From	John Ogden	Date	Fri, 15 Nov 2002 16:15:25 +1300
To	itrdbfor@listserv.arizona.edu
Subject	Re: Fwd: History and trees
Dear Professor Savidge, Hal Fritts's comments were, as always, to the point and gracious. I have much less patience with your ignorance and arrogance. The sampling and statistical procedures involved in the production of a cross-dated chronology are of course quite different to those used in a randomised experiment, but they are none-the-less logical, rigorous, science. We have been through all those arguments so many times - you are wasting everyone's time. John Ogden. On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 13:16:20 -0700 "Harold C. Fritts" wrote: > Dear Ron, > I respectfully disagree with you. We have reached out to you many times > and find little but judgmental response. I have worked with this group > for many years now and they are just as exact scientists as you. They > are interested in what the tree tells us about the earth and its history > and not as interested and experienced as you in how the tree works. I > agree with you to the extent that we must understand how the tree works > but I fear you have "created the reality that dendrochronologists are > stupid and beneath your greatness" and that it will not ever change. > > People like you in the past such as Waldo Glock and Sampson at Berkley, > CA made similar statements. When I was a young man, I set out trying to > examine their criticism objectively with both physiological > investigations and statistical analysis. I found that these criticisms > could be met with data from solid physiological tests and even though > those practicing the science at that time were astronomers, not > physiologists. There are talented and insightful people in other > sciences outside of plant physiology. > > I am sorry for all of our sakes. as the future holds many possibilities > with many experts contributing to the future of science. If you could > only get outside the judgmental ideas that you hold about us, I think > you might be very surprised and pleased. > > Yes, I think many in this group oversimplify the response of the tree, > but in the same way you oversimplify the practice of dendrochronology. > We all have much to learn from each other, but calling each other names > doesn't further anyone's science. > > I believe science is embarking on a course of greater cooperation among > different disciplines. This implies respect and cooperation in both > directions. We welcome your interest in dendrochronology but are > saddened that you have so little respect for our integrity and honesty. > It would be more appreciated if we could together work for a better > future, not just quarrel, call each other names and delve on what is > wrong with the past. > > Sincerely, Regretfully and Lovingly, > Hal Fritts > > P.S. > One other comment to my fellow scientists. I agree with Frank that I > have made only a start at understanding the basis for tree ring > formation. It will take much more work in physiology and modeling. In > current discussions and debates on the importance of physiology and > process modeling in dendrochronology, understanding plant processes > often takes secondary impotence in the eyes of many > dendrochronologists. I think this will change because I believe in the > integrity of my colleagues, but I sometimes wonder how long this will > take. I had at one time hoped that I might see it happen. We can > answer such criticism, but not until we investigate further how the tree > responds to its environment and how the tree lays down layers of cells > we call the tree ring. Physiologists outside dendrochronology have > little inclination to do it for us as this message reveals. We can and > must do it ourselves by including, welcoming and funding physiological > investigation in tree-ring research. > HCF > > > Rod Savidge wrote: > > > > To the Editor, New York Times > > > Indeed, its activities > > include subjective interpretations of what does and what does not > > constitute an annual ring, statistical manipulation of data to fulfill > > subjective expectations, and discarding of perfectly good data sets when > > they contradict other data sets that have already been accepted. Such > > massaging of data cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered > > science; it merely demonstrates a total lack of rigor attending so-called > > dendrochronology "research". > > > > I would add that it is the exceptionally rare dendrochronologist who has > > ever shown any inclination to understand the fundamental biology of wood > > formation, either as regulated intrinsically or influenced by extrinsic > > factors. The science of tree physiology will readily admit that our > > understanding of how trees make wood remains at quite a rudimentary state > > (despite several centuries of research). On the other hand, there are many > > hundreds, if not thousands, of publications by dendrochronologists > > implicitly claiming that they do understand the biology of wood formation, > > as they have used their data to imagine when past regimes of water, > > temperature, pollutants, CO2, soil nutrients, and so forth existed. Note > > that all of the counts and measurements on tree rings in the world cannot > > substantiate anything unequivocally; they are merely observations. It > > would be a major step forward if dendrochronology could embrace the > > scientific method. > > > > sincerely, > > RA Savidge, PhD > > Professor, Tree Physiology/Biochemistry > > Forestry & Environmental Management > > University of New Brunswick > > Fredericton, NB E3B 6C2 > > > > >X-Sieve: cmu-sieve 2.0 > > >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 > > >Importance: Normal > > >Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 23:24:03 -0500 > > >Reply-To: grissino@UTKUX.UTCC.UTK.EDU > > >Sender: ITRDB Dendrochronology Forum > > >From: "David M. Lawrence" > > >Subject: History and trees > > >Comments: To: scitimes@nytimes.com > > >To: ITRDBFOR@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU > > > > > >I was rather horrified by the inaccurate statements about tree-ring > > >dating that you allowed to slip into print in the interview with Thomas > > >Pakenham today. Tree-ring science is an exact science -- none of the > > >data obtained from tree rings would be useful if the dates were > > >inaccurate. Dendrochronologists don't say much these days about how old > > >trees are because they are interested in more important questions -- > > >such as "What can the tree rings tell us about our planet's past?" > > > > > >You at The New York Times should know something about tree rings. A > > >check on Lexis-Nexis shows that since 1980 you have run more than 100 > > >stories in which the words "tree rings" appear in full text. Some of > > >the stories are irrelevant. But most are not, such as the July 13, > > >2002, story in which you misspell the name of Neil Pederson at > > >Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, or the March 26, 2002, story about a > > >medieval climate warming detected in tree-ring data. I do not remember > > >tree-ring dating being labeled an "inexact" science in stories like > > >that. > > > > > >Did Walter Sullivan, who wrote a story about tree rings and drought on > > >September 2, 1980, ever question the "exact" nature of tree-ring dating? > > >He didn't seem to question it on June 7, 1994, when he wrote a story > > >about ash from Santorini and said that the ash cloud may have "persisted > > >long enough to stunt the growth of oak trees in Irish bogs and of > > >bristlecone pines in the White Mountains of California, producing > > >tightly packed tree rings." You really do have to know when those rings > > >were laid down before you can associate them with a specific volcanic > > >eruption. > > > > > >I tell you what. I am a member of the National Association of Science > > >Writers as well as a working dendrochronologist and occasionally paid-up > > >member of the Tree-Ring Society. If you feel the need for a refresher > > >course on tree-ring dating, I'll be more than happy to try to introduce > > >you to knowledgeable practioners in you neighborhood, such as Neil > > >Pederson (not Peterson) at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. (It's > > >actually a local phone call for youse guys.) > > > > > >Sincerely, > > > > > >Dave Lawrence > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------ > > > David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786 > > > 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 > > > Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: dave@fuzzo.com > > > USA | http: http://fuzzo.com > > >------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > >"We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo > > > > > >"No trespassing > > > 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan > > -- > Harold C. Fritts, Professor Emeritus, Lab. of Tree-Ring Research > University of Arizona/ Owner of DendroPower > 5703 N. Lady Lane, Tucson, AZ 85704-3905 > Ph Voice: (520) 887 7291 > http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/~hal ---------------------- John Ogden j.ogden@auckland.ac.nz