An excerpt (the bold font is mine):
The evidence reported by Auburn University this week from the Choctawhatchee strongly indicates that a population of ivory-billed woodpeckers persists in at least one remote river swamp of northern Florida. This follows on the heels of the highly publicized 2005 discovery of at least one bird in Arkansas, and a widely accepted 1999 report of a pair of ivorybills in Louisiana. Researchers working completely independently have over a span of six years reported multiple sightings at three sites separated by hundreds of miles. Might it be possible that a few small populations of this secretive species are scattered throughout its historic range?Some of the above text sounds uncomfortably Fishcrow-like to me.
2. Mary Scott has removed the "Nine pairs!!" stuff from her website. Note the prominent mention of Cyberthrush's site.
3. John Mariani again brings up a very relevant point here:
It's too bad that neither the Cornell or Auburn teams recorded and quantifed their misidentifications, if any. It would be interesting to know how often (if ever) Pileated Woodpeckers were initially identified as IBWOs.4. Check out the cautious headline at the Audubon site here:
AUDUBON HOPEFUL THAT EVIDENCE OF IVORY-BILLED WOODPECKERS IN FLORIDA WILL LEAD TO CONFIRMATIONAnd check out this excerpt from this Audubon page (the bold font is mine):
We ask that you look at the accompanying pages that compare and describe these two species. If you remain convinced that you have seen an Ivory-billed Woodpecker you will need to take photographs of the bird.5. A blog entry from Ontario is here.
6. WorldTwitch weighs in here.
7. Cyberthrush expounds on "simply documenting the species photographically" here.
8. Laura Erickson takes on the skeptics here.
As usual, she makes some great points. Can anyone out there name a single credible person who's skeptical of *any* of these reports of unphotographable Ivory-bills?
9. Here is a new Reuters story. Please read the whole thing.
Posts
25 comments:
Ivory-bill meets myspace.com
Frankly I'm surprised she doesn't have Sufjan's song playing on her page.
p.s.(it's getting ugly and weird over at BIRDFORUM)
p.p.s. Will we EVER find out who the True Believer is? What about Carpentario? What about METHINKs?
I'm just listening to an old David Sibley interview here:
http://tinyurl.com/mpnmj
The interviewer asks him what are the first things to notice when looking at a bird.
He mentions
#1. Look at the head and bill.
Funny how all of these IBWO sightings fail to get that character.
#2. watch what the bird is doing.
(hovering, gliding....I don't THINK SO)
#3. Color and pattern.
#4. Body proportions.
It's always been more that a wee bit weird at Bird Forum, the correct descriptions are:
- Fanatical
- Ideologues
- Progressives (sorry, couldn't help myself)as other points of view send them over the edge.
- Youthful Enthusiasm to put it mildly.
And they say we have too much time on our hands.
More musings - Multiple tree cavities that mean absolutely nothing, bark scalings that mean absolutely nothing, kent calls that could be absolutely anything, and fleeting glimpses of birds that could be absolutely anything.
Were they all undergraduates at Cornell?
Good points Marcus,
But really they are conservative not progressive. Liberal is to be embracing of new ideas. They are conservative. Wishing to maintain their status quo. New ideas and ways send them over the edge.
"Were they all undergraduates at Cornell? "
I fear they are all products of the south! That makes it North 0, South 0
Announcement:
Grad students and volunteer searchers needed for winter 2006-2007 Labrador Duck search to be held at an undisclosed location near Montauk Pt. We don't have much funding yet but expect this to change once Hillary Clinton is elected president. We haven't seen the ducks yet but found many large oyster shells that could not have been opened by any other species.
"p.p.s. Will we EVER find out who the True Believer is? What about Carpentario? What about METHINKs?"
Would you really want to know? As with romance and Ivory-billed Woodpecker findings, it is the air of uncertainty and mystery that makes things intriguing. Both Cornell and Auburn (and apparently all of the currently living IBWOs) know that evidence hiding in the shadows can get far more attention for a longer period of time.
If those shadows suddenly have enough light to show what is actually there then all of the intrigue is gone.
"In the dark, all cats are gray."
BTW, I am still trying to figure out who the other “Anonymous” is on this blog.
Hill
I was just a biologist obsessed with finding evidence that this bird still existed.'
Tom nailed it in his previous post. This admission provides the motive for all the worthless bullcrap at Auburn's website and in the Hill et al. paper.
"BTW, I am still trying to figure out who the other “Anonymous” is on this blog."
Hi. It's me.
Would it matter that you knew you'd face an ugly, meanspirited Minnesota-based blog, ostensibly about honest skepticism but in truth the posts and most comments are written by close-minded true believers in extinction who resort to slander and cyber-stalking, releasing the names and IP numbers of anonymous commenters, selectively posting comments from some individuals, and only selectively quoting from sources, to intimidate opponents and unfairly shore up one side of the debate?
BWAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH!!!!!
Yeah, it's all about censorship of ideas here.
Take a deep breath, Laura, and try to remember which "side" bears the burden of proof, here. Hint: it's not the "skeptics." We skeptics can't help it if ivory-billed woodpecker is extinct.
The bird's status as an extinct species is not our problem.
Our problem is sloppy self-identifying "scientists" who publish pure crap and pretend that it amounts to proof that a large loud bark-ripping roost-hole carving woodpecker is alive but has become so shy of photographers that it makes Brian Eno look like a camera hog.
Reasonable people understand the absurdity of the situation and recognize that (1) humans are fallible creatures prone to mistakes; (2) humans can willfully delude themselves into believing all sorts of nonsense without evidence; and (3) humans lie.
When you throw on top of the mountains of laughably crappy "evidence" the indisputable FACTS that there are real issues of money, fame, and politics involved, not to mention the evident and/or admitted "obsessions" of some of the players in this farce, the picture is virtually complete.
It's a picture of a big pile of cow manure on top of the grave of the last living IBWO.
""BTW, I am still trying to figure out who the other “Anonymous” is on this blog."
Hi. It's me."
Glad to meet you. Would you want to join a support group called "Anonymous Anonymous"?
Very astute, Mr. Other Anonymous.
To be anonymous carries a special responsibility as we carry our grayness on to posterity.
I for one accept that responsiblity. I will use my special powers only for good and to fight evil where ever it lies.
Cyberthrush
Here we go again... the bashing of the Florida Ivory-bill sightings and sighters is under full-swing from the Ivory-bills-are-extinct-because-we-say-so crowd.
Lie #1. Nobody here says the IWBO is extinct "because we say so."
It is clear that until photographic evidence is obtained other forms of evidence for the existence of Ivory-bills are virtually a moot point in many quarters at this point. This is a horrible state-of-affairs (given again that it is based on an unsupported presumption of the bird's extinction)
Lie #2. The presumption is supported by over a half-century of miserable failure by thousands of people searching for proof of the bird's continued existence.
it forces the hand of all those doing searches --- effort that might better be expended in other ways and study, must now be concentrated on attaining the demanded photographic evidence, before other progress can follow.
Lie #3. Even the proponents who claim to be "convinced" that the IBWO exists understand that their alleged "evidence" is insufficient to obectively prove that IBWOs are still alive.
If Cyberthrush is claiming that scientists should stop wasting their time "obsessing" over an extinct bird, I wholeheartedly agree. On the other hand, she think that it is possible for scientists to start studying the behavior of living IBWOs in 2006, then its time for her to put down the crack pipe.
Mr. Anonymous I'd say that our American liberals are just as close minded as our American conservatives.
Nobody can dispute Amy's points although her points can and do get lost in the language message.
Tom, thanks again for shedding light on this ornithology underworld and that our University personnel our only human and not supreme beings with impressive academic credentials.
The Reuters piece:
The bird's former range stretched from east Texas to the Carolinas and Florida and north as far as Arkansas and southern Illinois, Fitzpatrick said.
That's a pretty big chunk of space!
"I've been accused of being a Bigfoot searcher," Fitzpatrick said, referring to the mythical beast of American folklore. "I just believe that it is a very important priority for us to search all of the places where this bird may be hanging on, and once and for all find out where they still exist, if they do."
Of course, since a living IBWO would differ from trees and buried treasure insofar as it could FLY AROUND at will, Fitzcrow has established a standard which is impossible to meet.
It's nice that Fitzcrow believes that it is an "important priority" to do all this searching, but it would be even nicer if Fitzcrow explained WHY it is an "important priority" without relying on his own self-serving crap "evidence" or the crap "evidence" of his buddies in Florida.
The Reuters piece:
The bird's former range stretched from east Texas to the Carolinas and Florida and north as far as Arkansas and southern Illinois, Fitzpatrick said.
That's a pretty big chunk of space!
"I've been accused of being a Bigfoot searcher," Fitzpatrick said, referring to the mythical beast of American folklore. "I just believe that it is a very important priority for us to search all of the places where this bird may be hanging on, and once and for all find out where they still exist, if they do."
Of course, since a living IBWO would differ from trees and buried treasure insofar as it could FLY AROUND at will, Fitzcrow has established a standard which is impossible to meet.
It's nice that Fitzcrow believes that it is an "important priority" to do all this searching, but it would be even nicer if Fitzcrow explained WHY it is an "important priority" without relying on his own self-serving crap "evidence" or the crap "evidence" of his buddies in Florida.
I'm listening to some They Might be Giants right now, and the song seems somewhat pertinent to this thread.
From "I should be allowed to think"
I should be allowed to glue my poster
I should be allowed to think
I should be allowed to think
I should be allowed to think
And I should be allowed to blurt the merest idea
If by random whim, one occurs to me
If necessary, leave paper stains on the grey utility pole
I am not allowed
To ever come up with a single original thought
I am not allowed
To meet the criminal government agent who oppresses me
I was the worst hope of my generation
Destroyed by madness, starving, hysterical
I should be allowed to share my feelings
I should be allowed to feel
------------------------
I think the IBWO is extinct....
I feel that it may be out there somewhere.
Laura
The aforementioned true-beliver (in extinction) blogger weighed in on this post: "Can anyone out there name a single credible person who's skeptical of *any* of these reports of unphotographable Ivory-bills?" But I never said there weren't credible skeptics.
And Tom never claimed that you said that. Why so defensive Laura?
I simply pointed out that credible scientists are not the ones obsessing on his meanspirited little blog.
I'm a Ph.D. scientist and I'm far more more credible than you, Laura, when it comes to discussing extinct woodpeckers. You see, I recognized the Fitzcrow paper as crap from the beginning. As of this moment, there is no objective evidence supporting the fantasy of a living IBWO -- the situations is exactly as I predicted way back in early 2005. That's called a "track record." What's your track record like, Laura?
If you think the IBWO is alive, then by all means place your bet, Laura. Since I've got some insurance money now, I'll give you two to one odds. You get $1000 if the IBWO is proven to be alive by September 29, 2007. I get $500 from you if the bird remains extinct at that time.
What do you say, Laura? Feeling confident? Or is it more important to you to simply whine and wring your hands when people express their reasonable skepticism and dismay in response to extraordinary but meritless claims being peddled to the press and public?
Gee, Tom put the odds at closer to 100 to one. I'd say offhand that Amy has a lot less confidence in the non-ability of researchers to get the goods on the IBWO than Tom does. I'd say Amy has closer to the correct odds because no knockout documentation in two seasons. And that's if she believes it exists.
Don't take the bet, Laura! It's a trick! The evil meanspirited little Dr. Lester uses her diabolical woodpecker word-smithing powers to make all proof disappear!
Gee, Tom put the odds at closer to 100 to one. I'd say offhand that Amy has a lot less confidence in the non-ability of researchers to get the goods on the IBWO than Tom does.
And you'd be dead wrong.
I'd say Amy has closer to the correct odds because no knockout documentation in two seasons.
The IBWO is extinct. The odds of finding one next year are zero.
What you seem unable to understand is that I'm trying to make some money here.
Where do you put the odds, curunir? Maybe we could work out a wager that would appeal to you.
if the IBWO is extinct then all odds are good odds, for Amy. Even Tom leaves in excess of one percent though.
Chalk up another big talker who is afraid to put up the dough.
Laura on her blog:
Anyway, I'm not a betting person--I'm too skeptical.
Hilarious, Laura. How about 10 to 1 odds? I win, you give me $100. The IBWO is proven to be living, I pay you $1000.
Still not taking?
What's the problem?
Curunir
if the IBWO is extinct then all odds are good odds, for Amy.
Put your money where your rambling mouth is, curunir.
You think the IBWO is alive? How much are you willing to bet on it? I'm willing to put several thousand of my own dollars on the line to back up my convictions.
And you? A nickel? A dollar?
Or would you rather spend that dollar on the lottery, where you actually have a chance of winning?
That TBs such as the CLO won't take Amy's bet, at 10 to 1 odds in her disfavor, tells me that they don't believe their own propaganda and are therefore hoaxsters as John Wall has said all along. I'm confident that Amy would accept non-monetary stakes if they don't approve of betting for money.
Hey ten to one sounds much better. Will I get anything better than that? I'm not nearly as certain as some of the others.
Post a Comment