Is this "bad science"? I guess you could say that. But, it is actually worse. It is NOT science. It is scientific commentary. Science is about testing something, collecting data, and analyzing the data. What did they test? They talked with some people, looked at some climate models(that others did), made some maps, and presented a conclusion.

Peer reviewing is intended to check for errors. The reason for this is because science is supposed to show measurable results and statistical analyses of those results.

An actually scientific way of approaching this would have been to set up groups of large constrictors in areas throughout the US in large outdoor habitats. Then, they would collect DATA on survivability, reproduction, etc. Then, they would statistically analyze that data.

This is a Florida everglades problem at present. This is up to the State of Florida to deal with.

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Show Entire Thread ]