...Seems to me what makes that "junk science" credible is the fact that no one has ever shown me any scientists--as in waterfowl biologists who were working on that issue--who will say it was junk science. You can find scientists who are "climate change deniers", although they're in a minority. So, where are the "lead ban deniers", and where is their scientific evidence that questions the claim that ducks were dying from ingesting lead shot? Easy enough for me to say "Well, I don't believe it!" But I'm not a scientist. I find it really hard to believe that all those waterfowl biologists bought into lead ban junk science--hook, line, and sinker. That stretches common sense. It's like P.T. Barnum said: You can't fool all the people all the time.
If we can discuss absolutes, why pivot to climate change? How about sticking with Eagles, the topic of the converstaion?
If someone were so concerned about the purity of science, why would you belittle people by bringing up the term denier? Wouldn't good science ask the question, why do Eagle lead poisoning 'research' organizations always link to antihunting groups under the guise of advocating for lead free hunting projectiles? Why do wildlife and land management agencies throughout the nation use these organiztions in their footnote references when creating policy?
What prevents us from insisting that the same type of science that, for example, brings us a life saving medicine be used? A big pharma funded study can be key to bringing a medication to the market, but that is noted as a clear disclaimer, not woven into the research report as advertising. Would you want a loved one to do elective heart surgery based on a report with a handful of examples, the way we can consider infringing on all hunting based on xrays of a handful of gut piles?
I know you're absolutely correct about the clown analogy. Brent told us flat out that the Eagles as a whole are not at risk due to lead hunting projectile ingestion, yet some vigorously defend the science brought to us by antihunting and antishooting advocates. No one ever said we had to fool all of the people, only enough to control the agenda, in other words a minority.
