Reference :- Andy states that scientists want equal gender representation of animal specimens in museums , and sees this as scientists pandering to the politically correct . And, he asserts , since they do that , they are obviously also pandering to the climate change alarmists . "To scientists indoctrinated by the left ", he intimates , "just like the man with the hammer , everything is a nail ".
Andy , who in the name of God did the research for this piece of crap? You quote the biologist , Natalie Cooper , and accuse her of irrationally making a fuss about the gender representation in museum specimens . I am sure she has never heard that the males of most species are more dramatic visually so they can intimidate predators or attract mates . Biologists know bugger all about sexual displays . So thanks for pointing that out . You should write a book . Bloody brilliant observation . But before you rush off to the publishers, allow me to correct you on a couple of points .
Firstly , Natalie Cooper , the biologist ,was not the centrepiece of the article to which you referred . It was Caroline Criado- Perez , who was reporting second hand Natalie Cooper's observation concerning museum specimens . Caroline's profession is journalism , which is what you like to have a bit of a go at Andy . She was putting her own spin on something , which I know you would never do , but some journalists lack your meticulous scruples.
So , let's bypass the journalistic spin , and go straight to the source , which is the actual scientist Natalie Cooper who made the original observation . Her main point is that because there are statistically more male specimens in museums ,since they look more striking , there is a problem with researching species in decline , (which is most species , in fact ) since males and females often have different diets , and statistical analyses of stomach contents is more difficult due to a lack of specimens . She didn't actually say it was politically incorrect that more female specimens weren't killed , sent to the taxidermist , and presented to the public mounted in a glass cabinet with a stick up their backsides . She was expressing concern for the lack of research specimens .
Many species have far more females then males in their natural populations , and we need to study their diets , and ailments ( like parasite infections ) and hormonal responses to environmental change . So we need a good supply of female specimens . Do you get it Andy ? Since you think it is valid to make this startling connection , I guess that means if she isn't denying science to appease the crazy lefties , then all those other scientists aren't denying science to appease the climate alarmists. I am just following your lead with this line of reasoning Andy , its a bit too complicated for me to understand .
I know its too late to remove this crappy article from the world wide web . ( Oh the web we weave when first etc ) . But here's a tip for a follow up on the same topic that might get you out of the poo with this one . Have you seen that those biologists we all despise have named a new species of beetle after Greta Thunberg ? I guess that's because she bugs everybody so much . ( they recently shamelessly buttered up David Attenborough by bestowing a similar honour upon him ) You can go to town with a story there , and it gives you another opportunity to feature some cherry picked footage of Greta that you can ridicule .
Since I thought of it first , a brief mention of me , as perhaps , contributing editor, would be much appreciated . You can take credit for the "bug " line if you like , as encouragement .
Your comrade , Ken
No comments:
Post a Comment