The Clean Energy Boom
1 hour ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My Blog List
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Reconstructing the Esper Reconstruction5 months ago
-
Energy output dented by wind drought5 months ago
-
ビタミンと勃起の関係9 months ago
-
What I’ve Been Up To10 months ago
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
9 comments:
"That makes it clear to me that people can look right at a Pileated Woodpecker, subsequently view the image at their leisure, and still think they’ve seen an Ivory-billed. You can see why I have to be a skeptic."
A lesson to be learned by those who assume that there just CAN'T be that many mistakes.
emupilot on birdforum said... What you are asking for is definitive proof, and we don't have it yet for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. If someone writes up a report with a clear description of a rarity, but without a photo or corroborating observer, your committee might reject it. That does not mean the bird wasn't really seen, or even that it probably wasn't seen, just that it can't be confirmed.
FINALLY! A believer gets it! The problem us skeptics have is that we see claim after definitive claim of existence that "CAN'T BE CONFIRMED"!
It's the people touting twisted evidence (calls whose sonograms that don't match the known IBWO recordings ... MMinNY just doesn't get that one), unproven techniques (bark scaling), and short (and for the most part crappy) sight records as "proof" that we have a problem with.
The "body of evidence" argument is just terrible. A huge pile of junk is no more compelling than a little pile of junk. And poor evidence gathered from 4 or 5 disparate locations does not sum up to be proof that the bird must exist in at least one of those (or some other) place. Evidence for existence in a place must come from that place. Get it?
I know someone who was emailed photos of a Merlin, taken at a feeder. The photographs show a Sharp-shinned Hawk. The photographer has a variety of bird identification books, including a raptor field guide.
Trouble is, Remsen wrote those quotes before becoming an Arkansas IBWO Believer. And, isn't he still?
It's unfathomable. Remsen was instrumental in exposing Fitz' authoritatively-reasoned misidentification of Florida's first Piratic Flycatcher, so he knows better than to follow Fitz' golden tongue.
Is supporting Fitz' IBWO analysis perceived to be a pathway to the AOU Presidency, an honor that thus far has eluded Remsen?
Remsen was instrumental in exposing Fitz' authoritatively-reasoned misidentification of Florida's first Piratic Flycatcher...
I haven't heard that story. Are you willing to share?
"That makes it clear to me that people can look right at a Pileated Woodpecker, subsequently view the image at their leisure, and still think they’ve seen an Ivory-billed. You can see why I have to be a skeptic.”
What irony....
This isn't old Remsen vs. new Remsen, it's "Good Remsen-Bad Remsen" (from the perspective of the TBs). The quote is from "Bad Remsen" but comes after "Good Remsen" declared the Kulivan Pearl "detection" as "credible." "Good Remsen" has also always defended the hoaxy Fielding Lewis polaroids as valid... When will "Bad Remsen" come back to us?
"When will "Bad Remsen" come back to us?"
How do you know what Remsen's current views are of the IBWO? It appears to me that the vast majority of professional ornithologists are wise enough to withhold judgement and avoid public commentary, notwithstanding the criticisms of ornithologists by radicals on both sides of the issue. Personally I can't think of any ornithologist who I respect more than Remsen. This "Bad Remsen" babble is utter nonsense.
Anon wrote:
"How do you know what Remsen's current views are of the IBWO? It appears to me that the vast majority of professional ornithologists are wise enough to withhold judgement and avoid public commentary, notwithstanding the criticisms of ornithologists by radicals on both sides of the issue. Personally I can't think of any ornithologist who I respect more than Remsen. This "Bad Remsen" babble is utter nonsense."
Dear Anon- Are you completely out of touch with reality? Remsen clearly believes the Luneau video is IBWO and that the other "declared credible" Arkansas sightings are valid. He clearly believed Kulivan's Pearl River sighting. He clearly believes that the Fielding Lewis polaroids from the early 70's in LA are of a real live IBWO. Who knows what he believes about the Mike Collins "search" or the FL search. Why don't you call him up and ask him and see what version you get- Good Remsen or Bad Remsen? Rumor has it that he's got Federal $$ to conduct secret LA searches- why don't you ask him about that nonsense and then let us know what he said?
"I haven't heard that story. Are you willing to share?"
The bird referred to (cf. Bradbury, 1992, Fla. Field Nat. 42-44) was originally identified as a Variegated Flycatcher, and accepted as such by the FOSRC (91-222), based in large part on Fitz' "expert" analysis. The reidentification as Piratic is summarized in the Spring 2004 report of the FOSRC http://www.fosbirds.org/RecordCommittee/Board%20Report_Spring%202004.htm Possibly, the only full paper trail is in the FOSRC file 91-222 itself, archived at the Floida Museum of Natural History.
Remsen was a listed co-author of the original 2005 paper in Science Express, proclaiming that the Luneau video "proved" that the IBWO persists, at least in AR. If he hasn't withdrawn his co-authorship or publicly issued a mea culpa, then aren't his current personal beliefs irrelevant?
Yes, Remsen historically has acted professionally, and I've long respected him. That's why I find this leap of faith so unfathomable.
Post a Comment