Before I resign from what used to be a "Shorebirds" List, I think a couple of points are in order.
  
As a former Academic, I can assure you that having a Ph.D. does NOT in any way guarantee that the holder's opinions are of better quality than any one else's.  All the "Scientists" I have ever worked with were utterly convinced that their perspective on a subject was the ONLY Valid one, and that Anyone who held a different view was simply ill-informed, uneducated, or in need of patronizing.  The reality of the fabled "Models" is that the creator of said model calculatedly reduces the Statistical value of data points that do not support the conclusions that are predicted by said model, and exaggerates the S.V. of data points that support the proposed conclusions.  I have heard repeatedly in department after department that it is the data that is always wrong, NOT the Model!  

Secondly, one must always know what the agenda is of the researchers involved in any "Model" validation exercise, and who is paying their bills.  The reality is that Science Runs On Money, Period!  All scientific research is funded by someone's grant money, and they expect to see some beneficial return on their dollar.  Only when you know who is paying the bill, can you determine whether the "research" has any validity at all!    Does any one of you believe the pronouncements of those "Scientists" who soberly deny the existence of Global Warming, when it is found out that their grants came from EXXON-MOBIL?  

Since I have long-since ceased caring about being diplomatic (a Perk of being Retired !), let me just close by saying that just because a real-live "Scientist" says that Global Warming does not exist, or that the Red Knot is going to be extinct in 2010 does not mean that they have a clue about what is really going to happen.  All they have is just an erudite, jargon-filled, agenda-driven supposition supported by carefully-chosen data sets that are presented in formally crafted papers in the proper Journals.  As for "Peer-Review", I can assure you that as a former "Peer" myself,  all I was allowed to critique was methodology, calculations, Data Sets and their statistical manipulations.  Implications, inferences, and pronouncements of opinion drawn from the chosen data sets were not open to critique as a "peer", and as such, a lot of pure BS finds its way into the Literature, to be quoted and cited as canonical "Gospel" by those outside of Academia.  Misuse of this dubious-quality literature, particularly by those with a "conservation" or "Audubon" agenda, is particularly annoying, especially when they wrap themselves in inviolate pseudo-academic arrogance and conceit.

I really enjoyed this list when it was just about Shorebirds, but this Red Knot nonsense has rendered the list useless for the purpose I joined it for, and exposed a lot of latent "conservationitis".

Good Luck with your Birding, if you ever get back to it !

Gary C. Hampton