An excerpt:
I stand by my contention that at least a few Ivory-billed Woodpeckers live in the forested wetlands along the Choctawhatchee River. We just need more time and a bit of luck to gather definitive proof for their existence...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
30 comments:
I stand by my contention that Dr. Hill is a really really lame excuse for a scientist.
And unlike Dr. Hill, the evidence which supports my contention would stand up in a court of law, i.e., it's not a collection of trivial irrelevant baloney dressed up look purty.
Rather, it's a collection of endless statements, admissions, and behaviors that clearly bolsters my contention.
Groan.
What a dolt.
"I find it ironic that the forested wetlands along the Choctawhatchee River were ignored by ornithologists through the 20th century only to be “discovered” as a major center of abundance for southern bottomland forest birds, including Ivory-billed Woodpeckers"
Oops, looks like Hill is being "careless" again. The only IBWOs along the Choctawhatchee are those in Hill's imagination. Hill didn't discover IBWOs there. Nobody did.
All that was discovered along the Choctawatchee were trivial examples of human failure, self-delusion, and self-promotion.
Hillcrow has earned his moniker. Clearly a newage thinker of the first order. It's actually easier for him to think that he has been unable to document even one of those 9 pairs of IBWO rather than to think he is mistaken.
How many weeks until Amy Lester collects on her $1000 bet with pd?
He's a joke. I'm going to be at this summer's AOU meeting in Wyoming. Will anyone attend his talk?
How about a boycott of his talk? He gives ornithology a bad name. Why does the AOU even tolerate this?
I knew it was all about the airport. At first, he denied he even knew about the airport.
Now he's complaining about the airport as the destruction of the swamp.
Holy jehosephats, I never realized the guy would be this dillusional.
Does he have any friends that could do an "intervention"? Maybe get him to see reality.
Hillcrow states
"I find it ironic that the forested wetlands along the Choctawhatchee River were ignored by ornithologists... only to be “discovered” as a major center of abundance ....just as civilization pushes into the area"
He is as good at spotting irony as he is rare or extinct birds. It is not uncommon at all for the natural resources of an area to be ignored until they are threatened. The resulting surveys frequently find that important resources are present and apparently some people will claim important resources are present even when they aren't.
You guys need to calm down. Hill is a fine ornithologist, still very much respected in the field, and there is nothing you can do to change it. Your boycott proposal is as silly as his contention that there are 9 pairs in there.
He was wrong and hopefully he'll be man enough to admit it. A confession from Hicks would help sway Hill like nothing else. But he is not a "lame excuse for a scientist" beyond this project.
Hillcrow is boring. I prefer to get my jollys from Fishcrow, who on 5-29-07 wrote:
"Thunderstorms are predicted for the next three days, but I'll try to get out in the kayak this afternoon if it clears up. In the meantime, I've been thinking about the absurdity of the ivorybill controversy. I've been trying to apply Hanlon's razor, which states that we should "never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." There seems to be plenty of stupidity going around, but are ornithologists and so-called "top birders" really that stupid? Let's take a look at the Pearl video played backwards. The first thing we see is a flying bird that is mainly dark but has a white trailing edge on the dorsal surface of the left wing. Other details of the wing are visible, including a dark leading edge, a dark tip, and the border between black and white where the wing is attached to the body. As we continue to roll the video backwards, we notice that the bird has very deep flaps and a high flap rate. When the bird hops across the fork, we see that it takes a very deep flap and has long and thin wings. Then we see the bird perched, and it is finally revealed that it's a large woodpecker. At this point, there is no question that the bird can only be an Ivory-billed Woodpecker, but as icing on the cake we also note that it has a massive bill, a large recurved crest, a long neck, and a dorsal stripe, that it is perched in the leaned-back posture of an ivorybill, and that it makes movements that would be very unusual for a pileated. To ram home the point even further, we continue to rewind the tape and notice that the bird has the correct underwing pattern of an ivorybill (which was not widely known at the time the video was obtained). We also learn that an ivorybill was seen immediately before the video was obtained and that ivorybills were seen and heard several times that week in the same area. Should we really apply Hanlon's razor to this situation? Or are ornithologists and so-called "top birders" frauds?"......
Yes, now I get it, consider everything in reverse and use reverse logic and then you'll see the light....
Tom wrote:
" As yet another IBWO search season ends in failure...."
Whoa there Tom, not so fast. Fishcrow begs to differ:
"6-1-07. The prime season for ivorybill searching has finally arrived. If you think this is baloney, you have been reading too much Tanner. During the next week or so, I'll be taking time off from work and doing "wide patrols" in search of Capt. Holly and his gang and may not be posting much. Late this afternoon, I found these cavities, which are near the hot zone and the most interesting that I have seen in the Pearl"
A confession from Hicks would help sway Hill like nothing else.
Why would he be swayed? Hill has seen the Ivory-bills himself, correct?
"Hill is a fine ornithologist..."
and isn't that the point of the entire IBWO fiasco. Obtaining status in ornithology and then using that status to have the public buy into your self-serving agenda.
The guy in the kayak in the river is like the guy who lives in the van by the river - no one pays attention to them. But when "fine" ornithologists start using their status to elevate the observations of unknowns with no status then they become a "lame excuse for a scientist" (Fitzcrow 2005, Hillcrow 2006).
Any person with "status" who buys into and elevates the Fishcrow ramblings is in the same situation.
Obviously there was some pent-up demand for Hill's update.
"Why would he be swayed? Hill has seen the Ivory-bills himself, correct?"
It would change everything, trust me. A Hicks confession would be enough to make Hill question himself. The question is, how do we get Hicks to confess?
"and isn't that the point of the entire IBWO fiasco. Obtaining status in ornithology and then using that status to have the public buy into your self-serving agenda."
No, no, no, no! Hill doesn't have a "self-serving agenda." He's gotten carried away is all that's happened. He's kooky about the Choctawhatchee IBWOs, but everything stops there.
And you're attributing to him a level of sophistication he doesn't have.
This IBWO bidness, find it or no, neither benefits him nor hurts him in any way.
Not benefits, because:
*He is already respected in his field and has published prolifically
*Published his IBWO book.
*His color work is so unrelated to the IBWO hunt that he can't possibly use his funding to help his other work
Not harms because:
*He has too much respect in his field; I've talked to other ornithologists, and though they whisper that they respectfully think he's wrong here, still appreciate his work within his specialization
*Too many people believe in the IBWO
"No, no, no, no! Hill doesn't have a "self-serving agenda." He's gotten carried away is all that's happened."
Just how forgiving do you think the world is? Do you think hyping the number of pairs of IBWO in a region where he can't find any and publishing a book about his musings is just being "carried away". He may be "kooky about the Choctawhatchee IBWOs" but if he is the scientist you claim he is he would have not come out with a book and obtained major funding until he had some proof there are Choctawhatchee IBWOs. And while you claim "everything stops there" it clearly didn't since he got the book out before he had anything but more gossip to add to the ongoing ornithological soap opera that the IBWO has become.
Don't try to paint him as a victim who was "carried away", he clearly was not.
So back to the boycott, what do you guys think?
If you can be this wrong about IBWO, what else has he been wrong about? Has anyone reviewed his past work?
Go boycott!
"But he is not a "lame excuse for a scientist" beyond this project"
Unfortunately for him, he is and will be far better known for his IBWO claims than for his other work whatever its merits.
*He has too much respect in his field"
Had
"still appreciate his work within his specialization"
You ornithologists sure are a lot nicer than other biologists I know who do not suffer fools so gladly.
Ok, I think we are all in agreement. We are boycotting Hillcrow's talk at the AOU meet in Wyoming this summer.
Nothing spectacular. Just an empty room. It will be an intervention. Something to help him come to his senses.
You guys make me laugh! There will be no empty room for Hill in Laramie. You won't be able to do it!You're sounding as wacky as he.
Why not do something constructive like approach Hill and tell him that you respectfully disagree after evaluating his evidence. What's more important than punishing him (which you are incapable of doing anyway) is letting the world know that his team probably DIDN'T have IBWOs in the Fla panhandle.
There will be no empty room for Hill in Laramie.
Sorry. You're too late. We already voted. The boycott is on. Thanks for playing though.
There will be free donuts and coffee from 1:30pm to 3pm on Sat. Aug. 11th at the Fuertes Room, Univ of Wyoming.
(That should do it.)
I'll be standing outside the room after it is over holding the B.O.A. monograph on the Sharp-tailed Grouse. I'm about 6'0", slender, with glasses, sandy hair, and a goatee. If fewer than 15 people have attended Geoff's talk, I will buy you and anyone else who claims to have boycotted the talk via learning about it through this blog dinner. You will owe me nothing, except giving me the courtesy of laughing in your face.
I am serious!
Somehow I doubt you will be anywhere near Laramie then, but if you are come grab your opportunity for a free dinner.
For the record I am a skeptic too.
Anon at 11:27 said:
"For the record I am a skeptic too."
But not a very funny one apparently. You didn't have to tell us you are serious. We can make that judgment for ourselves.
Will your name tag say "Anonymous"? Ornithologists who are six feet, slender with glasses and sandy hair are as common as Fishcrow's IBWO sightings.
But what are we going to do about the Red-cockaded researchers that are sharing the sesssion?
OK, here's the plan. The goateed fellow above will take names of those there for the little woodpecker. But you are expected to leave when the big pecker is discussed.
Mr. Goatee will verify all results. All results are final. No whining.
Okay, it's agreed.
"There will be free donuts and coffee from 1:30pm to 3pm on Sat. Aug. 11th at the Fuertes Room, Univ of Wyoming."
Coffee and donuts is the perfect food for listening to pure baloney. I think that's what Regis and Kelly offer to their audience while they discuss how wonderful Lindsey looks with her new hairdo.
Post a Comment