founding father of the ‘niche’ was but one of Joseph Grinnell’s numerous contributions to science. Over the next couple of days I hope to post more of Grinnell’s work, as well as that of his modern counterparts that are – literally – following in Grinnell’s footsteps in hopes of gaining insight into how the observations of an early 20th Century scientist can be used to decode the effects of climate change in a 21st Century world.


UPDATE: The second part of this post available HERE.

Joseph Grinnell (1917). The Niche-Relationships of the California Thrasher The Auk, 34 (4), 427-433

Joseph Grinnell (1924). Geography and Evolution Ecology, 5 (3), 225-229

Conservation Decisions – The General Patton Approach

It was General George Patton who originally said, “A good plan executed now is better than a perfect plan later.” Though Patton was referring to military planning, some scientists and policy makers believe that such a strategy should also be applied to ecology and conservation.

Recently, a paper from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences proposes that decision making, in regards to natural resource conservation, should be undertaken with consideration to both science and social impact. More specifically, the paper proposes that climate change is hastening the need for sound conservation strategies with respect to the managed relocation of species. Furthermore, they argue that despite a past hesitation to intervene, biologists should consider human-facilitated migrations as a viable option.

A myriad of authors from a variety of universities and governmental agencies participated in the study which qualitatively examined three cases where managed relocation was conducted or considered. From these case studies, the group developed a decision-making model that considers such action from the Focal impact, Collateral impact, Feasibility, and Acceptability to both ecology and public perception.

Image from Article, 3D Evaluation of decision to Relocate Species

My opinion in the matter is that although the model may, or may not, be an adequate tool in achieving desired policy outcomes, the science of species introductions and relocations tends to demonstrate that the practice is wrought with unknown variables and is a high-risk endeavor. Because of this, I don’t like that the paper – though well intentioned – “pushes” managed relocation when it should only be “pushing” a decision making process. In my experience, those species found admirable to the public are not always the best candidates for relocation, and when public opinion enters into science, decisions can be made based on perception and misconceptions as opposed to on fact.

Just my opinion, I could be wrong…

Richardson, D., Hellmann, J., McLachlan, J., Sax, D., Schwartz, M., Gonzalez, P., Brennan, E., Camacho, A., Root, T., Sala, O., Schneider, S., Ashe, D., Clark, J., Early, R., Etterson, J., Fielder, E., Gill, J., Minteer, B., Polasky, S., Safford, H., Thompson, A., & Vellend, M. (2009). From the Cover: Multidimensional evaluation of managed relocation Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106 (24), 9721-9724 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0902327106