------------------------------------------------------
1) Will try not to belabor this too much, but very disappointed that USFWS reached the end of the year without any public pronouncement (as I thought required by regulation?) on IBWO status. While most take their non-action as a declaration that the Ivorybill ought not yet be declared extinct, having opened this quandary, they really need to make a public statement to that effect with at least a couple of sentences of how/why they reached that conclusion, and when they might revisit the question again. There are plenty of diligent, dedicated. knowledgeable folks working at USFWS; not clear to me if any of them are assigned to the Ivorybill issue. Oy. :((
In any event, thanks to all who took the time/effort to respond to the Agency in helping them reach their, ummm, er, non-opinion. Special credit to Matt Courtman for marshaling so much support for the IBWO at a time when skeptics no doubt thought they had a done-deal (to declare the species extinct).
2) I’ve been following (and enjoying) Andrew Gelman’s blog for many years. He’s an award-winning PhD. professor of statistics, but who writes largely at a layreader’s level (on the blog). With my recent theme of ‘critical thinking’ I’ll just pass along his latest bit on science reporting, ‘Clarke’s Law’, and academic science:
(...I realize skeptics may read this as a potential slam against much reporting on the IBWO, but actually I believe it cuts several ways.)
------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment