Scientific drilling and climate change

[Joneill]

Thank you for confirming my point. I find it interesting that everyone has an opinion of how science is conducted, but can't cite actual evidence to back up claims of where it fails.

I was not pointing out anything other than that the "scientists" in the picture were demonstrating that they don't give a hoot about the very thing that they are sampling. If you feel better to by choosing to read more into it than that, then so be it... my comments on hypocrisy were on the topic of climate change in general - but it is somewhat hypocritcal to be taking samples to assess climate impact while mishandling/damaging the very environment you are "concerned" about as you do it.

 

[RyanT]

@Joneill, No, what you said is that there is "much hypocrisy." Again, the term term "much" implies a a sphere far beyond what is happening in the pictures in this particular case. So please cite evidence of how this hypocrisy extends far beyond the particular photos posted here.

 

[Joneill]

@Joneill, No, what you said is that there is "much hypocrisy." Again, the term term "much" implies a a sphere far beyond what is happening in the pictures in this particular case. So please cite evidence of how this hypocrisy extends far beyond the particular photos posted here.

Ok - Leo DiCaprio champions climate change while he flies around the world on private jets... Al Gore lectures us to reduce our carbon footprint - meanwhile his is massive...etc., etc., etc.,...

 

[RyanT]

I'm not talking about celebrities, nor what they are championing. I'm asking about about evidence to back up your claims of scientific hypocrisy. Until you can provide that evidence, you are just back-peddling to promote your own personal view.

 

[Joneill]

I'm not talking about celebrities, nor what they are championing. I'm asking about about evidence to back up your claims of scientific hypocrisy. Until you can provide that evidence, you are just back-peddling to promote your own personal view.

I've clarified my comments twice already and you've chosen to ignore that. I NEVER said that there was "scientific hypocrisy" - my comment was that I was not surprised at the behaviour demonstrated by the "scientists" (no idea who those losers actually are) as there is much hypocracy when it comes as to this topic - topic meaning climate change. The examples I provided support exactly that and I could list many more. I'm sorry if the actual intent of my comments doesn't actually fit with the point you seem to be hell-bent on proving...

 

[Schwob]

I agree that it is poor technique, but you're confusing sample collection with science. Poor skills while sampling doesn't necessarily entail "piss poor" science.

True it does not necessarily.
It is true that the sloppy and destructive way samples get collected does not necessarily translate further down the road. But it is a valid red flag and it is not unreasonable to see this and then be concerned how sloppy things might be down the road, although the destructive sloppiness might indeed have stopped at sample collection.
Even if the science was excellent (no proof, just a stipulation of possibility), that would not does not justify destructive sample collection if it can be done less destructive.

Should science and scientists be less accountable for what they cause then - not the same thing, but as an example - a consumer buying wares made in a sweatshop or with child labor or someone buying traditional Asian Rhino horn "medicine" ... or... a guy changing his car's oil and discarding it improperly or a guy not fixing his oil leaking outboard motor or...
Imho: No. No excuse for such piss poor practise. Not even in the name of science.

 

[RyanT]

that would not does not justify destructive sample collection if it can be done less destructive

I agree the photos don't look good, but they are two snapshots. In particular, the tender shouldn't have had their hand on the coral. How do you know the sampling was destructive, however? Perhaps the coral head remained perfectly intact after the core was taken. It looks like the person doing the drilling is standing behind the coral head, not on it, which would potentially be way more destructive than touching it with a hand.

Should science and scientists be less accountable for what they cause then

In general scientists are usually held to much higher standards than the general public. For example, I study frogs. In most of the U.S., you can legally go out, catch a treefrog, and skewer it on a fish hook with no permit or license required for the frog. In my scientific work for these same frogs, I have get a permit from the State, and a separate, very extensive IACUC permit from my University. And this is to conduct non-lethal behavioral experiments, where the frogs are released back into the wild.

That's not to say that there are not scientists who do destructive things. In my 25 years of experience as a field biologist, however, virtually every scientist I've interacted with are careful not generate lasting negative impacts.

 

[Schwob]

I agree the photos don't look good, but they are two snapshots. In particular, the tender shouldn't have had their hand on the coral. How do you know the sampling was destructive, however? Perhaps the coral head remained perfectly intact after the core was taken. It looks like the person doing the drilling is standing behind the coral head, not on it, which would potentially be way more destructive than touching it with a hand.

In general scientists are usually held to much higher standards than the general public. For example, I study frogs. In most of the U.S., you can legally go out, catch a treefrog, and skewer it on a fish hook with no permit or license required for the frog. In my scientific work for these same frogs, I have get a permit from the State, and a separate, very extensive IACUC permit from my University. And this is to conduct non-lethal behavioral experiments, where the frogs are released back into the wild.

That's not to say that there are not scientists who do destructive things. In my 25 years of experience as a field biologist, however, virtually every scientist I've interacted with are careful not generate lasting negative impacts.

Upfront: I think we, as in you and I, are generally on the same page here.

And I do not know that the coral head was actually sustaining damage beyond the core taken itself. I do know that I and many others were informed that it is a bad and coral stressing thing to to touch coral in any way, bare handed, gloves or with find or booties both the kind on your feed and the kind between thighs and rump...
Anyway I assume (may have read something indicating so) that sort of advise would be rooted in some sort of scientific finding and backed up by observation & research (as some of the damage is notable not necessarily immediately but only longer term I thought / heard). I may be wrong on assuming so.
Am I?

In the end one could always argue that e.g. a fallen giant tree in the forest (not taken for the timber industry, just fallen by man or by nature) is not detroying anything as it makes room for more saplings and as ot decays over centuries hosts an unbelievable amount of animals and organisms. And therefore one could argue by extension that there is no point in taken offense to tourists or scientists climbing over corals. I am not suggesting you are making that argument here. Neither am I.

Nor would you necessarily fell a forest giant to get to a tree frog. You might climb the tree. The tree might suffer some rope anbrasions, maybe a few puncture wounds if you used screws or climbing irons of some sort. But generally it is thought to withstand that thing just fine.
Maybe that thought would change if the tree would be visited in that way by hordes of tourists. And so, even if a scientific visit to that tree does no harm in the big picture, many more people doing the same might. And so it mighg be considered bad to promote that behavior or invite emulation, even so the originsl behavior was not really wrong.

I have no good understanding why corsal is thought to be a whole lot more sensitive to touch then say trees. I thought that was some sort of truism found out and perpetuated by scientists. I may be quite wrong.
Am I?

If I am wrong, I concede.

If I am not wrong, then, frankly, I fail to see what the point is to ask if I know if that particular coral actually sustained damage due to the treatnent it received or will develop damage in time due to it.

Isn't this (link below) essentially what scientists tell the general public in terms of how to behave around coral? And would those sampling taking pictures then not truly indicate that those scientists most certainly do not hold themselves to a higher standard? And doesn't then a lot of what @Wookie wrote hold a whole lot of water indeed? Albeit salt water... ☺
Edit, trying to fix link:
Coral Etiquette 101

 

[RyanT]

Hey Schwob, indeed, I we are generally in agreement. Coral is sensitive and we need to careful around it. No disagreement there.

The primary issue I took with this thread was the castigation of science as a whole, either this particular study in its entirety, or science more broadly. As a scientist, I hear comments all the time from the general public about how they think science is conducted; much of the time it is simply wrong. Several of these were brought up here in this thread. For example, one of wookie's comments, that I addressed, implied he thought generating hypotheses wasn't really science, but rather a bunch of grad students sitting around drinking beer and hoping to get their projects funded. Nothing could be further from the truth and I offered to provide evidence of this. As a scientist, I think it is really important that these kinds of misconceptions are not perpetuated.

There is a lot of blame to go around for the perpetuation of myths regarding how science is conducted. One of these is that science has been politicized for financial gain by corporations/politicians. Please, please, let's not get further off topic and delve into that arena at the moment. Instead, what I'd like to point out is that another reason the public doesn't understand how science is conducted is because as scientists, we ourselves have failed to engage the public. Earlier in my career, I was guilty of this as well; I just wanted to do my work. I'm trying to correct that now and I speak out when I can, hopefully to educate the public on how science is really conducted. Perhaps I have not always been successful at this, but I will continue to challenge statements that are mischaracterizations of how science is done.

At any rate, to this end, I'm always open to questions and discussions regarding science, whether its federal funding for grants, the general process of science, general principles, or anything else. You don't ever want to take mechanical advice from me , but after 25 years of working as a field scientist, I have a pretty good handle on the science side of things.

Regards,
Ryan

 

[Storker]

As a person who's been trained in science, it's... interesting to see the total disconnect)(or lack of understanding of science) illustrated by some of the posts here.

Crappy diving style and possible (local) damage to coral has nothing, zero, nada to do with the quality of the science and the quality of the data per se. Yes, the guys should have been more careful when they took their samples. But global warming is... global. Damage to coral is local. Local damage has very little to do with global phenomena. If anything at all.

Dismissing the science done based on the field behavior of a couple of clumsy researchers (probably young PhD students) is - at best - short-sighted.