OH COME ON GUYS - PLEASE DON'T POLLUTE NEOORN WITH THIS STUFF. Not just IBWO generally, but particularly Tom Nelson's blog. That's the worst collection of nasty, snarky group of people I've ever come across.and:
It is a hate-fest. NEOORN is a wonderful, supportive community. Please don't contaminate it with this stuff.
When you visit the blog, you'll see what I mean. Makes Iraq look like a stroll through the park.When I read Ellen Paul's opinions above, I once again was reminded of Kent Brockman's quote about Kamp Krusty on The Simpsons:
Ladies and gentlemen, I've been to Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq; and I can say without hyperbole that this is a million times worse than all of them put together.Ellen Paul is listed here as the Executive Director of the Ornithological Council.
Look at the great things Ellen's Ornithological Council and its members do!
* Link the scientific community with public and private decision-makersUpdate: I'm told that Ellen's husband is Tim Boucher, identified here as a Geospatial Scientist with The Nature Conservancy's Habitat Assessment Team. At this link, Tim Boucher writes:
* Provide timely information about birds to help ensure scientifically-based decisions, policies, and management actions
* Inform ornithologists of proposals and actions that affect birds or the study of birds
* Speak for scientific ornithology on public issues
In my opinion, the Sibley article might seem convincing, but the rebutal [sic] is even better...
Posts
27 comments:
When you visit the blog, you'll see what I mean. Makes Iraq look like a stroll through the park.
Ellen Paul must be living in a spider hole if she thinks this blog is uncivilized.
Has she not read the poetry?
Ellen has been having periodic fits of political rage for years. It's best just to ignore her, but it's also tragic that her position gives her a bully pulpit, and that fact reflects poorly on the judgment of the organization that employs her.
We all should hope to welcome Andy Mitchell, who from his perch in Orkney, appears to see the situation clearly. Perhaps he can offer a bootcamp for our cottonmouth-bitten searchers and their shills.
FMI, what do they actually do? I see lots of buzzwords, but I have no idea what they've actually accomplished. Have they just created a few basic web pages and put links on them? I'm serious wit this inquiry, I'm not trying to be part of a "hate-fest".
I also find it odd that they were incorporated in 1992, yet they seem to be so small that they are still on Smithsonian's web site. Are the two people listed the only employees? Are they paid employees at all, or volunteers?
I happen to know both Ellen Paul and Rick Prum, both fine, decent human beings who are now being disparaged on this blog--along with many other fine people who preceded them. Anybody who publicly disagrees with the IBWO extinction dogma and reveals their identity is automatically labeled a stupid, idiotic moron by your inquisition. Wasn't there a time in the past when scientists were persecuted by a bunch of people similarly devoted to dogma?
"IBWO extinction dogma?" Eh?
Paraphrasing Clara Peller et al., "Where's the woodpecker?"
Without credible evidence, believers seem to be the ones propounding dogma.
That's the worst collection of nasty, snarky group of people I've ever come across.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
I've personally collected evidence that I consider BETTER than any put forth by any recognized organization regarding the existence of the IBWO.
Oh, and I live in Ohio.
Show me the money!!
"I happen to know both Ellen Paul and Rick Prum, both fine, decent human beings who are now being disparaged on this blog--along with many other fine people who preceded them."
If Ellen is so fine and decent, why did she say such very coarse and indecent things about Tom's wonderful blog?
If Prum has been "disparaged", it is because he almost stood up for common sense but then vacillated and let us down. It is because we had high expectations of him that we were disappointed.
In any case, we are sincerely interested in scrutinizing the IBWO controversy from a logical and scientific perspective, and in finding humor in the tragedy, not in determining who is or is not fine or decent.
"Wasn't there a time in the past when scientists were persecuted by a bunch of people similarly devoted to dogma?"
Yes, we skeptics are certainly not the first scientists to be unfairly disparaged by deluded TBs who claim to be nice yet disparage colleagues who insist upon credible evidence and intellectual rigor.
The TBs are the ones who continue to waste lots of taxpayers' and donors' money, not us, and they certainly felt free to ignore or say nasty things about skeptics when the "rediscovery" was going well. Why should we feel sorry for them now?
"Hate-fest"? Not that I read everything posted on this blog, I don't recall reading any "hate mail." What is it that makes the True Believers so entrenched in their beliefs?
I once referred to this blog as the "truth blog," but the True Believers never questioned me about it.
E. Malatesta
Can you elaborate, Ken Phillips?
Ellen is mad at us
Enough to make her cuss
But what did we do?
Point out a flaw or two?
Why does she blame us
We didn’t create this fuss
We are only a mirror
We make things clearer
We don’t reject
We only reflect
Alas, she will be our canary
When she is no longer contrary
Then we will have a sense
That all the recent suspense
Was all just foolish pretense
And Ivory Bills don’t live
And Ellen is ready to forgive
Why do you assume that anyone critical of this blog is a believer? I'm a skeptic, I've learned a lot from this blog in its earlier days, enjoyed the humor (The Ravin'), but lately it seems to me that its main focus is to go out of its way to 'out' and disparage anyone who is not as aggressively critical of IBWO-related work as you. It's pretty obnoxious, actually.
Anyway, is there anything to even talk about? Wait until April, there will either be a photo of an IBWO - very unlikely, I know, though I actually hold out a tiny bit of hope (insert snarky comment/howls of derisive laughter here) - or there won't. Either way, the debate will be settled. Sure, some true believers (or - in the admittedly remote possibility that unequivocal evidence will be presented - some hard-core atheists) will remain, but their views will become irrelevant.
Anon asked, regarding "evidence" of IBWO in Ohio, "Can you elaborate, Ken Phillips?"
Simply put, I have lousy photographs and a few seconds of lousy video. If you pick certain frames of the video, you can clearly see a white trailing edge on the wing of the subject bird. So it must be an IBWO, right?
Personally, my comments on this blog are frequently too vile, but with reason. I am not a mean person but I am highly frustrated and upset about the entire circus surrounding the ivory-billed and the people that are using it to advance themselves. Too many known-to-existed species are in direct peril but are being effectively ignored by the same agencies and people that are forming teams, donating money, diverting scant resources and promoting books in a frenzy over a single, most probably extinct species. I truly hope that ivory-bills are found this year but I would be much happier to have seen the same energy put into more immediate conservation needs.
I honestly believe that a few of the players care little about the animal and primarily see it as a vehicle of self promotion. This angers me greatly.
Finally, I find the fact that any journal would publish a manuscript based on the data and analyses so far presented as evidence to be beyond understanding. As an example, lets’ say that someone (they can be an expert mammalogist if you prefer) is walking through south Texas and sees a large cat dart across their path. They happen to get a few seconds of poor quality video of this animal. Near the site they find claw marks and after setting up audio equipment, they record some sounds that are clearly cat like. The “scientist” decides that this is adequate proof that the animal is a jagurundi, which I believe is considered endangered in Texas. Others think it might be a large feral cat. So now, do you honestly think that based on this amount of data that Science is going to publish this finding, that the Director of the Department of the Interior is going to fly in, that millions of conservation dollars are going to be diverted, that thousands of volunteer hours will be put forth, that recovery teams will form and meet regularly, etc etc. Yet this is basically an abstract of what has happened with the ivory-billed. Such a mis-justice of scientific rigor and procedure simply cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. So, yes I am upset and yes I am often too rude but I have great distain for the hypocritical journals, people and agencies that are involved. This ivory-billed circus is one of the worst examples that I have ever witnessed of poor science, poor agency operation and political self advancement. I admire Tom for providing me and other voices with a place to vent our concerns and frustrations.
Here are seven noble reasons why Neoorn is highly regarded by the ornithological community:
1. Neoorn is focused on birds.
2. Neoorn is focused on science, including conservation science.
3. The participants of Neoorn are mostly professional ornithologists.
4. None of the participants of Neoorn are anonymous.
5. Neoorn tolerates a diversity of opinions.
6. Participants of Neoorn rarely insult anybody; if they do, they risk being banned.
7. Neoorn is moderated by a professional ornithologist with a high standard of scholarship and personal integrity.
So, Anonymous of 8:18 AM, December 02, 2006, what have you personally done in terms of quality science, including publications, that makes you an expert in refuting the science of others? There seems to be a plethora of anonymous "armchair" critics of science contributing to this website. To be so outspoken, why don't you have the guts that Tom has and put your name to your posts?
I admire Tom for providing me and other voices with a place to vent our concerns and frustrations.
And I also admire Tom for providing somewhere that people can visit and exchange their views on the "conservation story of the century".
And I find the tone of the posts here to be far gentler than what people are saying offline. It is also clear that the number of "skeptics" who post here is only the smallest percentage of the growing number of individuals who feel they were badly fooled by CLO, TNC, NPR and others.
There are conservationists who go to private donors and the public with what they consider to be real issues who now have to do so after the "conservation story of the century" has been shown to be a combination of near religious zealotry, academic hubris and NGO greed. The waters have been poisoned by this IBWO fiasco and anyone who thinks otherwise is not out trying to do research, find funding and/or talk to the general public.
So thank you Tom for providing a place where I can go and realize that the whole world has not gone mad - only a very large and self-centered part of it.
ken said... If you pick certain frames of the video, you can clearly see a white trailing edge on the wing of the subject bird. So it must be an IBWO, right?
I'd love for you to publish those frames, Ken. Maybe Tom would even do it for you. It would be a great example of what a Pileated can look like in flight.
There are still people out there who believe that a Pileated in flight must always show a broad black trailing edge (see CLO's rebuttal), despite the Nolan videos showing that the secondaries are very well hidden, at least in take-off flight.
"...millions of conservation dollars are going to be diverted, that thousands of volunteer hours will be put forth, that recovery teams will form and meet regularly, etc etc."
Can you elaborate on why you are upset about the thousands of volunteer hours put forth?
Have there been any serious attempts at quantifying how much public funding has been diverted to the Ivory-bill, and identifying which agencies have been short-changed by how much?
As far as I'm concerned, private money and time can be spent any way the donors wish. We live in a free market of goods, services and ideas.
At the risk of being insulted, personally I would like to see this blog become more serious. More stringent moderation and a dose of tolerance would help, especially if you wish to be taken seriously by others.
I'll hold back on the video clip, unless Tom wants to host it, but if you look at these three frames, you'll see how difficult it is to say for certain that a bird has a black trailing edge; in two out of three, it appears NOT to!
http://home.fuse.net/pets/PIWO_01.jpg
http://home.fuse.net/pets/PIWO_02.jpg
http://home.fuse.net/pets/PIWO_03.jpg
Have there been any serious attempts at quantifying how much public funding has been diverted to the Ivory-bill, and identifying which agencies have been short-changed by how much?
Check out the IBW Funding link under www.fws.gov/ivorybill for a partial answer. For an partial answer about the number of species, search the fws site for any endangered species and you should find hundreds that are marked as needing additional study or information to aid protection. In a sense they are all being shortchanged.
4. None of the participants of Neoorn are anonymous.
5. Neoorn tolerates a diversity of opinions.
These two points are mutually exclusive.
5. Neoorn tolerates a diversity of opinions.
6. Participants of Neoorn rarely insult anybody; if they do, they risk being banned
Point 6 negates point 5 and vice versa.
7. Neoorn is moderated by a professional ornithologist with a high standard of scholarship and personal integrity.
Prove it. Where do they stand on IBWO existence? WARNING - There's only one correct answer.
To be so outspoken, why don't you have the guts that Tom has and put your name to your posts?
Because I am probably your boss. And I have only 5 years to retirement. And I'm wiser.
Ellen Paul is basically a cheerleader for professional ornithology. Her forte is publicizing professional ornithologists in the news, alerting professional ornithologists to grant opportunities, and making the occasional comment on policy issues as long as they are non-controversial. On a private level, she can be extremely hostile to anyone challenging things or insitutions she holds hear. Her opinion is predictable and her expertise is questionable.
"NEOORN is a wonderful, supportive community. Please don't contaminate it with this stuff".
And people without ethics who occupy a "supportive" community realize they can exploit the camaraderie to their advantage. If she truly cared about the ornithological community she would be asking for a moratorium on the reporting of IBWO "sightings" until there is DNA or photo confirmation of an IBWO.
I would love to live in a world where I could support CLO, TNC and Audubon again, but individuals or institutions that participate in activities that are harmful to a society have to be made aware that their actions are unacceptable.
Post a Comment