---------------------------------------------------------------------
Have now read Pete Dunne's piece in (August) Birder's World alluded to earlier -- for regular readers of this blog, nothing new, since Pete's arguments have all been made here repeatedly over the last year. Worth reading though for Dunne's inimitable writing style, and hey, higher credibility than coming from Cyberthrush! Hooray for Pete for speaking up in print against all the 'nattering nabobs of negativity' (S. Agnew's phrase, NOT Pete's) out there ...if someone finds the piece on the Web somewhere, let me know and I'll link to it.
Dunne draws a distinction between a birder's perspective (his) and a scientist's perspective (skeptics) -- but the line between the two is more blurry than he implies, and at this point much of what passes for science in the IBWO debate seems little more than pretense and posturing in the face of hardened stances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment