>1. Let's see, according to you anyone that questions the scientific =
>community is: a"knee-jerk, anti-environmental" ist.=20

Nope. Good science can lead good scientists to make erroneous conclusions.
The phrase "junk science" doesn't merely imply that the conclusions drawn
from research is wrong, but that the practitioners are practicing something
other than science. Since the phrase was invented by reactionary,
knee-jerk, anti-environmentalist whackos, the implication traditionally
is that the activity being practiced is liberal politics, rather than
science.

In short: it's a personal insult directed at the researchers, accusing
them not of incompetence, but of professional dishonesty. When you
use the phrase, you are calling them liars.

If you're not a knee-jerk reactionary, you should do a better job of
learning the meaning of phrases you adopt.

Of course, coupling that phrase with another favorite of the right,
"political correctness", makes one wonder.

If you disagree with the scientific community's assessment of the
impact of deforestration on birds, you're going to have to do more
than simply label it "junk science" to have much affect on my opinion.

And labelling something you have no knowledge about as being "junk
science" certainly is a knee-jerk reaction. I'm surprised your knee
didn't knock you senseless (hmmm, though observing the lack of sense
in your post makes me think that perhaps it did). It may not
make you a knee-jerk anti-environmentalist, but it makes you a
knee-jerk something-or-other.

>2. And, people like me all believe in various environmentalists =
>conspiracies such as: "The whole thing's a politically-correct plot to =
>hurt Starbucks."

Well, gosh, you said it yourself. You did, after all, call it an
environmental witch hunt and did, after all, label it as being
politically-correct.

Sorry for taking you literally, I'm sorta like that. You know, taking
folks posts at face value, making no effort to read their minds, that
sort of thing.

>3. and as we know, no one without proper wildlife-biologists credentials =
>are allowed to comment on issues such as these, excuse me, how stupid =
>can I be? =20

If you have something meaningful to say about the issue, post it.

Don't simply label something "junk science" merely because you don't
like the implications.

I don't have "proper wildlife-biologists credentials" (sic). I have,
though, taken the time to learn a lot about natural history and biology.
I know enough not to make knee-jerk pronouncements on things I know
nothing about. You should learn to do the same.

>4. and scientists could never be affected by bias!

Of course scientists are biased. That does not preclude them from
learning real truths about the world. A biased scientist is far
more likely to advance scientific knowledge than a biased non-scientist.

The overwhelming majority of scientists try to practice objective
science, leaving their own biases home before the workday starts.

Which is more than we can say about one who labels something they
apparently know nothing about as "junk science".

>5. and of course, people like me are automatically anti-conservation, =
>because we have the audacity to question a scientists and their study =
>methods or results. I am so ashamed of myself.

If you question any study or method, I certainly missed it.

You simply question the result, based only on your presumption that
it's based on "junk science."

Please give us a definition of "junk science", and then please demonstrate
how the research on the effects of deforestation on bird numbers and
diversity qualifies. Some details on this research was apparently
posted in tweeters last month. You might start by critiquing the
information so posted.

>6. anyone that does not agree with you is an idiot. "If you're going to =
>fill my mailbox with idiocy..."

No, many people who disagree with me are certainly not idiots. Dr.
John McCarthy, of Stanford University, who routinely disagrees with
me on conservation issues (actually, mostly he avoids me:), is certainly
no idiot. I could name others.

That doesn't, however, preclude YOU from being an idiot.

>By the way, what does "If you're going to fill my mailbox with idiocy, =
>at least make an effort to it short." mean?

It means you should learn to properly trim your posts. To wit, the
stuff below - which I've left in only as a teaching aid - should've
been deleted from your post.

________________________________
Dave Stiles
New Business Development
206-635-0709
ASIX, Inc.=20
visit our web site at www.asix.com

----------
From: Don Baccus[SMTP:donb at rational.com]
Sent: Monday, March 03, 1997 1:17 PM
To: tweeters at u.washington.edu
Subject: RE: Starbucks/shade coffee

Dave Stiles:

>Good question, sounds like more politically correct junk science =
without =3D
>much real scientific or investigative evidence to back it up. People =
are =3D
>so quick to jump on half-cocked environmental witch-hunts without =3D
>thinking things through.

Please tell this to my friends who were employed as field biologists
as part of an ongoing research project which is investigating the
comparative diversity of bird life in plantation vs. shade-grown
plots of coffee.

I'm sure they'll be pleased to hear that you, who I imagine have never
visited either type of coffee farm, find it easy to dismiss their
project - which is simply one of many - as "politically correct
junk science." I'm sure your knee-jerk, anti-environmental reaction
is much more valid than on-the-ground research. After all, we=20
know that wildlife biologists are biased, their results never match
reality, and that they routinely invent results simply to hurt
loggers, ranchers, and coffee growers.

After all, loggers, ranchers, and coffee growers insist this is true.
We all know that THEY, like you, are unbiased. The proper, unbiased
view is that human development can never impact wildlife.

I mean, the fact that my friends actually identified and counted bird
species, and helped gather documentation that traditional shade-grown
plots support a much wider variety of bird species than monoculture
coffee plantations is totally unintuitive. I mean, imagine that
forest-dependent species don't thrive when the forest is removed,
as is done on the large plantation species! They must be lying.
The whole thing's a politically-correct plot to hurt Starbucks.

After all, if spotted owls can not only nest, but thrive, in K-Mart
signs there's no reason why forest species can't thrive in a
coffee-shrub monoculture, is there?

Damn those pesky, politically-correct, anti-industry, lying, biased,
unskilled wildlife biologist friends of mine. I mean, HOW DARE
THEY actually work on a study that leads to a conclusion you
dislike?


>Before we ignite the flame thrower have we thought about =3D
>who might get burned?

Easy: you. Hey, dude, I'm rude 'n crude and I'm not even warmed
up yet. Come on and piss me off - I'm ready.

Oh, while Tom Love is a professional anthropologist, not ornithologist,
he has worked extensively with indigenous people in New World =
rainforests.

I find it not at all difficult to believe that he knows a hell of a lot
more about these rainforests and the effects upon them of various kinds
of agri- and silviculture than you. After all, I know he has extensive
personal and professional experience, while I all know about you is
that you find it easy to dismiss news you dislike as "junk science".

Please - just what are your credentials? Fill is in on your extensive
experience with the area which allows you to dismiss research results
as being nothing but

"politically correct junk science"=20

and efforts to increase consumption of shade-grown coffee as being
nothing but a

"half-cocked environmental witch hunt".

Please provide us solid evidence - not simply an opinion based
on your anti-conservation biases - that coffee plantations support
a wide variety of bird life.

>Dave Stiles

Talk about half-cocked...

Oh, learn to snip posts properly, too.

Yes, this is a politically-correct, junk science request to encourage
you to learn to use your tools properly. If you're going to fill
my mailbox with idiocy, at least make an effort to it short.

- Don Baccus, Portland OR <donb at rational.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, at (NEW) http://donb.photo.net




- Don Baccus, Portland OR <donb at rational.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, at (NEW) http://donb.photo.net