Hmm. I think the problem is that in the Barker's response paper they only criticize the original study. Particularly with respect to how the study used the ranges of Burmese and Indian pythons to predict ranges in the U.S., but they dont actually reanalyze the data. So, while they complain about how the study was done, rightly or wrongly, there is no counter-study to show that the original was wrong so the USGS study was not actually debunked. Only complained about.

http://www.bellmuseum.org/herpetology/pdfdocs/may08.pdf

The only study to take a second look at the USGS one is this

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0002931;jsessionid=DBA2C757A3C97D5D7DEFF2F331A0DAD8

and while it finds the USGS study massively overestimates the parts of the US that are suitable habitat for invasive pythons. With this study showing the predicted range of pythons in the US limited only to Southern Florida.

But, even this study was criticized. Particularly for not accounting for changes in US habitat resulting from climate change. Most of the Southern US is expected to become better habitat while the East and West worse. Not that Inhofe believes in this kinda of thing. I mean massive international scientific conspiracy and all. But, I suppose when science is giving you data you like even he believe it. Just this time.

So I guess the PlOS ONE paper is the best one to send around.

Best
Vinny
-----
“There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that whilst this planet has gone on cycling according to the fixed laws of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” -C. Darwin, 1859

Natural Selection Reptiles

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Hide Replies ]