How can we keep up?

Mrs. Chatman has posted another slew of creatocrap. This time she has plagiarized the Jack Chick cartoon tract "Big Daddy, Frame 10"- Blackboard with 6 kinds of evolution. She is nearly as quick as Duane Gish in his famous "Gish Gallop" of creationist lies.

This saves me a lot of time since I am working on a frame by frame rebuttal of this very same lump of creatocrap.

Why do fundamentalist creationists find it necessary to lie to support their cult? Do they know they are liars? Do they care?

"Signature in the Cell," A review

I posted this to the US Amazon.com site, and have echoed it here in its original. My review provoked a particularly amusing response from the Disco'tute attack gerbil, Casey Luskin.

Regarding the grossly false creationist claims in "Signature in the Cell," I would first point out one of the things that most irritated me.

From about page 223 to 226, we have a cut n' paste with only trivial alterations from an 1998 article Meyer wrote, "DNA by Design," published in the prestigious biological journal "Journal of Rhetoric & Public Affairs." (Yes, that was sarcasm). Text from "DNA by Design" appears quite often in "Signature." The most irritating feature is that in ten years between that early text and "Signature," Meyer had not even bothered to update critical references, let along his outdated thinking. Most obvious was that in both publications, a footnote (#21 in "DNA") appears with nearly identical citations as the 1998 article. I'll quote it below, because if illustrates another problem with Meyer's so-called scholarship.

(from Meyer 1998, which appeared with trivial alteration as footnote 10-15 in Meyer 2009) 21. L. C. Berkner and L. L. Marshall, "On the Origin and Rise in Concentration in the Earth's Atmosphere," Journal of Atmospheric Science 22 (1965): 225-61; R. T. Brinkman, "Dissociation of Water Vapor and Evolution of Oxygen in the Terrestrial Atmosphere," Journal of Geophysical Research 74 (1969): 5354-68; Erich Dimroth and Michael M. Kimberly, "Pre-Cambrian Atmospheric Oxygen: Evidence in Sedimentary Distribution of Carbon Sulfur, Uranium and Iron," Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 13 (1976): 1161-85; J. H. Carver, "Prebiotic Atmospheric Oxygen Levels," Nature 292 (1981): 136-38; H. D. Holland, B. Lazar, and M. McCaffrey, "Evolution of Atmosphere and Oceans," Nature 320 (1986): 27-33; J. F. Kastings, S. C. Liu, and T. M. Donahue, "Oxygen Levels in the Prebiological Atmosphere," Journal of Geophysical Research 84 (1979): 3097-3102; Kerr, "Origin of Life: New Ingredients Suggested," 42-43; Thaxton et al., Mystery of Life's Origin, 73-94.

How did this vary in Meyer's "Signature?" Well, the publication dates, and journal data were all removed to a bibliography. But aside from formatting, Meyer added a two additional outdated references, Towe (1996), and Kasting (1993).

What did Meyer use this group of citations to support? That the late-Hadean, early-Archean had an oxygenated atmosphere, and that without "intelligent intervention," which in IDC speak means "goddidit," all chemical reactions on the primitive Earth result in "biologically irrelevant compounds-chemically insoluble sludge." (Meyer 2010, pg 226).

Meyer, in 1998, might have been justified in thinking that scientific opinion was divided among geochemists regarding the Earth's early redox state. After all he is not really a geologist, nor a chemist. But, even though his under-graduate geology degree was from a religious school, his continued ignorance was not justified in 2008-2009.

Publications, several by the very people Meyer has cited, since 1998 have conclusively made the case for a late-Hadean / early-Archean reduced atmosphere, or at most a neutral atmosphere with common, strongly reducing oasis. Even articles readily available prior to 2008 make this obvious, and subsequent research has "capped" the argument.

(For example, Catling, David C., Kevin J. Zahnle, Christopher P. McKay 2002 "Reply to Towe (2002)" Science letters v.295 (5559):1419a

Genda, Hidenori & Abe, Yutaka 2003 "Survival of a proto-atmosphere through the stage of giant impacts: the mechanical aspects" Icarus 164, 149-162 (2003).

Holland, Heinrich D. 1999 "When did the Earth's atmosphere become oxic? A Reply." The Geochemical News #100: 20-22

J. F. Kasting, J. L. Siefert,
2002 "Life and the Evolution of Earth's Atmosphere" Science 296:1066

Pavlov, Alexander, James K. Kasting, Jeninifer L. Eigenbrode, Katherine H. Freeman
2001 "Organic haze in Earth's early atmosphere: Source of low-13C Late Archean kerogens?" Geology v.29 no. 11:1003-1006

Ricardo, A., Carrigan, M. A., Olcott, A. N., Benner, S. A.
2004 "Borate Minerals Stabilize Ribose" Science January 9; 303: 196 (in Brevia)

Tian, Feng , Owen B. Toon, Alexander A. Pavlov, and H. De Sterck 2005 "A Hydrogen-Rich Early Earth Atmosphere" Science 13 May; 308: 1014-1017; published online 7 April 2005

And most recently,

E. T. Wolf and O. B. Toon 2010 "Fractal Organic Hazes Provided an Ultraviolet Shield for Early Earth" Science 4 June 328: 1266-1268 [DOI: 10.1126/science.1183260] (in Reports). Read their references for background.

Further, the late Stanley Miller's last posthumous publication, Cleaves, H. James, John H. Chalmers, Antonio Lazcano, Stanley L. Miller, Jeffrey L. Bada 2008 "A Reassessment of Prebiotic Organic Synthesis in Neutral Planetary Atmospheres" Orig Life Evol Biosph (2008) 38:105-115

makes the entire redox issue moot. The prolific natural production of complex biomolecules can take place in neutral to even slightly oxic atmospheres. And this was published in plenty of time to have been included in Meyer's thinking- if only he had been thinking.

Mrs. Chatman rides again

Mrs. Chatman has launched a new set of falsehoods against the public. Today she took aim at the fossil data demonstrating human evolution. I can only hope that one day she will try the same shenanigans with the genetic data for human evolution. She has maintained her near prefect score of zero correct claims. I will just enumerate the major falsehoods/lies in this post, and move on with details as time permits. Every one of the following is an error, or out-right falsehood found in Mrs. Chatman’s latest post.

1) “it is taught as a fact that human beings and apes evolved from a common primate ancestor about 50 million years ago.”

(It is neither fact, nor taught).

2) Humans and apes are a different specie (sic). How can they be from a common ancestor?

(“Apes” is not a species identification. The bigger falsehood is more subtle).

3) “Where are the missing links?”

(“Missing links” are a false assumption from the 1700s idea of a “great chain of being. There are deeper errors here, and we in fact have no lack of fossils supporting Human evolution).

4) “The textbooks can't mentioned the missing links anymore, because each one has been proven to be a hoax.”

(School textbooks, unlike the creationist trash Mrs. Chatman reads, try to be accurate and current with modern research. Much more to follow).

5) “the Nebraska man was made from the tooth of an extinct pig.”

(The “Nebraska Man” was largely the invention of an English journalist. It was an honest mistake soon corrected, and never a “hoax”).

6) “The Neanderthal man has been proven to be perfectly human, but just a little unusual looking.”

(Neanderthals were our last surviving “kissing cousins,” (exluding florensis, and Denisova Cave fossils) but it would be very easy to tell them from any modern).

7) “Lucy is still in the textbooks. That poor chimpanzee had her bones scattered miles apart,”

(The notion that an Australopithecus afarensis could be confused with a Chimp (genus Pan sp.) is a testament to monumental ignorance. The “Lucy” skeleton’s bones were found in close together. This particular lie about “miles apart” originated with Kent Hovind. My opinion of Mrs. Chatman has dropped even lower).

8) “Artists even put human feet on her, although no foot bones were found.”

(There are fossil foot bones from Australopithecus afarensis, the species that “Lucy” belonged to, which I’ll discuss later. There are not many “controversies” left for creationists to exaggerate, or lie about).

9) “Why can't there just be the factual study of the wonderful human body, without the theory of evolution?”

(As the devout Christian, and evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" (title to his 1973 essay).

10) “Webster's New World Dictionary, the Third College Edition …”

(I have the same dictionary. We should not be surprised that Mrs. Chatman cannot use the dictionary competently).

11) “The theory that man evolved from apes slaps Christianity, and other God believing religions in the face.”

(The fact that Humans have evolved only “slaps” the false biblical traditions of creationists like Mrs. Chatman. Her repeated falsehoods are closer to spiting in the face of belief).

12) “Evolution is the faith based religion of the atheist in the public school system, and it indoctrinates young students.”

(The sciences, which Mrs. Chatman has distorted for some long time, are neither a “faith” nor a “religion.” They are “atheist” only in the same way that civil engineering, plumbing, or auto mechanics are atheist. Never drive across a bridge that depends on prayer to stay intact).

13) “A great multitude of parents object to the indoctrination of their children.”

(Sadly, a great many parents object to racial integration, or even allowing girls go to school at all).

14) “They want only scientific facts taught, not philosohies, theories, or ideas that insult their religion.”

(People who are insulted by the truth have a lot to worry about, and their “wants” are not the controlling factors. And, teaching science as merely a long list of facts is like teaching communication by forcing children to memorize phone books).

Well, I'll be Banned

Well, the NetNanny for Nature magazine informed me that my link to Professors Forest, and Gross, violated their "third party policy." I won't even buy books from Amazon- they are non-union. No word about how long I should be in the penalty box. Twits! The Rapture Ready psychos had a better reason.

I have only been banned twice. Once a decade ago by the psychotics at Rapture Ready, and just today, by Nature magazine.

This account is banned · This account has been banned from commenting due to posting of comments classified as inappropriate or other violations of our Terms of Service.

They originally gave no indication of what my terrible crime was, or how I might rectify it, or protest.

What I had started to post was a reply to the pathetic mystic bullshit from Brian Josephson. He had commented,

Brian Josephson said:

I do not recognise Gary Hurd's characterisation of Intelligent Design . Has he actually studied work in this field, such as that of Stephen Meyer (who has a Cambridge Ph.D. in philosophy, for what that is worth). Hurd seems typical of those who I suspect are scared of the possibility that there may really be a deeper intelligence at work in the natural, and are driven by these fears to avoid examining in a realistic way what experts such as Meyer are in fact doing.

I instigated the Mind-Matter Unification Project at the Cavendish Laboratory because, in my perception, orthodoxy fails in a number of ways. An example of our research is a collaboration with a musicologist arguing that conventional scientific attempts to explain music is are flawed, while alternatives that invoke deeper aspects of nature can account for a number of key facts. We are currently following up ideas of the quantum physicist John Wheeler to the effect that participating observers are the source of natural laws, and hope to gain a systematic account of how his 'observer-participation' operates (for a preliminary account, see this conference report ). I believe science has been seduced by a certain view of nature, and that the next great advance in science will follow when certain destructive influences on progress are superseded by the ideas of those who do not adhere to such tenets.

My first installment that Nature magazine blocked was,

Unlike Dr. Josephson, I use my experience and Google together before spouting off about others. I earlier referenced the excellent 2004 book by Professors Forest, and Gross, as well as the Federal Court’s decision in the 2005 Kitzmiller v Dover trial.

It was significant to me and others at the time that Professor Forest was the only plaintiff’s expert witness the creationists took the (unsuccessful) strenuous effort to block from testifying. They showed more intelligence than I had expected. Prof. Forest demonstrated categorically that the Intelligent Design Creationism movement owed its origin to the defeat of Scientific Creationism at the hands of the US Supreme Court in their 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard decision. That testimony is found in the trial transcripts, and the Court’s Decision. Judge Jones commented that the plea to ignore the evidence "lacks merit legally and logically."

That is the position that Josephson finds himself, without merit legally or logically.

Second Installment, 31 May, 2012

There are a number of false assumptions, and assertions made by Brian Josephson. He asked rhetorically, "Has he (Hurd) actually studied work in this field...?" I suspect I have far more familiarity with the ID crowd than Josephson does. If he had the sense, or courtesy to Google my name, and "intelligent design" he would have learned if I was familiar with ID. There are pages of links just from my critics whining about how I attack ID. Moving past those, he might have found reviews of my chapter in "Why Intelligent Design Fails" (2005 Rutgers University Press). Or with a little more effort, he could have found how this was used in the Dover "pandas trial."

Josephson asked particularly if I was familiar with Steve Meyer's "Signature in the Cell." I'd recommend he read my review.

It's always something

I have been wanting to work on the Jack Chick debunking. There are several good ones I have come across that were helpful. But, Tuesday Mrs. Chatman posted some more regurgitated cretocrap about dinosaurs. It is obvious she is just plagiarizing Answers in Genesis. I have identified several of her specific sources, and hope to post here and to the Wanesville Daily Guide later. And there is still some 'touch-up' work to do on the new living room paint, and my article debunking Joe the surgeon Kuhn.

Instead, I spent 5 1/2 hours in the dentist's chair yesterday. My dentist, Dr. Shabnam Taherian, and her whole support team at Laguna Niguel Dental Group, are excellent.

And, then last night I came across in the Nature magazine discussion section,

I do not recognise Gary Hurd's characterisation of Intelligent Design . Has he actually studied work in this field, such as that of Stephen Meyer (who has a Cambridge Ph.D. in philosophy, for what that is worth). Hurd seems typical of those who I suspect are scared of the possibility that there may really be a deeper intelligence at work in the natural, and are driven by these fears to avoid examining in a realistic way what experts such as Meyer are in fact doing." Brian Josephson

Dr. Josephson received the 1973 Noble Prize in physics, and has been crazy for a long time. So, I think that my reply to him takes precedence over those other chores.

Big Daddy, Take Two

I read the other day several accounts of how Jack Chick Publications filed harassment copyright infringement claims against critics. And sadly, Google totally rolls-over-and-plays-dead.

So, rather than have the entire Stones and Bones blog at risk, I plan to create a blog just for my take down of "Big Daddy." I'll post more later this week.

Jack Chick tract salvation

I received a note from Mr. Billy R. Caughron the other day. He mentioned that he enjoyed my letter to the Mountain Press, and he enclosed two of Jack Chick's cartoon apologetics, "Why Should I?" and "The Choice." His objective was my salvation, which I appreciate.

My all time favorite Chick tract is the infamous "Big Daddy."

Some days I wonder if we can ever counter all the creatocrap

(Several additional people have joined in commenting to Mrs. Chatman's nonsense).

What has me somewhat dispirited today is this great steaming pile of lies and ignorance by Mrs. Jeannie Chatman. I'll pick this apart over the next few days, and add updates as I go. For those interested in the Baylor University Medical Center article, there have been some weird developments. Over the last weekend the editors shifted from "publish" to "reject." Their reasons were weak, to say the least. For example, one "reason" was that this blog had a portion of the text I used in the first two pages of the BUMC Proceedings text. But, I have always had the National Center for Science Education in mind as a reserve, and with them I don't need to be kind to either Joe the Surgeon or Baylor. A re-write is in progress.

Well, the number of gross errors and misrepresentations Mrs. Chatman makes is impressive, particularly when we added in her prior bloviations. But they are not original in any way. I posted two clips; one on Darwin and Nazis from More about Nazi Darwinists, and one on the geological column from Glenn Morton's excellent piece "The Geologic Column and its Implications for the Flood."

The only bit not already familiar to me was the creationist genetics by Jeffery Tomkin, Ph. D. currently working for the Institute for Creation Research. I have pulled a load of papers, and will plug away at them later today. First I need to finish painting the living room.

I was fishing the other day

I was fishing at Catalina Island yesterday aboard the Fury out of Dana Warf. The crew were, as always, exemplary; friendly, and actively helpful. We had the first day this year of a solid calico bass bite with water temperatures around 63 F. I kept five bass for the table, and released the rest. I also won the ‘big fish’ jackpot with a sheephead, which we released as well. (We put him directly into the bait tank from the hook. I promised to let him go if he won, but eat him if he lost).

But, that isn’t what is on my mind. The trip from Dana Point Harbor to the island takes about 3 hours. I usually sleep on the way out, and sit in the galley on the ride home. There are a clutch of regulars who are in their 70&80s who are rabidly far-right. They loudly proclaim their love for Jesus, and literal adherence of the Bible, when a moment's conversation reveals they know next to nothing about it. Their galley conversations are always about the evils of communist-Muslim-Atheist-tree hugger Democrats. In support of their various paranoid insanities, they spout “facts” that only exist in their fevered imaginations, and the ozone clouds of Faux News. Yesterday the theme was how Obama’s deficit will destroy the lives of their grandchildren.

Yes, pity the po’ po’ wee kiddies who will forever be slaves paying off Obama’s Federal Debt.

But, when I asked them if they shouldn’t also be worried that their grand kids will face a ruined planet due to Republican efforts to gut the environment, they were outraged. “Everyone KNOWS” that global warming, over fishing, clear cutting, water and air pollution are nothing but LIES invented by the Liberals to destroy America.”

And that ends the lesson. These nitwits have nothing between their ears but slogans, and blatant lies they have memorized. It is an impenetrable shield.

I have had a stinging rebuke from a young protégée of Padre Shipe.

Edited late Sunday evening: The Mountain Press deleted my comment posted below


Well, I have had a stinging rebuke from a young protégée of Padre Shipe.

I must first thank “BryanCollegeStudent” for making my point of deeply ingrained ignorance for me better than I could have. This anonymous internet bravo attributes his(?) determination to become a teacher to Mr. Shipe. I will caution him with James 3:1. "Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment." I personally am OK with that.

Bryan College was founded in 1930 following the 1925 Scopes Trial. Their mission statement is, "Educating Students to become Servants of Christ to make a Difference in Today's World." It was named after William Jennings Bryan, the anti-evolution prosecutor who won the trial, only to be overturned due to the trial judge’s legal errors. A similar fate befell creationism; the anti-science fundamentalists had won in court, but lost in public opinion. Lately, science is winning in court as well.

True to that tradition, “BryanCollegeBoy” charges at shadows. I will address his many errors; factual, historical, and scriptural. I will also caution him to not continue the obvious gross errors of fact (AKA “lies”) of his mentor Mr. Shipe and blame them on Jesus.

I will let his many ludicrous neologisms, grammatical and spelling errors stand for themselves. Mr. Shipes did not teach English, and is not culpable for this student's English language incompetence. One can only hope that “BryanCollegeStudent” will not try to teach either science, or English.

I do not think that “BryanCollegeStudent” was prepared by his science teacher Mr. Shipe to follow the scientific errors of his position. So, I’ll first present his biblical failures as best I can in this limited newspaper chat format. Mr. Anonymous Bryan Boy “proof quoted" Psalm 19. This is fascinating because if, "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky proclaims the work of His hands,” his anti-science position has lost. We will stipulate Ps. 19:1-2, and if so, then Heaven and Earth declare that they (the universe) are ancient. This is easily reconciled with Scripture by, "… in the sight of God, a thousand years are like yesterday when it passes by, or as a watch in the night" (Psalms 90: 4). A grown-up believer secure in their faith does not fear, or reject the results of scientific progress. After all, "Great are the works of the Lord, studied by all who delight in them" (Psalm 111:2). And Psalm 85:11 reads, “Truth springs from the earth; and righteousness looks down from heaven” (NASB). The Hebrew word weakly translated as “truth,” emet, basically means “certainty and dependability.” In fact, reading Psalm 119:160, Isaiah 45; 19, Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18 and 11:6, and I John 5:6, show us the obvious. For God to create things with a deceptive “appearance” of age would violate His own stated character.

If God were to create a Universe that falsely appeared ancient, and perversely appeared to have life which resulted from evolution, then it would violate James 1: 13. Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.”

Mr. Anonymous, stop making a fool of yourself, and of Christians.

The true cost of the anti-vaccination lies

I have been watching the reported cases of whooping cough, pertussis, grow almost daily for the last month. The state of Washington is being particularly hard hit (so far). They are spending over $200,000 to try and "catch-up" on vaccinations.

I saw a reported fatality this morning which will probably be the first of many. This is the real cost of the anti-vaccination lies of Randall Hoven, and his right-wing pals at American Thinker. Now they truly are Baby Killers.

Randall Hoven IS either stupid, or a liar.

Randall Hoven is either stupid, or lying, Part II

Right-Wingnut Randall Hoven: Stupid, Liar, or Lazy? Part III

As I said at the time,

So, Mr. Hoven concludes that he and his should skip vaccinations, and leave all the associated costs and risks to others because, “We should not be treated like benighted troglodytes for being skeptical of medical "science.”

No, not troglodytes, Mr. Hoven- you should be treated like lazy, stupid, selfish, dishonest parasites.

"We're Losing our grip on science"

That is according to Steve Urbon, who writes a twice weekly column for the The Standard-Times of New Bedford, MA and echoed on-line at SouthCoastToday.com.

His May 4th item was largely an entirely welcome objection to the know-nothing anti-science mobs, and a reference to a poll of professionals, and students in "higher education." More on that later.

But tacked on at the end, Mr. Urbon wrote,

The trouble is, if Americans are doubting or despising science, a part of it is the fault of the scientists — or some of them, at least. How many of them are employed by industries seeking to evade the oversight of the government, or to duck accountability for environmental damage, or to get a drug approved?

How many scientists write reports for tobacco companies for fat salaries? How many write research papers for such things as environmental organizations fueled by the oil industry?

I direct your attention to biologist Jane Lubchenco, the head of NOAA, who in her previous job at the Environmental Defense Fund, asserted that because of overfishing, the ocean was in imminent danger of being full of nothing but jellyfish.

Her self-serving scare mongering was quoted around the world, and is driving fishing policy in this country.

But in February, a team of researchers at the Dauphin Island (Alabama) Sea Lab totally debunked Lubchenco's claim earlier this year, saying there's no evidence at all to back it. Yet I will bet that even if you are in the fishing industry, you are reading it here for the first time. What does that tell you?

For openers, few Americans other than professional scientists ever read a science journal. What little science they are exposed to comes from the news media, or re-runs of The Big Bang. There are whores with PhDs. They are a tiny fraction of one percent of professionals. The largest concentration in the USA are in the Heartland Institute, a nest of radical far-right vipers (apologies to vipers everywhere). Then, there are the creationists who work for the anti-science gangs of the Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis Ministries, or the Institute for Creation Research. These people are not necessarily whores- most are more likely mentally ill.

But, Mr. Urbon goes off into the ozone by associating Dr. Jane Lubchenco with the likes of the Heartland biostitutes, or the Disco'tutes.

Let's start with the biography of Dr. Jane Lubchenco. She received her doctorate in biology from Harvard University, and taught at Oregon State University from 1977 to 2009 when she was appointed to lead the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. She is past-president of the American Association for Advancement of Science (AAAS), the International Council for Science, and the Ecological Society of America. She is one of the most highly cited, and respected scientists of her generation. She is an elected member of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Philosophical Society, the Royal Society, and the Academy of Sciences for the Developing World, Europe and Chile.

Mr. Urbon lied. Dr. Lubchenco was on the Board of Directors of the EDF- it was hardly her job.

A bibliographic search for Dr. Jane Lubchenco and jellyfish finally revealed an Environmental Defense Foundation report, (link opens a PDF) "Oceans of Abundance." This 10 page report had 28 co-authors. It had the following sentence, "There is scientific consensus that fishing is fundamentally altering ocean ecosystems, (5) which are increasingly likely to yield massive swarms of jellyfish rather than food fish (6). A press release from the EDF opened with, "Will jellyfish replace our favorite kinds of seafood? That appears to be the way we're headed — but a 2008 report, Oceans of Abundance, from leading U.S. policy makers and fisheries experts, says this does not have to be."

Mr. Urbon lied some more; The EDF report didn't claim the oceans were "in imminent danger of being full of nothing but jellyfish." Even the rather florid press release didn't go that far.

The relevant cited article from the EDF document is, "Ecological extinction and evolution in the brave new ocean," (Jackson, J.B.C. 2008. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105: 11458-11465). Jackson makes an entirely data driven observation of the biomass of the hypoxic “dead zone” covering ≈20,000 km2 ~500 km west of the Mississippi delta. The major large species surviving those conditions are jellyfish, and has wiped out a formerly productive commercial fishery.

The recent jellyfish article indirectly mentioned by Mr. Urbon was, "Questioning the Rise of Gelatinous Zooplankton in the World's Oceans," (Robert H. Condon et al, BioScience, Vol. 62, No. 2 (February 2012), pp. 160-169). In no way could it have "totally debunked Lubchenco's claim." For one thing, it was never her claim. The paper never even cited any publication by Dr. Lubchenco, nor the EDF. The authors did note that popular media accounts, like Mr. Urbon's, were far different from the scientific studies. They also concluded that much more funding should be provided to jellyfish experts like themselves so that they could do much more research. Reading the actual studies he is 'interpreting' to the public will apparently be a new experience for Mr. Urbon.


Mr. Urbon is losing his grip on reality.