|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 6, 2010 20:25:20 GMT 1
I don't know where the Cornish Pilchards went but I do know that huge shoals of sardines (same thing) arrived in Scapa Flow. A friend of a friend trawled for them and filled his 60 foot boat. 20 tonnes a haul. They weren't commercial due to the wrong fat content .They're still here - I see marks on the sonar the volume of supertankers. Unfortunately, due to quota and licencing restrictions no-one can try again. The fat content varies so they could be ok. Unfortunately an excellent fishing opportunity and great food source is passing us by due to eco-pressure on government. While half the world starves.
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 7, 2010 0:30:15 GMT 1
rsmith7 I don't believe they've declined and I've shown my reasoning above. Sorry my mistake. I didn't realise that; More rollocks. Was a valid reason against the U.S. Geological Survey evaluating historical crab population trends and found a convincing correlation between historical climate change events and past declines in the species.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 7, 2010 9:15:46 GMT 1
"Was a valid reason against the U.S. Geological Survey evaluating historical crab population trends and found a convincing correlation between historical climate change events and past declines in the species."
A history of conclusion led, politically motivated "research" in the field of fisheries leads me to dismiss any findings. I could write pages of examples of this. You should gain some experience of real world facts as opposed to research findings. You may be less susceptible to propaganda.
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 7, 2010 9:20:16 GMT 1
leads me to dismiss any findings. But you appear to dismiss so many findings that it appears that you believe all scientists to be either mistaken or lying, or is it just those that don't support your own "conclusion led" views?
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 7, 2010 9:35:43 GMT 1
Nope, I don't believe findings that I know to be wrong. Sea level rise (136mm in 40 years), 30% fall in Oceanic pH, Cod "endangered", Lobsters in danger of stock collapse, ASP/PSP toxins at dangerous levels in scallops, tidal/wind energy potential (IPCC 4th report)..... need I go on? And yes, there are "so many".
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 7, 2010 9:41:03 GMT 1
So you have your own "conclusion led" beliefs - why do you think yours are so much more valid than the scientists?
You certainly have a political axe to grind (anti-EU, anti-govt, anti-spend of tax, fisherman so anti-quotas, anti-meddling by politicians, etc) - the same charge you lay at the scientists door. I really don't see how you can claim they have a built in bias when, with almost every post, you are demonstrating your own.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 7, 2010 9:42:55 GMT 1
But my "beliefs" are observation led.
Big difference.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 7, 2010 9:46:28 GMT 1
Whether I am "anti-EU, anti-govt, anti-spend of tax, fisherman so anti-quotas, anti-meddling by politicians, etc" makes utterly no difference to what I OBSERVE.
Contrast that to bodies dependent on government funding releasing "new research findings".
I have NO dependence on government - in fact I challenge them directly at every opportunity.
How do you feel about the massive subsidy of tidal/wind generators?
Get my drift??
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 7, 2010 11:21:55 GMT 1
"Was a valid reason against the U.S. Geological Survey evaluating historical crab population trends and found a convincing correlation between historical climate change events and past declines in the species." A history of conclusion led, politically motivated "research" in the field of fisheries leads me to dismiss any findings. I could write pages of examples of this. You should gain some experience of real world facts as opposed to research findings. You may be less susceptible to propaganda. You have just claimed that the USGS finds results to suit it's countries political leadership. If that is the case, (strange that they don't obviously changed every time there is a new government, but that is all part of the clever conspiracy right? One also wonders why they bother to pretend to educate these people as scientists at all), then every conclusion by every scientific organisation the world over must also also have the same political bias. But when they actually publish something you agree with, (due to your extensive 'observation', who need scientists remember?), it is true and isn't affected by the political propaganda that things you don't agree with are. Do you see when I find this absurdly silly and illogical?
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 7, 2010 11:42:46 GMT 1
Highlighting tampering with IPCC reports is hardly the same as government sponsored science. If you want to find the real villain in the piece, look no further than the green movement. They hold massive political sway. In which country in the developed world would a government get elected if it said catastrophic AGW was a load of tripe? Very serious corruption of the democratic process and very logical.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 7, 2010 12:15:00 GMT 1
"Scientists suspect that rising sea levels and temperatures since the last Ice Age likely washed away huge swaths of the crabs' habitat" Combined with 30% increase in ocean acidity!!! and overfishing!!! Oh no! Disaster!! Run for the hills!! Like the photo of the beach covered in the things.
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 7, 2010 12:20:13 GMT 1
rsmith7 - do you doubt that the ocean's acidity has increased by 0.1 pH points (equivalent to 30%)?
I know you have made measurements yourself. Have you been using the same instrument for all measurements over the years you have been doing this?
If not - there could be issues of calibration/consistency between instruments If yes - are you sure your instrument is cabaple of measuring that level of accuracy bearing in mind its age?
I believe that scientists are much more likely to have highly accurate and calibrated instruments available to them whereas your is no doubt accurate enough for the purpose you need it for.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 7, 2010 12:20:52 GMT 1
Re Cornish Pilchards "disappearing"
"What is your evidence?"
They just upped and went, apparently. Read the history books.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 7, 2010 12:25:35 GMT 1
My pH meter reads to two decimal points and any new one was checked against the last one. There was no discrepency.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 7, 2010 12:26:31 GMT 1
Have YOU any practical experience at all about the sea stuff you merely opine on, Havelock? Why so critical of someone who has? Jealous of hands-on expertise you clearly don't possess?
|
|