Thread: The Most Important Question of the Century

Originally Posted by NYCshaver

It's probably farmed shrimp. That's totally different then wild caught.
Also I don't think shrimp are one of the critically over fished seafoods.

If you want to look at one that is critical check out Bluefine Tuna. I doubt
you'll find anyone saying their populations are fine.



There is nothing wrong with the numbers. You're not seeing something wrong because the oceans are being overfished. If they were fishing the seas in accordance with the actual amount of fish left then we would be seeing shortages. But instead they are taking more then what is sustainable and that is why there is such a huge decline in wild seafood populations.

And like I said before if you believe this isn't a problem then you should be able to find some scientists that agree with you.

You won't be able to because overfishing is a fact.

shrimp right here is gulf shrimp and not farm raised(prawns)
i still stand by the fact that if you statements are true, that we all will be without fish post haste. it simply is not gonna happen, it would be like the oil companies jacking up prices, if the fish were going to go away they would jack up prices again and again. even with gov't subsidies the price would raise just like oil with all of its big money subsidy.
everyone is always yelling about this shortage or that shortage and it simply does not happen. i cannot remember ONE event that these special interests scream about happening lately.
mount st. helens, exxon valdez, global warming all have been or will be proven to be just another "sky is falling" scenario. things have been bad before and will be bad again somewhere, sometime, we will survive and be just fine...GUARANTEED..we as a people and the earth itself, are very resilient....

Originally Posted by 59caddy

shrimp right here is gulf shrimp and not farm raised(prawns)
i still stand by the fact that if you statements are true, that we all will be without fish post haste.

You're not standing behind any fact. The only fact is that we are overfishing the worlds oceans. So if we keep it up we will be out of fish.

Did you check out Bluefin tuna populations? They are going to be gone soon if we don't change how we fish them.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

it simply is not gonna happen, it would be like the oil companies jacking up prices, if the fish were going to go away they would jack up prices again and again. even with gov't subsidies the price would raise just like oil with all of its big money subsidy.

Prices are going up. You provided one example. Gulf shrimp. Shrimp harvests vary year to year depending on environmental conditions. So citing one years price as an example doesn't reveal very much.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

everyone is always yelling about this shortage or that shortage and it simply does not happen. i cannot remember ONE event that these special interests scream about happening lately.
mount st. helens, exxon valdez, global warming all have been or will be proven to be just another "sky is falling" scenario.

What do you think those 3 examples show? The first two happened and were bad for the environment.

The predictions of global warming are in the future so I don't see how that's
an example of anything since the results are still in the future.

Originally Posted by NYCshaver

What lies have they been caught in?

My comment was about over fishing the oceans...not farming.

It's the same thing. They'll go after the fishing industry and through senseless regulations put companies out of business, more people out of work. The same thing with global warming, and it's all found out to be a hoax. Think of the people who have been put out of work over this stuff. Obama said when he was campaigning, he was going to put the coal industry out of business. It's madness. That's just what we need with our economy the way it is right?

Here's the guys that give you your numbers for global warming:

Jones, head of the CRU unit whose emails were leaked, has been under most fire so far over one email in particular in which he boasted of using a ‘“trick" to “hide the decline” that would have otherwise spoiled his graph showing temperatures soaring ever-upward.

But far more serious - at least in a legal sense - may be his apparent boasting of destroying data to stop sceptics from checking this alarmist work. If, as some emails suggest, he destroyed it to thwart FOI requests from Professor Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre, who’d already exposed as fake the Michael Mann “hockey stick”, Jones, one of the most active of the IPCC lead authors, could even face criminal charges.

(Note: in saying that, I should add that these emails may simply be poorly worded, out of context or even altered by the whistleblower who leaked them. Jones may also not knowingly have done anything wrong.)

Whether laws were broken or not, the emails prove beyond doubt how resistant Jones and his colleagues were to having their work properly scrutinised by anyone not of their “team”.

The most damning emails on this point are the following, starting with 1107454306.txt, in which Jones refers to MM - McIntyre and McKitrick (bold added):

At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike, I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !

Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it !

Jones admits he was warned by his own university against deleting data subjected to an FOI request from McIntyre - or anyone:

From: Phil Jones

To: santer1@XXXX

Subject: Re: A quick question

Date: Wed Dec 10 10:14:10 2008

Ben,

Haven’t got a reply from the FOI person here at UEA. So I’m not entirely confident the numbers are correct. One way of checking would be to look on CA, but I’m not doing that. I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails - unless this was ‘normal’ deleting to keep emails manageable! McIntyre hasn’t paid his £10, so nothing looks likely to happen re his Data Protection Act email.

Anyway requests have been of three types - observational data, paleo data and who made IPCC changes and why. Keith has got all the latter - and there have been at least 4. We made Susan aware of these - all came from David Holland. According to the FOI Commissioner’s Office, IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on, unless it has anything to do with our core business - and it doesn’t! I’m sounding like Sir Humphrey here!

Makes you wonder very strongly what Jones is trying to hide, doesn’t it?

And in1212063122.txtm, Jones urges another colleague, Michael “Hockey Stick”, Mann, to join in the deleting - at least of emails about the IPCC’s controversial ARA report on man-made warming which Jones co-authored, and which claimed warming was “unequivocal” and “most likely” caused by humans:

From: Phil Jones To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008

Mike,

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment - minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!

Cheers

Phil:

For years Jones has made clear his determination to keep crucial data from the eyes of sceptics:


From: Phil Jones To: [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA
Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005
Cc: “raymond s. bradley” , “Malcolm Hughes”

Mike, Ray and Malcolm,

The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here ! Maybe we can use this to our advantage to get the series updated !

Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower troposphere rather than surface data !. Odder still that they don’t realise that Moberg et al used the Jones and Moberg updated series !

Francis Zwiers is till onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey sticks. He stressed that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but Regaldo didn’t bother
with that. Also ignored Francis’ comment about all the other series looking similar to MBH.

The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !

Cheers

Phil

PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.

Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !

And when Jones is really forced to the point of handing over his data, he considers ways to may checking it more difficult or annoying:

Options appear to be:

Send them the data

Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s.

Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them.

-------------------------------------------

These are the people responsible for giving you data on "Global Warming" or "Climate Change"

Very credible and honest scientists, doing work for the good of humanity.

Originally Posted by NYCshaver

You're not standing behind any fact. The only fact is that we are overfishing the worlds oceans. So if we keep it up we will be out of fish.

Did you check out Bluefin tuna populations? They are going to be gone soon if we don't change how we fish them.



Prices are going up. You provided one example. Gulf shrimp. Shrimp harvests vary year to year depending on environmental conditions. So citing one years price as an example doesn't reveal very much.



What do you think those 3 examples show? The first two happened and were bad for the environment.

The predictions of global warming are in the future so I don't see how that's
an example of anything since the results are still in the future.

typical liberal mish-mash...prices i quoted were over a long period and still declining.
environment is recovering.
global warming is under fire from all directions.
and most of all the facts are the facts. just plain common sense, more fish eaters equal more fish taken and bigger fleets and more commerce.
AGAIN, if we were running out don't you think the prices would have jumped up at least 10 fold? why are they in decline? where are the shortages?
besides that, who worries about eating fish anyway?.....there will always be plenty of gruel to eat....DON'T WORRY, BE HAPPY!!!!

Originally Posted by 59caddy

where are the shortages?

One is here.

After a 10 year moratorium on fishing the cod had still not returned. It is likely that the local ecosystem has changed, one example being that greater numbers of capelin, which used to provide food for the cod, now eat the juvenile cod. The waters now appear to be dominated by crab and shrimp rather than fish.

Originally Posted by xman

One is here.

just what i thought...run to the wiki..which can be altered at will almost..
yet if it was something on the opposing side and they used the wiki, it would be ridiculed..
where are the shortages for supply and demand...it AIN'T there...
again i refer to the prices that are in decline here...if there was a shortage, there would be price increases!! HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY IT????

Originally Posted by 59caddy

just what i thought...run to the wiki..which can be altered at will almost..
yet if it was something on the opposing side and they used the wiki, it would be ridiculed..
where are the shortages for supply and demand...it AIN'T there...
again i refer to the prices that are in decline here...if there was a shortage, there would be price increases!! HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY IT????

This defense is a joke.
fisheries collapse

Originally Posted by xman

This defense is a joke.
fisheries collapse

TYPICAL...ridicule your opposition and belittle anyone who disagrees..never answer the questions posed to your outlandish claims, just rant and rave and lie and obscure the facts....keep trying, you might convince someone, somewhere, sometime...(maybe)NOT!!!

The earth needs more people. More people can help find more solutions to existing problems

Originally Posted by 59caddy

TYPICAL...ridicule your opposition and belittle anyone who disagrees..never answer the questions posed to your outlandish claims, just rant and rave and lie and obscure the facts....keep trying, you might convince someone, somewhere, sometime...(maybe)NOT!!!

Don't do that. I never belittled or ridiculed you, I said nothing about you.
I don't care that you disagree with me, but you are going to have a harder time disagreeing with facts like THE GRAND BANKS COD ARE GONE! Go ahead, try and find them. One certainly will not be convinced of anything with a closed mind.