Pocket Full of Mumbles

What's done is done, and this puppy's done. Visit me over at Pearls & Lodestones

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

'Catastrophic': Now thousands of birds fall from sky

Less than 20 in Austin Texas last week, now thousand in Australia? What ills does this portend, I wonder?

39 Comments:

Dan Trabue said...: My guess would be that it portends pollution or other toxin of some sort. What else?; January 10, 2007 2:34 PM
Mark said...: It will probably turn out to be something that was done by the environmentalists to "help" the birds.

They don't believe that God's eye is on the sparrow. They think they know best.

In the meantime, don't eat poultry.; January 11, 2007 6:19 AM
Dan Trabue said...: Mark, if you want to make idiotic statements, then at least do so in a humorous way so that people are laughing with you instead of at you.; January 11, 2007 7:55 AM
Eric said...: Much like the lie that was perpetuated about DDT? Which, as it turns out, causes NO harm whatsoever to the environment... but then one book by one agenda driven environmentalist, and malaria and other preventable diseases are still flourishing across the globe-- especially in the third-world!

"If we don't ban DDT all the birds are going to die!!!"

...and Congress and the Media and the unwashed ignorant masses succumbed to one woman's delusional hysteria....; January 11, 2007 8:55 AM
Anonymous said...: It seems like I recall other stories of birds being frozen to death in mid-flight during certain conditions.

Reckon that could be it?

Oh noooOOO, Mr. Bill...it's global warming...oh noooOOOoooo!; January 11, 2007 3:18 PM
Anonymous said...: EL, DDT nearly wiped out several species of birds in the United States, particularly birds of prey like bald eagles and ospreys. That's very well documented.

It is true that there is a substantial human health benefit to controlling malaria with DDT. But the statement that it causes no harm whatsoever is not true.; January 11, 2007 4:01 PM
Dan Trabue said...: "unwashed ignorant masses succumbed to one woman's delusional hysteria"

And how long has it been since you read Carson's book? Oh? You've NEVER read the book?

Well, that would explain why you don't know that she didn't advocate the banning of DDT. She advocated the wise and limited use of it.

She was not delusional, she had research that documented the dangers of DDT - an actual toxin with, well, toxic side effects with its use.; January 11, 2007 5:56 PM
Eric said...: She had hysteria, Dan.

The same hysteria that currently afflicts Albert Gore.; January 11, 2007 7:21 PM
Dan Trabue said...: You call it "hysteria," most of the world calls it "science."

Tomayto, tomahto.; January 11, 2007 7:27 PM
Eric said...: Science whose date is measured in decades....

The world is thousands of years old.; January 11, 2007 8:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Um, that would be billions.

And the scientific method has roots that date back thousands of years.

Research on DDT's effects on birds goes back to the 1940's, well before Carson's book.

Widespread use of DDT following WWII severely impacted peregrine falcon, bald eagle, brown pelican, and osprey populations. Since DDT's ban in the US in the 1970's they have largely recovered.

You're disputing verifiable facts here, please do some research before making claims.; January 11, 2007 8:52 PM
Eric said...: Roots. Not data.; January 11, 2007 8:59 PM
Anonymous said...: Do you challenge the data showing that DDT impacts bird populations? If so, on what grounds?; January 11, 2007 9:15 PM
Dan Trabue said...: "The world is thousands of years old."

Man, this is so telling. Eric, are you of the "faith-based science" family?

That is to say, people in your religion have told you the earth is 6000 years old, therefore it is, evidence or no?; January 11, 2007 9:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Dan...are you in the religious group that picks and chooses which scripture to pay attention to? Are you of the religious group that tells you that science is irrefutable?; January 12, 2007 7:15 AM
Anonymous said...: El, you must remember...if your faith is such that you take God at His Word then you're STUPID!; January 12, 2007 7:16 AM
Dan Trabue said...: Not at all, always, always, always take God at God's Word. Just realize that part of God's Word is that God created us in God's image, with the ability to reason and understand that not every word in the Bible is to be taken literally.; January 12, 2007 7:29 AM
Anonymous said...: "Widespread use of DDT following WWII severely impacted peregrine falcon, bald eagle, brown pelican, and osprey populations. Since DDT's ban in the US in the 1970's they have largely recovered.

You're disputing verifiable facts here, please do some research before making claims.

Solomon, you would do well to take your own advice here...

Never mind, I've done it for you...

Peregrine Falcon:
The decline in the U.S. peregrine falcon population occurred long before the DDT years.

[Hickey JJ. 1942. (Only 170 pairs of peregrines in eastern U.S. in 1940) Auk 59:176; Hickey JJ. 1971 Testimony at DDT hearings before EPA hearing examiner. (350 pre- DDT peregrines claimed in eastern U.S., with 28 of the females sterile); and Beebe FL. 1971. The Myth of the Vanishing Peregrine Falcon: A study in manipulation of public and official attitudes. Canadian Raptor Society Publication, 31 pages]

Changes in climate (higher temperatures and decreasing precipitation) were blamed for the gradual disappearance of peregrines from the Rocky Mountains.

[Nelson, MW. 1969. Peregrine Falcon Populations, pp 61-72]

During the 1960's, peregrines in northern Canada were "reproducing normally," even though they contained 30 times more DDT, DDD, and DDE than the midwestern peregrines that were allegedly extirpated by those chemicals.

[Enderson, JH and DD Berger. 1968. (Chlorinated hydrocarbons in peregrines from Northern Canada) Condor 70:170-178]

There was no decline in peregrine falcon pairs in Canada and Alaska between 1950 and 1967 despite the presence of DDT and DDE.

[Fyfe, RW. 1959. Peregrine Falcon Populations, pp 101-114; and Fyfe, RW. 1968. Auk 85: 383-384]

Bald Eagle:
Bald eagles were reportedly threatened with extinction in 1921 -- 25 years before widespread use of DDT.

[Van Name, WG. 1921. Ecology 2:76]

After 15 years of heavy and widespread usage of DDT, Audubon Society ornithologists counted 25 percent more eagles per observer in 1960 than during the pre-DDT 1941 bird census.

[Marvin, PH. 1964 Birds on the rise. Bull Entomol Soc Amer 10(3):184-186; Wurster, CF. 1969 Congressional Record S4599, May 5, 1969; Anon. 1942. The 42nd Annual Christmas Bird Census. Audubon Magazine 44:1-75 (Jan/Feb 1942; Cruickshank, AD (Editor). 1961. The 61st Annual Christmas Bird Census. Audubon Field Notes 15(2):84-300; White-Stevens, R.. 1972. Statistical analyses of Audubon Christmas Bird censuses. Letter to New York Times, August 15, 1972]

The bald eagle had vanished from New England by 1937.

[Bent, AC. 1937. Raptorial Birds of America. US National Museum Bull 167:321-349]

Thickness of eggshells from Florida, Maine and Wisconsin was found to not be correlated with DDT residues.

Krantz, WC. 1970. Pesticides Monitoring Journal 4(3):136-140.

Brown Pelican:
Brown pelicans declined in Texas from a high of 5,000 birds in 1918 to a low of 200 in 1941, three years before the presence of DDT.

[Pearson TG. 1919. Review of reviews. Pp. 509-511 (May 1919); Pearson TG. 1934. Adventures in Bird Protection, Appleton- Century Co., p. 332; Pearson TG. 1934 (Discussion of 1918 survey) National Geographic pp. 299-302 (March 1934); Allen RG. 1935. Auk 52: p.199;]

Disappearance of the brown pelicans from Texas was attributed to fisherman and hunters.

Gustafson AF. 1939. Conservation in the United States, Comstock Publ. Co., Ithaca, NY. (Repeated in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report No. 1, 1970)]

Brown pelicans experienced no difficulty in reproducing during the DDT years.

[See Banks, RC. 1966. Trans San Diego Soc Nat Hist 14:173-188; and Schreiber RW and RL DeLong. 1969. Audubon Field Notes 23:57-59]

Among brown pelican egg shells examined (72 percent), there was no correlation between DDT residue and shell thickness.

[Switzer, B. 1972. Consolidated EPA hearings, Transcript pp. 8212-8336; and Hazeltine, WE. 1972. Why pelican eggshells are thin. Nature 239: 410-412]

Widespread declines in bird populations during the DDT years is a myth.; January 12, 2007 8:04 AM
Dan Trabue said...: "are you in the religious group that picks and chooses which scripture to pay attention to?"

And just to repeat it so you understand the notion: We ALL pick and choose which passages in the Bible to take literally and which ones not to.

You don't take Jesus' command to love our enemies and to overcome evil with good literally. I'm trying to.

You don't take the Jubilee Code literally. Nor do I, although I think in spirit we certainly ought to pay more attention to it.

I don't take a literal six day creation literally, because there's nothing in the Bible that suggests we ought to. I'm guessing by your response that you do?

We certainly need to pay attention to the whole Bible and everyone here does, I suspect. We just don't take all of it word-for-word literally. None of us.

Nor should we.

Brother Daddio, let's not try to demonize one another but rather speak the truth in love. Which would be an example of a passage we all need to take literally.; January 12, 2007 8:05 AM
Eric said...: The earth may or may not be billions of years old, but it's certainly thousands. In terms of humanity, and man's ability to keep accurate records, this earth is only thousands of years old.

But to answer the question you really asked... Yes, this present earth is only 6-7,000 years old. The former earth was destroyed because of judgment. Applying the law of 'first-mention' to a verse in Jeremiah, the earth was made formless and void because of judgment... but no clue as to what that judgment was. Presumably-- only a guess --it was related to the war between the angels of God and the angels of Satan...

There are obvious portions of metaphor, and allegory within the pages of the Bible, and it's quite easy to tell the difference. But just about every verse has a second or third application-- we do it here all the time.

Yes. I am a creationist. What? Because Moses didn't describe the manner in which God created 'something' out of nothing-- the stacking of molecules and binding of atoms --the creation account is not to be trusted? Tell me. How would Moses have described such a process, seeing as how he was being moved by the Holy Spirit, he wrote what we was moved to write... in simple terms? I have no reason to discount the Creation account as described by Moses in Genesis. You seem to find plenty. As you said to me....

"This is so telling."

Beyond any plausible doubt, despite all of science's efforts to find another explanation, this universe and everything in it... especially this earth and all it's myriad forms of living, breathing, flourishing, creatures, all had a Maker... the same Maker... And the Maker was God.

----

Thanks Anon for saving me time and trouble. Thank you very much.; January 12, 2007 9:03 AM
Anonymous said...: No problem, Dude.; January 12, 2007 10:02 AM
Anonymous said...: Anon didn't go to too much trouble. He/she copied and pasted a website by Steven Milloy, an adjunct scholar at the (very conservative) Cato Institute, and a columnist for FoxNews.com. He is a well-known DDT advocate.

Whether to use a certain chemical or not--and if so, in what uses and fashion--is a societal decision, and is partly a value judgment.

But lets not confuse those judgments with the associated science. DDT continues to be used on the inner walls of dwellings in many tropical nations as a malaria prevention method---at least this was true fairly recently, and I assume its still true. No doubt this is an environmentally far more benign use of DDT than aerial spraying on crops or forests, and I suspect it has saved many human lives. But other (and cheaper) methods exist, such as insecticide-treated bed nets.

However, the above does not change the fact that DDT and its metabolites have been shown to have harmful environmental impacts that were judged by society not to be acceptable, at least in this nation.

THAT was as my point, and there are many studies that point to DDT’s effects on egg shell thinning and bird decline, along with a recover following its ban in this nation, where malaria is not a significant problem. Note that DDT has never been banned for use against Malaria in the tropics.

Any serious person who hopes to challenge the appropriateness of the banning of DDT or use in this and many other nations, has a SERIOUS struggle ahead of them, in which mountains of research will need to be consulted and evaluated...and I would suggest, the starting place would not be junkscience.com.

But in the end, the appropriate use of this chemical depends on both science and values. Much of this becomes moot as insects evolve resistance to DDT and other measures must be used.; January 12, 2007 10:03 AM
tugboatcapn said...: So then Solomon, your point is that once a myth is accepted by Society, then public policy should reflect it, regardless of whether it is true or not?

Are you more interested in actually solving problems, or in supporting an agenda of some kind?; January 12, 2007 10:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Yep, Solomon, that's what I did.

It was remarkably easy to refute your claims.

I simply Googled "DDT", and copied and pasted from the first Website that popped up.

Do us all a favor when you post the research that YOU did, and preface it with statements about how all of YOUR scientists are "very Liberal."

Unless you can disprove the research, pointing out the political leanings of the source, or the ease in locating it doesn't help your case very much.; January 12, 2007 10:23 AM
Anonymous said...: Hey Tug, did you just accidentally hit "publish"under your own name instead of anonymous there?

This from the guy who called me a coward and banned me from his website for commenting "anonymously" (just because I don't HAVE a blog to link to?)

LOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!
LOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!
LOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!

Gee, even though I'm a biologist, I guess this trucker knows more than me about animal population ecology!!!!

LOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!

WHAT A DOPE!!!!!!!!!!!!; January 12, 2007 10:28 AM
Anonymous said...: For those who missed it, the last "anonymous" post showed up twice- once under Tug's name, once under anonymous.

Then the one under Tug's name was "removed by its author."

LOL! Get out of my site you cowardly hypocrite!; January 12, 2007 10:30 AM
tugboatcapn said...: Yep, you caught me.

You're un-banned by the way.

I lost my temper yesterday, and for that, I apologize.

And for the insults as well.

You may be a Kook, but I take back the "Cowardly Hypocrite" stuff.

Sorry.

I do think that it a little unfair for you to troll around and hi-jack everyone else's Blogs as your own forum (which none of us are under any obligation to provide for you...) but I suppose that you are free to do so.; January 12, 2007 10:46 AM
Anonymous said...: Tug, that's very big of you.

Apology accepted.

I hadn't realized that commenting without a blog link was considered unfair, but now that you mention it I do see your point.

Maybe I'll get a blog one of these days so that it can be a more reciprocal thing.

Best,
Sol; January 12, 2007 11:13 AM
Dan Trabue said...: I, for one, am glad to have commenters at my blog who don't blog themselves. It increases the pool of those in a given discussion and I think that's a good thing.

I don't care as much for those who choose to remain anonymous, but then, in reality, most bloggers are remaining anonymous so it's not that big of a deal.; January 12, 2007 11:29 AM
Dan Trabue said...: "It was remarkably easy to refute your claims.

I simply Googled "DDT", and copied and pasted from the first Website that popped up."

Do y'all understand that when at some of us are considering the facts that we do weigh all the relevant input, including those from sources such as this, and then weigh those inputs? That when we weigh them, we take into account the source of data and the validity of the source?

Which is to say that we wouldn't suggest policy based upon research from Greenpeace alone or from the Cato Institute alone, although we may consider what they have to say.

But when a source has been consistently dismissive of science for ideological reasons, it makes great sense to treat any of their data with a healthy dose of skepticism?

And do you further understand that those who endorse research from agenda-driven sources alone have very little credibility and rightfully so?; January 12, 2007 11:44 AM
Eric said...: "...an adjunct scholar at the (very conservative) Cato Institute, and a columnist for FoxNews.com... a well-known DDT advocate."

And this somehow disqualifies anything Mr. Milnoy has to say on the subject?

By that standard, Ted Kennedy is disqualified from speaking out against the "evil" practice of water-boarding.; January 12, 2007 12:27 PM
Anonymous said...: My point is that it's important to understand the source and its biases. Milloy is not providing an unbiased literature review, that's all.

For the same reason, I don't pay much attention to Greenpeace (or to Ted Kennedy- he irritates me and doesn't have a lot of credibility with me).; January 12, 2007 12:34 PM
Anonymous said...: By the way, I want to apologize for the “I’m a biologist you’re a trucker” comment. It was out of line.

One of my main reasons for commenting on blogs is to try to communicate how science accumulates evidence, and how that evidence is always open to new challenges and new hypotheses.

I hate it when people make science sound like a priesthood that is not to be questioned. I especially hate it when I do that.; January 12, 2007 1:29 PM
Eric said...: Hey, things get heated. You're nicer than some folks who stop by. If Tug is content I am as well.; January 12, 2007 2:10 PM
tugboatcapn said...: Well, I guess I deserved it after yesterday.

Besides, I've been underestimated before...

;-); January 12, 2007 6:55 PM
tugboatcapn said...: Solomon, one thing to remember when arguing with me (although I forgot it myself for a moment yesterday...)

This is a Video Game.

I know that neither you nor I participate directly in forming public policy (other than by using the power of our one vote each.)

So, it doesn't matter whether or not either of us actually WINS the argument... In the end, we get tired of arguing about whatever we are focused on today, and tomorrow ELashley or I will post on another subject, and we can start all over.

Ultimately, we are both just passing time.

No need to invest any real emotion, or waste any Blood-Pressure Medication on it.

It's a Video Game.; January 12, 2007 7:05 PM
Anonymous said...: "And do you further understand that those who endorse research from agenda-driven sources alone have very little credibility and rightfully so?"

C'mon! Do you REALLY believe that modern "science" is not "agenda-driven"?

Prayer vigil for Momma Sheehan, anyone?; January 12, 2007 11:04 PM
Anonymous said...: "Agenda-driven" philosophy...LOL!; January 12, 2007 11:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Well said, Tug.

I forget it sometimes too.

I'll see you in the next round...; January 15, 2007 12:45 PM