I sent the following email today to Leslie Peacock of the Arkansas Times:
Hi Leslie,
Just checking--have you had a chance to look at my Ivory-bill Skeptic blog lately? If not, you should take a look--your name is coming up quite frequently in the comment section...
Regards,
Tom Nelson
Leslie responded with some questions for us "guys":
Dear Tom,
Don't any of you guys have jobs? I'm astounded at the number of blogs and the number of people, believers and non-believers, who are endlessly debating the ibwo question. Why are people so invested in this issue? Particularly people who've never been to arkansas or done ornithological research? I am wondering if there is some mad-at-conservationists feeling fueling the skeptics rather than considered questions on whether this woodpecker could still exist. Why do you have a dog in this hunt?
Perplexed,
L. Peacock
P.S.:
I apologize for my error making Joe Neal a member of the bird records group.
Re: whoever wrote in about the bayou being Sparling's favorite kayaking spot-- I believe his trip to the bayou was one of his first. He got a map of the white and cache from the refuges just before he started exploring the swamps. I don't think there's any evidence that he had an agenda on the Big Woods.
Can any of "you guys" provide some answers for Leslie?
Posts
29 comments:
Leslie;
Yes, I have a job but this more interesting.
In my opinion, Cornell and Audubon; two elitist and powerful conservation organizations failed in the 1930s/40s to save the bird. They took pictures, made recordings, put birds on top of their heads, etc. In order to mitigate that collective guilt that every bird lover feels, they never gave up believing the bird exists.
The CLO and Audoban old timers died off (like the bird) and the newbies took up the cause; some for cult like belief and others for fame and glory.
These new timers declared the Conservation Story of the Century. Caused tears to flow in every bird lovers heart and now they broke our hearts.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Don't any of you guys have jobs?
I work 60 hours a week. Ridiculing Bigfoot and IBWO believers is so easy that I can do it in my spare time.
I'm astounded at the number of blogs and the number of people, believers and non-believers
I'm astounded by the number of believers, too.
Why are people so invested in this issue?
Personally, I see the IBWO "rediscovery" and the media's treatment of that rediscovery as a sort of miniature version of similarly trumped up but ultimately bogus controversies that have plagued our nation in recent years (e.g., WMDs, "intelligent design," "the gay agenda," etc.).
Dear Leslie-
I can't speak for others because I don't know who they are (and they don't know who I am), but I'd be willing to bet that most of the skeptical bloggers on this site are professional or amateur ornithologists/conservationists, and that most/all of us are extremely pro-conservation, pro-preservation, etc.
Our motivation is that we are outraged that IBWO mass hysteria is based on what we interpret as mis-identifications of Pileated Woodpeckers. Ivory-billed Woodpecker is presumed extinct. We all want that NOT to be the case, but it probably is. There is absolutely zero indisputable hard evidence for the species' existence since the 1940's. Cornell has nothing- the video is a Pileated, and none of the sight records and sound evidence can withstand close scrutiny. Were it not for Remsen and Fitzpatrick declaring certain key sightings as "credible" in the first place, then none of this would have gone anywhere. Those "key sightings" would have just been added in with the many other IBWO sightings that are generated (but never never ever substantiated, of course) across the country each year.
Habitat has been saved, and that is a good thing, but we fear long term damage to conservation credibility and to other endangered species programs that are not being funded (for species that we know actually still exist).
Ultimately, we are interested in truth and in good science. We can't show our faces, but maybe we can slowly educate others that the Arkansas IBWO "rediscovery" is based on a series of mistakes and giving people "the benefit of the doubt," then further corrupted by secrecy, deception, and propaganda. That's a formula for rediscovering bad science.
Super Anon [TOM-this may be a duplicate; tried once already]
Well Leslie, compared to our jobs, the IBWO drama keeps us up day and night as the story evolves daily and there are sightings, by ornithologists and lay-persons, strange recordings, blurry videos, other Blogs, and of course considerable foot-stomping on both sides, believers and skeptics. Our humdrum lives working for fortune 500 companies that forgot why they hired us 22 years ago? Well that's another matter but here we can be the stars we are as we debate the evidence, purported evidence or red-herrings on the trail of science, pseudo-science,
seemingly vast conspiratorial coverups. We have Lord Gods and near-Gods like J. Jackson. Poets, video-analyzers without peer (Tom),
anonymous skeptical insiders to the CLO search... and even True Believers and 33.33% believers.
And of course comics and aliens and alien comics. And many of us do bird and get into real swamps ourselves from time to time.
As for our corporate sponsors...
If they're happy, we're happy.
... he said w/out a trace of irony...
Paul in upstate NY.
Leslie, ask yourself why Fitz would cut out THE number one authority, Jackson, on the IBWO. Jackson is the one who kept the IBWO off the official extinct list. Are you saying that he hates conservation? No! Of course your are not. Think about the real story here.
Ask yourself why Fitz would not first pass his evidence by Sibley et al.
You have a very very interesting story to pursue. We are not anti-environmental. We are not anit-Cornell. We are pro-truth.
The truth is out there, Leslie. It's easy pickings. Start with "why was Jackson cut out of the process?" That question will lead you.
Leslie, this is not a conservation story. We love conservation. Unfortunately, there is no bird to conserve. Swamps-Yes. IBWO-No.
It's a perversion of Science story. A lack of peer review by the experts, Jackson etc.
Why does Jackson get cut out of the story? Greed, ambition, turf wars......Yes, it's all there!
Leslie actually seems to be asking why people are interested in the biggest conservation story and rediscovery in the last 1000 years?
Well, I for one was extremely excited when I first heard the news. I mean this was BIG! So I did what I bet all the rest of you did. I went to google, typed in Ivory Bill, and there was Cornell's and TNC's site. But the funny thing was, all I saw was some old black and white photos taken by Allen(?) a long time ago.
I thought. "Hmmmmmmmm....that's odd" Well,my initial Skepticism hasn't been proved wrong yet.
Leslie is free to believe that the IBWO has or has not been found. But Dr. Fitzpatrick does not get a pass on peer review. He screwed up big time. And he's taking down a lot of good conservation people and causes with him.
That's why it matters to us, Leslie.
Leslie,
It's like WMDs. Good for the push into Baghdad. Bad for the war on Terrorism.
Similarly, Skeptics are told to "cool it" about the Ivory Bill sightings. "It's bad for conservation to doubt", we are told. That almost sounds like Bush. "Sorry for the war folks. But now we can't get out."
I have fought wetland, Army Corps wars for years. Fabrication is never good in the long run. It discredits the conservation cause. It hurts us and all we are trying to save. In short, it backfires.
What is this, Leslie? Shoot the messenger?
Dear people,
First of all, I'm getting email from Tom suggesting I am partial to the bird-is-real side because my husband worked for the Nature Conservancy. (Which is something I acknowledged in my story on the bird last year. My husband kept the bird secret from me for 2 years! Which, considering how we could have maybe put out a book and kept ourselves out of the poorhouse, was a bad idea.)
If I'm partial to the bird, it's because my husband, now retired, has always believed that they have survived. It was part of our courtship.
And yes, since I know people at the Nature Conservancy very well, I think I know when they're bullshitting and when they're not. There was no hidden agenda. I trust their sincerity.
I also think Martjan Lammertink is not somebody who would sign off on bad science. He is a frank, honest person.
Having said that, I'm not 100 percent sure the bird exists. But, living in Arkansas, where findings of the ivorybill are reported every so often on private land, one begins to wonder.
My major problem with the ID is that only one person mentioned the bill. The bill should astonish people.
Ok, I hope i'm doing the below answers right re html.
Yes, I have a job but this more interesting.
--Yes, it's very tempting! But I'm a wage slave and have to produce. I guess I'm jealous. And now, I'm behind.
Personally, I see the IBWO "rediscovery" and the media's treatment of that rediscovery as a sort of miniature version of similarly trumped up but ultimately bogus controversies that have plagued our nation in recent years (e.g., WMDs, "intelligent design," "the gay agenda," etc.).
-- I'd like to see more attention paid to the war and civil rights and the fundamentalist ruin of the u.s. and less on a debate between scientists that is devolving into a pissing match.
Ultimately, we are interested in truth and in good science. We can't show our faces, but maybe we can slowly educate others that the Arkansas IBWO "rediscovery" is based on a series of mistakes and giving people "the benefit of the doubt," then further corrupted by secrecy, deception, and propaganda. That's a formula for rediscovering bad science.
-- why can't you show your faces? and how do you educate by preaching to the choir?
Leslie, ask yourself why Fitz would cut out THE number one authority, Jackson, on the IBWO. Jackson is the one who kept the IBWO off the official extinct list. Are you saying that he hates conservation? No! Of course your are not. Think about the real story here.
Ask yourself why Fitz would not first pass his evidence by Sibley et al.
I did ask. The answer has always been that Cornell and TNC wanted to limit the news to avoid the Pearl River mess with the press. I don't know if that's true. I only know what they tell me to be true. Perhaps there is animosity there. Do I think they didn't let JJ or Sibley in on it because they'd be sure to disprove the work? No.
Our motivation is that we are outraged that IBWO mass hysteria is based on what we interpret as mis-identifications of Pileated Woodpeckers. Ivory-billed Woodpecker is presumed extinct. We all want that NOT to be the case, but it probably is. There is absolutely zero indisputable hard evidence for the species' existence since the 1940's. Cornell has nothing- the video is a Pileated, and none of the sight records and sound evidence can withstand close scrutiny. Were it not for Remsen and Fitzpatrick declaring certain key sightings as "credible" in the first place, then none of this would have gone anywhere. Those "key sightings" would have just been added in with the many other IBWO sightings that are generated (but never never ever substantiated, of course) across the country each year.
-- The only hysteria I have encountered is on line.
P.S. Didn't Jerome Jackson hear an ivory-billed woodpecker more recently than the 1940s? Maybe he was wrong. He doesn't think so. He believes his ears. Do you believe his ears?
And now I must sign off! It has been a pleasure and I can see where one could spend days at this. Unfortunately, I'd be fired if I did!
Cheers,
Leslie Newell Peacock
in Little Rock
Ms. Newell Peacock,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I think the original question was "why are people so invested in this issue?"
Could we talk baseball for a moment though? Favorite pastime of millions, lot's of statistics, miles and miles of ink in the press everyday. Birding is similar... except far, far, far less ink.
So, do Barry Bonds' home run records mean anything if they were steroid assisted? It's a good question surrounded by lots of passion. Journalist just can't say enough about it. It offends us deeply to think that honest records are supplanted by somehow less honest records.
What if Barry Bonds claimed to have hit 200 home runs last season alone, and Bud Selig called a meeting with a few friends, thought it over, and agreed to put the record in the books? Would fans howl? Would the press howl? Of course there'd be no evidence, but isn't that the point here?
If the most powerful force in birding (an inherently statistics based pastime with millions of participants) is indeed mistakenly backing the most amazing record imaginable... there's a story there.
p.d. Ann Arbor, MI
One more thought... faith in the ivory-bill's existence was "a part of your courtship"? That might be serendipity, or It might in fact be no surprise, and might speak to the breadth and depth of the ivory-bill in cultural consciousness. I think it's the latter.
The Exchange:
Ask yourself why Fitz would not first pass his evidence by Sibley et al.
Leslie's Response:
I did ask. The answer has always been that Cornell and TNC wanted to limit the news to avoid the Pearl River mess with the press. I don't know if that's true. I only know what they tell me to be true. Perhaps there is animosity there. Do I think they didn't let JJ or Sibley in on it because they'd be sure to disprove the work? No.
______________________________
Leslie,
Fitz didn't include JJ, Sibley, Kaufman, Dunn or anyone else who is freakin FAMOUS in the tiny world of bird identification for one, and only one reason - he didn't want anyone to tell him he was wrong.
Let me help you - Fitz used David Sibley's illustrations to "identify" the bird and had a print that Sibley made of IBWO hanging on his frakin office wall. His CLO sells the Birds Of North America - Jackson is the author of the IBWO account. Kenn Kaufmann has as much experience identifing birds in photos, videos and in the field as any living human, and Jon Dunn is the Chief Consultant of the National Geographic Field Guide. The three - Sibley, Dunn and Kaufmann are the authors of the thrr most recent North American field guides. They are really the best in the business.
Fitz also knew that Sibley the rumors that were flying around about the Arkansas work. He wouldn't return the calls Leslie. Fitz knew Sibley was already mostly in the loop and he wouldn't return the freakin calls Leslie! This had nothing to do with secrecy - I knew from two different sources about this bird first months then weeks before the story "broke".
This was Fitz's shot at the Glory he always wanted - he wanted to be better than Jackson, better than Sibley Kaufman and Dunn. And to be real honest, he wanted this at all costs - even at the cost of the truth.
The world of nit picky bird identification is like stamp collecting.
Lemme help you...pretend we are all together in a game of Fantasy Birding, we are sitting around, oh, lets say Gary Grave's house, we all happen to be there cause there is a conference at the Smithsonian (where he is the Curator of Birds at the freakin National Museum - he too a skeptic). We all get together for a bar-b-q, some drinks, and we sit down to watch some slides of some birds we've seen over the last few years.
Everyone is there - the authors of all the papers, the bloggers, and even Paris Hilton.
We settle in and watch some slides, when, it is my turn to put up my slides. Up goes the breeding plumaged Ruff from New Jersey, the Puffins from Alaska, then we get to the dicey shot, the shorebird in California - badly lit, a bit out of focus, one side shot, one going away. "Black-tailed Godwit" I say. But believe me Leslie - the species doesn't matter - if it is a North American bird, and it can be identified, we have the ability to do it.
At that point Leslie, everyone, and I mean everyone in the room will talk, even venture opinions. But really everyone - and I mean everyone wants to hear what Ken Kaufman, Jon Dunn and David Sibley think - if they say no, the oxygen goes out of the room. If Fitz Lammartink or Rosenburg are there, they are also listening - and learning.
And do you know why everyone will believe the ID these guys set forth? Because they are just about always right. And Leslie, they are right about this too.
Them, Rick Prum, Mark Robbins, Gary Graves, Chris Elphick, Michael Reed, Louis Bevier, Michael Patten, etc etc etc. Even the guys at Science are turning Leslie.
It is folly to think that he cut these guys out because they can't keep a secret - I know at least one of 'em kept the secret.
Sorry to be so long winded on this, but I think their is a tremendous amount of misinformation out there.
Dear Leslie-
Touche'
Actually, we thought that you were objective and that you were seeking guidance on the skeptical viewpoint.
RE not wanting to repeat the mistakes of Pearl River, there was no media circus there, there was no out of control influx of rabid birders, and, unfortunately, there were no Ivory-billeds either. Otherwise, Cornell HAS repeated all of the mistakes of the Pearl, e.g., looking for something that doesn't exist based on one eyewitness report followed by mass hysteria. The real "Pearl River mess" was conjuring up something that wasn't there.
RE mass hysteria, that's what it's called when normally reputable scientists sell-out and mislead the birding public (and the American public in general). The birding public has no reason to doubt that their "data" isn't truthful and accurate, and they are overcome with euphoria at the rediscovery. And that's because, as you well know, everything was kept secret until publication, without input from rational, skeptical, objective birders and ornithologists.
And, just to show you that I'm not a total skeptic lap dog....
RE poor old Jerome, maybe he heard one and maybe he didn't, but he didn't get any hard evidence so he gets no quarter. Jerome likes to play both sides of the issue. He's a skeptic, and yet he always stops short and says they might still be out there, hoping that he's the one that is invited to go looking hither or thither. Jerome gets no sympathy from me- he can't have it both ways.
signed....
Super Anon (because I might get persecuted, or fired, or kidnapped and taken to that room in Brinkley by that "IBWO SWAT Team" that I heard about....)
Leslie
-- I'd like to see more attention paid to the war and civil rights and the fundamentalist ruin of the u.s. and less on a debate between scientists that is devolving into a pissing match.
As would I. So when are the Cornell researchers going to retract their paper and apologize for wasting the public's valuable time?
why can't you show your faces? and how do you educate by preaching to the choir?
The last time I "preached" on the topic of the IBWO, a Cornell grad student called me a "bitch" and a "raving lunatic". Some choir!!!
But, living in Arkansas, where findings of the ivorybill are reported every so often on private land, one begins to wonder.
Oh please. Wonder about what? The ability of humans to delude themselves? The similarity between IBWO "sightings" and "sightings" of Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster?
My husband kept the bird secret from me for 2 years!
Must ... resist ... snark ...
Well, thatis it, isn't it? She is basically a believer. Not enough of a birder or ornithologist to know better. Or to be able to judge the situation. Plus her husband in a True Believer.
And think about what we are asking of her. She would be ostracized not just by her colleagues but by her husband and friends and acquaintances. These are her friends. The people that she and her husband pal around with.
Good try, folks!
Leslie went to Smith..........need I say more.
Aloha,
Jeff
The people who are against conservation know that the little birdie won't hurt them, and it is odd that the skeptics are so often labeled as anti-conservation. That almost seems like something Carl Rove would come up with.
Sort of a when did you stop beating your wife? question.
People resent the lousy science, and the smoke and mirrors used to rush this obviously wrong ID into fact. By suggesting that you know ML (and, I assume the rest) and that he'd never be a part of bad science begs the question....then why the wooden model in the rebuttal....why the paragraph about bird's wing not twisting in flight...why the faulty flap rate analysis....why the analysis with the sample size of 1....the photo montage that negates their whole argument in paper 1 about the size of the bird..etc etc.
Their science was very flawed, and you may not be able to see that if you like the players.
I too have a job, and am pretty sure that for the next 20 years it will involve lots of time spent on explaining how that magnificent bird really never was found in AR, and how it has been extinct for 60 years.
Sigh.
At least we can understand the lack of objectivity from the press.
Married to a believer and associated with the Believing Network.
_____________________________
Leslie - read the Chicago Tribune article again or for the first time. It's on this blog somewhere.
does one have to be an expert to recognise a fraud? i am only a redneck country lawyer, but i saw from the first report that there was no evidence and likely never would be.
this is just another example of junk science on which we base political decisions. thank you al gore.
Dear Escepticos,
The carpinterio wishes to apologize for his misreading of leslie newell peacock. I fear that it is I who has built her into something that she is not ... and for this I am sorry.
Unlike the main characters in our shared story, I can admit when I am wrong. I only ask forgiveness. I am ... sorry.
It was I who sensed something in her. Her writing was solid. She seemed to understand the story deeply and well and she seemed to be true to her profession. I thought that perhaps a southern writer like Leslie, even though close to the story in a personal way, might transend her circumstance and reach for greatness ... write the story of how this thing went so wrong before one of the sharps at the trib or the times takes it to the end game for Fitzcrow et al ...
Instead she wobbles like a goat attacked by a Chupacabra ...
Her postings on this blog, lead with insult and derision and finish with closeminded disinterest in what, objectively speaking, is a world class story.
Nothing else this wage slave is reporting on, is even close to being something remotely interesting beyond a 40 ft. radius of Little Rock ... and they don't use the term "little" lightly. Do they Leslie?
Hemmingway managed to become legend with an old man, a boy and a fish ... and Leslie can't seem to get beyond catpissing on bloggers who are following a story that involves the nations most powerful conservation organizations, all of the federal and state agency officials, a bird that hasn't been seen for 60 years and the editor of the nations most high profile science journal ...
What on earth is of interest here.
Yes, yes, you all have written it down for Leslie, but ... she is borrowing time from her pressing story about kid who when to design school and made some furniture that recalls the Bauhaus.
Besides, she called Fitzpatrick and he told her that these were not the droids she was looking for.
Anyone else want to get on a trolley with rubber tires and go look at ceramics with Leslie?
I know I do ...
Leslie:
just be clear on one thing, this story does not turn on what one belives, it turns on what one presents as EVIDENCE to support that belief.
Tom Nelson has always been clear about the distinction.
Carpinterio;
The first Leslie story showed a clear believer bias. Remember Arkansas will lose millions of tourist bucks and be forced to sell off their license plate inventory stock.
Looking at your referenced Peacock articles, she is too closely connected to our beloved wealthy progressive world to see through the haze.
We should thank her for having the chutzpah to address our Skeptico blog.
I also suggest she become an active member of Bird Forum.
Hey Leslie-
If you are reading this (and you know that you are, you can't resist).... If you want to write a story, then why don't you interview Luneau and Henderson while watching the video, and ask them how they have the balls to say that they saw the bird??? Ask to view the 15 minutes before and after the large woodpecker- I'll bet that's been conveniently erased.
Super Anon
Hey Leslie-
P.S., just a warning... You may have to pay Luneau for the interview, and you'll probably have to buy a copy of the video. So, have some cash handy.
And while you're at it, maybe set up an interview with RemFitzsenPatrick and ask them why the Kulivan Pearl sighting was good vs. why they haven't embraced the "cluster" (since clusters are such good data) of Fishcrow sightings....
I'll think up some more things for you to investigate.
Super Anon
Leslie asks:
-- why can't you show your faces? and how do you educate by preaching to the choir?
Leslie, these are good questions.
Skepticos, please give Leslie a general feeling for why you can't show your faces. She seems to assume that you are people without jobs who "hate conservation", have never studied birds, and have never looked for the bird in AR ...
seems that many of you are just the opposite and have good reason to fear for expressing open skepticism. You look toward Leslie not for a slap on the face, but for a hand up ... she can ask the questions you would be censored for asking.
And preaching to the choir ... how many of you found this blog while you were doing the hard work of making up your mind ... and have found the arguments that Tom and others have put down to be compelling ... so it is fair to say that Tom Nelson does not maintain a choir, but is instead like a pebble tossed into a pond.
Rings of ever expanding influence.
Leslie ... these people are not here because they hate conservation.
The are looking for you to give them a voice.
I don't think you have to take sides, but I think you would serve your state and its people well by giving these people an ear ...
Hey Leslie-
In reality, we are a secret society. Our creedo is to rescue the apathetic masses from bad bird science. We could tell you about our innermost activities, but you would have to sign a confidentiality agreement and buy our blurry indoctrination video. That might score good revenge points on hubbie too, right?
You might want to attend the upcoming NAOC meeting in Veracruz this fall. We will be there in numbers and we will hold a secret symposium on the "undiscovery" of large woodpeckers. You can try to make contact when you see us giving each other the secret handshake.
SA
This whole "Leslie episode" is amusing really. Somehow we Skeptics thought that the world was suddenly going to get all logical on us.
This story has been spinning out of control for over a year now and suddenly we thought what? That some reporter was going to put it right? The big eviromental movement is bought into the story. Yes, insiders are beginning to realize the mistake but the NGOs want it to go away with a whimper not a bang. Ornithologists have had their say and ultimately Fitzcrow's paper won't be cited by many, except maybe as examples of rushing to publish.
So we expected Leslie to do what? Fight this impossible uphill battle? Her? I don't think so.
As the alien often says, hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha Humans are such funny things.
Post a Comment