@Ed-A couple links below, first of particular relevance:

http://businessmirror.com.ph/home/opinion/33530-did-natgeo-man-misrepresent-himself
http://www.sunstar.com.ph/breaking-news/2012/09/25/palma-ivory-trade-church-respects-creation-244743

@ labellaflora: I completely agree that people need to pay attention, and with the recent spate of articles and attention, increasingly people are.

However, To state that “ETIS has not done its job” I think reflects a misunderstanding of what ETIS is. ETIS is the Elephant Trade Information System: it is an ivory trade monitoring tool operated on behalf of the CITES parties (that is, the countries/signatories to this convention) by TRAFFIC, the wildlife trade monitoring NGO. Information on trade is collected and collated within the database to monitor trends in trade. This information is made available to the parties, including elephant range states in Africa and Asia, to assist their enforcement efforts. ETIS, like CITES and TRAFFIC, has no enforcement capacity, rather, their role is support range states in creating local capacity to protect their wildlife and enforce their legislation.

So, to state that ETIS has not done its job is untrue. This trade continues because of overwhelming demand in China (in particular), a lack of enforcement capacity in range states and probably corruption. So, who do you point the finger at-the 30 something middle classes in East Asia, primarily driving demand, for whom its cool to own ivory trinkets? the rangers in East, Central and Southern Africa who fail, often through no fault of their own, to stop poaching? Air and seaport cargo staff who can check <5% of cargo passing their way? corrupt officials? the general public for not knowing and not doing enough?

The fact is that all of the above are responsible, and all to blame. But pointing fingers is, well, pointless. This is a global, complex, multi-faceted problem which requires some money, innovation, varied approaches and, ultimately, will. Although we are trying, thsi battle is being lost, something which applies generally across the board for conservation and biodiversity, I fear.

Getting back to the point at hand-the natgeo article- its great that this piece has brought attention to this issue. That is not in dispute. But many articles have been written in big, well renowned publications on ivory trade for the last year. The issue is whether the information presented therein is factually true and was ethically obtained. I maintain that, in its entirety, it is/was not. Furthermore, there is the question of whether this was willfully done to make it stand out from the rest (links below, if anyone is interested).

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2011/08/elephants-201108
http://world.time.com/2012/10/15/blood-ivory-hong-kong-fights-a-losing-battle-against-smugglers/
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/world/africa/africas-elephants-are-being-slaughtered-in-poaching-frenzy.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I respectfully disagree. The fact elephants are still being slaughtered by the hundreds shows ETIS has not done their job. People need to pay attention and Christy’s article does that.

How I found it: (1) Cut-and-paste “TEDx pulls down a notoriously wacky pseudoscience talk.” into Google. (2) Notice first hit is to tweet by Carl Zimmer. (3) Click on it. (4) Click on link in tweet.

the link for “TEDx pulls down a notoriously wacky pseudoscience talk” doesn’t work.

BTW, there are some other nonsense TED talks. For example, the talk “What’s wrong with our food system” given by a child and his name is Birke Baehr. He attached GM crops without providing any valid scientific evidences, in order to promote organic farming.

This week I’m especially eager to read the Barbara King article, but the link is dead, alas.

http://www.wikiwatch.org.uk/assange-and-human-rights/

You might want to rethink this statement.