2. Virtual tumbleweeds are blowing down the streets of ibwo.net. That makes sense for an Ivory-bill site that strongly discourages critical evaluation of any "evidence". Don Kimball rattles the donation cup anyway.
3. It looks like Dan Mennill will continue to misinform the public about Ivory-bills in the Florida Panhandle at several upcoming lectures (scroll down here).
I'm not sure who wrote it, but note this sentence from this link:
Dr. Mennill is part of a team of ornithologists that have found compelling evidence of the existence of a pair of breeding Ivory-billed Woodpecker in the Choctawhatchee River swamp in Florida’s panhandle.4. After roughly 22,923 days without Ivory-bill proof in the U.S., Cyberthrush may now try cutting back on "watching the pot".
5. Ilya Maclean has emerged as a multiple-threat player on Birdforum, scoring with both serious and funny posts.
Posts
7 comments:
That Birdforum poster has 764 posts on that site. Which speaks volumes - even though it is likely the posts did not.
But clearly it has been CLO and the assorted "crows" (and not Tom) that have been "advancing the idea that it's a boondoggle". They report on the "promising", "intriguing" and "interesting" blurs, toots, bleats, and blobs. If you Google "Ivory billed fiasco" you get 17,000 hits.
The IBWO is fading fast as a conservation story as the true environmental degradation of the 21st century continues apace. Anyone who thinks that finding a IBWO is going to make any difference is seriously delusional or has a terminal case of self-importance.
If you Google "Ivory-billed fiasco" you get 17,000 hits.
Hmmm. That's funny. I Googled "Ivory-billed fiasco" and got exactly 1 hit (from Tom's blog). When I did the same Google search without the parens, I got "about 1,150" hits, which yields many irrelevant documents.
So, while the Ivory-billed search may indeed ultimately prove to be a fiasco, it does not appear that it is being widely discussed in those terms at present.
That is strange, John. Since I still get 17,000 when I don't use quotes.
But you are right in not reading much into Google search results since "Cornell integrity" (no quotes) provides close to a million hits, apparently most of them irrelevant.
But more importantly one of the sites I found under with my first search informed me that NPR actually paid to have a song written about the IBWO rediscovery. I had heard that song on NPR and thought they were simply reporting on what they considered some quaint Americana. I had no idea they were creating the quaint Americana. Even more public funds being wasted on the IBWO>
"The IBWO is fading fast as a conservation story as the true environmental degradation of the 21st century continues apace."
Judging from the recent proliferation of searches and blogs devoted to the IBWO--not to mention the frequecy of updates to this very website--anyone making such a statement is seriously delusional.
Anyone who thinks that in 2050 people will see the early 21st century IBWO searches as being anything more than an indication of the upper middle class having too much time on its hands is seriously delusional.
The frequency of updates for this site is an indication of how entertaining and not how important the IBWO story is.
Again, the IBWO is to conservation what the "toddler in the well" was to children's issues. Something the media and the public can focus on while ignoring the real issues.
Not that it matters, but the difference in Google search results is whether you hyphenate "ivory-billed."
The IBWO story may not be fading much, but the acceptance of the "proof" surely is.
I wouldn't pay too much attention to what MMinNY or whatever it is says. Allow me to dredge up the useful term "ad hominem." If the facts support skepticism in this issue, as they surely do, forget the facts and go after the person on other issues. I think I'll use MMinNY's favorite term and label that "intellectually dishonest."
speaking of intellectually dishonest, has anyone followed up on that rumor out of AAAS that Kennedy handed the peer review of the Fitz paper to the book editor at SCIENCE?? Talk about fiasco.
Post a Comment