|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 13, 2010 12:46:02 GMT 1
www.guardian.co.uk/global/2010/sep/12/eat-fish-green-sustainable-mercury-mackerel-stocksMy extreme scepticism of green assertions and "evidence" stemmed from my experience of their behaviour in the fisheries field. I'll concentrate on one point in this silly article: "Fish from sustainable fisheries wear the Marine Stewardship Council's blue tick. Mackerel has been a mainstay." "mackerel have benefited from conservation restrictions and relatively careful fishing" The Marine Stewardship Council was set up by Unilever - who owned Bird's Eye - and the WWF in order to market cheap pollock in favour of expensive cod. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 13, 2010 12:54:58 GMT 1
Nice boat. Capable of catching over 500 tonnes of mackeral worth £500,000 in one twenty minute tow. "relatively careful fishing" It is, but not in the way these twerps think.
There are a handful of these boats in the UK (less than thirty) and the owners are very wealthy men. Film star level. I have no problem with that.
Do you see a trend here. Unilever££££££ gains support of WWF. Pelagic Fishermens Association£££££££ gains support of WWF subsiduary.
I do have a problem with that.
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 13, 2010 16:18:28 GMT 1
Shouldn't this rubbish be on the politics section - no science here.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 13, 2010 18:42:51 GMT 1
Sorry for publically smiting your employers, lazarus old me old quoit. That's the problem with eco-science - it's all political.
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 13, 2010 19:05:57 GMT 1
Sorry for publically smiting your employers, lazarus old me old quoit. That's the problem with eco-science - it's all political. Then put it on the political section.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 13, 2010 19:38:08 GMT 1
Why don't you refute my claims then old boy?
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 13, 2010 19:51:51 GMT 1
Why don't you refute my claims then old boy? Unsupported claims without corroborating science need no refuting on here.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 13, 2010 20:22:05 GMT 1
Do you deny that the WWF and Unilever set up the marine stewardship council? Do you deny that mackeral have MSC accreditation? Do you deny that pelagic boat owners are multi millionaires? Do you deny that Unilever are a wealthy company?
You have to answer no to at least one of the above for your post to have any validity.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 13, 2010 21:34:23 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 15, 2010 17:30:08 GMT 1
You have to answer no to at least one of the above for your post to have any validity. Don't talk rubbish. Nothing you have listed is evidence of what you claim. Which one proves all this was done 'in order to market cheap pollock in favour of expensive cod'?
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 16, 2010 11:25:46 GMT 1
It was done because Unilever are shrewd enough to see a marketing opportunity and a clever way of cutting costs. It's a win win situation: WWF gets even richer. Unilever ditto
The only casualty is the truth.
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 16, 2010 16:11:22 GMT 1
Oh I see now, it's one of you unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. What didn't you say so at the start and save us all some time by ignoring it?
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 16, 2010 16:16:33 GMT 1
Unsubstantiated??? It's all simple checkable facts £azarus old quoit.
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 16, 2010 17:03:40 GMT 1
Unsubstantiated??? It's all simple checkable facts £azarus old quoit. No fact you have presented goes any way to proving what you claim. I'm not sure why you can't grasp that. You need a conspiracy theory to jump from your evidence to what you claim.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 16, 2010 17:27:36 GMT 1
£azarus, See: "Havelock banned" thread.
|
|