Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Probably the biggest natural history story in my life time. Truly amazing. Anyone here from that area of the country?

Land in that area will probably plummet due to national and international circumstances soon. Hope they can buy lots up and preserve it. Lots of herps will benefit too.

What I find amazing is that this species was claimed extinct when it was not! and now that it is know to not be extinct, we now suddenly need to take special precautions to protect it and it's habitat, when it was surviving all these years without any protection!

It's an argument that can't be won. Either we (evil mankind) destroyed it, or we (evil mankind) have hurt it so badly that we must now save it's habitat.

I wonder how many species went extinct before man was even here? or how many went extinct for reasons other than man, but who's demise was falsely blamed on man? No wonder there are no more dinosaurs! Man must have killed them all with his evil industries!

Rodney

It's not that difficult to figure Rodney...When you continue to destroy habitat, there is less room for the animals to hide in-thus it is easier to spot them.

That we are seeing Ivory's at all is short of a miracle, but since we are, it indicates that their (possibly Last) habitat is shrinking and in danger.

If we want to save the species we have to protect that habitat.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

I was being sarcastic Frank. Environmentalists will draw whatever conclusion supports their agenda--and this conclusion is always protect the habitat.--the basis for their conclusions is irrelevant since their conclusions will always be the same.

Declining numbers means protect the habitat, and increasing numbers means the same thing.--totally illogical.

Rodney

Its utterly amazing to have seen the re-discovery of this species. It may be the biggest thing this century and will help so many animals, maybe especially herps.

Its a shame that anyone with partially formed, mean spirited and knee-jerk prejudices would try to misconstrue it for some narrow minded political agenda.

Same with your silly globaly warming comments. You never actually make an assertion you are prepared to defend, but instead make a constant stream of circumspect comments that you can slink away from when challenged. Your gutless, just like the rigt wingnuts on the radio that feed you your misinformation.

Sad, dumb, angry boy.

I apologize for my previous post to anyone who is so brainwashed by the liberal media that they can not think for themselves. I understand that this is a religion for you, and when your BELEIFS are challenged, you react in predictable, if not irrational ways. Why even mention Rush? I have heard this accusation made about myself (there's the predictable part) for every post where I have asked people to think. Do you really think that people who don't listen to Rush are unable to think for themselves? Do you think Rush supporters are the only people capable of thinking for themselves? It seems that way, since when I ask you to think for yourself, you think I am some big Rush supporter. I haven't listened to him in years. I remember seeing in the news a while back that he had a hearing problem, and was going deaf. Since you seem to know so much about him, can you answer a few questions for me. Can he still hear and speak understandably considering his condition? Is he still on the air?

My previous post was intended as sarcasm at the illogical conclusions that are drawn by the eco-frauds that surround us. I am sorry you were unable to discern this point, so here is an expanded explaination so you will understand.

When an animal is in decline, it's habitat needs protection. But when an animal is discovered to exist that was formerly thought to be extinct, this obvious increase in it's census numbers draws the exact same conclusion as a decline in it's numbers would. Can you please explain to me how an increase in an animals numbers, and a decrease in an animals numbers will give you the exact same conclusion? Doesn't seem very logical to me.

The same can be said of global warming. The alarmists that rely on funding from the public for their employment will make outrageous claims because these claims perpetuate their employment at our expense. It matters not that these claims are in oppostion to their previous claims!

For instance, if an impending ice age (as was claimed when I was in grade-school), was claimed because of recent declining temperature numbers and an increase in recent extreme weather, then why, just 30 years later, have these same scientists made the claim that we are warming due to man and warming causes extreme weather? Does that make ANYlogical sense to you? Cooling increases extreme weather and warming doesn't increase mild weather? These scientists were certain that an ice age was coming, but they weren't sure why. Now they are certain that global warming is happening and that we are the cause (even though many scientists disagree). I am skeptical. I suspect we are warming or cooling (because we must either be entering an ice age or leaving one) but to conclude we are the cause is nonsense. Even if that conclusion guarantees you funding!

It's not the facts of global warming or environmentalism that I was disputing, it was the ridiculous conclusions being drawn that are exactly the same when the situation in question is in diametric opposition to the previous one.--and these conclusions are being made by the exact same people! --think a little.

I think it's great that this area may now be protected. As long as it isn't protected by groups like the sierra club! (you know, groups that build retreats in protected areas for their managements use while not even allowing the public access to hiking in the same area, and logging and selling mineral right to land that is set up as a reserve for protected species, etc..) And as long as the United Nations doesn't control those areas! Most Americans don't know that the UN controls about 60% of our national parks. We seem to be trading our ability to choose our future with global communism.

And by the way, I am quite happy! Its just that I am smart enough to know that you can't makethe exact same conclusions from two OPPOSITE results. The brainwashing of the American public to the extent that they don't see this illogical reasoning and the fact that they can't figure this out for themselves is kind of aggravating, but it certainly doesn't make me angry. I'm just happy that they haven't been able to brainwash me into a non-thinking entity! Quite happy in fact!

Rodney

The trouble here Rodney is that you are saying you were sarcastic....Ok, I can see that. However, sarcasm to be effective, has to come with the understanding of one's orrigional position.

You have placed yourself-opinionwise thru your previous posts, firmly in the camp of the anti-enviromentalists. So for anyone to take your Ivory billed sarcasm at face value would be justified.

As I have tried to tell you before, California is not the rest of the United States and Enviromentalists elsewhere are not necessarily the nut cases you have there. Hence they rankle at barbs that you fling that do not have the merit they have on your home turf.

Most enviromentaly conscious people that post here hate the phony enviromental groups as you do. Remember that just because a corrupt organisation backs an issue for their own gain, does not necessarily mean that the idea was wrong to start with. Politics and science can make for strange philosophy when they become bedfellows. Again it is the self serving interpretation of data at work.

There is an excellent book called;

HOW TO LIE WITH STATISTICS-by Darrel Huff ISBN 0-393-31072-8

You should get a copy.

If you had stated what you did in your last post, as an appendix to your previous thoughts, it might have bore the fruit you sought to nurture. Calling people stupid because they interpreted the remarks based on your own heavily touted philosophy my friend is your error-not theirs.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Perhaps. I guess the inflection in my writing (to indicate sarcasm) isn't as obvious to me as it is in my voice.

Rodney

Yes that is correct Rodney - inflection is difficult to discern in ones writing

Main Entry: in·flec·tion
Pronunciation: in-'flek-sh&n
Function: noun

1 : change in pitch or loudness of the voice

Actually, you can't lie with statistics. But you can represent them in a way that the general public isn't intelligent enough to understand. I am quite familiar with some of the techniques, which is why I always say that you have to look at the big picture, not just little pieces. Little pieces are more easily presented in a way that can fool most people.

Rodney

That's only part of the answer Rodney. That's why I recommended the book. It actually is very easy to lie with statistics.

It is as simple as correlating statitistics on things that have no relationship with each other to prove something that is not true.

Hypothetically...

If you found Hersheys wrappers in nine out of ten Serial killers pockets and used it to claim people become Serial killers who eat Hersheys

Like I said, Read the book...

Frank

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Yeah, I like that one. But the statistic isn't a lie, just the interpretation of it.

Here's another one. People with larger feet are better readers.

This is absolutely true, but for a reason most people don't think about.

Peoples feet grow as they age, and children don't read as well as adults, thus people with larger feet read better.

Rodney

That's why the lie works...because the inserted statistic is valid.

A real example...

A large percentage of people were dying of heat stroke in an area with high temps. The statistician injected an unrelated statistic from another locality that showed that more people ate Ice Cream in hot weather.

The conclusion: Eating Ice Cream is possibly causing Heat stroke.

Now there's some global warming for you...(lol)

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

I think the best example is in rodmalms reply to the global warming post above.

rodmalm says:
There are plenty of scientist that doubt global warming is being caused by man.
www.kgoam810.com/goout.asp?u=http://www.pushback.com

If you read this, note that the petition is much larger than the number of scientists that are quoted in your article, and that the signature are being collected in Paris, France--this is not some U.S. based group, it is internationally supported as well.

He is referring to the The Heidelberg Appeal, which was written in 1992 and in no way was intended to deny global warming. As a matter of fact, the American Policy Center states:

"Neither a statement of corporate interests nor a denial of environmental problems, the Heidelberg Appeal is a quiet call for reason and a recognition of scientific progress as the solution to, not the cause of, the health and environmental problems that we face."

If you choose to read the Heidelberg Appeal, you'll see that it makes NO CLAIMS against the liklihood of global warming, yet rodmalm referes to it regularly, just like the right wingnuts on talk radio,

But the interesting statistical assertion was his inference that because more people had signed the petition than had taken part in the global survey of scientists that the petition somehow has more significance, that it is "better" thaan the global study. He also infers that because the petition is collecting signatures in Paris that it is more valid than a US based group.

Obvioulsy "more" does not mean better - a staatistical lie, and Paris base is not "better" than US based. And of course the fact that the survey doesn't speak to global warming at all makes the whole assertion rather amusing, but not relevant...

Did you bother to even read The Heidelberg Appeal Rod? Maybe Rush didn't clue you in on the details, huh?
The Heidelberg Appeal

I am referring to the following and the Heidelburg Appeal list.

After you go to pushback.com, click on enviroment, and then click on fraudulent environmentalism.

I only mentioned the Heildeburg list above because I know how much environmental wackos love France. (I have a brother that suffers from this same psychosis! )

Here is the petition I was talking about that was formed in opposition to the global warming alarmists.--and I understand that it currently has over 30,000 signatories!!!! And please look at the list of those who have signed this list. All scientists, primarily environmental scientists, climatologists, etc.--not the general public.

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

http://www.sitewave.net/PPROJECT/pproject.htm#Top

What I am really objecting to is the brainwashing of the american public that is taking place currently.

When was the last time you heard global warming properly referred to as THE THEORY of global warming? How many articles have you read about global warming that use the line may cause global warming in the wrap up, after writing extensively on rumors/idea/etc.?---Every one!! Think about it.

Rodney

Rodmalm says:

I am referring to the following AND the Heidelburg Appeal list.

Funny how your referring again the the Heildeburg Appeal after I just pointed out it says nothing about global warming Old lies, er habits die hard huh? And funny how your pushback.org reference doesn't bother to explain that either, huh? I would consider looking for a new source of info...

When asked why he uses France as a point of validation rodmalm, embarrassed, tries to escape with a joke about how much environmental wackos love France. That wouldn't even be funny if it were true, but, of course, it isn't. Lies by inference are almost as fun as lying with statistics, huh rod.

And about your petition. 30,000 signatures? Your own reference says 15k. Sometimes just strait up lies work for you to huh?

But now that your Heildelburg Appeal has been de-bunked, lets look at the Petition Project. Did Rush explain any of the details to you Rod? Didn't think so...

The petition was written and mass mailed by a Dr. Frederick Seitz. He has a very real concern about all the hoopla surrounding global warming - primarily the fact that developing countries do not have access to the clean technologies the developed countries do. Therefore strict greenhouse gas limits could limit economic development in these areas. His concern is a good one. Of course he was also once director of company that operated coal fired power plants, but Rush probably didn't mention that either

The problem with the effort was that is was formatted to appear to be a peer-reviewed National Academy of Science Proceeding when in fact it was never peer reviewed and never published. The NAS was so upset about this breech of protocol that it completely disassociated itself from Dr. Seitz 1998.

If one has a knee-jerk ideological perspective it is always possible to find some few who support it. But it becomes obvious to even a casual observer when the writer is no longer searching for the truth, but defending their closely held, psychologically significant point of view. I don't know if ol' Rodney got beat up as a child by a gang of hoodlum tree huggers, but one begins to suspect so.

If one is genuinely interested in the state of the science regarding global warming I would suggest you go to the archives of the most respected peer-reviewed science journals in the world - Science, Nature, etc. and do a search on articles dealing with the subject.

I'll leave this discussion of rodney's global warming insights (otherwise known as "What Rush Told Me About Science" wwith these thought ful words:

The scientific community has established an extensive peer-
review process where well-qualified experts can assess and
test the veracity of scientific claims. In atmospheric
sciences, there are dozens of high-quality scientific
journals with a long history of profound articles. An
incorrect major scientific claim would be extremely
difficult to maintain because scientists earn their
reputation by developing better explanations of observed
phenomena. We know of no major scientific articles since
the 1996 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change statement
that "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human
influence on global climate," that directly challenges this
conclusion. On the contrary, improved analyses, data sets,
and models continue to support Global Warming as a real
phenomenon.

Thomas R Karl, Senior Scientist, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center

Kevin Trenberth, Head, Climate Analysis Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research

James Hansen, Director, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration/Goddard Institute for Space Studies

Funny how your referring again the the Heildeburg Appeal after I just pointed out it says nothing about global warming Old lies, er habits die hard huh? And funny how your pushback.org reference doesn't bother to explain that either, huh? I would consider looking for a new source of info...

What? Pushback gives you a link so you can see for yourself. Why should they explain something they give a link too? Not enough redundancy for your liberal mind? Can't remember anything unless the liberal media has repeated it thousands of times for you?

When asked why he uses France as a point of validation rodmalm, embarrassed, tries to escape with a joke about how much environmental wackos love France. That wouldn't even be funny if it were true, but, of course, it isn't. Lies by inference are almost as fun as lying with statistics, huh rod.

Actually, France is held in high esteem by environmental wackos, activists, etc. It is always very high on their list of environmentally friendly countries due to low CO2 production. And when did you ask for validation about this point? Yes, I read both sides, think about issues, and come to logical conclusions instead of just drinking in the cool-aide!

And about your petition. 30,000 signatures? Your own reference says 15k. Sometimes just strait up lies work for you to huh?

Yep, 30,000 is what I said, and it's no lie. You need to learn to read better. The initial 15K worth of signatures stated were acquired around 1996 (as pushback said), the 30,000 signatures is a current figure, like I clearly stated! Current means now, 1996 means 9 years ago!

But now that your Heildelburg Appeal has been de-bunked, lets look at the Petition Project. Did Rush explain any of the details to you Rod? Didn't think so...

Once again, I haven't even heard Rush in about 4 years, and never was a fan, just head him occasionally prior this period when driving my car. But if this is what he is saying now, I should try and find him on the radio. Sounds like a smart guy. How has the Heidelburg Appeal been debunked by you? It is what it is, a list of signatures of those that support it.

The petition was written and mass mailed by a Dr. Frederick Seitz. He has a very real concern about all the hoopla surrounding global warming - primarily the fact that developing countries do not have access to the clean technologies the developed countries do. Therefore strict greenhouse gas limits could limit economic development in these areas. His concern is a good one. Of course he was also once director of company that operated coal fired power plants, but Rush probably didn't mention that either

Well gee, I don't know what to say to that. A scientist mails other scientists, and all their opinions on the subject are invalid because it was done by mail? Sorry, I don't get it. (actually, Kyoto would have imposed severe fines on the U.S. and not imposed them on developing countries that produce a lot more pollution than us (relative to what they produce), another reason that I believe it was all political. Why exempt polluters and then fine cleaner nations so severly if you are really concerned about CO2? The U.S. already has stricter pollution laws (expensive) and slave labor laws(expensive) which makes it harder for us to compete with countries like China, and now you want more restrictions (expenses) on us so it is even harder for the U.S. to compete with other countries that pollute more and treat workers far worse? Makes no sense unless you want more U.S. factories closed, and more imports from overseas countries that support everything that liberals are supposed to be against, higher trade deficits, etc.

If one is genuinely interested in the state of the science regarding global warming I would suggest you go to the archives of the most respected peer-reviewed science journals in the world - Science, Nature, etc. and do a search on articles dealing with the subject.

Actually, I have read a lot of them. The interesting thing is, every article I have read says the same thing. First they huff and puff about all sorts of disastrous effects to try and get you worked up and convinced about their conjecture, then they conclude the articles with disclaimer statements that make the whole article meaningless. I have never read one yet that doesn't say MAY, COULD, MIGHT, etc. in the conclusion. Once again confirming that they don't know if we actually are contributing to global warming at all, and if we are, if it is a bad change or a good change. We might be, could be, may be doesn't mean that we absolutely are! Unless your political biases and liberal brainwashing make you unable to see this. The one thing I can commend them on is honesty. They always say may, could, might. Now if they would only be honest about calling global warming a theory, like it is.

I sure am happy I grew up when schools taught people how to think, instead of what to think!!

I'll leave you with something interesting to read as well, though I won't attribute your feelings to some liberal that you listen too. What's your beef with Rush? I recently did a search on him since you hate him so much. Guess what? He has the number one radio talk show in the nation! That must mean that he is way out of line since so many people listen to him. If his audience base was 1/100th as large, like those you listen to, then he could be considered mainstream? Hahahah, I don't think so! An audience that small would make him a wacko too!

sepp.org

Rodney

Actually, I am not a fan of the French...or their canadian cousins...Over exposure to fat men in speedos has made our beaches a scary place!

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

I'm not a fan of the french either, but then again, I am not a far left liberal!!-LOL

I don't like their cars, and I've never developed a taste for body odor or body hair for that matter! --not to mention their amazing ability to surrender in wartime.

Rodney

Popularity equates quality. Rush is #1, he must be good.
Simple minds...

#1 most popular cars of the 70's? Chevy Vega and Ford Pinto - since voted two of the worst cars ever produced...

#1 TV show of the late 90s? Beverly Hills 90 (whatever it was)

Etc., etc., etc.

As I said, the 2 surveys you keep using as evidence for your increasingly shrill, and fantastical assertions have been debunked. One says nothing about global warming at all, the other was misrepresented to the public.

Time to find some real evidence Rodney...the stuff you peddle here has no merit.

Popularity equates quality. Rush is #1, he must be good.
Simple minds...

Nope, once again, not what I said. I said if he saying the things that you say he is (the same things I am saying) then he must be good. I said he also must not be radically far right or far left (like you listen to) since he has such a huge audience. Those with tiny audiences are the ones who are clearly on the fringe, since so few people listen to them or consider them serious enough to listen to. Why do you hate him so?-- I don't understand it. I don't listen to him, but if it makes you "feel" better, hate whomever you want. You seem so obsessed with him, I suspect it is probably more infatuation than it is hate! -LOL

#1 most popular cars of the 70's? Chevy Vega and Ford Pinto - since voted two of the worst cars ever produced...

BAD COMPARISON!! They were popular because they were cheap and people could easily afford them, not because they were great cars! This clearly doesn't apply to radio because anyone can change the station regardless of economic condition!--You aren't thinking again.

#1 TV show of the late 90s? Beverly Hills 90 (whatever it was)

Don't know about that, I have never even seen it--though I know what show you are talking about.

As I said, the 2 surveys you keep using as evidence for your increasingly shrill, and fantastical assertions have been debunked. One says nothing about global warming at all, the other was misrepresented to the public.

What? One says the U.N. is full of it, and the other says they don't believe in the theory of global warming.

Time to find some real evidence Rodney...the stuff you peddle here has no merit.

Now that's just silly! I never said I had evidence that disproves global warming, just that I have evidence that disproves the evidence that global warming is a fact. And I have evidence that those who now claim global warming were claiming an ice age 30 years ago! Makes them look pretty foolish don't you think? The public is clearly being brain washed by the liberal media. It is not being referred to as a theory anymore (like it was 5 year ago) yet no one has been able to prove it, and arguents against it are never mentioned while agruments for it are repeated and repeated and repeated. Referring to it as global warming, instead of properly referring to it as the theory of global warming will not make it fact no matter how many times you repeat it--though you may be able to brainwash the non-thinking portion of the public. Try to find any evidence on your part. All you have is rumor and statements by scientists that say might, may, could, and a bunch of people that make their living off grants that will disappear if they don't say such things. Follow the money.

There is no evidence that supports global warming, or disproves it either, only evidence that contradicts the evidence that supports it! (one glacier shrinks while another grows, one area is warmer while another is cooler) So why give it so much credibility, when it is just a theory that no one has come close to proving yet. Especially when you consider all the man power and resources trying to do so, and how many years they have been trying.

Ever notice all the other apocalyptic predictions, and how they always disappear when another arises? I have. First it is an ice age, then acid rain, then ozone holes and cancer, then global warming. When was the last time you heard about acid rain? The medical community has the same thing. First its the asbestos scare, then silicon breast implants, then the gulf war syndrome. Things that actually have some merit are heavily exaggerated, and things that have no merit are often misrepresented until a large portion of the public believes it. I know of no doctors (or evidence) who think silicon breast implants caused any problems, yet humdreds of millions were won in lawsuits and they are still not being produced. What percentage of the public falsely thinks they are dangerous even today? Whenever one of these is disproved, it is replaced by another. Or if it isn't disproved or proved, it is still replaced by another after all the law suits have been settled, regardless of merit. I am sure 10 years from now, there will be another calamity and global warming will long be forgotten.

Rodney

In his typically confused state rodney says,

"There is no evidence that supports global warming, or disproves it either, only evidence that contradicts the evidence that supports it!"

Amusing effort rodney. If there is no evidence that supports or disproves it, how can there be evidence that contradicts this [lack of] evidence? If there is no evidence, how can there be evidence that disproves it? If there is no evidence, why would one trouble themselves to disprove the lack of it? What would they be disproving, since there is no evidence?

Tee-hee...

As I said, all your senseless ramblings just display your curious, rigorous bias in these matters and you inability to think clearly as a result. Again, blaming a "liberal media" just demonstrates a curious gullability on your part - as if whatever the right wingnuts tell you, you choose to believe. Turn off the talk radio rod 'ol boy - pick up a copy of respected peer reviewed journals.

You'll be amazed....

Amusing effort rodney. If there is no evidence that supports or disproves it, how can there be evidence that contradicts this [lack of] evidence? If there is no evidence, how can there be evidence that disproves it? If there is no evidence, why would one trouble themselves to disprove the lack of it? What would they be disproving, since there is no evidence?

I am glad you are amused. I am not. I feel like I am talking to a two year old that has no concept of logic. It's frustrating.
It's very very simple. Most people who can think are able to reason this out, but since you can't, try to follow.

It is impossible to prove something that does not exist, does not exist. There are only 2 possibilities:
1)It does not exist.
2)It exists, but has not been discovered yet.
Since it is impossible to discern if #1 or #2 is true, it can't be proved. Guess what? This currently applies to global warming since no one has been able to prove it in the past 20 years!!! Will anyone ever prove it? Doubt it, but who can say for sure.

This answers all of your ridiculous questions. Global warming hasn't been proved (probably because it doesn't exist) but the data and arguments that the alarmists use are easily disproved because they are heavily flawed. This neither proves nor disprobes global warming, just the flawed arguments of the alarmists.

There, now wasn't that simple!

Rodney

Amusing effort rodney. If there is no evidence that supports or disproves it, how can there be evidence that contradicts this [lack of] evidence? If there is no evidence, how can there be evidence that disproves it? If there is no evidence, why would one trouble themselves to disprove the lack of it? What would they be disproving, since there is no evidence?

I am glad you are amused, I am not. I feel like I am arguing with a 2 year old. It's very frustrating. It's very very simple. Most people who can think are able to reason this out, but since you can't, try to follow.

It is impossible to prove something that does not exist, does not exist. There are only 2 possibilities:
1)It does not exist.
2)It exists, but has not been discovered yet.
Since it is impossible to discern if #1 or #2 is true, it can't be proved. Guess what? This currently applies to global warming since no one has been able to prove it in the past 20 years!!! Will anyone ever prove it? Doubt it, but who can say for sure.

This answers all of your ridiculous questions. Global warming hasn't been proved (probably because it doesn't exist) but the data and arguments that the alarmists use are easily disproved because they are heavily flawed. Thus, global warming can't be disproved if it doesn't exist, it hasn't been proven yet if it does exist, but the arguments of the alarmists have been disproved because of the flaws in those arguments (and data) that others have discovered.

There, now wasn't that simple!

Rodney

This is sinking low in the page. I am posting on top to give us room to play!

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

How awesome that they still exist! I have been an avid birder since the late 80's and have thought alot about the Ivory-billed over the past 15 years or so. As for where the thread wound up...Man! Some folks must really think they know alot when in fact............Oh well.......Viva Le Ivory-billed Woodpecker!
Duffy

What...? Stay on a subject you say? (lol)

Oh Poo.......

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."