Outrageous: Obama Issues Permits To Kill Our Symbol Of Freedom, The Bald Eagle

[philsings33ss33]

Hey, what does it mean to him? Nothing. He hates America and hates the white men who built the nation. No new news here.

 

[daveman]

No, you didn't. Look at the research you copy and pasted. It's a long series of regional studies in small areas. It's scientific anecdotes.

The study in the Journal Science is data. You can't read the article because it's in a peer-reviewed journal article. If you Google it, you can gain access if you have access via a subscription service or a university account....which, by the way, is the same for some of the articles you quote.

How do you know? You didn't look at them.
.

Nor did you.

But I didn't reject your Science article because of where it was published. You rejected my JunkScience article because of who published it.

I'll bet you can't see the difference.

 

[8537]

"reproductive failure in declining populations of several European and North American raptorial species were duplicated experimentally "

That's what we call actual science.

Yes, and scientists NEVER falsify data to support an agenda, do they?

Oh, I see. If you disagree with actual, experimental science in the world's most respected science journal, you just dismiss with a smiley.

Meanwhile, the Peterson articles you cite? You haven't read them. How do I know that? Because they don't even exist on any of the three largest academic search engines, including Web of Science.

 

[8537]

Wow. You read the source articles awfully quickly, didn't you?

No, nor did you -because they are behind a pay wall. You found a rightwing Heartland site and it fit your world view, so you quoted it...without reading a single related article.

Then, you dismissed perhaps the most detailed experimental research ever performed on the topic - because it challenged your world view.

No, I dismissed it because I couldn't get to it, genius.

You couldn't get to any of the articles you cited either - but you accepted them as gospel. Nevermind that mine is an actual piece of experimental research from the leading science journal in the world, and it's one of the seminal articles on the topic.

 

[Dot Com]

This guy is a fucking dick.

Mudslinger is, yes.

 

[Old Rocks]

How do you know? You didn't look at them.
.

Nor did you.

But I didn't reject your Science article because of where it was published. You rejected my JunkScience article because of who published it.

I'll bet you can't see the difference.

Ever hear of peer review, dumb fuck

 

[8537]

How do you know? You didn't look at them.
.

Nor did you.

But I didn't reject your Science article because of where it was published. You rejected my JunkScience article because of who published it.

I'll bet you can't see the difference.

Wait - you just dismissed the Science article by saying that scientists would "never falsify data" sarcastically. That occurred shortly after you stood by junk science site's claims from a bunch of articles that don't even show up in the leading academic search engines.
And by "don't show up", I don't mean they have low citation ratings or show up without any cites. I mean they don't show up.

But of course, that's the man keeping conservative academia down.

And by the way, Heartland didn't publish those articles. University Press did. Heartland simply offered them as sources knowing damn well that (a) their supporters wouldn't check them and (b) they couldn't even if they tried.

 

[Old Rocks]

No, nor did you -because they are behind a pay wall. You found a rightwing Heartland site and it fit your world view, so you quoted it...without reading a single related article.

Then, you dismissed perhaps the most detailed experimental research ever performed on the topic - because it challenged your world view.

No, I dismissed it because I couldn't get to it, genius.

You couldn't get to any of the articles you cited either - but you accepted them as gospel. Nevermind that mine is an actual piece of experimental research from the leading science journal in the world, and it's one of the seminal articles on the topic.

Ah, but you don't understand 8537. All them thar pointy headed pinko scientists are in on a worldwide conspiracy to delude and confuse poor little minds like Daveboy. They are part of the vast Masonic conspiracy working toward a one world government that will take all our gun and gonads. They make vast amounts of money and do nothing in return. After all, we all know it is them holy roller preachers and right wing politicians that create the new medicines, design airplanes and computers, them thar pointy headed scientists never have done anything useful

 

[8537]

I'm back to watching college basketball, folks. But in all seriousness: There are many topics in politics and science that are debatable and worthy of discussion.

The impact of bio-accumulated toxins on the shells of certain bird species is not one of those things. It is an established fact, proven over and over again in actual, controlled scientific experiments.

You might as well argue that drinking clorox doesn't make humans ill.

 

[Staidhup]

Well, the great environmentalists also kill listed endangered salmon on the Columbia River for ceremonial and religious purposes and sell them along the river. I was told that they are entitled to half the run. As for the chief in washington I guess he cares about as much for the constitution as he does eagles.

 

[Dick Tuck]

2 Bald Eages for the Arapaho ceremony seems reasonable- since Dems have saved them from the endangered list...

hey Frankie.....use all that education you claim to have and do some research before you open your ass and talk......DDT is claimed by many to have been a major factor in the Bald Eagles demise...some also say that is bullshit......this is from the Smithsonian...you do know what that is right?.......

Saving Our Symbol: The Bald Eagle's Path to Recovery - National Zoo| FONZ

When the bald eagle was adopted as our national symbol in 1782, there were between 25,000 and 75,000 birds nesting in the lower 48 states. Illegal shooting, habitat destruction, lead poisoning, and the catastrophic effects of DDT contamination in their prey base reduced eagle numbers to a mere 417 pairs by 1963. Legal protection began with the Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940 and continued with the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 and the 1978 listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The single-most important regulation affecting bald eagle recovery may have been the banning of DDT for most uses in the United States in 1972.

guess who was behind the banning of this ?....the EPA created under Nixon....and this guy appointed by Nixon.....William Ruckelshaus the first head of the EPA....
i dont think the Democrats can take all of the accolades for this you puss infested Anal Fissure.....

Yeah, right after the Santa Barbara oil spill in 1969, which happened to be where he lived. Didn't he move to the Keys after that?

 

[Conservative]

2 Bald Eages for the Arapaho ceremony seems reasonable- since Dems have saved them from the endangered list...

hey Frankie.....use all that education you claim to have and do some research before you open your ass and talk......DDT is claimed by many to have been a major factor in the Bald Eagles demise...some also say that is bullshit......this is from the Smithsonian...you do know what that is right?.......

Saving Our Symbol: The Bald Eagle's Path to Recovery - National Zoo| FONZ

When the bald eagle was adopted as our national symbol in 1782, there were between 25,000 and 75,000 birds nesting in the lower 48 states. Illegal shooting, habitat destruction, lead poisoning, and the catastrophic effects of DDT contamination in their prey base reduced eagle numbers to a mere 417 pairs by 1963. Legal protection began with the Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940 and continued with the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 and the 1978 listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The single-most important regulation affecting bald eagle recovery may have been the banning of DDT for most uses in the United States in 1972.

guess who was behind the banning of this ?....the EPA created under Nixon....and this guy appointed by Nixon.....William Ruckelshaus the first head of the EPA....
i dont think the Democrats can take all of the accolades for this you puss infested Anal Fissure.....

Yeah, right after the Santa Barbara oil spill in 1969, which happened to be where he lived. Didn't he move to the Keys after that?

I heard a Republican Senator say that 53% of the people who ever lived in Santa Barbara are mentally challenged. I refuse to provide proof that this is an accurate number, because Dick TuckedInHisMouth says someone elses word should be good enough.

 

[Full-Auto]

No, your research doesn't count because it's geographic anecdotes. the plural of anecdote is not data.

Wow. You read the source articles awfully quickly, didn't you?

Yeah, I couldn't type that with a straight face. You didn't read any of them. You saw HEARTLAND!! and wet your pants.

You're dismissed.

Daveboy, why should anyone with a smidgen of intellect read Heartland for information on any scientific subject. They have proven themselves to be willfully ignorant liars repeatedly. Same as the people that quote them.

Hardly an indictment from an obama fluffer so willing to surrender liberty at the first sign of trouble.

 

[edthecynic]

Democrats can take the blame for banning DDT.

DDT Did Not Harm Eagles | Heartlander Magazine

There is no scientific evidence that DDT had any negative impact on our national bird. To the contrary, DDT's elimination of disease-causing vermin helped virtually all bird populations, which is well documented by the National Audubon Society.

A brief history of the eagle population makes this clear. In 1941, before any DDT was used, 197 bald eagles were counted. In 1960, after 15 years of heavy DDT use, the count had risen to 891.​

Typical CON$erviNutzi half truth/whole lie!

The increase in the number of eagles was because of the Bald Eagle Act that was passed in 1940 and in spite of the use of DDT, which hampered their recovery.

History of the Bald Eagle


By the 1930s, people became aware of the diminishing bald eagle population, and in 1940 the Bald Eagle Act was passed. This reduced the harassment by humans, and eagle populations began to recover. However, at the same time DDT and other pesticides began to be widely used. Pesticides sprayed on plants were eaten by small animals, which were later consumed by birds of prey. The DDT poison harmed both the adult birds and the eggs that they laid. The egg shells became too thin to with stand the incubation period, and were often crushed. Eggs that were not crushed during incubation often did not hatch, due to high levels of DDT and its derivatives. Large quantities of DDT were discovered in the fatty tissues and gonads of dead bald eagles, which may have caused them to become infertile.
Status and future of bald eagles.

In 1972 the United States ban DDT.

With these and other recovery methods, as well as habitat improvement and the banning of DDT, bald eagle populations have steadily increased. Indeed, the number of nesting pairs in the lower 48 United States increased 10-fold, from less than 450 in the early 1960s, to more than 4,500 adult bald eagle nesting pairs in the 1990s. In the Southeast, for example, there were about 980 breeding pairs in 1993, up from about 400 in 1981

There is no credible scientific evidence that shows DDT harmed wildlife.

There is, though, a lot of leftist hysteria and fear-mongering, which, while amusing in a pats-the-screaming-child-and-sends-him-on-his-way fashion, is not a sound basis for legislation and policy.

But that's all you've got.

On your way, kid.

Like all deniers, you're full of shit!

http://people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/pesthist.htm

The first important synthetic organic pesticide was a chlorinated hydrocarboon (or organochlorine): dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane or DDT. DDT was discovered in 1939 by a Swiss chemist Paul Muller. In its early days, it was hailed as a miracle for a number of reasons:

It was toxic to wide range of insect pests ("broad spectrum") yet appeared to have low toxicity to mammals.

It was persistent (didn't break down rapidly in the environment) so that it didn't have to be reapplied often.

It was not water soluble (insoluble), so didn't get washed off by rains.

It was inexpensive and easy to apply


​

(1) Direct toxicity. It was discovered that DDT was toxic to fish (especially juveniles) and crabs, not only to insects.
(2) Indirect toxicity, related to its persistence. (It's persistence came in part from its insolubility, from the fact that it was a synthetic, recently introduced compound that microconsumers, such as bacteria, lacked enzymes capable of degrading -- basically they hadn't evolved to use it as an energy source, as well as from other features of its chemistry.)




The pesticide manufacturers said that the minute amounts found in the environment couldn't possibly be killing them. However, some experimental work demonstrated that even small amounts of some of the pesticides could affect the survival and reproduction of some species. More important, research demonstrated that, although concentrations were very low in the soil, atmosphere and water, concentrations were higher in plants, higher still in herbivores, and still higher as one moved up the food chain.
The indirect toxicity related to two principles :

(1) Bioconcentration – the tendency for a compound to accumulate in an organisms's tissues (especially in fatty tissues for fat soluble organochlorines such as DDT) and
(2) Biomagnification. – an increase in concentration up the food chain.
​

(These terms are sloppily used; sometimes "bioaccumulation" is also used to mean either of these, and people often use all of these terms interchangeably.)
Because DDT was (is) persistent, there was abundant opportunity for it to be taken up from the environment by organisms. For example, in the estuarine ecosystem next to Long Island Sound, the following concentrations of DDT were found:

In water = 3 ppt (0.000003 ppm)

In zooplankton = 0.04 ppm (bioconcentration and biomagnification from eating plants)

In minnows = 0.5 ppm (bioconcentration + biomagnification) (Because of the inefficiency of energy transfer, each minnow has to eat lots of zooplankton, and so acquires quite a burden from them.)

In large fish = 2.0 ppm

In ospreys (fish eating birds) = 25.0 ppm
​

Thus, concentrations had increased 10 million times up this progression, largely because of biomagnification (differential uptake and secretion may also be involved). These concentrations were not directly lethal to the highest order carnivores, but did impair their reproduction. DDT (actually, its breakdown product DDE) reduced the deposition of calcium in eggshells. The birds thus produced thinner shell that cracked more readily during incubation.
The populations of many predatory populations (the highest order carnivores), such as bald eagles and brown pelicans were nearly eliminated. The peregrine falcon disappeared in the eastern US as a result of reproductive failures by the 1960's.
DDT (as DDE, a breakdown products from DDT) also appeared in the fatty tissues of seals and Eskimos, far from any area of use, indicating that, because of its persistence, it was being transported for long distances in the atmosphere and then being washed from the atmosphere by rains. It also showed up in human breast milk at remarkably high concentrations -- so high that the milk couldn't legally be sold through interstate commerce if it were cow's milk! DDE is the most widespread contaminant in human milk around the world.

​

 

[Emma]

I've been offline for almost 16 hours ... are there any eagles left?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Since when do Conservatives have a problem with hunting and killing things with guns?

I have a problem hunting our national symbol.

Republicans hunt the middle class.

Really? How so dumbfuck?

 

[daveman]

"reproductive failure in declining populations of several European and North American raptorial species were duplicated experimentally "

That's what we call actual science.

Yes, and scientists NEVER falsify data to support an agenda, do they?

Oh, I see. If you disagree with actual, experimental science in the world's most respected science journal, you just dismiss with a smiley.

I distrust scientists with an agenda.

Meanwhile, the Peterson articles you cite? You haven't read them. How do I know that? Because they don't even exist on any of the three largest academic search engines, including Web of Science.

Oh, well.

 

[daveman]

No, nor did you -because they are behind a pay wall. You found a rightwing Heartland site and it fit your world view, so you quoted it...without reading a single related article.

Then, you dismissed perhaps the most detailed experimental research ever performed on the topic - because it challenged your world view.

No, I dismissed it because I couldn't get to it, genius.

You couldn't get to any of the articles you cited either - but you accepted them as gospel. Nevermind that mine is an actual piece of experimental research from the leading science journal in the world, and it's one of the seminal articles on the topic.

...because you agree with its conclusions.

You wouldn't think as highly of it if it didn't support the leftist agenda. We both know that.

 

[daveman]

Nor did you.

But I didn't reject your Science article because of where it was published. You rejected my JunkScience article because of who published it.

I'll bet you can't see the difference.

Ever hear of peer review, dumb fuck

Yes. It used to mean something. You AGW cultists have bastardized it into uselessness.

 

[daveman]

Nor did you.

But I didn't reject your Science article because of where it was published. You rejected my JunkScience article because of who published it.

I'll bet you can't see the difference.

Wait - you just dismissed the Science article by saying that scientists would "never falsify data" sarcastically. That occurred shortly after you stood by junk science site's claims from a bunch of articles that don't even show up in the leading academic search engines.
And by "don't show up", I don't mean they have low citation ratings or show up without any cites. I mean they don't show up.

But of course, that's the man keeping conservative academia down.

And by the way, Heartland didn't publish those articles. University Press did. Heartland simply offered them as sources knowing damn well that (a) their supporters wouldn't check them and (b) they couldn't even if they tried.

So your point is, if it's not available on the internet, it doesn't exist?

Yeah. You go with that.

Let me ask you a question about the Science article: How much DDT were they giving the birds?