We, Us.

[Lord Jim]

The world around us is beautiful and entrancing and supporting research into this is just a pure pleasure.

[dales]

or...........

[rubato]

Supporting and promoting something which is good, is a good thing.


Those not afflicted with insecurity will all accept and appreciate this.


yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

I know you'll say I'm taking credit for the wonderful California Climate but here it is anyway!



http://news.ucsc.edu/2013/01/california-flora.html

Low extinction rates made California a refuge for diverse plant species

Study attributes California's status as a plant biodiversity hotspot to low rates of extinction, rather than high rates of speciation

January 09, 2013

By Tim Stephens
coyote-ridge-400.jpg

California has more than 5,500 native plant species, including these spring wildflowers on Coyote Ridge in Santa Clara County. (Photo by Jenn Yost)

The remarkable diversity of California's plant life is largely the result of low extinction rates over the past 45 million years, according to a new study published in the journal Evolution. Although many new species have evolved in California, the rate at which plant lineages gave rise to new species has not been notably higher in California than elsewhere, researchers found.

Botanists have long recognized California as a biodiversity hotspot. With more than 5,500 native plant species, 40 percent of which are "endemic" (occurring nowhere else), California has more species and more endemic species than any other U.S. state, and is more species rich than most other places on Earth. The new findings highlight the importance of California as a refuge for plant species that might have gone extinct in other regions during the climatic shifts that occurred in the distant past.

"It seems that California has been an important refuge for plant lineages for a long time," said coauthor Kathleen Kay, assistant professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of California, Santa Cruz. "These findings speak to the importance of protecting areas in California so that it can continue to be a refuge for biodiversity in the future."

First author Lesley Lancaster, now at Lund University in Sweden, became interested in collaborating with Kay after taking a course from her as a graduate student at UC Santa Cruz. She and Kay developed the project together after Lancaster received a postdoctoral fellowship to study plant evolution at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis at UC Santa Barbara.

"Because California has so many unique and relatively young plant species, it was long assumed by biogeographers and naturalists that high speciation rates were the cause of California's biodiversity," Lancaster said. "It turns out that these species have not arisen at a particularly high rate in California compared to elsewhere. Instead, features of California's climate, topography, and latitude have preserved these species, allowing us to see them today, when they may have simply gone extinct if they had arisen elsewhere."

Lancaster and Kay are the first to tackle the question using modern methods of phylogenetic analysis. They studied 16 different plant lineages that are well represented both within and outside of California, and each lineage includes California endemic species. Using DNA sequence data to reconstruct the evolutionary "family trees" of these lineages, plus fossil records to calibrate the dates when different branches of each tree diverged, they were able to estimate historical rates of speciation, extinction, and migration across the California border.

Some of the study's key findings differ from long-standing ideas about the origins of California's extraordinary species richness that were set forth in a landmark study published in 1978, "Origin and relationships of the California flora," by Peter Raven and Daniel Axelrod. That classic work, which was based on analyses of fossil data and current distributions of plants, emphasized high speciation rates as an important contributor to high plant biodiversity in California.

Raven and Axelrod also hypothesized that the onset of the wet-winter, dry-summer Mediterranean climate in California 3 to 5 million years ago was a key factor that promoted high rates of speciation and led to the species richness that now characterizes California's flora. All the regions of the world with a Mediterranean climate (California, the cape of Africa, Southwestern Australia, the west coast of Chile, and around the Mediterranean sea) are currently plant biodiversity hotspots, and California does have a large number of relatively young species.

Lancaster and Kay's study, however, indicates that the onset of the Mediterranean climate did not affect speciation rates in California in most lineages. "Instead, low extinction rates over longer periods of time are responsible for species richness in California, and possibly in other Mediterranean regions as well," Lancaster said. "All of these regions share characteristics that predate the onset of the Mediterranean climate and that may have favored species persistence in each of these localities."

According to Kay, California's topographical diversity probably has played a critical role in preserving species richness. "People have talked about the topography fostering speciation, and it does play a role in that, but it plays a bigger role in preventing extinction by creating different niches and allowing lots of species to coexist," Kay said. "Topography also provides refuges, and the mountains are particularly important in preventing extinctions during times of climate change."

In a changing climate, species living on mountains can stay in the same temperature regime by shifting their elevation, moving relatively short distances compared to species on flat land that would have to shift their latitude by hundreds of miles to stay in the same temperature range. California's mountains are also important for their influence on precipitation, capturing the moisture in air masses coming off the Pacific Ocean, Kay said.

The new study did support several of Raven and Axelrod's conclusions. For example, they had predicted that cold-adapted lineages would have lower rates of speciation in California than warm-adapted lineages, which Lancaster and Kay confirmed. They also proposed that the onset of the Mediterranean climate facilitated the immigration of desert-adapted plants. Lancaster and Kay found that desert-adapted plants colonized California more recently than other lineages, arriving on average around 5 to 6 million years ago, in comparison to an average of around 17 million years ago for non-desert lineages.

"We just don't have a lot of evidence that the Mediterranean climate spurred speciation," Kay said. "Our work shows that the causes of the diversity we see now are more ancient than the Mediterranean climate itself."

In addition to topography, important features of California and other Mediterranean climate regions are their latitude and their location on the west coast of a continent, Lancaster said. Latitude is important because it allowed these regions to avoid glaciation during periods when global temperatures were cold and northern latitudes were covered in ice. During periods of global warmth, being situated where easterly air currents bring moisture onto the land from the ocean has kept these regions from becoming deserts.

"These regions are likely diverse because they are some of the only non-tropical regions to have been able to avoid historical periods of either desertification or glaciation," Lancaster said.

The NCEAS, where Lancaster worked on this study as a postdoctoral fellow, is funded by the National Science Foundation (grant #EF-0553768), UC Santa Barbara, and the State of California.

Of course you'll have to engage your brain and actually think to read all of that! Poor things.

[rubato]

The extraordinary Elliot Aronson:

http://news.ucsc.edu/2011/04/aronson-winner.html

Elliot Aronson wins UC distinguished emeriti award

Constantine Panunzio Award recognizes UC professors for research and activities after retirement

April 07, 2011

By Guy Lasnier
aronson-desilu-375.jpg
Emeritus Psychology Professor Elliot Aronson with his recently acquired guide dog "Desilu."

Elliot Aronson, emeritus professor of psychology at UC Santa Cruz, has been named winner of the 2010 Constantine Panunzio Distinguished Emeriti Award.

The award recognizes outstanding University of California professors in the humanities or social sciences for research and activities since retirement. Established in 1983, it is named for Constantine Panunzio, a sociology professor at UCLA, who is known as the architect of the UC Retirement System. It includes a $5,000 prize.

Aronson, 79, the eminent social psychologist who retired in 1994, is the fifth UCSC professor to win and the third in consecutive years. Previous UC Santa Cruz winners are Hayden White, History of Consciousness, 2001; G. William Domhoff, sociology, 2007; Thomas Pettigrew, psychology, 2009; and Harry Berger Jr., literature, 2010. Only UCLA with six winners has more.

Also winning for the 2010-11 academic year is J. Hillis Miller, distinguished professor of literature emeritus at UC Irvine.

"The Panunzio Award is a great idea," Aronson said, "to recognize people for the work they have done after they retire; that is, after they stop working, officially!

"It is a great honor to have been selected. For me, doing research on social psychological issues is not work--but a great joy. So, in a sense, I am being rewarded for having fun! Not bad."

The UC Santa Cruz Emeriti Association nominated Aronson in recognition of his extensive teaching, research, and writing since retirement. Over the past 17 years, Aronson has published numerous articles and books, including the critically acclaimed Not by Chance Alone, My Life as a Social Psychologist (Basic Books, 2010) and Mistakes Were Made (but not by me) (Harcourt, 2007) with co-author Carol Tavris. He also wrote a children's book, The Adventures of Ruthie and a Little Boy Named Grandpa, with his then six-year-old granddaughter Ruth Aronson.

UC Santa Cruz Chancellor George Blumenthal praised Aronson's selection, calling his work "brilliant, both before and after retirement." Blumenthal said he has long considered Mistakes Were Made (but not by me) "a handbook for chancellors."

The Panunzio is the latest in a long list of accolades awarded Aronson. He received a lifetime achievement award from the Association for Psychological Science and was named one of the 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century in a study published in the Review of General Psychology.

He won the first distinguished teaching award bestowed by the UC Santa Cruz Alumni Association.

His contributions to the field of human behavior have explored the theory of cognitive dissonance and the causes of interpersonal attraction. His research always addressed important social problems, including prejudice reduction, energy conservation, and AIDS prevention. His textbook, The Social Animal, first published in 1972 and now in its 10th edition, remains among the most popular texts in social psychology.

UCSC Emeriti Association president John Marcum wrote in the nomination letter that Aronson's scholarly work post-retirement "would be remarkable" for a sighted person; "for someone coping with the loss of his sight, it is hard to find a way to describe Elliot's success."

Aronson has progressively lost his sight from macular degeneration. He continues to write and correspond using voice recognition software and recently acquired a guide dog, a yellow Labrador retriever named "Desilu."

Aronson received his B.A. from Brandeis University in 1954, his M.A. from Wesleyan University in 1956, and his Ph.D. in psychology from Stanford University in 1959. He began teaching at Harvard University in 1959 and moved in 1962 to the University of Minnesota. He joined the University of Texas in 1965 and came to UCSC in 1974. After retirement he continued to teach for several years at UCSC and Stanford University.

Uniquely, to use the term correctly, he has received all of the prizes and awards in social psychology. Teaching, writing, research, impact.


yrs,
rubato

[dales]

You want IMPACT?

[rubato]

This is what I love what I support and what I care about. it's a good thing.

If you are so small that you have to make it into something else to suit your asshole agenda then fuck you. You don't amount to anything anyway.



yrs,
rubato

[dales]

Don't go away, mad...............just go away.

[rubato]

There are things which are good and beneficial and should be seen and supported.

I do so.

If someone is a nasty little fuck and cannot appreciate these things it is their loss.

There are a lot of you but in the end, I win.

yrs,
rubato

[dales]

There are things which are good and beneficial and should be seen and supported.

I do so.

If someone is I am a nasty little fuck and cannot appreciate these things it is their my loss.

There are a lot of you but in the end, I win. who gives a rat's ass?

yrs,
rubato

Corrected to render greater accuracy.

[Sean]

Rubato, I'm not sure that anybody here is disputing the fact that this kind of research is beneficial. What I personally object to are those who seek glory through the achievements of others.

My view is this: Feel free to use the word 'we' if you were/are a part of the research team. If you weren't/aren't, don't!
I say the same to sports fans who preface their team's achievements with the word 'we'.

Another piece of friendly advice, it's best not to put words in others' mouths by reading things into their posts which aren't actually there.

[Lord Jim]

Six posts about significant achievements of an institution which we worked for for 20 years have several degrees from and support financially:

Ya gotta hand it to rube...

Whether it's tipping or charitable contributions, there are no limits to how generous rube is willing to be with his wife's money....

ETA:

And, if I am lucky, an institution which I will gladly take a > $30,000 / yr pay cut to work for again.

Gee, in the original story it was 20K....

I guess after a second interview, they must have revised their offer...

(either that or it's your well known math skills kicking in...)

Why'd they drop the offer by 10k rube?

Were you having trouble operating the floor polisher?

In any event, 20K or 30K has got to represent a 50-60 percent pay cut for you, but hey it's not like you need the money or are required to contribute any meaningful portion to your household income, so I say go for it....

If the primary earner in your household is ok with you contributing even less than your current chump change level, follow your bliss....

(for your sake I'm hoping it's not a janitorial job but landscaping instead, since that's something you might actually even have a talent for....you'll just have to brush up on your Spanish so you can fit in with your co-workers...)

[Econoline]

Just because I couldn't resist putting in that little dig at the end of my earlier post, everyone seems to be ignoring the positive part of that post:

In rubato's defense, if he had said "we" in reference to some sport's team's success, as people do all the time, probably no one would have found that objectionable or unusual at all. (Except of course for the ones who find everything rubato says objectionable. )

It's good to see someone identifying with a university's science team instead of its sports team.

(Just sayin'...)

[Lord Jim]

Econo, it seems to me that you're sort of making the point that rube is treated differently from the way most folks here are, who might say similar things...

That there is a propensity to jump on him about things that in the case of others, folks wouldn't even comment on....

If that's your point, you're absolutely right....

I won't speak for anyone else, but I definitely treat rube differently then I do others here and mock and criticize him over things on occasion that I wouldn't even notice if it were someone else...

I freely admit that, and moreover, I offer absolutely no apology for it, because I do so for a very good reason:

Rubato is a vicious little prick.

He's an arrogant wannabe bully, who fancies himself one of the most intelligent and knowledgeable posters on the board, when he is in fact one of the least in both categories. He sneeringly looks down on everyone here when he ought to be looking up; I have seen this little snot insult and attack people who never so much as even gave him a cross word....he's also a boorish braggart..(really, is there any negative personality quality that he hasn't embraced? I'm hard put to think of one.)

He's a walking talking ball of nastiness, ignorance, bigotry and toxicity....

He reminds me of the creature on Star Trek Generations that killed Diane Crosby's character:



Somebody around here said they didn't have a mental picture of rube. I do. this is it:



Yes, a Louie DePalma, only less warm and charming....

In other words a vicious little prick.

I'm happy to admit that I have a different set of rules that I use for dealing with vicious little pricks, then I employ in my treatment of anyone else.

I believe that is as it should be. Beyond that I don't single rube out; I treat him exactly the same way I would any vicious little prick; I treat all vicious little pricks the same...

He just happens to be the only vicious little prick we have around here at the moment, which is why he looks like he's being singled out.

[dales]

That's our Lord Jim......always sitting on the fence in regards to like/dislike for people, places or things.

[Lord Jim]

Well you know me Dale...

I always try to sugar coat things and be as diplomatic as possible....

[Joe Guy]

So, let me get this straight, Jim.

Are you saying that you don't like rubato?

[Lord Jim]

Well let's just say he's not at the top of my Christmas list....

I'm glad rube's here because I find his congenital cluelessness amusing, (and a lot about him also appeals to the amateur shrink in me.) but that doesn't change the fact that he is a thoroughly distasteful human being. I would certainly never choose to have anyone with so many negative personality traits and so little in the way of brains or knowledge as a friend.

[Crackpot]

THat was the Next Generation Jim.

Between that and your support for Enterprise your Trekkie card has been revoked.

[Joe Guy]

Speaking of being an amateur shrink, do you see, as I believe Gob does & I do, that when rubato is at the point in which he uses the word "twy" he appears to be at a certain level of inebriation, which intensifies as he continues to respond to those who point that out and criticize him for other things.

Could it be that the rubester is under a lot of stress due to the fact that he is not the breadwinner for his household and his mommy wife seems to control his life?

And could it be that he comes here to pump up his ego?

And fails?

So he drinks and then posts some more?

And gets more bitter?