Like much of our current political discussion, environmental policy discussions too frequently involve attacking straw men (that is, arguments no one is making) because it is easier than honestly trying to understand the position of those who disagree with you. Rather than trying to reach real understanding, some people make broad and vague attacks on those they disagree with.

The latest example comes from newspaper columnist Shawn Vestal and his piece attacking me regarding the science of the Snake River dams. At the bottom of newspaper columnist Shawn Vestal’s latest column appears this correction:

In his original piece, Vestal claimed, “Myers did not respond to an email seeking comment about the criticism of his salmon math.” There is a reason I did not respond. The email never left his outbox. I pointed out that I had not received an email from him and asked that he send me evidence that it had ever been sent. After some back-and-forth, he admitted there was a technical error on his end, and he removed the false sentence from his online column.

Fine, but in 2021 contacting people is not difficult. He simply was not interested in what I had to say, so he made a (botched) cursory effort to reach me.

I pointed out that he could have called me. Indeed, afterwards, when he wanted to provide an excuse for what happened, he did exactly that. And I answered the phone. He could also have reached me through Twitter, which is where I initially let him know I had never received an email from him.

Connecting with people who disagree on issues is more important than ever in increasing divisive and mindless political environment. I try to do it as much as I can. Indeed, I’ve done it repeatedly regarding the science about the Snake River Dams.

For example, when University of Washington researcher Deborah Giles wrote a letter calling for the destruction of the Snake River dams, I sent her an e-mail asking four key questions. She sent a response that included several people, with the salutation, “Dear Co-Chairs Solien and Purce, SRKW Task Force Members, and Todd Myers.” There was just one problem. She did not send it to me. Someone else forwarded it to me. Since she sent the email in “blind copy” mode, none of the other recipients could see the trick she had played.

So, I sent another email to her requesting the letter she had sent originally.

Once again, she did not respond. It was simply dishonest to pretend she sent it to me. That type of response by people who claim to be dispassionate scientists is alarmingly common.

A couple years ago a group of “scientists” claimed the Snake River Dams were increasing temperatures on the river due to the slow-moving slack water stored behind the dams. I emailed the people who signed that letter asking simple questions about the source of their conclusions.

On November 13, 2019, I sent a letter those listed as contacts.

Rather than answering my question, one of the lead authors responded that their letter “simply cites” data from the EPA and that I should contact them instead.

It is odd to for people using their credential as “scientists” to say they are only quoting someone else’s data and can’t speak to the “modeling, assumptions, etc.” Their entire argument rested on the validity of that modeling.

So, I decided to ask an additional question. The model they cited dated from 2003. By 2019, we had an additional 16 years of data. I asked how the models had performed since they were first released.

Cannamela did not answer the question. Instead, he offered a philosophical overview.

There is a lot that is wrong with that statement, but at least it’s debatable. What he did not do is answer my question, again failing to defend the data on which he and his colleagues based the water-temperature claims their letter.

Too often specific scientific questions degenerate into abstract debates with soaring rhetoric about “great economies, cultures and the entire ecology of the region.” This is a clear deflection to avoid addressing the actual science. If you are going to claim you are basing decisions on “science” it is important to provide evidentiary support.

After this exchange I decided to look at Snake River temperature data myself. I compiled 16 years of data from the Army Corps of Engineers and examined the temperature trends over time. What and when were the hottest temperatures? What was the increase in temperature between the Lower Granite dam, which is farthest upstream of the four LSR dams, and the Ice Harbor Dam, which is farthest downstream? I found that, contrary to the authors’ claim in the letter, the temperature impact of the four Lower Snake River dams was small and seemed to be declining.

Just to make sure I was not missing something, on December 4, 2019, I sent my draft report to Mr. Cannamela and asked for his feedback.

Nine days later, I followed up saying, “I will be finishing this up next week, so if you have any feedback, I will need it soon.”

Instead of providing feedback or any science, he sent this:

He’s saying this isn’t about science. It is about what team you are on – the righteous souls who tried to save salmon and orca, or the evil people who didn’t. It is ironic that he never provided any support for his claim about the impact of the dams on river temperatures and refused to respond to the data I provided.  Instead, he accused me of not following the science. He just resorted to rhetorical arguments, claiming, “no amount of data will make a difference.” It is certainly true that the zero data he provided were unlikely to make a difference in my analysis. It did, on the other hand, make me confident that my analysis, based on official data, was correct.

As I said at the beginning, if Vestal were sincere in his desire to understand my position, he would have reached me. When I wanted to know the scientific basis for the claims about the impact of dams on Snake River water temperatures, I spent a month communicating with the authors of the letter, asking questions, and giving them a preview of my piece, even delaying publication to provide them ample time to comment.

There is another reason I tell this story. In his column, Vestal cites a new letter signed by “scientists” claiming the dams are killing salmon. Guess who signed that letter? Mr. Cannamela and the some of the same people who signed the earlier river-temperature letter they could not defend. Their hope is that people won’t look at the actual claims but will just be intimidated or convinced that “scientists” signed the letter, even if those same people can’t defend what what they say. It is a strategy that works on some people, as Vestal’s credulous reference to it demonstrates. 

I will write a separate piece addressing the substantive errors in his piece individually.

It is worth noting Vestal’s error separately, however, because despite the claim to follow the science and data, he shows little interest in making a sincere effort to understand the other side.