[NAFEX] California’s tree crops are screwed, says new report

Stephen Sadler Docshiva at Docshiva.org
Sat Jul 25 11:56:12 EDT 2009

The press does tend to oversimplify a bit, and that makes it hard to react to a study based on a for-the-public simplified reporting.  I try to go right to the original study before commenting or reporting, but that really is going a bit further than most would want to.


>From the lead author of the study: “we didn't just compare two years, but used regression analysis over the entire available temperature record to obtain representative conditions for those two years. The numbers are just scenario names. In fact we Also used the historic record to obtain the statistical variation of the temperature. That was used to generate 100 repetitions of each scenario year.

All that stuff was too complicated to communicate to the press.”



~ Stephen


From: nafex-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:nafex-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Richard Harrison
Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2009 4:46 AM
To: North American Fruit Explorers
Subject: Re: [NAFEX] California’s tree crops are screwed, says new report


The method reported of using 2 specific years 1950 and 1999 is flawed from the get-go IF that was reported correctly. I am going only by what was written at the link. 

I think it was a bad subject with doom-and-gloom as the subject line. So I responded to it to try to help balance the subject. I think it was a bad subject and it's time to get back to real fruit production--now, and not chase future theoretical rabbits.

I like fruit. It tastes MUCH better than theory!

                                                                    Best regards,


--- On Fri, 7/24/09, Stephen Sadler <Docshiva at Docshiva.org> wrote:

From: Stephen Sadler <Docshiva at Docshiva.org>
Subject: Re: [NAFEX] California’s tree crops are screwed, says new report
To: "'North American Fruit Explorers'" <nafex at lists.ibiblio.org>
Date: Friday, July 24, 2009, 7:17 PM

No opinion or debate follows:


 I’ve read the original research – much more comprehensive than the press release/report; and am in correspondence with the authors.  One might want to read the paper and then specify methodological deficiencies.  

It happens constantly, especially in science, that research is simplified to the point where misunderstanding or rationalization is possible.  I don’t know what a good answer would be.  Not everyone can comfortably read original papers.  Perhaps trust the abstracts, or read detailed summaries is science-for-the-public journals like Discovery?  

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

nafex mailing list 
 <http://us.mc353.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nafex@lists.ibiblio.org> nafex at lists.ibiblio.org

Reproduction of list messages or archives is not allowed.
This includes distribution on other email lists or reproduction on web sites.
Permission to reproduce is NEVER granted, so don't claim you have permission!

Posts from email addresses that are not subscribed are discarded.
No exceptions.  
To subscribe or unsubscribe, go to the bottom of this page (also can be used to change other email options):
 <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/nafex> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/nafex

File attachments are NOT stripped by this list.
Please do not send binary files.
Use plain text ONLY in emails!

NAFEX web site:    <http://www.nafex.org/> http://www.nafex.org/


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/private/nafex/attachments/20090725/c06b62af/attachment.html 

More information about the nafex mailing list