I got this off of the linked article. Does anyone else have a problem with this statement? The earlier study was wrong because it came back with too many lynx? Wasn't the study supposed to determin how many there were? The lab came back with results we didn't like so we sent in false samples to test the lab????
I have a major problem with this statement.
It didn't seem logical? What about collecting the data, performing an appropriate statistically based analysis, and forming a conclusion based on pre-determined standards that include all the data collected?
I don't get it. A previous study says there are "lynx up & down the Cascades", the scientists are skeptical of this claim - in exactly the same way that many people here are - so this time they send in control samples to test whether the lab really knows what they're doing! Friends, that's good scientific procedure! The only thing they did "wrong" was not getting permission from their superiors. Then word gets out to the press - garbled, it turns out - and the story mutates into "SCIENTISTS FAKE LYNX DATA TO TRY AND SHUT DOWN THE FORESTS!" Incredible."I didn't trust the results of the lab, so I wasn't going to tell them I was sending in a blind sample. A 1998 study came out with the results of lynx up and down the Cascades, and that didn't seem logical. Most of us doubted it. How could there be so many lynx?"
I got this off of the linked article. Does anyone else have a problem with this statement? The earlier study was wrong because it came back with too many lynx? Wasn't the study supposed to determin how many there were? The lab came back with results we didn't like so we sent in false samples to test the lab????