It was amusing hearing the disparaging remarks several people, including well-known skeptics, were making about a "Minnesota blogger"--fortunately they said "he" wasn't me they were talking about!Obviously, this was meant as a shot at me, and at least one fine thinker at Birdforum has interpreted it that way.
For the real story, start by looking at the list of public skeptics available here.
I've had personal communications (email and/or phone) with almost every one of the top eight people listed there. I've enjoyed extensive communications (15+ contacts) with several of them.
Their support has been overwhelming, including many lengthy, unsolicited contributions of opinion and information.
Here are a couple of email excerpts from well-known skeptics:
1. "...thank you for carrying the banner for so long. I think you’ve done a great job of presenting a reasonable and unwavering viewpoint, in the face of some seemingly unreasonable debate. Thank you."
2. "Since you've been following this story more closely (and more accurately) than anyone, I thought you might be interested in this item...But I see you already have plenty of solid material on your site.
I think you're going to come out of this looking like a brave person who has been vindicated. I salute your courage and your forthright approach to the issue."
Posts
12 comments:
I haven't seen anything that added to the debate for a long, long time, neither here nor on the TB sites. Nothing but gossip if you ask me, and it is a sad sign that the debate has now reached a state where people are being personally attacked and feel the need to claim support and endorsements from others! BINAC is doing it right, folks, a cease fire! Good plan at last.
Hey, if extinct or not, IT IS ONLY A FREAKING BIRD !!! Relax, calm down, have a beer, remain friendly and see how we can all get to the bottom of the problem (to quote a famous world leader).
Cheers,
Mr. German (in his next try to spoil the party)
Tom;
Pardon my birding ignorance, whom is Laura Erickson; I went to her web site and she is either a bird author or a marketing, telescope, binoculars sales person.
THAT DAMN PROOF, those fools keep asking for real proof.
Someone at BirdForum says in reference to this blog:
"I can't help but wonder whether Dr. Jackson would continue to condone the escalating hate talk there"
If they can't separate an IBWO from a PIWO then they would probably also think that this blog and its frequently entertaining discussion was actually "escalating hate". Tom allows a range of opinions to be expressed here and some people may be a bit shrill at times but I have seen no signs of anything approaching "hate". If the level of discussion appears to be "escalating" that is only because of the recent publications documenting a range expansion of Flimsy Evidence which may be fueled in part by Laura peddling her rose-colored optics.
I hate cream corn.
Tom,
Some sincere questions for you about the skeptics you quoted and the list you have posted. Are those comments from before or after the Florida situation? Do you know specifically how all the people on the list feel about Florida? I know Jerry Jackson thinks much more highly of the Florida evidence than the Arkansas stuff, while still acknowledging that it isn't proof. I know this is hard for many folks to believe, but it is possible for a person to change their mind in the face of new evidence. Not that the new evidence is worthy of that at this point.
Agnostically yours...
P.S. I still await definitive photo or video documentation proving that Amy Lester is a real person.
"Do you know specifically how all the people on the list feel about Florida?"
Nope.
David Sibley and Mark Robbins have already been quoted in the press about Florida, and both sounded distinctly unimpressed (I've posted the links elsewhere on this blog).
Through the back channels, I've very recently been in contact with some other well-known skeptics, and not a one seems more impressed with the Florida evidence than the Arkansas evidence.
We need a new blog entitled Ivory-bill Skeptic Skeptic to determine whether Tom really spews hate, whether Jerry Jackson is a real skeptic or a closet Florida IBWO TB, and whether Tim was pulling our leg with some of his Birdforum posts eagerly anticipating the Florida discovery
We seem to have progressed from ornithology to sociology via crytozoology
Laura Erickson
When I made one anonymous post on his blog, he not only revealed (based on his tracking down my IP number) my name, but also revealed my IP number and posted the times I was visiting his blog and correlating them with the times I post on my own blog--a common practice among cyber stalkers.
Cyber stalkers! Booga-booga!
Scientists always argue about issues. But without good faith that errors of judgment or reason are just that, when we start ridiculing and name-calling and accusing people and institutions of outright fraud, we simply can't have reasoned discussion.
I wonder if Laura is aware that scientific data is manufactured and misrepresented to the public on a very regular basis.
That is the basis of the dismissal of his blog--what reason is there is powerfully weakened by some sort of personal vendetta.
The IBWO is extinct and the reasoning behind that conclusion is as solid as the reasoning behind the conclusion that a giant non-human primate is not wandering the deep dark woods of the United States.
IBWO charlatans ignore criticsm at their peril. Massive dung piles have been known to ignite spontaneously.
"The IBWO is extinct and the reasoning behind that conclusion is as solid as the reasoning behind the conclusion that a giant non-human primate is not wandering the deep dark woods of the United States."
You see, Amy, that's the point (again and again and again): I, amongst others, completely disagree with you there! I haven't seen anything that got me convinced this assumption is based on any reasoning at all. Not because I don't WANT to see, I remain quite skeptic and still lean more towards the "extinct" side of things, but because none of the arguments for the extinction of the bird "survive" even a rough and quick analysis. It is founded on only two facts: The species hasn't been confirmed for a while and southern woods were heavily destroyed around the turn of the 19th/20th century.
Oh, come on, you're apparently a scientist yourself. Now tell me: how can you regard THAT as evidence or even PROOF for the extinction of a species?!?
"Massive dung piles have been known to ignite spontaneously."
Yes, that's right, so we should all make damn sure we're choosing the smalles one to sit on!
Cheers,
Mr. German
Amy Lester wrote: "Massive dung piles have been known to ignite spontaneously."
For once I agree with Amy. Methinks at least one such pile has recently ignited.
PILTDOWNMAN
none of the arguments for the extinction of the bird "survive" even a rough and quick analysis.
That is a self-serving lie, my friend.
It is founded on only two facts: The species hasn't been confirmed for a while
It was confirmed to be on the verge of extinction 75 years ago and a living bird has not been observed for 60 years.
and southern woods were heavily destroyed around the turn of the 19th/20th century.
That's right. Strangely enough, you forgot to mention two extremely critical facts: (1) people have been desperately seeking proof of this bird's continued existence for over half a century and failing miserably to produce that proof.
(2) The bird is a relatively large, flashy and noisy woodpecker.
Now tell me: how can you regard THAT as evidence or even PROOF for the extinction of a species?!?
It's easy, really. And if you really think the bird exists, then please put your money where your mouth is. You know, like I did.
Itherwise I suggest taking a seat and watching some half-baked ornithologists get pantsed. Again.
"The IBWO is firmly established in the land of Joke Status. For the staff at CLO, it is an emabarassment. For the rest of us trouncing around this city, it is an unwelcome distraction from the truly important work we should be discussing."
Thanks, methinks. Probably the most telling and savvy comment from Veracruz yet.
Post a Comment