Attachment to letter to the Times

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
13 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Attachment to letter to the Times

Liz Morris
Dear all,

It seems the attchment to my email got stripped off at some stage when I
posted it to Cryolist. I will try to send it again but it is a large file
(2 MBytes) as we have included a comparison of the new Times map with a
mosaic of recent MODIS scenes to show what the problem is. If the
attachment is not with this email and you want to see it, please email me
directly (as some keen souls have already done) and I'll try alternative
methods.

 Liz--
Work Tel: +44 (0)1223 336568
_______________________________________________
You're subscribed to the CRYOLIST mailing list
To change your subscription options, visit http://cryolist.org/
To send a message to the list, email [hidden email]

Times-letter.doc (2M) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Attachment to letter to the Times

Graham Cogley
Dear Liz - I think the letter to the Times is admirable. It says all that
needs to be said.

One question that has yet to be addressed is whether the mistakes appear in
the text of the Atlas. I do not propose, for the investigation of this
point, to lay out 150 pounds to replace my genuinely "authoritative and
comprehensive" 1977 edition of the Atlas, but perhaps colleagues in
Cambridge will be better placed. Ideally, Times Books will agree to replace
the map plate in reprintings. However, if the front matter perpetuates the
mistakes then something more will be required in order to stop this from
becoming the next "glaciergate" - by analogy with the 1999 article in the
Indian magazine Down To Earth which was the germ of Himalayagate.

A deeper question is how to make it less likely in future that even
well-educated people in publishing and journalism can find this sort of
tripe plausible. Compulsory physical geography to age 16 in schools?

Best regards,
Graham.

J. Graham Cogley, Ph.D., Professor of Geography,
Department of Geography, Trent University,
Peterborough, Ontario, CANADA K9J 7B8.

Tel      +1 705-748-1011-x7686
Fax     +1 705-742-2131
Email  [hidden email]
Web    http://www.trentu.ca/geography/glaciology



-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Liz Morris
Sent: September-17-11 9:37 AM
To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Subject: [CRYOLIST] Attachment to letter to the Times

Dear all,

It seems the attchment to my email got stripped off at some stage when I
posted it to Cryolist. I will try to send it again but it is a large file
(2 MBytes) as we have included a comparison of the new Times map with a
mosaic of recent MODIS scenes to show what the problem is. If the attachment
is not with this email and you want to see it, please email me directly (as
some keen souls have already done) and I'll try alternative methods.

 Liz--
Work Tel: +44 (0)1223 336568

_______________________________________________
You're subscribed to the CRYOLIST mailing list
To change your subscription options, visit http://cryolist.org/
To send a message to the list, email [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Attachment to letter to the Times

Liz Morris
Dear Graham, We decided to lash out £150 on Friday in the interests of
getting our facts right so will be able to check your point about the text.
I must confess none of us thought of that angle.

What grieves me is that none of the journalists thought "Hang on... 15% is
about 1/7 and I'm sure someone said Greenland ice was about 7m of sea level
rise .... that's about 1m of sea level rise over 12 years...some mistake
surely? " Must have the attention span of a gnat!

I very much doubt our letter will be published but John Vidal of the
Guardian has told us he will be trying to phone the Times Atlas chief
editor over the weekend to sort things out so something is happening.

Best wishes, Liz

 On Sep 17 2011, Graham Cogley wrote:

>Dear Liz - I think the letter to the Times is admirable. It says all that
>needs to be said.
>
>One question that has yet to be addressed is whether the mistakes appear in
>the text of the Atlas. I do not propose, for the investigation of this
>point, to lay out 150 pounds to replace my genuinely "authoritative and
>comprehensive" 1977 edition of the Atlas, but perhaps colleagues in
>Cambridge will be better placed. Ideally, Times Books will agree to replace
>the map plate in reprintings. However, if the front matter perpetuates the
>mistakes then something more will be required in order to stop this from
>becoming the next "glaciergate" - by analogy with the 1999 article in the
>Indian magazine Down To Earth which was the germ of Himalayagate.
>
>A deeper question is how to make it less likely in future that even
>well-educated people in publishing and journalism can find this sort of
>tripe plausible. Compulsory physical geography to age 16 in schools?
>
>Best regards,
>Graham.
>
>J. Graham Cogley, Ph.D., Professor of Geography,
>Department of Geography, Trent University,
>Peterborough, Ontario, CANADA K9J 7B8.
>
>Tel      +1 705-748-1011-x7686
>Fax     +1 705-742-2131
>Email  [hidden email]
>Web    http://www.trentu.ca/geography/glaciology
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [hidden email]
>[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Liz Morris
>Sent: September-17-11 9:37 AM
>To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
>Subject: [CRYOLIST] Attachment to letter to the Times
>
>Dear all,
>
> It seems the attchment to my email got stripped off at some stage when I
> posted it to Cryolist. I will try to send it again but it is a large file
> (2 MBytes) as we have included a comparison of the new Times map with a
> mosaic of recent MODIS scenes to show what the problem is. If the
> attachment is not with this email and you want to see it, please email me
> directly (as some keen souls have already done) and I'll try alternative
> methods.
>
> Liz--
>Work Tel: +44 (0)1223 336568
>
>

--
Work Tel: +44 (0)1223 336568

_______________________________________________
You're subscribed to the CRYOLIST mailing list
To change your subscription options, visit http://cryolist.org/
To send a message to the list, email [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Attachment to letter to the Times

Clason, Caroline
Dear cryolisters,

I can't help but notice this Times Atlas Greenland story popping up all over the place online. A quick search alerted me to mentions in New Scientist, Discover Magazine, Metro... It also popped up in a magazine called OnEarth, which is part of the Guardian Environment Network (and to which John Vidal contributes). The article can be found here http://www.onearth.org/blog/times-atlas-maps-climate-change and includes a video of one of the senior editors of Times Atlas talking about the changes drawn into this new edition.

As I'm writing this I have just noticed that the BBC have just released an artcile on this error http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14969399, but I can't help but wonder whether perhaps the damage has already been done for those outside of the cryosphere community? Will all of those reading the Guardian, New Scientist, Metro etc read this story on the BBC website, and if they do, will they still have faith in the science, or does misinformation like this only lead to public distrust in what they are told from trusted sources? I look forward to the response from the Times Atlas team.

Best wishes,

Caroline




Caroline Clason

Cryosphere and Climate Change Research Group,
Geography and Environment, University of Aberdeen, UK

E-mail: [hidden email]

Webpage: http://www.abdn.ac.uk/geography/staff/personal_pages/staff.php?page=clasonc
________________________________________
From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Liz Morris [[hidden email]]
Sent: 18 September 2011 14:28
To: Graham Cogley
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [CRYOLIST] Attachment to letter to the Times

Dear Graham, We decided to lash out £150 on Friday in the interests of
getting our facts right so will be able to check your point about the text.
I must confess none of us thought of that angle.

What grieves me is that none of the journalists thought "Hang on... 15% is
about 1/7 and I'm sure someone said Greenland ice was about 7m of sea level
rise .... that's about 1m of sea level rise over 12 years...some mistake
surely? " Must have the attention span of a gnat!

I very much doubt our letter will be published but John Vidal of the
Guardian has told us he will be trying to phone the Times Atlas chief
editor over the weekend to sort things out so something is happening.

Best wishes, Liz

 On Sep 17 2011, Graham Cogley wrote:

>Dear Liz - I think the letter to the Times is admirable. It says all that
>needs to be said.
>
>One question that has yet to be addressed is whether the mistakes appear in
>the text of the Atlas. I do not propose, for the investigation of this
>point, to lay out 150 pounds to replace my genuinely "authoritative and
>comprehensive" 1977 edition of the Atlas, but perhaps colleagues in
>Cambridge will be better placed. Ideally, Times Books will agree to replace
>the map plate in reprintings. However, if the front matter perpetuates the
>mistakes then something more will be required in order to stop this from
>becoming the next "glaciergate" - by analogy with the 1999 article in the
>Indian magazine Down To Earth which was the germ of Himalayagate.
>
>A deeper question is how to make it less likely in future that even
>well-educated people in publishing and journalism can find this sort of
>tripe plausible. Compulsory physical geography to age 16 in schools?
>
>Best regards,
>Graham.
>
>J. Graham Cogley, Ph.D., Professor of Geography,
>Department of Geography, Trent University,
>Peterborough, Ontario, CANADA K9J 7B8.
>
>Tel      +1 705-748-1011-x7686
>Fax     +1 705-742-2131
>Email  [hidden email]
>Web    http://www.trentu.ca/geography/glaciology
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [hidden email]
>[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Liz Morris
>Sent: September-17-11 9:37 AM
>To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
>Subject: [CRYOLIST] Attachment to letter to the Times
>
>Dear all,
>
> It seems the attchment to my email got stripped off at some stage when I
> posted it to Cryolist. I will try to send it again but it is a large file
> (2 MBytes) as we have included a comparison of the new Times map with a
> mosaic of recent MODIS scenes to show what the problem is. If the
> attachment is not with this email and you want to see it, please email me
> directly (as some keen souls have already done) and I'll try alternative
> methods.
>
> Liz--
>Work Tel: +44 (0)1223 336568
>
>

--
Work Tel: +44 (0)1223 336568

_______________________________________________
You're subscribed to the CRYOLIST mailing list
To change your subscription options, visit http://cryolist.org/
To send a message to the list, email [hidden email]


The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683.
_______________________________________________
You're subscribed to the CRYOLIST mailing list
To change your subscription options, visit http://cryolist.org/
To send a message to the list, email [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Attachment to letter to the Times

Jeffrey Kargel
Dear all,

The media now is catching up on the error. So let's consider it mission almost accomplished with correcting the error, but as a community let's take full advantage of the interest generated and communicate what IS happening on Greenland.  I don't mean proprietary material that hasn't been through peer review; save your best current science for peer review. But if you have had a recent paper published, and it has something in it that is attractive, understandable to the public (with some help), and relevant.... then showcase it now. There's a 24-hour news cycle. It gets stale fast. So lots of damage was done to public perception, but I think we did well as a community to respond quickly and set the record straight. Not that everybody out there will listen to the follow-on. But we have to be constructively aggressive now. People with data and compelling models should be stepping forward. Contact the media. Your local paper, local TV station, or national media outlet. I realize there is a great desire just to be left alone to do science quietly. But there is a major job for us to do (way beyond the Greenland ridiculousness) in explaining to the public how our science is publicly relevant, that we're doing the best we can to make key observations in the most objective way possible, that we are inferring the scientific and societal value of the observations as objectively as we can, that we have an innate self-correcting (different than self-policing) mechanism in (a) peer review and (b) falsifiability of observations and models, and that we are working to advance science and do so in the public interest. Right now the story is Greenland, triggered by a non-science error committed by pretend-scientists. No matter what the triggering, no matter what damage has been done that is irreparable, this is also an opportunity to showcase your results. So..... showcase it today.

--Jeff

> From: [hidden email]

> To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
> Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 11:31:39 +0100
> CC: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [CRYOLIST] Attachment to letter to the Times
>
> Dear cryolisters,
>
> I can't help but notice this Times Atlas Greenland story popping up all over the place online. A quick search alerted me to mentions in New Scientist, Discover Magazine, Metro... It also popped up in a magazine called OnEarth, which is part of the Guardian Environment Network (and to which John Vidal contributes). The article can be found here http://www.onearth.org/blog/times-atlas-maps-climate-change and includes a video of one of the senior editors of Times Atlas talking about the changes drawn into this new edition.
>
> As I'm writing this I have just noticed that the BBC have just released an artcile on this error http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14969399, but I can't help but wonder whether perhaps the damage has already been done for those outside of the cryosphere community? Will all of those reading the Guardian, New Scientist, Metro etc read this story on the BBC website, and if they do, will they still have faith in the science, or does misinformation like this only lead to public distrust in what they are told from trusted sources? I look forward to the response from the Times Atlas team.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Caroline
>
>
>
>
> Caroline Clason
>
> Cryosphere and Climate Change Research Group,
> Geography and Environment, University of Aberdeen, UK
>
> E-mail: [hidden email]
>
> Webpage: http://www.abdn.ac.uk/geography/staff/personal_pages/staff.php?page=clasonc
> ________________________________________
> From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Liz Morris [[hidden email]]
> Sent: 18 September 2011 14:28
> To: Graham Cogley
> Cc: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [CRYOLIST] Attachment to letter to the Times
>
> Dear Graham, We decided to lash out £150 on Friday in the interests of
> getting our facts right so will be able to check your point about the text.
> I must confess none of us thought of that angle.
>
> What grieves me is that none of the journalists thought "Hang on... 15% is
> about 1/7 and I'm sure someone said Greenland ice was about 7m of sea level
> rise .... that's about 1m of sea level rise over 12 years...some mistake
> surely? " Must have the attention span of a gnat!
>
> I very much doubt our letter will be published but John Vidal of the
> Guardian has told us he will be trying to phone the Times Atlas chief
> editor over the weekend to sort things out so something is happening.
>
> Best wishes, Liz
>
> On Sep 17 2011, Graham Cogley wrote:
>
> >Dear Liz - I think the letter to the Times is admirable. It says all that
> >needs to be said.
> >
> >One question that has yet to be addressed is whether the mistakes appear in
> >the text of the Atlas. I do not propose, for the investigation of this
> >point, to lay out 150 pounds to replace my genuinely "authoritative and
> >comprehensive" 1977 edition of the Atlas, but perhaps colleagues in
> >Cambridge will be better placed. Ideally, Times Books will agree to replace
> >the map plate in reprintings. However, if the front matter perpetuates the
> >mistakes then something more will be required in order to stop this from
> >becoming the next "glaciergate" - by analogy with the 1999 article in the
> >Indian magazine Down To Earth which was the germ of Himalayagate.
> >
> >A deeper question is how to make it less likely in future that even
> >well-educated people in publishing and journalism can find this sort of
> >tripe plausible. Compulsory physical geography to age 16 in schools?
> >
> >Best regards,
> >Graham.
> >
> >J. Graham Cogley, Ph.D., Professor of Geography,
> >Department of Geography, Trent University,
> >Peterborough, Ontario, CANADA K9J 7B8.
> >
> >Tel +1 705-748-1011-x7686
> >Fax +1 705-742-2131
> >Email [hidden email]
> >Web http://www.trentu.ca/geography/glaciology
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: [hidden email]
> >[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Liz Morris
> >Sent: September-17-11 9:37 AM
> >To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
> >Subject: [CRYOLIST] Attachment to letter to the Times
> >
> >Dear all,
> >
> > It seems the attchment to my email got stripped off at some stage when I
> > posted it to Cryolist. I will try to send it again but it is a large file
> > (2 MBytes) as we have included a comparison of the new Times map with a
> > mosaic of recent MODIS scenes to show what the problem is. If the
> > attachment is not with this email and you want to see it, please email me
> > directly (as some keen souls have already done) and I'll try alternative
> > methods.
> >
> > Liz--
> >Work Tel: +44 (0)1223 336568
> >
> >
>
> --
> Work Tel: +44 (0)1223 336568
>
> _______________________________________________
> You're subscribed to the CRYOLIST mailing list
> To change your subscription options, visit http://cryolist.org/
> To send a message to the list, email [hidden email]
>
>
> The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683.
> _______________________________________________
> You're subscribed to the CRYOLIST mailing list
> To change your subscription options, visit http://cryolist.org/
> To send a message to the list, email [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
You're subscribed to the CRYOLIST mailing list
To change your subscription options, visit http://cryolist.org/
To send a message to the list, email [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Attachment to letter to the Times

Martin O'Leary
As fun as it is to bash The Times, the images I've seen of the erroneous map do bear a striking resemblance to the following map which I was able to pull up on the NSIDC website by poking about looking for ice thickness information: http://bit.ly/o3iV6i

Anyone from NSIDC care to comment on what the data source being used here is? I'm sure it's just an issue of definitions over what's an "ice sheet" and what's an "outlet glacier", but it's pretty easy to see how an atlas-maker could use that as an authoritative source on what's going on in Greenland.

--
Martin O'Leary

_______________________________________________
You're subscribed to the CRYOLIST mailing list
To change your subscription options, visit http://cryolist.org/
To send a message to the list, email [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Attachment to letter to the Times

Liz Morris
Yes Martin. But ice sheet thickness is not the same as ice sheet elevation
which NSIDC also provide - see their drop down menu. Liz

 On Sep 19 2011, Martin O'Leary wrote:

> As fun as it is to bash The Times, the images I've seen of the erroneous
> map do bear a striking resemblance to the following map which I was able
> to pull up on the NSIDC website by poking about looking for ice thickness
> information: http://bit.ly/o3iV6i
>
> Anyone from NSIDC care to comment on what the data source being used here
> is? I'm sure it's just an issue of definitions over what's an "ice sheet"
> and what's an "outlet glacier", but it's pretty easy to see how an
> atlas-maker could use that as an authoritative source on what's going on
> in Greenland.
>
>

--
Work Tel: +44 (0)1223 336568

_______________________________________________
You're subscribed to the CRYOLIST mailing list
To change your subscription options, visit http://cryolist.org/
To send a message to the list, email [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Attachment to letter to the Times

Martin O'Leary
In reply to this post by Martin O'Leary
But if you look at the legend for the map I linked to, the grey areas are described as "land".

I think we're talking slightly at cross-purposes here. I'm well aware of what's going on - I'm just trying to demonstrate how an intelligent, well-meaning person could come up with the results we've seen. There's been a tendency on this list recently to assume that any misinterpretation of glaciological results is due to idiocy or malice. Perhaps it would be better to turn the discussion to how we as a community can avoid such misinterpretations in future. All of the solutions I've heard mooted to this problem have involved changing the public's behaviour, rather than our own.

--
Martin O'Leary


On Monday, 19 September 2011 at 17:16, Roger J. Braithwaite wrote:

>
> Yes, but.
>
> If you go to the site that you cite, you can change the data depicted. It is a wonderful site for education purposes!
>
> Your map of ice thickness plots the thickness of the "Greenland ice sheet". If you choose a map showing "glaciers", you can cover most of East Greenland. The Times Atlas should have shown the area of glaciers.
>
> Personally, I am really glad that people like Jeff, Graham and Liz have picked this up before it goes (completely) viral.
>
>
> Roger Braithwaite
> [hidden email] (mailto:[hidden email])
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Martin O'Leary
> Sent: 19 September 2011 17:07
> To: [hidden email] (mailto:[hidden email])
> Subject: Re: [CRYOLIST] Attachment to letter to the Times
>
> As fun as it is to bash The Times, the images I've seen of the erroneous map do bear a striking resemblance to the following map which I was able to pull up on the NSIDC website by poking about looking for ice thickness information: http://bit.ly/o3iV6i
>
> Anyone from NSIDC care to comment on what the data source being used here is? I'm sure it's just an issue of definitions over what's an "ice sheet" and what's an "outlet glacier", but it's pretty easy to see how an atlas-maker could use that as an authoritative source on what's going on in Greenland.
>
> --
> Martin O'Leary
>
> _______________________________________________
> You're subscribed to the CRYOLIST mailing list
> To change your subscription options, visit http://cryolist.org/
> To send a message to the list, email [hidden email] (mailto:[hidden email])


_______________________________________________
You're subscribed to the CRYOLIST mailing list
To change your subscription options, visit http://cryolist.org/
To send a message to the list, email [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Attachment to letter to the Times

Roger Braithwaite
In reply to this post by Liz Morris
If you go to the site that you cite, you can change the data depicted. It is a wonderful site for education purposes!

Your map of ice thickness plots the thickness of the "Greenland ice sheet". If you choose a map showing "glaciers", you can cover most of East Greenland. The Times Atlas should have shown the area of glaciers. The precise distinction between Greenland ice sheet (Indlandsisen?) and (local) glaciers is a useful one for professional glaciologists but not something that the Times Atlas should bother itself with.

Personally, I am really glad that people like Jeff, Graham and Liz have picked this up before it goes (completely) viral.  


Roger Braithwaite
[hidden email]



-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Liz Morris
Sent: 19 September 2011 17:13
To: Martin O'Leary
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [CRYOLIST] Attachment to letter to the Times

Yes Martin. But ice sheet thickness is not the same as ice sheet elevation
which NSIDC also provide - see their drop down menu. Liz

 On Sep 19 2011, Martin O'Leary wrote:

> As fun as it is to bash The Times, the images I've seen of the erroneous
> map do bear a striking resemblance to the following map which I was able
> to pull up on the NSIDC website by poking about looking for ice thickness
> information: http://bit.ly/o3iV6i
>
> Anyone from NSIDC care to comment on what the data source being used here
> is? I'm sure it's just an issue of definitions over what's an "ice sheet"
> and what's an "outlet glacier", but it's pretty easy to see how an
> atlas-maker could use that as an authoritative source on what's going on
> in Greenland.
>
>

--
Work Tel: +44 (0)1223 336568

_______________________________________________
You're subscribed to the CRYOLIST mailing list
To change your subscription options, visit http://cryolist.org/
To send a message to the list, email [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
You're subscribed to the CRYOLIST mailing list
To change your subscription options, visit http://cryolist.org/
To send a message to the list, email [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Attachment to letter to the Times

Vanderveen, Cornelis J
In reply to this post by Liz Morris
That is odd, to say the least....

The thickness map suggests zero thickness in the coastal regions while the surface elevation map suggests there is ice in the coastal regions.  My guess is that the thickness map refers to the main ice sheet only whereas the elevation map includes all peripheral ice caps and glaciers as well.

Nevertheless, I have to agree with Martin that this is confusing and begs misinterpretation by journalists and other non-experts.

Kees

________________________________________
From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] on behalf of Liz Morris [[hidden email]]
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 11:12 AM
To: Martin O'Leary
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [CRYOLIST] Attachment to letter to the Times

Yes Martin. But ice sheet thickness is not the same as ice sheet elevation
which NSIDC also provide - see their drop down menu. Liz

 On Sep 19 2011, Martin O'Leary wrote:

> As fun as it is to bash The Times, the images I've seen of the erroneous
> map do bear a striking resemblance to the following map which I was able
> to pull up on the NSIDC website by poking about looking for ice thickness
> information: http://bit.ly/o3iV6i
>
> Anyone from NSIDC care to comment on what the data source being used here
> is? I'm sure it's just an issue of definitions over what's an "ice sheet"
> and what's an "outlet glacier", but it's pretty easy to see how an
> atlas-maker could use that as an authoritative source on what's going on
> in Greenland.
>
>

--
Work Tel: +44 (0)1223 336568

_______________________________________________
You're subscribed to the CRYOLIST mailing list
To change your subscription options, visit http://cryolist.org/
To send a message to the list, email [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
You're subscribed to the CRYOLIST mailing list
To change your subscription options, visit http://cryolist.org/
To send a message to the list, email [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Attachment to letter to the Times

Clason, Caroline
In reply to this post by Martin O'Leary
Martin, I totally agree that it is not the public's behaviour that needs to change. Instead it is the game of 'Chinese whispers' that seems to be played so often between the research community, the press and the public that must be tackled so that these mistakes can be avoided in the future, as well as the subsequent internal bickering that the public perceive of the "scientists" in the aftermath of such errors.

But I think we must be careful not to confuse the 'general lay public' with contributors to such books, articles and maps, who surely have a responsibility to ensure accurate sources before publication. Given the peer review process that our research is subject to, it is sad that this does not seem to be carried forward into the information conveyed to the public on such matters... Surely this is the real issue that must be addressed?


Caroline Clason

Cryosphere and Climate Change Research Group,
Geography and Environment, University of Aberdeen, UK

E-mail: [hidden email]

Webpage: http://www.abdn.ac.uk/geography/staff/personal_pages/staff.php?page=clasonc
________________________________________
From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Martin O'Leary [[hidden email]]
Sent: 19 September 2011 17:28
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [CRYOLIST] Attachment to letter to the Times

But if you look at the legend for the map I linked to, the grey areas are described as "land".

I think we're talking slightly at cross-purposes here. I'm well aware of what's going on - I'm just trying to demonstrate how an intelligent, well-meaning person could come up with the results we've seen. There's been a tendency on this list recently to assume that any misinterpretation of glaciological results is due to idiocy or malice. Perhaps it would be better to turn the discussion to how we as a community can avoid such misinterpretations in future. All of the solutions I've heard mooted to this problem have involved changing the public's behaviour, rather than our own.

--
Martin O'Leary


On Monday, 19 September 2011 at 17:16, Roger J. Braithwaite wrote:

>
> Yes, but.
>
> If you go to the site that you cite, you can change the data depicted. It is a wonderful site for education purposes!
>
> Your map of ice thickness plots the thickness of the "Greenland ice sheet". If you choose a map showing "glaciers", you can cover most of East Greenland. The Times Atlas should have shown the area of glaciers.
>
> Personally, I am really glad that people like Jeff, Graham and Liz have picked this up before it goes (completely) viral.
>
>
> Roger Braithwaite
> [hidden email] (mailto:[hidden email])
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Martin O'Leary
> Sent: 19 September 2011 17:07
> To: [hidden email] (mailto:[hidden email])
> Subject: Re: [CRYOLIST] Attachment to letter to the Times
>
> As fun as it is to bash The Times, the images I've seen of the erroneous map do bear a striking resemblance to the following map which I was able to pull up on the NSIDC website by poking about looking for ice thickness information: http://bit.ly/o3iV6i
>
> Anyone from NSIDC care to comment on what the data source being used here is? I'm sure it's just an issue of definitions over what's an "ice sheet" and what's an "outlet glacier", but it's pretty easy to see how an atlas-maker could use that as an authoritative source on what's going on in Greenland.
>
> --
> Martin O'Leary
>
> _______________________________________________
> You're subscribed to the CRYOLIST mailing list
> To change your subscription options, visit http://cryolist.org/
> To send a message to the list, email [hidden email] (mailto:[hidden email])


_______________________________________________
You're subscribed to the CRYOLIST mailing list
To change your subscription options, visit http://cryolist.org/
To send a message to the list, email [hidden email]


The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683.
_______________________________________________
You're subscribed to the CRYOLIST mailing list
To change your subscription options, visit http://cryolist.org/
To send a message to the list, email [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Attachment to letter to the Times

Martin O'Leary
Hi Caroline,

I agree that it would be nice to change the behaviour of those who interpret our work for the public, but I think that doing so is beyond the powers of a mere Cryolist discussion. On the other hand, what we say here can have an effect on how we as a community present our work, and if we can make improvements there, then that can have a real effect on what gets relayed to the public.

Anyway, I have a thesis due in 11 days, and according to this new atlas, several of the glaciers involved have ceased to exist in the last decade, so this will be my last post on the subject.

--
Martin O'Leary


On Monday, 19 September 2011 at 18:09, Clason, Caroline wrote:

> Martin, I totally agree that it is not the public's behaviour that needs to change. Instead it is the game of 'Chinese whispers' that seems to be played so often between the research community, the press and the public that must be tackled so that these mistakes can be avoided in the future, as well as the subsequent internal bickering that the public perceive of the "scientists" in the aftermath of such errors.
>
> But I think we must be careful not to confuse the 'general lay public' with contributors to such books, articles and maps, who surely have a responsibility to ensure accurate sources before publication. Given the peer review process that our research is subject to, it is sad that this does not seem to be carried forward into the information conveyed to the public on such matters... Surely this is the real issue that must be addressed?
>
>
> Caroline Clason
>
> Cryosphere and Climate Change Research Group,
> Geography and Environment, University of Aberdeen, UK
>
> E-mail: [hidden email] (mailto:[hidden email])
>
> Webpage: http://www.abdn.ac.uk/geography/staff/personal_pages/staff.php?page=clasonc
> ________________________________________
> From: [hidden email] (mailto:[hidden email]) [[hidden email] (mailto:[hidden email])] On Behalf Of Martin O'Leary [[hidden email] (mailto:[hidden email])]
> Sent: 19 September 2011 17:28
> To: [hidden email] (mailto:[hidden email])
> Subject: Re: [CRYOLIST] Attachment to letter to the Times
>
> But if you look at the legend for the map I linked to, the grey areas are described as "land".
>
> I think we're talking slightly at cross-purposes here. I'm well aware of what's going on - I'm just trying to demonstrate how an intelligent, well-meaning person could come up with the results we've seen. There's been a tendency on this list recently to assume that any misinterpretation of glaciological results is due to idiocy or malice. Perhaps it would be better to turn the discussion to how we as a community can avoid such misinterpretations in future. All of the solutions I've heard mooted to this problem have involved changing the public's behaviour, rather than our own.
>
> --
> Martin O'Leary
>
>
> On Monday, 19 September 2011 at 17:16, Roger J. Braithwaite wrote:
>
> >
> > Yes, but.
> >
> > If you go to the site that you cite, you can change the data depicted. It is a wonderful site for education purposes!
> >
> > Your map of ice thickness plots the thickness of the "Greenland ice sheet". If you choose a map showing "glaciers", you can cover most of East Greenland. The Times Atlas should have shown the area of glaciers.
> >
> > Personally, I am really glad that people like Jeff, Graham and Liz have picked this up before it goes (completely) viral.
> >
> >
> > Roger Braithwaite
> > [hidden email] (mailto:[hidden email])
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Martin O'Leary
> > Sent: 19 September 2011 17:07
> > To: [hidden email] (mailto:[hidden email])
> > Subject: Re: [CRYOLIST] Attachment to letter to the Times
> >
> > As fun as it is to bash The Times, the images I've seen of the erroneous map do bear a striking resemblance to the following map which I was able to pull up on the NSIDC website by poking about looking for ice thickness information: http://bit.ly/o3iV6i
> >
> > Anyone from NSIDC care to comment on what the data source being used here is? I'm sure it's just an issue of definitions over what's an "ice sheet" and what's an "outlet glacier", but it's pretty easy to see how an atlas-maker could use that as an authoritative source on what's going on in Greenland.
> >
> > --
> > Martin O'Leary
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > You're subscribed to the CRYOLIST mailing list
> > To change your subscription options, visit http://cryolist.org/
> > To send a message to the list, email [hidden email] (mailto:[hidden email])
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> You're subscribed to the CRYOLIST mailing list
> To change your subscription options, visit http://cryolist.org/
> To send a message to the list, email [hidden email] (mailto:[hidden email])
>
>
> The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683.


_______________________________________________
You're subscribed to the CRYOLIST mailing list
To change your subscription options, visit http://cryolist.org/
To send a message to the list, email [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Attachment to letter to the Times

Jeffrey Kargel
Martin,

And if I and many others keep talking, the hot air will melt a twelfth glacier before your thesis gets any ink.
Seriously, thanks ladies and gentlemen for the discussion and action.  Good luck, Martin.... and I have a Mars proposal due in 3 hours.

--Jeff

> Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 18:19:57 +0100

> From: [hidden email]
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [CRYOLIST] Attachment to letter to the Times
>
> Hi Caroline,
>
> I agree that it would be nice to change the behaviour of those who interpret our work for the public, but I think that doing so is beyond the powers of a mere Cryolist discussion. On the other hand, what we say here can have an effect on how we as a community present our work, and if we can make improvements there, then that can have a real effect on what gets relayed to the public.
>
> Anyway, I have a thesis due in 11 days, and according to this new atlas, several of the glaciers involved have ceased to exist in the last decade, so this will be my last post on the subject.
>
> --
> Martin O'Leary
>
>
> On Monday, 19 September 2011 at 18:09, Clason, Caroline wrote:
>
> > Martin, I totally agree that it is not the public's behaviour that needs to change. Instead it is the game of 'Chinese whispers' that seems to be played so often between the research community, the press and the public that must be tackled so that these mistakes can be avoided in the future, as well as the subsequent internal bickering that the public perceive of the "scientists" in the aftermath of such errors.
> >
> > But I think we must be careful not to confuse the 'general lay public' with contributors to such books, articles and maps, who surely have a responsibility to ensure accurate sources before publication. Given the peer review process that our research is subject to, it is sad that this does not seem to be carried forward into the information conveyed to the public on such matters... Surely this is the real issue that must be addressed?
> >
> >
> > Caroline Clason
> >
> > Cryosphere and Climate Change Research Group,
> > Geography and Environment, University of Aberdeen, UK
> >
> > E-mail: [hidden email] (mailto:[hidden email])
> >
> > Webpage: http://www.abdn.ac.uk/geography/staff/personal_pages/staff.php?page=clasonc
> > ________________________________________
> > From: [hidden email] (mailto:[hidden email]) [[hidden email] (mailto:[hidden email])] On Behalf Of Martin O'Leary [[hidden email] (mailto:[hidden email])]
> > Sent: 19 September 2011 17:28
> > To: [hidden email] (mailto:[hidden email])
> > Subject: Re: [CRYOLIST] Attachment to letter to the Times
> >
> > But if you look at the legend for the map I linked to, the grey areas are described as "land".
> >
> > I think we're talking slightly at cross-purposes here. I'm well aware of what's going on - I'm just trying to demonstrate how an intelligent, well-meaning person could come up with the results we've seen. There's been a tendency on this list recently to assume that any misinterpretation of glaciological results is due to idiocy or malice. Perhaps it would be better to turn the discussion to how we as a community can avoid such misinterpretations in future. All of the solutions I've heard mooted to this problem have involved changing the public's behaviour, rather than our own.
> >
> > --
> > Martin O'Leary
> >
> >
> > On Monday, 19 September 2011 at 17:16, Roger J. Braithwaite wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Yes, but.
> > >
> > > If you go to the site that you cite, you can change the data depicted. It is a wonderful site for education purposes!
> > >
> > > Your map of ice thickness plots the thickness of the "Greenland ice sheet". If you choose a map showing "glaciers", you can cover most of East Greenland. The Times Atlas should have shown the area of glaciers.
> > >
> > > Personally, I am really glad that people like Jeff, Graham and Liz have picked this up before it goes (completely) viral.
> > >
> > >
> > > Roger Braithwaite
> > > [hidden email] (mailto:[hidden email])
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Martin O'Leary
> > > Sent: 19 September 2011 17:07
> > > To: [hidden email] (mailto:[hidden email])
> > > Subject: Re: [CRYOLIST] Attachment to letter to the Times
> > >
> > > As fun as it is to bash The Times, the images I've seen of the erroneous map do bear a striking resemblance to the following map which I was able to pull up on the NSIDC website by poking about looking for ice thickness information: http://bit.ly/o3iV6i
> > >
> > > Anyone from NSIDC care to comment on what the data source being used here is? I'm sure it's just an issue of definitions over what's an "ice sheet" and what's an "outlet glacier", but it's pretty easy to see how an atlas-maker could use that as an authoritative source on what's going on in Greenland.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Martin O'Leary
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > You're subscribed to the CRYOLIST mailing list
> > > To change your subscription options, visit http://cryolist.org/
> > > To send a message to the list, email [hidden email] (mailto:[hidden email])
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > You're subscribed to the CRYOLIST mailing list
> > To change your subscription options, visit http://cryolist.org/
> > To send a message to the list, email [hidden email] (mailto:[hidden email])
> >
> >
> > The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> You're subscribed to the CRYOLIST mailing list
> To change your subscription options, visit http://cryolist.org/
> To send a message to the list, email [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
You're subscribed to the CRYOLIST mailing list
To change your subscription options, visit http://cryolist.org/
To send a message to the list, email [hidden email]