3 ms·

> Third, for almost all species, there are no density figures, so he just picked the number 10 This is contradicted by the statement put out by the university

> Third, for almost all species, there are no density figures, so he just picked the number 10 This is contradicted by the statement put out by the university of Sydney: https://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2020/01/03/a-statement-about-the-480-million-animals-killed-in-nsw-bushfire.html https://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2020/01/03/a-stateme... > Basically some guy just made up a number of animals that exist "some guy" who has published literally hundreds of peer-reviewed articles on related subjects: https://sydney.edu.au/law/about/people/publications/chris.dickman.pdf https://sydney.edu.au/law/about/people/publications/chris.di...

gruez 7y ago
>> Third, for almost all species, there are no density figures, so he just picked the number 10 >This is contradicted by the statement put out by the university of Sydney: https://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2020/01/03/a-stateme.. https://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2020/01/03/a-stateme.... I quickly skimmed the source that you've linked, and it says nothing about how they handled species with no density figures.
- nl 7y ago
  The original report he based his estimate on does: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318029981_Impacts_of_Landclearing_the_impacts_of_the_approved_clearing_of_native_vegetation_on_Australian_wildlife_in_New_South_Wales https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318029981_Impacts_o... > how they handled species with no density figures Many species were excluded from estimates because there is insufficient information on their abundance. The largest omission is the entire NSW bat fauna (37 species), for which no information on density could be found. (page 16)
- zorpner 7y ago
  I quickly skimmed the source... As the sibling comment notes, this is addressed in the source material. Consider engaging more productively before posting dismissive comments on HN.

gruez 7y ago

>> Third, for almost all species, there are no density figures, so he just picked the number 10 >This is contradicted by the statement put out by the university of Sydney: https://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2020/01/03/a-stateme.. https://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2020/01/03/a-stateme.... I quickly skimmed the source that you've linked, and it says nothing about how they handled species with no density figures.

nl 7y ago
The original report he based his estimate on does: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318029981_Impacts_of_Landclearing_the_impacts_of_the_approved_clearing_of_native_vegetation_on_Australian_wildlife_in_New_South_Wales https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318029981_Impacts_o... > how they handled species with no density figures Many species were excluded from estimates because there is insufficient information on their abundance. The largest omission is the entire NSW bat fauna (37 species), for which no information on density could be found. (page 16)
zorpner 7y ago
I quickly skimmed the source... As the sibling comment notes, this is addressed in the source material. Consider engaging more productively before posting dismissive comments on HN.