Natural Climate Change Factors
1 hour ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My Blog List
-
-
The Big Battle — The People versus The Blob2 hours ago
-
-
-
-
-
Reconstructing the Esper Reconstruction5 months ago
-
Energy output dented by wind drought5 months ago
-
ビタミンと勃起の関係9 months ago
-
What I’ve Been Up To10 months ago
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
10 comments:
This isn't just another nail in the coffin. This is the final shovel of soil filling up the grave.
For God's sake someone has to archive this blog since the poems and humorous musings here are the only positive things that have come out of this sad tale.
Will anyone with any knowledge of how this was all handled ever hear of the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology again and not feel either pity or think of the consequences of unwarranted certitude.
Submitted in mid-November and published in March? Is that unusual? What happened in those 5 months? Did the AR bird committee rule during that time period? Did they know abou the rebuttal? Who had the manuscript during that time?
Here's another nail in the coffin. "Ivory-Bills Live!!" blog site has officially declared that the Luneau video may actually be a Muscovy Duck!! And that his lastest post will "hopefully be my final comment in reference to the video."
The video is dead. Almost seems like we need another coffin just for the video, n'cest pas?
Yes, AR ruled just prior to publication. Articles submitted should be embargoed from the press, and the contents should not be shared by the reviewers - that protects the journal from getting scooped, and from only parts of the results leaking out. So, who knows if AR saw saw it, but if they did they sort of shouldn't have....also note that Cornell posted a web site update esp. dealing with the video while they hasd the Sibley et al. ms. in hand, but before they responded to Science. Nice. They formatted that web page to look just like a real paper (say that like Pinocchio..."I'm a real paper!")
Cornell had the ms. in hand so they could write their rebuttal. They took a very long time from around the end of Nov. So, the Cornell rebuttal included viewing the Sibley et al. ms., but as I understand it, the Sibley et al. group did not see the Fitzcrow rebuttal until it went to press. Now thats a level playing field!
So, Science really should allow the Sibley et al. team to rebut CLO's rebuttal (photo montage, wing twisting, flap rate errors - just to name a few) but to date - as far as I know - won't take papers on it.
I gleened these details from the press dates, and from what I know about the Science ms. process. I'm not one of the authors.
As an alien from another planet, I must insist that you cease and desist from trying to capture or document our Remote Arkansas Zooming and Roving Back-looking devices (“Razr Backs”). For years Razr Backs were ignored as foolish sightings of one of your endangered god-like species.
But now you must stop trying to catch one. For your own safety and for the safety of all mankind, they are set to atomically explode if by some remote chance you humans manage to glimpse them for more than 4 seconds. (yeah, right...4 seconds...hahahahaha)
This is your last warning, foolish humans!
Kneep……kneep..
P.S.-we come in peace …hahahahahahaha…….kneep…kneep
I look forward to the day
When all you skeptics have to say
My, oh, my what a bitter pill
Ivory bills are living still...
...in Arkansas.
Don't hold your breath for that day,
It is surely never ever going to pay,
To wait to see an Ivory Bill
Unless of course you take that pill.
....called Acid
'Tis not a bitter pill if they still live. We would all rejoice. The question is not whether they are extinct but whether we can know otherwise and say so with a common voice. The bitter pill is seeing scientistic bullying used to bolster inadequate evidence and watching a selfish, conceited form of endangered species conservation unfold. Alas, Skeptic Radar foresees more feeble sightings on the horizon. These new sightngs will be used to reinforce the initial feeble sightings, themselves cited as reason to believe the new. A return to sensible, critical evaluation is beyond our sensor range, although we have picked up a few 'kneep kneeps'.
I guess so, but I just never have understood the sentiment that "hopes the IBWO still exists". I just don't think the sentiment has any meaning. It's like saying I hope UFOs are aliens, or that Elvis is alive and well, or that Cold Fusion will give us unlimited cheap energy.
It's not a hope based on fact. In fact, the IBWO is extinct. What does the universe care about my hope?
Echo Echo Echo
Never a bitter pill, for all would rejoice.
CLO decided it was an IBWO and nothing would stand in the way
Together with the TNC, they took down FW&S, Audubon, and zillions of hopeful people.
Good job CLO; all in the name of what?
Not quite fraud but stubborness, elitism, ego, academic one upmanship, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
Post a Comment