I doubt that the principal proponents of the Ivorybill hoax believe their own propaganda. Their brighter underlings clearly don't.Do you agree?
Later in this post, I've included some names of people listed as authors of various Cornell "Ivory-bill" papers.
Some of the commenters on this blog seem quite well-connected. I'd be very interested to hear any of your thoughts on a couple of questions:
1. As of April 20, 2005 (just before the grand public announcement was made), what were these people truly thinking? All of them ecstatic to be associated with a truly astounding ornithological miracle? Any of them facing niggling doubts that maybe this was all a massive mistake?
2. As of March, 2006 (after they all presumably had a chance to digest some devastating "peer-review" from non-Fitz-et al sources, and after many more months of intense, fruitless searching), what were these people truly thinking? Still believing in their miracle, maybe because the alternative was too painful? No longer believing, but still "maintaining appearances" publicly, maybe for The Greater Good of the Big Woods, or maybe to save face personally, etc?
--------------------------------------------
The 17 authors of Cornell's original Science paper (these same people are listed as authors of Cornell's rebuttal to Jackon's Auk commentary):
John W. Fitzpatrick
Martjan Lammertink
M. David Luneau Jr.
Tim W. Gallagher
Bobby R. Harrison
Gene M. Sparling
Kenneth V. Rosenberg
Ronald W. Rohrbaugh
Elliott C. H. Swarthout
Peter H. Wrege
Sara Barker Swarthout
Marc S. Dantzker
Russell A. Charif
Timothy R. Barksdale
J. V. Remsen Jr.
Scott D. Simon
Douglas Zollner
These five people are listed as the authors of Cornell's rebuttal to Sibley's rebuttal:
John W. Fitzpatrick
Martjan Lammertink
M. David Luneau Jr
Tim W. Gallagher
Kenneth V. Rosenberg
Posts
83 comments:
What were they thinking in March 2006:
"After all these years of climbing to the top; I will not be remembered as Piltdown Man number 2. This ship ain't sinking while I'm Captain."
Methinks that there is not a professional ornithologist out there who would turn his/her back on a pub in Science - it looks good on anyone's CV.
So, there are at least three reasons why the authorship dropped off:
1. they were not invited to join on the rebuttal, or
2. they didn't agree with it, or
3. they thought that it was enough of a gamble that they didn't want their institution besmirched if CLO was wrong.
Several of them leaped back on the JerryJacksonisaTurd piece in the Auk, but that seemed to be a matter of "honour" rather than scientific rigour. In particular, didn't Remsen reappear? His and Scott Simon's absence from the rebuttal was very interesting.
Oh, Methinks left something out. All of the authors of the rebuttal (except Luneau) are on the CLO payroll.
....arm....twisting....must.....support.....CLO.....or ......board....will....fire....my.....butt
Look, not only did they willingly pocket the hard earned money of elementary school kids... they boasted about it in their PR. Either they truly believe in themselves or, well, I don't want to think about it...
Why is this so hard to believe? Okay, maybe they will eventually backpedal on the video, but they are hanging their hats on the sightings of people they know and are comfortable with. Sure that may not be good enough for us (or any credible scientific institution), but apparently it's good enough for Cornell.
Did I just imply that Cornell was not a credible scientific institution? Hmm....
"Did I just imply that Cornell was not
a credible scientific institution. Hmmm..."
I hope you were referring to the CLO and not to Cornell as a whole!
You are right to question the interpretations of the meager data presented to support the persistence of IBWO, but publicly besmirching the integrity, character and professionalism of the individuals who presented the evidence is going way beyond science and reveals far more about your own lack of integrity, character and professionalism. No wonder most of you are posting your comments anonymously. Is Tom Nelson the only skeptic among you who is actually proud of his role in publicly besmirching others? If this is such a noble activity, how about the rest of you skeptics defending your honor publicly?
point taken. CLO = lame, Cornell = not so lame
What they were thinking is just what you would expect them to be thinking if you see how they are currently employed or what they considered their "lifelong dream".
The faceless TNC and CLO bureaucrats were thinking of funding. They are the type of people who are not too curious or rigorous but instead have an intense fidelity to the parent institution or cause. The latter trait is looked on as being a positive one in “greenie” NGOs although it is seen as comical in the case of "male cheerleaders" and considered a war crime if your parent institution was the Third Reich. These people were not concerned about what a false IBWO sighting could do to their "ornithological reputation" since they didn't have one to begin with. Their quotes at http://www.nature.org/ivorybill/team/ tell you all you need to know.
The CLO “researchers” were doing just what Jackson said they were – “faith-based” science. If you see the CLO as a “church”, as Fitzcrow does, then all bets are off. Jim and Tammy Faye Baker saw their auditorium as a church and took the public for millions. Fitzcrow sees his CLO building as one and is taking public and private monies - and now even corrupting naïve adolescent birders. But don’t look for him to be asking his donors or the teens for forgiveness when his hypocrisy is exposed (as Baker, Swaggart and others did).
The “good old boys” in the swamps were thinking they had satisfied a life-long quest that justified their existence and carbon footprint for the past five decades or so. Assuming Watson and Crick didn’t cry when they worked out the double helix, I think that, in light of the IBWO fiasco, editors need to ask authors if the level of emotional commitment to the results is such that their findings resulted in tears. A PIWO in the right light and seen through eyes beginning to tear up probably looks much like an IBWO.
Assuming Watson and Crick didn’t cry when they worked out the double helix
A safe assumption.
This whole crying jag business is just another bad scent associated with the debacle. It's pathetic.
What does it remind me of most? The folks who appear on John Edward's TV show who get all blubbery once they "realize" that Edward has "actually contacted" their relative from "beyond the grave."
The quickest way to put this ignoble period in the history of ornithology to rest would be to capture a couple pileated's, hide in the woods and make some "double knocking noises" when the IBWO searchers are 200 meters away, then when they are 100 meters away, let the birds go and record the mayhem.
If nothing else, you'll get an interesting sociology of science paper out of it.
What is being stated here by Mr. Nelson:
"My conclusion are the truth. Anyone who does not accept that is ignorant or lying."
This is the attitude of a religious fundamenalist, not a scientist. For the most part, those in the birding community who disagree with Sibley et al. do not slander their motives or integrity.
There is a very simple answer for the change in authorship. The second Science note addressed primarily the video interpretation. The other notes addressed the totality of the evidence. Thus, a shorter list of authors on the former, as its scope was narrower. Nothing further need be inferred or implied.
I should add that most people in the birding and ornithological communities no longer consider the chatter here or on Bird Forum and WorldTwitch to be a meaningful part of the discussion, precisely because of the high level of personal vitriol.
most people in the birding and ornithological communities no longer consider the chatter here or on Bird Forum and WorldTwitch to be a meaningful part of the discussion
And of course they should not consider it meaningful since it is indeed “chatter”. But at least in the case of this blog is it chatter about how increasing numbers of people in the birding and ornithological communities no longer consider the CLO or authors to be a meaningful part of the discussion. And that is precisely because of the high level of self delusion and aggrandizement associated with the "rediscovery".
As soon as the birding and ornithological communites address the "IBWO rediscovery" issue the chatter on this blog will decrease.
What is being stated here by Mr. Nelson:
"My conclusion are the truth. Anyone who does not accept that is ignorant or lying."
Sounds like someone's feelings got hurt when a certain extinct woodpecker failed to show up for dinner.
Boo hoo hoo.
I should add that most people in the birding and ornithological communities no longer consider the chatter here ... to be a meaningful part of the discussion
Wishful thinking.
What is the "meaningful part" of the discussion? The part where the opinions of "experts" are derided and the lack of evidence is waved away in favor of endless hand-waving over worthless frames of poorly shot low-resolution videos?
Put your money where your mouth is, Anonymous. $1000 bucks says no live or freshly dead IBWO is brought out of the United States in the next 18 months.
>>>crickets chirping<<<<
What is the "meaningful part" of the discussion?
The parts where people discuss only the evidence and the interpretations of it, without comments such as:
"Boo hoo hoo."
and
"corrupting naïve adolescent birders"
and
"This whole crying jag business is just another bad scent associated with the debacle. It's pathetic."
In other words, the part of the discussion where people make their points without mudslinging.
Put your money where your mouth is, Anonymous. $1000 bucks says no live or freshly dead IBWO is brought out of the United States in the next 18 months.
While that really has nothing to do with Anonymous's point, I'll follow up -- only $1000???? Only 18 months???? Sounds like someone is quite sure that IBWO is extinct! Why not $100,000 with an unlimited time frame?
Anonymous 2.0
The quickest way to put this ignoble period in the history of ornithology to rest would be to capture a couple pileated's, hide in the woods and make some "double knocking noises" when the IBWO searchers are 200 meters away, then when they are 100 meters away, let the birds go and record the mayhem.
Who are "the IBWO searchers" in this test? I don't know how meaningful it is one way or the other, but only one CLO team member has reported a sighting since 2004. Is crying the criterion for one to be included in this test?
Anonymous 2.0
"My conclusion are the truth. Anyone who does not accept that is ignorant or lying."
Sounds like someone's feelings got hurt when a certain extinct woodpecker failed to show up for dinner.
Boo hoo hoo.
Excellent and intelligent comeback, Amy!
Anonomous said, "No wonder most of you are posting your comments anonymously."
I love it when someone anonymously posts that we shouldn't be anonymously posting.
Actually, I've noticed that most of my birder friends are now coming out of the denial stage and are now in the "boo hoo" stage.
There are just mourning the re-extinction, if you will, of the Ivory Bill.
I Don't worry. They will get over it.
Methinks believes this experiment worked perfectly. As soon as there is a post with the names of the authors of PeckerI and RebuttalI we have a whole passel of believers posting on this, our little, insignificant, poetry-laden blog (5 or 6 posts out of 20, of course they may all be the same person)that apparently no one reads. Y'all believers are reading this every freakin' day aren't you!
Your anonymouse posting that we all post anonymousely is fantastic! The circularity in the logic revels the same sort of logic that brought us the incorrectly sized and manipulated photo montage (still, the first "montage" published in that journal! What a load of guano!) in the rebuttal....a montage that negates the size inference in PeckerI (Fitzcrow et al., and I mean et al.)
As to the rebuttal only having the authors who had the expertise to respond to the video portion of PeckerI - give me a break. A pub is Science is a pub in Science! Everyone wants one (and for most, or all of you, wasn't PeckerI your first Science pub?) unless the data bites and it will hurt their institution or career. The precipitous drop in the authorship count is telling.
Evidence against the claim that the video experts were the ones who reponded in the rebuttal....When Tim Gallagher was asked - in front of hundreds of people where he had been paid to speak - about the flap rate of the bird in the video, he mumbled that he really didn't know about flap rates of PIWO and IBWO, he took a stab at some numbers (wrong I may add), and asked for the next question. He had no idea how to defend that wonky piece of evidence, and fell into the bumbling author mode.
There is your video expert, oh yeah. To his credit he didn't try to defend the flap rate data with any babble, he clearly didn't know anything about PIWO or IBWO flap rates. Interestingly, niether did the rest of the authors of PeckerI, but that didn't stop them from launching that fantastic flap rate misinformation.
If video expertise was really the criteria for being on the Rebuttal, what happened to Barkscrow? Isn't he a videographer?(That is a rhetorical question, we all know you regretted Barkscrow from Day 1).
Look, the point is that PeckerI and RebuttalI were full of bad science. The bird in the video is a PIWO and the sightings were too.
As soon as there was any public review of CLO's data it fell apart, and - BIG SURPRISE - in the next field season they didn't see any more IBWOs. We all know that is not because the birds left, it is because they were not there in the first place.
We don't believe because there is no evidence to believe that there was ever an IBWO in AR. By CLO's own admission the audio data is inconclusive, and the bird can't be identified by field notes alone. That leaves us with the video.
The video TC pointed out several features that exclude IBWO which were never rebutted by CLO. And, like it or not, that video is so bad that Jon Dunn called it "hopeless". So for many of us, we are left with no conclusion except that there is still no evidence.
It is not about personalities, sour grapes or any of that other high school stuff. CLO had years to gather the evidence, years with unlimited budgets and completely unrestricted research access. Money, time , expertise, equipment, confidentiality agreements, editors at journals pulling for them etc etc. Methinks they just didn't get any evidence to prove that IBWO is extant.
Hmmm.....I wonder when this will all start up again....how long before someone in SC or TX (or somewhere else) comes out of the woods with double-knocky things, headless wings with white trailing edges, kent-like calls. Shall we have a pool? Winner gets a "Got Pecker" thong? My guess:
September 7, 2006
Although if I had anything LESS than a decent photo or video, I'd probably just keep it to myself.
For the most part, those in the birding community who disagree with Sibley et al. do not slander their motives or integrity.
Right or wrong, that's because Sibley et al had nothing to gain from publishing and potentially much to lose. Publicly pointing out this enormous faux pas can potentially make enemies of CLO, TNC, Dept. of Interior, etc. All of these control money and grants, so their action has the potential of causing serious career problems in the future for anybody in a bird related field.
CLO, on the other hand, had much to gain by jumping the gun. They maintained total control of the project. They controlled the money. They controlled the evidence. I'm not saying that I know their motives, just that they had much to gain and Sibley et al potentially have much to lose.
And don't forget that many in the birding community who disagreed with Jackson did question his integrity ... and rather loudly.
I'm the anonymous person who complained about you skeptics criticizing CLO et al. anonymously. I don't believe the bird in the Luneau video is an IBWO and I'm far from convinced the IBWO is extant, so if you think I'm a "believer" I can assure you I'm not. And I've never been to CLO and have only ever briefly met a few of the CLO team, so I have no vested interest in protecting them. And I have never searched for an IBWO or benefitted in any way from the current hoopla. But frankly, and I'm sorry to say this, I think you guys are an incredibly rude bunch of people shamelessly hiding behind the cloak of anonymity. I happen to be a professional ornithologist and I wouldn't dare reveal my identity because if I did I haven't the slightest doubt that you would go to great lengths to impugn my birding skills, ornithological scholarship and personal integrity. Suffice it to say I don't trust you. Is there any reason why I should?
You impugn the motives of the CLO people and other "believers," but it's very easy to speculate about your own personal motives for denigrating them. A claim to fame for the owner of this blog? Smug thoughts of being intellectually superior to renown ornithologists? Resentment of the ornithological establishment? Vengeance for being left out of the initial search? Jealousy of the high financial stakes? Possibly some monetary compensation of some sort? No doubt professional ornithologists are lurking on this blog, but I suspect the harshest criticisms are coming from wannabe ornithologists. Are you really, truly proud of your criticisms of CLO et al.? If there is a noble purpose to exposing the incompetence, fraud and greed of CLO et al., why remain anonymous? I'm all in favor of a candid discussion of the evidence, but gutless character assasination is just plain ugly. I would be ashamed if I were the owner of this blog.
Why not $100,000 with an unlimited time frame?
If you're going to be stupid about it, then why not $100,000,000,000 dollars?
Anon Said:
I think you guys are an incredibly rude bunch of people shamelessly hiding behind the cloak of anonymity.
________________________
Aw c'mon, we'd be just as rude if you knew us by name.
Anon Said:
I happen to be a professional ornithologist and I wouldn't dare reveal my identity because if I did I haven't the slightest doubt that you would go to great lengths to impugn my birding skills, ornithological scholarship and personal integrity. Suffice it to say I don't trust you. Is there any reason why I should?
_______________________________
No we wouldn't go to great lenghths, but you seem just a wee bit on edge, so we may need to send you to BirdForum to get roughed-up by the them first.
___________________________________
Anon Suggests we do this 'cause:
A claim to fame for the owner of this blog?
Yeah, that Tom Nelson is laughing all the way to the bank!
_______________________
Anon Suggests we do this cause:
Smug thoughts of being intellectually superior to renown ornithologists?Resentment of the ornithological establishment? Vengeance for being left out of the initial search? Jealousy of the high financial stakes? Possibly some monetary compensation of some sort?
As a smug ornithologist myself, I do this because the original data was wrong, was spun to try and create a new reality, donors were fleeced, and the Pit Bulls at CLO have are now in retreat (Don't miss Fitzcrows syposium on Cuban Ornithology at the AOU everyone - not a word about the IBWO will be spoken) leaving this messy science to be cleaned up by the likes of conservation biologists like moi.
______________________________
Anon said: If there is a noble purpose to exposing the incompetence, fraud and greed of CLO et al., why remain anonymous?
Because the CLO gang is connected into every single honey pot in the ornith. world. You know that.
__________________________________
Anon Said: I would be ashamed if I were the owner of this blog.
I'm not sure where the character assasinations are, but Methinks that if you were the owner of this blog we wouldn't be posting here.
You impugn the motives of the CLO people and other "believers," but it's very easy to speculate about your own personal motives for denigrating them. A claim to fame for the owner of this blog?
That's hilarious.
Smug thoughts of being intellectually superior to renown ornithologists?
The paper stinks and you admitted that you yourself aren't convinced. I don't feel superior when I see a plainly crappy paper in Science. I feel that science is diminished across the board.
Resentment of the ornithological establishment?
I could care less.
Vengeance for being left out of the initial search?
I had no idea anyone was even looking when I heard the news.
Jealousy of the high financial stakes?
Try: disappointment that scarce resources were wasted on garbage.
Possibly some monetary compensation of some sort?
I wish. If there is anybody out there handing out money to criticize crappy papers in Science magazine, please let me know! I'll send you my PayPal address.
I suspect the harshest criticisms are coming from wannabe ornithologists. Are you really, truly proud of your criticisms of CLO et al.?
Yeah, I am. I'm proud that my extensive training in the scientific method and basic common sense allowed me to whiff out bullshxt in a field in which I frankly have no expertise.
If there is a noble purpose to exposing the incompetence, fraud and greed of CLO et al., why remain anonymous?
I am not interested in unnecessary attention. After all, I might become "famous" for my criticisms of the bogus IBWO "rediscovery" and subsequent promotion of said rediscovery. I am not interested in that sort of notoriety.
That's one of, oh, maybe six or seven reasons I could list if I felt inclined to do so.
Dear spineless, anonymous "professional ornithologist":
You are a total hypocrite to disparage Tom and the other bloggers when, unlike Tom, you don't have enough guts to put your real name on the post. Furthermore, it is absurd for you to claim the moral high ground while gratuitously impugning the motives of Tom and the bloggers.
There are many obvious and noble reasons to be an ivory-billed skeptic. We are proud to stand up for the integrity of the scientific record and for birding standards at a time when professional ornithologists like you have, with a few very notable exceptions, for the most part tacitly accepted the misleading and self-serving actions of the CLO and their cronies. Our critiques are in response to blatant, public, and ongoing misdeeds, such as their shameful attack on Jerry Jackson, for which they remain unrepentant.
”I'm all in favor of a candid discussion of the evidence, but gutless character assassination is just plain ugly.”
What you miss, Anon, is that the evidence and data is so thin and the actions of the principals before and after the announcement so blatant that the entire episode has told us much more about the character of the authors, CLO, TNC, etc. than it has told us about IBWO.
Ornithology and birding need to function in a fact-based world or all hell will break loose. The principals first showed they have more respect for their dreams and wishes than facts (by publishing) and then have used those dreams and wishes for personal and institutional gain. While increasing numbers of people are realizing the “rediscovery” is in serious need of reconsideration, CLO takes money away from other species and groups desperately needing funds for reality-based conservation and research.
All these things tell us a great deal about the character of the principals. I don’t see commenting on these behaviors as character assassination. Please don’t blame the messengers for pointing out the obvious.
Also you really shouldn't disparage Tom. If he was really in this for fame and fortune he could be milking the "reassessment" the way CLO milked the "rediscovery".
Somebody wrote: "We are proud to stand up for the integrity of the scientific record and for birding standards at a time when professional ornithologists like you have, with a few very notable exceptions, for the most part tacitly accepted the misleading and self-serving actions of the CLO and their cronies."
This is political mud slinging, not ornithology nor science. Do you really think all professional ornithologists should band together and accuse CLO of incompetence, fraud and greed? I'm sorry but we're ornithologists, not politicians, and have better things to do with our time than to attack each other. And what makes you conclude most of us have "tacitly accepted" CLO's actions and conclusions about IBWO? Do you have any data to support your assertion? If so, what is your sample size?
Do you really think all professional ornithologists should band together and accuse CLO of incompetence, fraud and greed?
No. CLO should retract their paper and admit they were drunk on IBWO kool-aid when they wrote it before such accusations are leveled in an "official" capacity in some sort of "joint statement".
Granted, the odds of the retraction happening are small considering they dug themselves DEEPER into the cesspool of willful ignorance and denial when they wrote their rebuttal paper.
But a retraction is what is needed.
Remember: if the CLO and their cohorts had (1) simply toned down their claims an order of magnitude or so and (2) published their crappy video in a lower-tier less visible journal and (3) refrained from publicizing their "extraordinary discovery", we wouldn't be having this discussion. Most of the discussion on this blog (at least since I've been here) can be boiled down to a variation on, "What in the heck were these guys thinking?!?!?"
what makes you conclude most of us have "tacitly accepted" CLO's actions and conclusions about IBWO?
The paper has not been retracted. That's Exhibit #1.
Look, in another field, if a remarkable paper reporting extraordinary findings generating nation-wide interest was published in Science and was revealed to be (1) irreproducible and (2) based on numerous faulty and bogus assumptions, the paper would be retracted.
Remember Jacque Benveniste and his "infinite dilution" experiments published in Nature? Pons and Fleishman? etc., etc.
The CLO is "lucky" (or more accurately: clever) insofar as disproving their claims requires proving a negative. But debunking their methodology and the strange inconsistent accounting of the manner in which the data was acquired and analyzed and showing that the paper was not carefully reviewed: that's straightforward.
The IBWO rediscovery has been political from the start, or at very least from the moment the CLO and allies announced their rediscovery together with Gale Norton and gave the Bush administration an entirely undeserved conservation success.
Ornithologists should, of course, provide a professional critique of the CLO's research, but must their role be limited to this? Don't ornithologists, other scientists, birders, conservations, and other taxpayers also have a right to be concerned and upset by the millions of dollars of public funds appropriated to save a bird we believe to be long extinct?
It is true that certain academic ornithologists have indeed professed skepticism, some repeatedly and in public, but their professional critiques alone have evidently been insufficient to change the irresponsible behavior of the CLO and allies. This is why Tom's website, and John Wall's, and Tim Allwood (Jonny Rotten)'s comments on Birdforum have been and continue to be such an important contribution to the debate.
"Do you really think all professional ornithologists should band together and accuse CLO of incompetence, fraud and greed? I'm sorry but we're ornithologists, not politicians, and have better things to do with our time than to attack each other."
I remain confused by stated reluctance to see scientists overlap with the realm of politicians. On global warming, stem cell research, and countless conservation matters, the use and misuse of science is of great importance and the voice of scientists is crucial in public discourse. It need not be attacking one another... simply a commitment to sort out the good science from the bad. We would all be lost without this sort of scientific engagement. CLO continues to actively, willfully, and strategically advance their views in non-scientific forums and there is no force present to counteract that very political activity.
"And what makes you conclude most of us have "tacitly accepted" CLO's actions and conclusions about IBWO? Do you have any data to support your assertion?"
Well this statement only reinforces the urgency to explore the formation of some sort of consensus. We have a tiny minority of the scientific community actively engaging the public imagination, and none of us have a clue whether or not the view being presented has the support of others in the community. I hope this doesn't sound uncivil, but it's time to get a clue.
It seems we're learning today that even one brave defender of CLO doubts the Luneau video. Are there any scientist not affiliated with CLO that do accept that the Luneau bird Is IBWO? Isn't it troublesome that most of us simply don't know the answer to that simple question?
Show of hands:
How many of these defenders of the scientific method and pontificators of proper procedure in the literature have ever themselves published a manuscript of which they were first author in the peer-reviewed literature?
Don't waste time proclaiming this is irrelevent. Of course it is relevent whether you have first-hand experience in the area you analyze and criticize.
Roll call begins now.
The sad truth is that the "top" journals such as Science and Nature seem to publish articles pertaining to systematic biology as light-hearted relief from their other more "serious" but more difficult to understand articles on more esteemed topics. Astounding but patently implausible claims (bats are polyphyletic!) are routinely published with documentation of data and methods that would be considered inadequate by many "lesser" journals. Reviewers and editors at the top journals are typically drawn from the more prestigious and well-funded fields of science and may have misplaced confidence in their ability to evaluate a paper on a less respected topic from outside their specialty. Fortunately the serious birding (twitching) community has more rigorous standards for the acceptance of bird records and will not allow unfounded sightings to persist in the official record.
Methinks science is self correcting. I give the CLO team the benefit of the doubt that they sincerely believed they had strong evidence for the persistence of IBWO (innunendos of fraud are nothing more than innuendos). Whether they still feel so confident I have no clue. Indeed their paper had flaws as pointed out repeatedly in this blog, but methinks it did appear strong enough to convince many, at least initially, including myself (and, methinks, many who are commenting on this blog). In retrospect methinks they erred.
Others have already critiqued their data and interpretations in both Auk and Science and, based on these rebuttals, methinks most ornithologists now believe the original paper was fatally flawed and that there is no "proof" after all. But methinks most ornithologists are professional enough not to be obsessed with destroying the careers of the CLO team, which appears (to me, at least) to be the primary objective of many commenting on this blog. The process of science is self correcting and the flawed science appears to have been corrected, at least in the minds of most. But regardless of whether there is ever a retraction, there will always be differences of opinion as there is in any controversy. Frankly I don't understand the big fuss. Why can't you just let it rest? Why the persistent mockery and acrimony?
Personally I have no problem if there are "believers" still searching for the bird, even if the CLO players still rank themselves among the believers. I cringe when I read some of what they write, but what harm can be done by some dedicated believers searching the swamps for something you consider a phantom bird? I have no problem with anybody believing whatever they want to as long as they don't go to the extreme of insulting or harming others. So what's the big deal? Isn't respecting others' beliefs a part of growing up? Give these guys a break and show them some respect.
And I'm also not perturbed about the huge amounts of money being invested in the search and habitat preservation, including the amounts funneled through CLO. Given the much higher amounts of money being thrown around the world for frivolous activities (I'll avoid being specific) by Uncle Sam and various NGOs, I don't really understand all the whining going on here. Okay, call me naive or worse, but isn't preservation of a few acres of southern swamp habitat here and there long overdue?
METHINKS II
OK folks I have to break my long silence here. This is just out of hand.
The way this dispute has been dealt with in the literature so far (papers, columns, rebuttals, responses to rebuttals) is the way these things are handled in the scientific community. Motions of censure, petitions to demand retractions, whatever other fantasies you might entertain, these simply do not happen. If you find this unsatisfying, if you want blood, well tough. Ain't gonna happen. Deal with it. Lotsa folks want to loose the dogs on you, too. That ain't gonna happen either.
If your concern is with funding priorities and policy matters, how about addressing these concerns to the policy makers, appropriators, and NGOs? They all have addresses and phone numbers. Wouldn't it be far more effective to do this that to hammer away at the CLO people and publish moustache montages online? I would suggest though that if you contact them you stick to facts and leave out words like "fraud" and "disgrace" and "bigfoot."
And don't be too astounded when you continue to find that not everyone agrees with you. I suggest you not make a habit of calling them "idiots" to their faces, however, if you wish to remain a player in the game.
Who the hell is Bill Pulliam? And why should he break a long silence?
Anon said:How many of these defenders of the scientific method and pontificators of proper procedure in the literature have ever themselves published a manuscript of which they were first author in the peer-reviewed literature?
______________________________
Methinkks I replies: 6 posters that I know of, and if you wanna know how many first author pubs the number goes into the tens. Let me close this odd line of reasoning by sending you to Fishcrow.com. Hace a look at the CV and then tell me that the pub count matters amigo.
-----------------------
bill Pulliam said...But regardless of whether there is ever a retraction, there will always be differences of opinion as there is in any controversy. Frankly I don't understand the big fuss. Why can't you just let it rest? Why the persistent mockery and acrimony?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bill bill bill bill bill. The fuss is about CLO claiming that IBWO is/was extent as of last mother freakin year. Bill, that matters...as an endangered species biologist, as a conservation biologist and as an ornithologist you must understand that.
IBWO is more than 60 years gone according to the accepted facts. Claiming it is extant should be EARTH SHATTERING, not, as CLO now claims, possible and reasons to extend their search, in a mostly mechanical way.
The fuss is about good science dude, letting it rest is not an option and will not be an option - clearly you agree or you wouldn't have posted. As I have said before I thank the Ghost of the Lord God Bird that the folks on the Pecker I piece are only writing about birds and taking people's money - not reserching childhood diabetes, or working on the frontiers of medical science or working on pharmacological studies.
I do still worry, however, that Fishcrow has anything to do with making acoustical anythings for the Navy.
Bill Pulliam says:
The way this dispute has been dealt with in the literature so far (papers, columns, rebuttals, responses to rebuttals) is the way these things are handled in the scientific community.
Thanks for taking the time to talk down to us, Bill. I am not sure there is an established format for dealing with “the conservation story of the century” (they happen so infrequently) nor with how to deal with what happens when people realize that story appears not be true. In my lifetime there has not been a ornithological story that comes close to matching the IBWO “rediscovery” and certainly nothing similar has happened since the development of the blogosphere.
At least for me this site offers an important forum for those who are intrigued, disgusted and dismayed at what the IBWO “rediscovery” means to people who want to live in a fact-based universe and want to have both science and conservation address important issues rather than lifelong dreams. Without this site I would have to believe that the rest of the world had somehow bought into a story that smelled fishy to me from the beginning. I know no one who wants blood and until you mentioned it have heard of no mention of loosing the dogs on any party. What I want is some answers from people and institutions who should be concerned about their part in profiting professionally and monetarily from “the conservation story of the century”. Lacking that I want a place, like this blog, where I can realize that much of the world has gone crazy but at least not all of it has.
How many of these defenders of the scientific method and pontificators of proper procedure in the literature have ever themselves published a manuscript of which they were first author in the peer-reviewed literature?
What difference does it make whether you were first or not?
I am second author on a Science paper with four authors.
But that paper was in the area of biochemistry and molecular biology, where reviewers are tough. And while our results were unexpected, they were not mindblowing in that regard. We didn't feel the need to hold a press conference to announce our "discovery." And we didn't need to ignore basic facts about biology and imaging artefacts to make our results believable.
But methinks most ornithologists are professional enough not to be obsessed with destroying the careers of the CLO team, which appears (to me, at least) to be the primary objective of many commenting on this blog.
"Obsession" is an ironic way to describe the skeptics.
Scientific careers aren't destroyed by retracting papers.
They are destroyed by excessive hubris in the face of helpful, sincere and legitimate criticism.
Ask Peter Duesberg.
If your concern is with funding priorities and policy matters, how about addressing these concerns to the policy makers, appropriators, and NGOs? They all have addresses and phone numbers. Wouldn't it be far more effective to do this that to hammer away at the CLO people and publish moustache montages online?
Why not both?
I would suggest though that if you contact them you stick to facts and leave out words like "fraud" and "disgrace" and "bigfoot."
I almost agree. The Bigfoot analogy is so spot-on and perfect it's wrong to leave it out.
The way this dispute has been dealt with in the literature so far (papers, columns, rebuttals, responses to rebuttals) is the way these things are handled in the scientific community.
I would argue that this particular case is somewhat exceptional, in light of the great publicity and in light of the shoddiness of the original paper and the authors' responses to criticism.
And the way it's been dealt with here is the way disputes are dealt with on blogs.
>shrugs<
Just be glad that Congress isn't involved like they were with Baltimore's little dustup fifteen years ago. Now THAT was ugly. By comparison, the mockery you see here is positively frivolous.
I'm not a wannabe ornithologist, I'm a wannabe birder.
Show of hands, how many people here have sent documentation to a records committee?
That's an important perspective. A number of people (for example, the ABA Checklist Committee) think that the documentaiton of Luneau does not even stand up to birding standards . My expectation is the "science" as it appears in Science should stand up to an even higher standard. Do I have unrealistic expectations?
Who made CLO judge and jury of their own record? Let the ABA and AOU Checklist Committees decide what's proven and accepted (we're already half the way there).
anonanon
bill Pulliam said...But regardless of whether there is ever a retraction...
I did? No, I didn't. You're getting me confused with Anonymous #17.3, I think.
Take it you haven't been reading here very long. I'm one of the small handfull of people who's ever had the guts to post here using his actual name instead of hiding behind the spineless cloak of anonymity. Talking down? There's plenty of that here to go around from all sides. And ANYONE who thinks that this story is somehow unique and deserves unprecedented treatment by the scientific community has developed a nasty case of Ivorybill tunnel vision. By now anyone who hasn't calmed down enough to realize that the label "Conservation story of the Century" was just emotional mass-media hyperbole in the glow of the first announcement needs to take a bunch of deep breaths and come back to earth.
As a footnote, I might add that posting here under my own name has never lead to anything worse than an obnoxious off-topic comment or two on my own blog, and the snarkiest of those was actually from one of Tom's biggest detractors, not from one of his supporters.
Overall, there seems to be nothing new to talk about in this arena; even Tom has been having to pull reruns out of the vault. Everyone who cares has heard it all, thrown in their $.02, and settled down in their opinion, whether you like their opinion or not.
"I'm one of the small handfull of people who's ever had the guts to post here using his actual name instead of hiding behind the spineless cloak of anonymity"
Hey Bill Pulliam,
Just for the record, are these Bills
actually you?
Tom Nelson
Yes those are all me from before I had a blogger account.
By the way, Bill, haven't you also commented here anonymously?
Tom Nelson
But I am most emphatically NOT the Bill from Florida (a.k.a. That Magic Guy)
As have you, on my blog and on other blogs. Sometimes by accident (not being signed in), sometimes on purpose when I just felt like throwing a potshot from the peanut gallery. But unlike the vast majority of the people here, I take ownership of my opinions and everyone knows where I stand, who I am, and where I live.
If you'd like to start a smear campaign, I can help you by directing you to the naked photos.
By the way, I will readily admit to having been guilty of just about every sin in the book in the online IBWO discussions here and on Bird Forum: getting angry, getting too personal, making anonymous snarky comments, jumping to conclusions, etc. Well, OK, I never lied, fabricated, or posted under a false identity, so I guess I left some sins out. But anyway... that is part of why I pulled myself out of the game last spring, and intend to return to the bench very soon until (unless) something new actually happens. But this growing cry for "blood, blood, blood!" was something I just had to weigh in on.
A bit more information on Fishcrow (Mike Collins)/ Fangsheath/Bill Pulliam connections is
here.
Tom
As well as here:
http://bbill.blogspot.com/2006/05/warbleriest-state-in-land-of-free.html
Do please remember to read all the way to my own reply at the end of Tom's post.
Thank you.
Bill stupidly said this "..I'm one of the small handfull of people who's ever had the guts to post here using his actual name."
But Bill, I don't think you understand. A lot of us are important people, unlike you. We HAVE to post anonymously.
Now do you get it?
P.S.-more importantly, we have something to say!
Wow, 55 comments so far. And according to Bill, no one is reading or cares about this story anymore. Amazing!
A sense of perspective here...
Threats to the future of science in America:
(a) Ivory-billed Woodpecker
( b) "Intelligent Design"
Threats to the future of conservation in America:
(a) Ivory-billed Woodpecker
(b) Americans' steadily decreasing interaction with and interest in the natural world.
To me the IBWO is a small thunderstorm on the radar; meanwhile a swarm of Category 5 hurricanes is swirling just offshore.
Threats to the future of science in America:
(a) Ivory-billed Woodpecker
(b) "Intelligent Design"
You overlook the fact that the science establishment and media were calling "bullshit" on Intelligent Design since day one. The IBWO story was embraced by the media, conservationists, state and federal agencies, etc. And, far from being just a threat, the damage from IBWO hysteria has already been done to both the discipline and the people and institutions that got pulled into it. So the IBWO story wins hand down. And the number of people who have to post here anonymously is clear evidence of how large that damage is.
Methinks the vitriolic attacks on Bill Pulliam confirmed the worst of my fears. Methinks it's better to remain anonymous than to turn loose Tom and his pack of bloodhounds. Methinks it ironic that the CLO rebuttals published thus far were by professional ornithologists and birders who wrote civily and responsibly, not viciously. Little wonder Tom and his bloodhounds--the self-professed guardians of pure science, ornithology and birding--have yet to publish a rebuttal in a scientific paper...
METHINKS II
Hey Methinks II,
What did I write about Bill Pulliam that qualifies, in your mind, as "vicious"?
What did I write that truly confirmed "the worst of your fears"?
Please be very specific.
Thanks!
Tom
Methinks II said, "Little wonder Tom and his bloodhounds--the self-professed guardians of pure science, ornithology and birding--have yet to publish a rebuttal in a scientific paper..."
How do you know that we haven't?
A number of people (for example, the ABA Checklist Committee) think that the documentaiton of Luneau does not even stand up to birding standards. My expectation is the "science" as it appears in Science should stand up to an even higher standard.
A major issue here is that there is no "science of bird field identification". The article attempts to "prove" that the IBWO still exists by identifying the bird in the video. In fact, many ornithologists are not peers in this realm, field birders are. Many (most?) top field birders in the U.S. are not, in fact, professional ornithologists. They are field birders.
Show of hands, how many people here have sent documentation to a records committee?
I've served on records committees, and I can guarantee you that if this bird was some other regularly occurring review species (e.g. Eurasian Wigeon, Short-tailed Hawk, or Gray-crowned Yellowthroat in Texas), no committee I've been on would have accepted this level of documentation. That means it's not remotely good enough to support the continued existence of a species thought to be extinct.
Anonymous wrote "...no committee I've been on would have accepted this level of documentation. That means it's not remotely good enough to support the continued existence of a species thought to be extinct."
But did not the Arkansas committee accept it?!? Okay, methinks most now would agree they accepted it rather hastily and prematurely, BUT THEY DID ACCEPT IT. Had the evidence been as flimsy as some claim here or "not remotely good enough" as anonymous states, WHY did they accept it?
Apparently the evidence submitted at the time was considered persuasive enough to be acceptable. Otherwise you're going to have to either smear the committee members as being incompetent or concoct a CLO-inspired conspiracy to purchase votes from the committee members.
Has the Arkansas committee subsequently reversed their acceptance? In light of recent events methinks they should, but I think CLO deserves respect for providing what appeared at least initially to be persuasive evidence and methinks the Arkansas committee deserves respect for making an independent judgement.
METHINKS II
Apparently the evidence submitted at the time was considered persuasive enough to be acceptable. Otherwise you're going to have to either smear the committee members as being incompetent or concoct a CLO-inspired conspiracy to purchase votes from the committee members.
Hilarious.
OR ... you can imagine the Arkansas committee simply listening to all these "professionals" from Cornell with their high degrees and "experience" and simply getting caught up in the "fever."
After all, if these self-proclaimed IBWO "experts" are convinced, then who is the Arkansas committee to doubt them and piss on the forthcoming nationwide IBWO Rediscovery Parade???
It's not a simple matter of of "incompetence". The "Arkansas committee" was following the lead of "reputable scientists" from an "acclaimed institution", which is a reasonable thing to do UNLESS you are an indendent scientist who isn't inclined to take certain claims at face value regardless of how hard those claims are shoved in your face and how gleefully the paper's authors are talking about their "discovery."
Why we would expect such scientists to be serving on "the Arkansas committee"?
think CLO deserves respect for providing what appeared at least initially to be persuasive evidence
Persuasive to you. Bad joke to me.
methinks the Arkansas committee deserves respect for making an independent judgement
No one should be "respected" for accepting that video and some unrelated knocking noises in the woods as sufficient evidence to prove that a large noisy bird thought to be extinct for 60 years was "rediscovered."
I'm sorry that many folks were gullible.
That doesn't change the fact that a lot of folks were appropriately skeptical of the CLO's extraordinary claims.
So where are we? The IBWO is extinct, a crappy high profile paper was published claiming otherwise, and some people simply refuse to admit that they were taken for a ride.
In ten years, some people will still be out there looking for this damn bird and some people will claim that they saw it.
Do you want to be one of those people? Go right ahead. But spare us the arguments that such behavior is reasonable.
"But did not the Arkansas committee accept it?!?"
Yes, because the Arkansas folks would have tarred and feathered them if they hadn't. So that committee gets a pass.
Sort of like Bush and WMD. All the generals knew better but they were taken for the ride anyway.
Does "not my pay scale" ring a bell?
It's called groupthink. Remember?
By the way, Methinks II, we all realize you are sort of a goof. But you are fun anyway.
Whoa whoa whoa on the Methinks II thingie. Dude, you need a new name. Methinks I thinks you are different from the original Methinks II, or at least need the meds balanced.
From here on Methinks II, please be known as something like The Thinker, Rodain I, Zilla I, something other than Methinks II. Kentish Plover, Pecker Guesser, Quinn, Baby Cakes, whatever. TB did it, so can you. Your hurting the brand Dude.
This is Methinks I, and if needed, I will relinquish that moniker (which, I might add, I've worked on pretty faithfully for several months), and I will be forced to adopt my other screen name I use on another blog.
Please.
Sincerely,
Methinks = Piltdownwoman
Huh-huh, he said 69, huh huh, huh huh....
Seriously though, last night I was watching a re-run of the South Park "Scientology" episode. I would recommend that everyone watch that episode but think "CLO-IBWO scam" instead of Scientology- just a little tweaking and the similarities are amazing.
Really Seriously, though (and I know that I've been left in the dust on this discussion string, and perhaps this subject has been brought up previously on this blog).... I believe that it was Amy Lester who suggested teasing/experimenting with IBWO searchers by producing double-knocky-kenty sounds and then releasing captive Pileateds in front of them. That's a swell idea, but probably not very feasible. Sort of along the same lines however, I would challenge some industrious ornithologists out there to capture one or more Pileateds, paint them with an IBWO pattern, then (in an enclosure) film them going away to see what sort of images are produced and compare that to the Luneau video. Yes, I realize that wing shape, wingbeat frequency, etc. are not the same, but it would provide at least a crude comparison of what a "real" IBWO would look like under similar circumstances.
Piltdownwoman, methinks I've rattled your orangutan jaw. Methinks the pecker could be alive or it could be dead, but mehopes it's alive and mehopes you are wrong. Sorry to disagree with you, but you can consider me your alter ego. Have a nice day.
PILTDOWNMAN
"But did not the Arkansas committee accept it?!?"
The quality of records committees varies. One big factor is the number experienced observors available as a talent pool. California, for example, arguably has a larger talent pool to draw from than, say, Wyoming. Another big factor is the independence and caution of the committee members.
The two state committees on which I served had members who were strong in bird ID and were willing to thoroughly research and question difficult records. A friend who served on a different state committee described a bird that was nearly accepted, despite the fact that the write-up actually contained no objective field marks! This committee was not cautious, and relied on their perceived quality of the observors, not the documentation.
The ABA committee has the entire continent to draw upon, and thus can be expected to have top quality people (which is shown by articles that several members have written). Note that they came to a different conclusion than the Arkansas committee.
"Seriously though, last night I was watching a re-run of the South Park "Scientology" episode"
God, I love that episode. Darn, I wanted to tape that. You are so right. I expect south park to make a IBWO version any day now.
Methinks II/Piltdownman! You are such a goof. We love you. You let us bash CLO all over again with the same arguments we have always used. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
If you didn't exist, we would have to invent you!
ps-that makes 74
methinks that methinks I(Piltdownwoman) and methinks II (Piltdownman) are actually married and are using this forum to argue the IBWO existance in a safe anonymous way.
Mewonders when the next population (besides the Pearl ;-) will be announced and when the book of it's discovery will be released.
"And what makes you so sure most of us have tacitly accepted CLO's actions and conclusions about IBWO" ...
"...what is your sample size"
My sample size is, unfortunately very small. The relevant sample is of significant contributions by professional ornithologists, whether journal articles or substantial public statements, that counter the CLO's claims and actions subsequent to their responses to Sibley and Jackson. I can think of very few, so it appears that Cornell has had the last word (so far) in the academic debate.
Why the "political mudslinging"?
Please refer to the original press conference with Gale Norton and then read about her contribution towards furthering the destruction of our environment.
somebody said: My sample size is, unfortunately very small. The relevant sample is of significant contributions by professional ornithologists, whether journal articles or substantial public statements, that counter the CLO's claims and actions subsequent to their responses to Sibley and Jackson.
The problem is that you're looking at the wrong people. Being a professional ornithologist does not automatically make you an expert on field ID.
Field ID experts (i.e. people recognized and published on subjects concerning field identification of birds) against the ID as an IBWO are Sibley, Bevier, Kaufmann, and the entire ABA committee (I know that at least Lehman and McTavish are published field ID experts). I have yet to see one top field birder quoted as saying the bird must be an IBWO, or even that it is not definitely a PIWO.
Actually, I'd be interested in knowing if any members of Team CLO have ever published a field ID article before. If not, then this is their first. It would explain their misunderstanding of the marks displayed by PIWO in flight.
Anonymous said...
"Seriously though, last night I was watching a re-run of the South Park "Scientology" episode"
God, I love that episode. Darn, I wanted to tape that. You are so right. I expect south park to make a IBWO version any day now.
Dear Anonymous-
Fear not. The South Park "Trapped in the Closet" episode (aka Scientology episode) will be on again at 11 PM (EDT?) on Sunday 7/23.....
When is Fitz going to come out of the closet....?
When is Remsen going to come out of the closet?
Alright! Sunday. Thanks.
80 posts. And to think no one reads this blog. Amazing.
Somebody wrote: "Being a professional ornithologist does not automatically make you an expert on field ID."
Methinks this is true. Most professional ornithologists are NOT experts on field ID. But some are.
Somebody also wrote: "Actually, I'd be interested in knowing if any members of Team CLO have ever published a field ID article before."
Methinks Van Remsen can rub shoulders with the best of birders and he has published bird identification articles (e.g, Yellow-billed Loon). Furthermore, methinks Remsen's ornithological scholarship (and John Fitzpatrick's as well) is probably unsurpassed by anybody reading this blog (though a few notable skeptics, such as Jerry Jackson and Rick Prum, might match him; just check out Google Scholar). Fitzpatrick has described several new species, which obviously is pertinent to ID, but describing a bird in the hand is much easier than a bird in a fuzzy video. And furthermore, neither Remsen nor Fitzpatrick claim to have ever seen the pecker.
METHINKS II
Holy gehosafats! I agree will every thing Methinks II said.
Way to go, Methinks II.
(Post 82 and proud that it was me)
On the subject of sample size, I noticed today that responses to cyberthrushs Ivory-bills Live!! posts are lagging way behind. Of her 14 July postings, 11 have not been commented upon whatsoever, including her recent, classy "Ivory-bill[sic] Skeptics Suck!" posting. Two posts had 2 comments, and the four comments on her most interesting post were by only two people, one a skeptic.
Yes, Cyberthrush only allows comments that he agrees with. I've tried to posts several comments there recently. But they are just ignored.
So all you have left is the believers. But they are so shell-shocked and few nowadays.
Bye, Bye, little post
You owe your life to our host
But now you will fall off the end
With Tom's next append
Post a Comment