It's sad that Clapper Zapper and the Nutty Professor have once again gone off the rails over the idea that we are justified in questioning and sometimes doubting Scientific Research...
...Especially when history and the literature is filled with examples of research being flat-out wrong... sometimes due to honest error... and sometimes due to corruption or intentional manipulation of data.
They are wrong, but unfortunately no amount of proof will ever convince them to retract, correct, or alter their position that Science and Research should never be questioned, or suspected of resulting from dishonest agenda driven or predetermined outcomes. Proof of this is found easily with minimal effort and observation. Just a few examples:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2592299/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_misconduct_incidentshttps://bps.stanford.edu/home/insta.../instances-scientific-misconduct-generalI could provide hundreds more. In addition, we have a Legal System that has successfully sued the crap out of Corporations who employed the Scientists, Doctors, and Researchers who told the public that things like smoking, asbestos, and many other things were safe or innocuous. Interestingly, a large 1990's study by the World Health Organization found that second-hand smoke actually caused a positive immune response and a slight protective effect. It didn't fit the popular narrative, so was quickly suppressed.
The topic of lead ammunition bans comes up here often, and it almost certainly will again. Inevitably, we have conflict between two factions... one that is willing to accept the so-called "Science" that leads to calls for further restrictions on lead ammo... and one that looks at the data presented, and the reality of thriving eagle or waterfowl populations, and questions whether there is a dire situation that justifies further bans.
In some past Lead Ammo Threads here, I took the time to actually read many of the so-called studies that were dumped here by guys like Grouse Guy and other anti-lead advocates. I've mentioned many times that I found a number of very suspicious things presented as indisputable fact. That took me down a rabbit hole to reading much more on the subject. One big example was the very wide disparity in the quantity of lead found in the bones or blood of various bird species that supposedly constituted a lethal level. I could understand some small variation in milligram per deciliter amounts that would kill an adult Bald Eagle for example. I knew the lethal dosages would likely be different for juveniles, or birds of different species. But when these so-called lethal dosages varied wildly between studies for adult bald eagles, it was apparent they couldn't possibly all be right.
When I began repeatedly questioning things like this, the response from the Nutty Professor and Larry Brown was to simply brush it aside and pretend to IGNORE me. Guys like the Preacher mocked me and others for "questioning the science", but never offered good explanations for our questions or doubts. When proven examples of bad or junk science were provided, they were unable to admit they were wrong. And God forbid that anyone should mention that many of these studies were performed or funded by anti-gun or anti-hunting entities like The Peregrine Fund, The Humane Society, etc. In addition, ammo bans were openly pushed by anti-gun Democrats too, as another means of weakening the 2nd Amendment by making shooting prohibitively expensive. The inevitable result was bickering, arguing, and then calls for censorship by thin-skinned people who were afraid of the truth.
Then we soon see disingenuous guys like the Nutty Professor engaging in the same name calling and personal attacks that they claim are driving people away from this BBS. Predictably, he is calling Ted an idiot, and again suggesting that craigd is an incoherent alcoholic with nothing to offer. I hate to see his bullshit get deleted though, because it just enables him to continue getting away with being a complete phony.
Nobody here has said the all Science or Research is corrupt or the result of manipulation of data. The majority of Science has gradually lead to things that advance humanity and technology. 60 years ago, the Earth's population was around 3 billion, and famines that killed millions were common. Various doom and gloom PhD's and respected researchers were presenting what they said was irrefutable data. They were certain we had exceeded the carrying capacity of the planet, and things would rapidly get far worse. Science, technology, engineering, and advances in agriculture allowed the population of Earth to nearly triple. Long term, that may not be a good thing for humanity, but it does show the earlier PhD's and research experts were wrong.
