doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Simon says, Oh, never mind…

Do you have the reference? May not be garbage at all. Let's see it. Waterfowl are/were dying of ingested lead regardless so not all lead is being passed. That's really not questionable.

I will try to address some of your questions, though not in their original order for the sake of the examples blotting out my answer.

"Last, I don't have much problem with lead for upland game in most places and I continue to use it." I am glad we have common ground on general banning of lead in the uplands. Our common belief here shows that there is often more common ground that sometimes get clouded in a disagreement.

"So habitat is a greater problem for condors. What's your point?" My point is that lead bans are not supportable outside of the unique Condor situation as lead is a minor factor. About the condors specifically even their decline is more about habitat than lead, not that lead is not a factor with them.

"If you attack science as false, and you have, it should be very easy to disprove it." You should know that the media establishment often trumpets as scientific facts things which flawed studies spin. Our recent COVID experience demonstrates this, but I will include some good general examples.

You know very well that the proliferation of journals living to publish is a real issue as is the parroting of findings both in and out of context by various media sources

"Tell me more about the proliferation of garbage in peer reviewed publications." I see findings sold as truths when they cannot be supported by repeatable confirmation garbage. . (See the following after my other answers)



“According to a 2020 survey by DARPA (the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), in 2009, 53.4 percent of social-science papers had “failed to replicate,” meaning that efforts to reproduce their results had not succeeded. By 2018, that figure had risen to 55.8 percent. Flipping a coin would give you better odds of success.”......

“The author told National Review at the time, “We wanted to see in this case if [it] would be possible to publish a paper in an elite journal when the paper is full of blatant and clear statistical errors.” Of course it was possible. The journal Nature estimates that “hundreds of gibberish papers still lurk in the scientific literature.” That gibberish papers are published as truth does not mean that science is gibberish; “hundreds” is a very small proportion of the literature. But the willingness of peer reviewers and editors to air outlandish claims without subjecting them to adequate investigation suggests that such decisions are influenced by ideology, and that the more ideologically freighted a topic, the more skeptical one should be.”....

“In the field of glaciology, taxpayer dollars were spent on a peer-reviewed research paper titled “Glaciers, gender, and science: A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research.” An excerpt from the abstract: “Merging feminist postcolonial science studies and feminist political ecology, the feminist glaciology framework generates robust analysis of gender, power, and epistemologies in dynamic social-ecological systems, thereby leading to more just and equitable science and human–ice interactions.” The research was published in the journal Progress in Human Geography. The author, the University of Oregon professor of history and environmental studies Mark Carey, has received over $700,000 in grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF).”
“The public, too, will often be misled. Consider the case of a famous 2008 study by University of Nebraska researchers of conservatives’ alleged psychology. The research — rather clearly motivated by ideology, suggesting that conservatism stems from conspiratorial thinking and “negativity bias” — proved impossible to replicate when tested by other researchers. But it had already been widely disseminated in the media and continues to be popularly cited. “
https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2022/07/11/too-political-science/

“Peer review is typically held up as the barrier than prevents nonsense from making its way into the scholarly literature. But a series of recent cases suggest that those who peddle pseudoscience – and who want the imprimatur of peer review to demonstrate the legitimacy of their ideas – have found vulnerabilities in the system.”
https://academic.oup.com/mit-press-...stract/287509829?redirectedFrom=fulltext


“A recent analysis of the prevalence of research misconduct by Daniele Fanelli looked at “scientific behaviors that distort scientific knowledge” and found that 2% of the scientists surveyed admitted to serious misconduct (falsification or fabrication of data) at least once and nearly 34% admitted other questionable research practices. When participants were asked about their colleagues’ practices, the results were much worse: 14% for falsification of data and 72% for other questionable practices.“
https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(15)00190-1/fulltext

"Social science studies are notorious offenders. A landmarkstudy < Caution-https://www.natureasia.com/en/research/highlight/12661/ > in the journal Nature Human Behaviour in August reported the results of efforts to replicate 21 social science studies published in the prestigious journals Nature andScience between 2010 and 2015.
The multi-national team actually “conducted high-powered replications of the 21 experimental social science studies — using sample sizes around five times larger than the original sample sizes” and found that “62% of the replications show an effect in the same direction as the original studies.” One out of the four Nature papers and seven of the seventeen Science papers evaluated did not replicate, a shocking result for two prestigious scientific journals. The authors noted two kinds of flaws in the original studies: false positives and inflated effect sizes." https://www.realclearscience.com/ar...become_a_profitable_industry_110810.html

“However, a review – that both the institution and publisher should have done – shows bias, undisclosed conflicts, clear violations of institutional and publishing ethical standards, and lack of evidence as the hallmarks for these claims. This research does raise new questions – questions for George Washington University and the journal Environmental Health. “……….
“In a study published in the journal Environmental Health last month [Feb 10, 2022], GW researchers claimed they had discovered three in five Americans tested positive for “high” levels of herbicide residues, which they represented as a human health risk. The publication’s ethics disclosures stated the work received “no funding,” and the GW authors denied any conflicts of interest. The same couldn’t be said be said of another co-author, not from GW, whose name raised eyebrows among watchdog groups and academics who follow pesticide health risk claims.”
https://www.realclearscience.com/ar...tted_serious_ethics_breaches_826830.html


"The realization that there’s something rotten in academic epidemiology research, in particular, is hardly new. As long ago as 2002, two epidemiologists at the University of Bristol (U.K.)wrote" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1124898/ > in a journal article:

"An analysis of 30 years of educational research by scholars at Johns Hopkins University found that when a maker of an educational intervention conducted its own research or paid someone to do the research, the results commonly showed greater benefits for students than when the research was independent. On average, the developer research showed benefits — usually improvements in test scores — that were 70 percent greater than what independent studies found." https://hechingerreport.org/the-dark-side-of-education-research-widespread-bias

" as a part of a year-long probe .. to find out how much certain political biases have taken root within a small but powerful sector of academia. Over the course of that year, we submitted 20 papers to journals that study topics of identity like gender, race, and sexuality, which we feared has been corrupted by a form of political activism that puts political grievances ahead of finding truth." ....... Seven of our papers were accepted........, many in top-ranking journals. These include an adaptation of Adolf Hitler’s "Mein Kampf," which was accepted by a social work journal. Another develops the concept of “fat bodybuilding” for a discipline called fat studies, and a third claims to address “rape culture” by monitoring dog-humping incidents at dog parks in Southeast Portland, Oregon.

But how was this possible? We succeeded not so much because we tricked the journals, but because our papers fit in with what they consider scholarship. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...tia-mein-kampf-racism-column/1575219002/

“The Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) annual “Dirty Dozen” list is a perfect marriage of scientific and journalistic negligence. Each year, the EWG, a controversial, agenda-driven organic activist group, purports to rank the top 12 fruits and vegetables most contaminated with pesticides. And each year, the media takes the bait without fail, and the coverage reads like sponsored content.”………
“Take spinach, for example, which took the number two spot on the Dirty Dozen list this year. The average man would need to eat 4,487 cups of spinach a day to exceed safe consumption levels of permethrin, a pesticide found on spinach. Of course, this would never happen in practice, because it only takes 11 cups of spinach to exceed the safe consumption level of iron. That man would die of iron toxicity long before pesticide ingestion became a problem.”
https://www.realclearscience.com/ar...me_cynical_but_not_skeptical_773849.html

“The second part of Koonin’s indictment concerns the distortion, misrepresentation, and mischaracterization of climate data to support a narrative of climate catastrophism based on increasing frequency of extreme weather events. As an example, Koonin takes a “shockingly misleading” claim and associated graph in the United States government’s 2017 Climate Science Special Report that the number of high-temperature records set in the past two decades far exceeds the number of low-temperature records across the 48 contiguous states. Koonin demonstrates that the sharp uptick in highs over the last two decades is an artifact of a methodology chosen to mislead. After re-running the data, record highs show a clear peak in the 1930s, but there is no significant trend over the 120 years of observations starting in 1895, or even since 1980, when human influences on the climate grew strongly. In contrast, the number of record cold temperatures has declined over more than a century, with the trend accelerating after 1985.”
https://www.realclearenergy.org/art...t_matters_by_steven_e_koonin_778065.html

That is a very well constructed post, O C. Well done.

SRH

Mr old colonel thank you for the hard work .and you didn't call any names:)

It's a shame the Preacher had to leave for another long weekend trip to Guatemala, and such a waste too. The way the anti-gun false president Joe Biden is criminally obstructing justice by preventing the Border Patrol from enforcing Federal Law, most of the population of Central America should be right here in the U.S. pretty soon.


But if Preacher was here, I'm sure he would be sternly lecturing the Nutty Professor about personal attacks and name calling, all while posting under an anonymous screen name. Actually, no, he wouldn't... because only Conservatives are subject to those types of pious hand wringing lectures from the Preacher... and the other Manners Police.

In my last post, I made the silly mistake of assuming that the Preacher could connect the dots that I laid out for him. I hoped he'd actually read the research paper from Iowa State, instead of not looking past the Abstract. I specifically noted that a major finding from that study was that it recognized metallic chunks of lead such as shot pose far less risk to birds than other more bioavailable sources such as lead dust, paint chips, pesticides and chemicals, etc. If ingested, they typically pass before any significant amount can be absorbed into the system.

Unfortunately, our so-called scientists who keep demanding "science" which opposes the agenda driven anti-lead ammunition position, refuse to even look at it when it is given to them. I also provided the link to the "Hunt For Truth.org" website that is a convenient resource with links to a large number of research papers that confirm lead ammunition is actually one of the more minor sources of lead exposure in birds and animals. But they don't even care to look. I repeat the same questions about wide disparities in lethal doses of lead and the eagle that had a blood lead level so far beyond a fatal dose that it couldn't be measured, not because I expect them to acknowledge that the science behind it must be junk. I repeat it to show they don't have the stones to admit they are wrong.



That's why I chuckled at the long response made by Old Colonel. I read all of it. But it was a total waste of time if he actually thinks that any of it made an impression on the Preacher, the Nutty Professor, or LGF. They have made up their minds that lead ammunition is a real serious problem that needs to be severely restricted or eliminated entirely... and nobody with opposing views or facts is worthy of even stating them or pointing out obvious errors. They say better alternatives are out there, and insist exorbitant costs and limited availability are non-issues. Some actually think that increased demand for an inferior product will lower ammo costs if lead ammo is banned.





The arrogance of these guys is astounding! How dare we mere mortals question their collective brilliance? Well actually, if you look at the overall record of the accuracy of Science researchers, it is foolish and irresponsible to not question them... and their frequently erroneous results. The number of times that scientists and researchers has been dead wrong throughout history is huge, and that number continues to grow. And as we've seen with the Covid19 pandemic, contrarian views that turned out to be 100% correct were ridiculed, demonized, and even censored by so-called experts who were wrong. Another long held view held up as Gospel by researchers was that the Toba Supervolcano eruption 74,000 years ago left humans on the brink of extinction with only a few thousand left alive. Now it has become apparent that was a gross exaggeration of the truth, and unassailable "science" has been proven wrong again. In large part, we should trust science. Science properly applied has been invaluable to humanity... but Science and Scientists are two very different things. We should be very leery of trusting many scientists.... especially those with hidden agendas, and egotistical narcissists who think their thoughts and findings are beyond reproach, criticism, or doubt.

The post by Ian Forrester with the link showing how lead isotope analysis revealed that "the high lead levels in a young bald eagle were associated with lead paint, lead in gasoline and lead smelting and not with lead ammunition", was predictably ridiculed by the Nutty Professor. He actually questioned whether juvenile bald eagles were guzzling leaded gasoline, and apparently thinks that the millions of tons of lead that was deposited into the environment by the burning of tetraethyl lead gas has simply disappeared. This is someone who actually feels he is brighter than any of us.

However, you have to remember that many researchers hang their hat on lead isotope analysis, and attempt to use it as proof positive that sick birds are dying from spent lead ammunition. The problem is that there are four stable isotopes of lead, and supposedly the ratio of them can pinpoint the source of any sample of lead. That sounds good until you understand that lead is one of the most recycled metals there is, and isotope analysis is all but worthless unless you are testing virgin lead. Once scrap lead from various sources such as batteries, flashing, pipes, etc. has been mixed, isotope analysis loses all accuracy. Also, lead mines and smelters supplied metal to many different end users. So to test a sample using isotope analysis and say with certainty that it came from shot or bullets is often virtually impossible.

Those of us who fish and eat what we catch are certainly aware of the warnings about lead or mercury contamination in fish in certain waterways. The vast majority of the lead came not from lead shot, bullets, or fishing sinkers, but from chemicals and industrial sources such as tetraethyl lead, paint residues, and pesticides. For us, eating occasional fish meals that contain trace amounts of lead will never cause problems. But fish is the number one food source for bald eagles. A real scientists would know that, and would question why so much research focuses upon our ammunition. We aren't going to change the Nutty Professor's mind. But the longer this goes on, the more we can see all his crying about how much more civil and nice it is on the Upland Journal forum is nothing but phony bullshit.

This little line in OC's post above speaks to the root of the problems we face in so many areas of proposed legislation, and misguided legislation that has already been foisted upon the unsuspecting and ill-informed .....

"a form of political activism that puts political grievances ahead of finding truth."

..... in the "holy" name of science.

"a form of political activism that puts political grievances ahead of finding truth."

That is the problem. This way of thinking has infected every aspect of our government and daily lives.

I didn't say WHEN I was leaving keith, which would be foolish on a public forum in which I post by my identity. Have been waiting for Dave to OK your post. And I am otherwise occupied with things more important to me.

Thought you could get away with lying again keith? Please post a quote by me advocating eliminating lead ammunition
"the Preacher, the Nutty Professor, or LGF. They have made up their minds that lead ammunition is a real serious problem that needs to be severely restricted or eliminated entirely... and nobody with opposing views or facts is worthy of even stating them or pointing out obvious errors."

I guess you missed this (or lack the cojones to address it) so I'll try again with bigger letters. Read the part about "susceptability to lead poisoning" and the levels established as toxic



TO REPEAT MYSELF
1. Is it your position keith that there is no evidence that lead shot is a hazard for waterfowl? Eagles? Condors?
2. We all get that there is academic fraud, and fraud in the application of research. Please site a single study of lead toxicity in wildfowl that has been proved to have been falsified or retracted. You've got 60 years of research to review. I've looked and I'm sure Michael looked. And try to stay on topic.
3. Hating the political and agenda driven decisions needs to be separated from hating the science (and professional wildlife biologists), or we look like fools. I really do pity the fact that hate is all that you live on keith.

It is not foolish at all to think that political activists and anti-hunters have infiltrated the Department of the Interior, USFS and State Fish and Game Departments.

I am not arguing lead contamination does not take place with eagles and condors. Nor am I going back to the waterfowl non tox question at the moment. I accept that lead shot does impact Eagle populations, however I also hold that Eagle populations are overall doing well and that the principle of acceptable attrition is part of the professional government wildlife establishment.

When researching over the last few days I did notice a pattern in the description of “lead fragments” from dead carrion and its role in poisoning condors. What I found curious was that I have yet to find bird shot as a factor with condors ( I centered on the condor question as it appears to me a major driver in justifying the lead ban California).

Oddly every reference I find on California Condor diets parallel the bird fact.com website.

“What birds do condors eat?
California condors do not eat birds. Their diet consists of large mammals, and very occasionally, in coastal regions, marine mammals and fish.
Andean condors have been observed to hunt for small birds, as well as raiding the easily accessible nests of seabirds for their chicks and eggs.”
https://birdfact.com/articles/what-do-condors-eat

If Condors do not, or rarely eat birds, If eagle populations are healthy, is there really a need to ban lead bird shot?

Though officially there have not been any Condor wind farm deaths they are preparing for them. The federal government and many state governments appear to accept a level of eagle and condor attrition from wind farms, not to mention all the other birds. That the US Fish and Wildlife Service seems to believe that it is ok with the death of up to 11 condors and 11 condor chicks over a 30 year period in the Kern County California area alone. Their “incidental take” rules Included that the wind farm will provide $6 million toward Condor programs In mitigation over the 30 years of the rule. https://www.fws.gov/press-release/2023-06/us-fish-and-wildlife-service-issues-incidental-take-permit-multiple-wind#:~:text=The%20permit%20covers%20the%20incidental,of%20these%20wind%20energy%20projects.
 

I note that California hunters and fishermen provide significant financial input to care for wildlife in terms of sales tax, licensing fees, and Pittman-Robertson taxes.
The California one year share of Pittman-Robertson income from hunters and fishermen is roughly $22 million a year. Somewhat more than the $6 million contribution over numerous years by the wind energy industry to compensate for their “taking” of Condors over. https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/news-attached-files/WRFinalApportionment2021.pdf

I will not even get into the complex permitting of Wind Farm Eagle ““incidental take” except to say the body counts are both extensive and acceptable to the USFWS. Look it up online, but prepare for skillfully delivered doublespeak in support of the wind energy industry at the expense of birds to include but not limited to all species of Eagles.

Having shown that Condors are less likely to suffer from bird shot than wind farms blades and wind farm “incidental take” is acceptable for both Eagles (not a threatened species) and of the valued scavenger California Condor. That the acceptable mitigation for 11 Condors plus 11 Chicks is $6 million (as set by USFWS) along with the green energy gained. That in today’s dollars sportsmen, over the same time as the USFWS condor rule, will possibly contribute a minimum of at least $660 million which benefits wildlife across the state, mitigating any negative impacts by sportsmen. Yes the case of sportsmen more than paying their way is solid. Having shown all that why not let sportsmen use lead bird shot?

The greenies accept their attrition, we are forced to do likewise by government action. Real EQUITY would be their acceptance of our attrition as sportsmen are significantly contributing and mitigating both in the past, currently, and in the future.