> In short, the organization's data is useless No, you think the data you used in your comment is useless. Doesn't mean the data the organization has and their

> In short, the organization's data is useless No, you think the data you used in your comment is useless. Doesn't mean the data the organization has and their conclusions is useless. Also, kind of funny you linked data you think is useless, but then drawn a conclusion from that data. Given the graph, the uncertainty is high. They added sites but the numbers stayed the same. What's more likely, the sites added were in antartica? or were in places that are expected to have butterlies? In other words, it could be worse than what the graph shows.