|
Post by lazarus on Sept 13, 2010 15:50:36 GMT 1
lazarus lazarus, where art thou lazarus. So let me get this straight - your 'good example of corrupted science' is that you have found out this hatchery is situated at a creek - The company is called 'Whiskey Creek Shellfish Hatchery', so congrats on that astounding piece of detective work. But how does that constitute corrupt science? Is it because you didn't actually read the article so erroneously concluded they used water from the creek? Is it because you didn't read that the water they use was taken from the Pacific Ocean and filtered? So please present the evidence that the researching oceanographers from the local university used corrupt science or even that their methods were flawed. Meanwhile I'll try my best to waft away the sudden smell of desperation that seems to be emanating from you.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 13, 2010 15:54:58 GMT 1
"how does that constitute corrupt science? "
Because a bacterial infection which killed the shellfish larvae was spun as the effect of "ocean acidification", so-called ? That is, if I have followed the debate properly?
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 13, 2010 16:10:09 GMT 1
It's taken almost two days to come up with that lazarus?? Dear oh dear. Just re-cap the acidification thread please.
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 13, 2010 16:20:00 GMT 1
"how does that constitute corrupt science? " Because a bacterial infection which killed the shellfish larvae was spun as the effect of "ocean acidification, so-called ? That is, if I have followed the debate properly? It isn't the same problem Mary. What cause the infection is sorted by filtration.
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 13, 2010 16:22:50 GMT 1
It's taken almost two days to come up with that lazarus?? No I have been away for a long weekend, the flaws in your argument were apparent when first read - unless you do have evidence? No, of course not, you have got me acting like you are capable of supporting your wind claims -silly me.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 13, 2010 22:43:48 GMT 1
Lazarus, Flooding the board with obfuscatory tripe is classic lobbyist behaviour.
The OSU scandal: The hatchery had a mortality problem in their oyster larvae. The OSU found it was caused by bacteria. The lead scientist from OSU team appears in the media stating the larvae died due to "ocean acidification". The same scientist gives a presentation to an industry body about "Strategies and modifications for surviving Vibrio tubiashii in the hatchery"
And you assert these were two different events lazarus?
Now, what subject would attract the most funding for research within an IPCC contributing university? Bacteria in Oyster larvae or Ocean acidification due to carbon emissions?
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 15, 2010 17:34:46 GMT 1
And you assert these were two different events lazarus? I don't have to assert anything as it seems clear that they are for the reason I have already given. Simply reading the article and applying common sense can determine it. You have given NO proof they were not. What you have done amounts to libel.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 15, 2010 20:38:38 GMT 1
So sue me. There are no papers from OSU linking whiskey creek hatchery to ocean acidification - only media scare stories. You know that. maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&q=Tillamook,+Ore.&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=Tillamook,+OR,+USA&gl=uk&ei=NM2JTPjKEsS64gbFvZyVCg&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CB0Q8gEwAA Zoom this out and you'll see the nice people at google have included ocean floor topography. Isn't that a fracture zone just off the coast of Oregon? Aren't fracture zones covered in volcanic vents? Don't volcanic vents churn acidic water into the water column? A simple explanation to any lowering of pH off the coast of Oregon? No? No brownie points from the IPCC for that conclusion, eh £azarus.
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 15, 2010 21:30:07 GMT 1
So that's your brilliant rebuttal? You make unsound accusations of corruption but it is all just a fantasy invented in your own mind. Sad.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 15, 2010 23:12:14 GMT 1
So where have we got to. An IPCC contributing university specialising in ocean acidification (within the IPCC) has released spurious scare stories about shellfish dissolving due to acidification.
They take offshore readings above volcanic vents and attribute this to historic carbon emissions which will get WORSE. They find "evidence" that hatcheries are already having mass mortality disasters due to acidification although there is no record of this in their archives and the only solid, video evidence points to bacteria causing the mortality.
Dear oh dear, £azarus
Scandalous.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 15, 2010 23:14:29 GMT 1
£azarus wrote: "So that's your brilliant rebuttal?"
Nope, this was:
There are no papers from OSU linking whiskey creek hatchery to ocean acidification - only media scare stories.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 16, 2010 10:48:43 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 16, 2010 18:35:06 GMT 1
Still no acidification problem! What a shame you attention span didn't last until Slide 8 never mind slide 17! Are you sure you don't want your thread moved to the Humour section?
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 16, 2010 19:45:06 GMT 1
I watched it all hence the "might/may/possibly be related".
You "might/may/possibly be related to a genuine poster interested in discussing science on this board.
|
|