Tell me more about the proliferation of garbage in peer reviewed publications. What, in your opinion, is this garbage and which publications? I posted one above - neither you nor anyone else wanted to comment on that. Fine, but if you are claiming it is garbage - prove it.
So habitat is a greater problem for condors. What's your point? Habitat is probably a greater problem for upland birds than poaching - does that mean we would ignore poaching? Clearly, environmental lead can affect condors at a population level. Do we blow that off because habitat is "bigger"? And how do you really know it's bigger? What facts do you have to back that up? I don't disagree or agree with you on that. Show me.
Last, I don't have much problem with lead for upland game in most places and I continue to use it. Have I said otherwise?
If you attack science as false, and you have, it should be very easy to disprove it. If you don't like the way science is being applied in the form of laws then you have your ballot and the Great American Way. Sometimes, your way turns out not to be the Great American Way. That's the way it goes sometimes, if you are an American.
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
