One paragraph:
If there is any good news here, it is that the Ivory Billed Woodpecker is not around to witness this calamity, this abuse of our court system, and the waste of time and money that is taking place in its name. This story needs to be thrown into the face of every environmentalist who steps up to oppose anything. This is shameful behavior. I don’t know if the judge is another victim of this hoax or is just dishonest.2. On a podcast available here.
(On this podcast, the Ivory-bill segment lasts a bit over 10 minutes, starting at about the 14:48 mark).
Posts
8 comments:
from the same link:
"....They were still just bubbling with joy. This was such wonderful news. I don’t think that any one of them knew at the time that this was a hoax. They are going to be really disapointed when they realize that it was just that, a hoax. A hoax, fostered for one reason....."
I'm sorry, I'm just as much a skeptic as anyone, but to think this was a hoax designed to prevent a water diversion, is something I would expect from that paragon of honesty and virtue...Rush Limbaugh.
It was a mis-id. A mis-id that got quickly out of hand. Come on Tom, this is beneath you. Has the "Ivory-bill Skeptic Blog" jumped the shark? I'm beginning to think so.
I was going to question Tom's use of the word "backlash". But then I looked the word up and the best reference was in Wiki.
"As such backlash is usually against something new or liberal, the old guard lashes back at something new."
Which does make me pause and say...well ok, if you consider the "old guard" as typical developers and neocon ranters then I guess this is a backlash. But it is really an easily anticipated and therefore uninteresting "backlash".
I want, instead, to know where are the "old guard" like many of us? That believe in conservation. Wish the IBWO existed. And would be "tickled pink" to have the Ivory-billed block this water project if we knew the bird existed.
In other words, I believe that this blog represents the true backlash. We are the old guard enviros that refuse to compromise "the facts" for wishfull thinking.
Show me some more of us out there!!
1. "...to think this was a hoax designed to prevent a water diversion...".
Sigh...I DON'T think that is the case here.
Note that I often disagree completely or in part with sources linked from this blog.
2. "A mis-id that got quickly out of hand."
I DO think that is the case here. I think Robert Park's words apply:
---
What may begin as honest error, however, has a way of evolving through almost imperceptible steps from self-delusion to fraud. The line between foolishness and fraud is thin.
---
More thoughts are in my road to fraud post.
I'm youngish (44) and I'm in the wildlife conservation field (govt). I've never encountered a peer that thought false information should EVER be used to stop anything. We are all extremely aware that doing so will inevitably come back around and bite us on the ass. Hell, I've never even encountered a Sierra Club, or Audubon person for that matter that advocated using false info. This just doesn't happen. Even the famous lynx hair episode out west turned out to be more story than substance (again Rush Limbaugh be damned). These stories (untrue as they may be) take on a life of their own (witness the accusation in the story posted today). There is danger in believing the conventional wisdom without researching it yourself.
TOM: I am glad to hear that you do not agree with the article you cite. I'm sorry I made you sigh. ;-)
Just curious, would any of the anonymous bird professionals here testify on behalf of the developers if asked to do so (for a fair fee, of course)?
Assume that your testimony would be limited to the facts relating to the IBWO "rediscovery."
Just curious, would any of the anonymous bird professionals here testify on behalf of the developers if asked to do so (for a fair fee, of course)?
Testifying for either side is not work I would seek out (not my gig), but if ordered to testify, I'd tell the truth. If asked if I believed that the video had any real chance of being an Ivory-billed, I would have to truthfully answer "no". And if asked if I believed that there was decent evidence that Ivory-billeds persisted in that area, I'd again have to truthfully answer "no".
Well Amy,
That's not such a hard question. Since we have an adversarial system, it's easy to see Sibley or Jackson being called by the opposition (developers).
With the right supoena, they couldn't refuse. But you couldn't control what else they would say. They would, undoubtedly, dispute the evidence for the rediscovery. But Jackson would just as likely say that he believed the bird might exist and everyone should just keep looking.
But the real hard question is whether any of us would stand up at the Brinkley town hall meeting debating whether to join the lawsuit on behalf of the bird.
Brought To You By Development Consultants Group, Inc.
Do you think these guys have a monetary incentive to keep the IBWO out of just about everywhere?
Post a Comment