Saturday's guests will be University of Alabama in Huntsville history professors Andrew Dunar and Stephen Waring, authors of "The Power to Explore: A History of the Marshall Space Flight Center, 1969-1990," and Oakwood College instructor and debunker of the ivory-billed woodpecker extinction myth Bobby Harrison.I wonder if Feldman will actually take Harrison's claims seriously.
Friday, November 17, 2006
Harrison on public radio this Saturday
According to this, Bobby Harrison is scheduled to appear on Michael Feldman's public radio show "Whad'Ya Know?" this Saturday morning (the bold font is mine):
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
Debunk: To expose and disprove false or exaggerated claims.
And Bobby Harrison is going to show how the false and exaggerated claims that the last IBWO was seen 60 years ago are just not true? Well I guess when perpetrating fraud it is not a bad strategy to get dressed up like the sort of person who would be most concerned with stopping your fraud. A bank robber could do worse than show up at the bank dressed as a policeman or security guard.
Feldman will treat him kindly but in a somewhat condescending tone that allows the audience to feel that they and Feldman are in on the joke but that the interviewee is not. I like Feldman but his show sometimes sounds like “Garrison Keillor meets Borat”: e.g. "people from middle America sure are quaint but let’s have some fun at their expense” – but all in good fun and with the cozy NPR style that educated white liberals just eat up.
I'm reading Jackson's newest Auk piece. Check out this section:
-----------------------------
"In defense of their assertion that observers were not
in error when they said that the bird they observed at
100 m or more was “much larger than” a Pileated
Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), Fitzpatrick et al.
(2006a:588) suggested that I had previously stated that
ivory-bills were much larger. They quoted my description
of two specimens laid side by side (Jackson 2004:
3): “By itself the Pileated was impressive; next to the
Ivory-bill it was puny.” This out-of-context quotation
amounts to deception. My next sentence (Jackson 2004:
3) clarifi es my description: “It was not that the body
of the Ivory-bill was so much larger than that of the
Pileated, but rather that the bill of the Ivory-bill was
so much larger and so diff erent.” Observers of putative
ivory-bills in Arkansas did not comment on the relative
size of the bill or length of the neck of the bird they
saw—two characteristics that a keen observer might
have discerned. I stand by my assertion."
---------------------------------
That is really lame on Cornell's part. I am deeply disappointed in them. I think I'll post this up on BIRDFORUM too, and see how MMinNY defends it.
I just read ibwo_agnostic's post. This part just hit me between the eyes:
"It was not that the body
of the Ivory-bill was so much larger than that of the
Pileated, but rather that the bill of the Ivory-bill was
so much larger and so diff erent."
It was the next sentence after the one they quoted! That is just sleazy. I simply can't believe that it was an honest mistake. My respect for them has dropped several notches. It looks like they'll say anything to keep their boat afloat.
My respect for them has dropped several notches. It looks like they'll say anything to keep their boat afloat.
The CLO has a reputation for playing with the facts for what they think will help the birds or their funding. Had someone from CLO tell me that industry could never be trusted when development vs. conservation issues were being discussed or litigated so there was nothing wrong with his trying to balance that by being less than factual when discussing or presenting ornithological issues.
Look into their history or just watch their current fraud. You will be surprised how many more notches your respect will drop.
So if IBWOs are not much larger than pileated's, then there is no "obvious" reason to expect that their roost holes are substantially larger than pileated roost holes. Is that accurate?
Not that it really matters from a scientific perspective. I'm just trying to guage how stupid and/or dishonest these folks actually are.
Bobby debunking the IBWO's extinction is like OJ hunting for the real killers
"Bobby debunking the IBWO's extinction is like OJ hunting for the real killers "
Yeah, except that OJ has better odds.
Post a Comment