It's rare, so let's dissect it for science.....

Originally Posted by Occidentalis

Lucille, I never said science was exclusionary

Originally Posted by Occidentalis

A scientific disagreement is only productive one is willing to work within a body of literature.

That seems exclusionary to me. My father's vision is that everyone had a seat at the table. I did not need to prequalify to ask questions.

Originally Posted by Occidentalis

There aren't any real questions or arguments here, just accusations that scientists like your dad are corrupt and we can't trust what they have to say.

You are not reading carefully, there have not been blanket accusations, only points made that some information is self serving.
Although there is no question whatsoever in my mind that there are corrupt scientists that cannot be trusted, just like there are untrustworthy people in any profession, and on the BOI, and so on.

Originally Posted by Occidentalis

A scientific disagreement is only productive one is willing to work within a body of literature. I'm concerned with facts - ones that are verifiable in the literature - those are my "stringent" terms. I really can't help otherwise. That's going to have to be how it is. I'm sorry you have such a poor outlook on how scientists and science works. Your view is not how we operate. We definitely need better science literacy and science education programs in this country to get better connections out there. I'm just going to touch on a few points and be done with this since I feel like I'm repeating myself.

Short term weather forecasting is very different than long term climate modeling. Yes, short term is less accurate because you're asking for specifics on a day to day rather than modeling long term trends. The thing is, not only can we test and verify long term trends with climate data as it's happening, we can quantify the error around these estimates. That's part of the beauty of it. There are also a number of independent estimates - and good journals require the use of multiple best and worst case scenario type modeling to have your paper even looked at in the peer review process.

A theory in science is not a "whiz-bang thing". I think a lot of people miss this because when things get complicated, some science appears as magic to non-experts. I know astro-physics certainly does to me. A theory is a testable idea propped up by mountains of evidence. There's nothing flimsy about it. Flimsy parts of theories are called hypotheses and are tested with new evidence, if they don't hold they are revised and tested again. I don't know a single scientist who would not be comfortable saying "we don't know" - and many do. I have many times, in papers and in conferences and have never faced ridicule. But we sometimes offer plausible hypotheses that can then be tested. Science is a process that builds on itself, that's why it's so powerful.


You last comment is frustrating because the sources we have been linking refute it blatantly, but are unacceptable to you because they are written by other scientists.
We have demonstrated that:
this bird is probably not rare (but perhaps debatably so, we're admittedly relying on the opinion of locals as well as someone who has been working in the area for 20 years, this is not infallible).
the scientist who collected the bird did have "qualms".
scientific collecting does not alter a population trajectory, even if very few individuals are left in the wild.
the extreme value of this animal as a specimen
collecting ethics are already overseen at the in-house, local, regional and federal level both at home and abroad.

These are the points to argue - to me, all that's left is an emotional argument that killing a pretty bird is bad regardless of its ability to save not only its species, but the unique environment in which it lives, or that scientists are part of some big conspiracy to get your tax dollars and make a name for themselves regardless of what they have to do or any empirical truth. I really have a hard time believing any part of the conspiracy argument (honestly I find it rather paranoid/delusional), especially because it usually only pops up with regard to science when it comes to climate change denial and anti-vaccine, anti-fluoride popular literature.

So when did "science" become "religion" that shalt not be questioned unless you are a member of the "order"?

READ THE SCRIPTURES, you command! You must have faith, grasshopper! Trust us, we know what we are doing even if you are not capable of understanding! We act in mysterious ways to the unclean and uninitiated masses! KILL THE INFIDELS!! Oops, sorry got carried away....

I am sorry that I am not worthy in your eyes to discuss this with you.