BBC Blog Network

User Profile

paulvanp

Listed below are comments made by paulvanp between Thursday, 1st January 2009 and Thursday, 26th November 2009.

«Newer
Older»

The People's Politician 02:57am on 26 Nov 2009 this is an extremely interesting experiment in a number of ways but predominantly because the outcome can be one of only two things (or maybe on occasion a combination of the two):
- the majority tramples over the rights or interests of a minority
- in the case of a well organised minority (as happens in practice very often) tramples over the rights and interests of the majority (yes they have rights too...)
It will be more than just a little bit interesting how parliamentarians resolve this and how their decisions are subsequently judged by "the electorate", majority or minority.
Something tells me the parliamentarian just cannot win.....
A kink in the lizard's tale 8:05pm on 24 Oct 2009 interesting how even Zuiderwijk seems to fall into the trap of the quick and dirty answer of global warming when it comes to explaining an increase in the population of sand lizard in the Netherlands whereas the same author cooperated on a study (Rashid) on the decline of sand lizard on one island and an increase on the adjacent island (so both subject to global warming to exactly the same degree) which concluded that habitat change had no or very little influence on sand lizard populatios in those areas. Something else must be going on..
Maybe a gross generalization (and there are plenty of exceptions to it) but significant difference between amphibians and reptiles is that the later or often much longer lived and reach sexual maturity much later. Therefore they are much less suited to the "quick" short-term funding study that unfortunately prevails these days. I think in a previous posting I commented on how a short field trip we undertook recently almost doubled the number of known adults of the Western Painted Turtle (Pacific population) which is considered endangered over here (BC, Canada), by simply going into areas which are less frequently visited, not within easy reach of the typical university Master's student, and therefore under-researched as is so much around here.
Does this mean, if our experience is typical, that the population of this thing is actually doing well and not endangered? I couldnt tell you... the main difficulty with especially turtles is that they ARE so long-lived but an abundance of adults tells me nothing about recruitment.. it may well be that they are in serious decline but we wont know until new generations of juveniles reach adulthood which is typically when we first tend to see (and count)them as they have survived the trials and tribulations (predation)of growing up to a less susceptible size..quick, nice and cheap. But fecundity and recruitment monitoring takes long term studies which are not in existence or fundable at present(Zuiderwijk's 14 year monitoring in the Netherlands is an exception unfortunately). So it relies on me and the likes of me, who can collect data while doing something else which is being paid for, to shed some light on this question. Which is no way to go about it as such casual and fragmentary data has great difficulty standing up to the statistical rigidity required. And we can keep making statements on AGW effects and other "guess" factors affecting endangered species which cannot be disproven because we spend neither the time nor the $$$ to trying to get to the bottom it.
Biases, U-turns, and the BBC's climate coverage 8:56pm on 14 Oct 2009 I am not going to wade into the "yes there is, no there isnt" climate change debate There is enough of that already and it would take far too long to even outline my personal position in this which is highly detailed and probably doesnt satisfy either side. Instead I want to maje a couple of remarks on "reporter bias" s Richard descibes here. I think, espcially in complex debates, it is impossible to be completely balanced; the information we select to use or convey will inevitably lead to some "off balance" one way or another in the eyes of others. Even when we use a coven of reporters on a subject, there will be "group bias". However much of this is based on the idea of reporting in the "public interest" which we worship officially but which is different from "what interests the public". An excellent example of this could be seen this week, when Elinor Ostrom was awarded the Nobel prize for economics. A very worthy candidate and recipient and what was really so remarkable about it is that her type of economics (political economics focussing on governance of "the commons" in which she has made some enormous contibutions, including from an environmental pespective), at this very time in a recession, was selected, rather than some classical macro theory and theorist.
What was the most remarkable though was the way it was universally reported: a WOMAN economics Nobel Prize recipient... with a few minor and obscure exceptions nothing about the content of her work, only the fact that she is a woman.Frightening and infuriating, until you realize that in reality reporting is mostly based on what "interests the public" rather than the "public interest". And that is what generally climate change reporting has in common with this and almost all other reporting... and once you absorb that notion, you look with entirely different eyes at anything that is being reported. And few things wind you up anymore..
Help monitor air pollution with lichen 4:48pm on 29 Sep 2009 unfortunately that peppered moth story has long since been found to be charming but untrue, even though many textbooks, generally older ones, popular science books and ones for younger kids and students, still repeat it.
Hopping mad about money 4:51pm on 21 Aug 2009 the difference between birds and ammphibians is of course that the latter are largely "under the radar" when it comes to public visibility; generally small, not that exciting looking unless you are realy interested in them and highly localized - no chance "fly-by's" for them. You have to go looking for them ad know what you are looking for. This also means that in many cases we don't really have an accurate idea of what numbers there really still are, let alone were in existence. And we don't have to go far to encounter that particular problem; believe it or not,vast stretches of even the first and second world are still extremely poorly surveyed. In a couple of short, two-day expeditions in an area not far from a city of millions,as I describe in one of my little stories I write under the name paul_gibsons,by chance I managed to almost double the number of estimated adults of the endangered Pacific population of Western Painted Turtles... and that kind of thing happens around here time and time again. Which doesn't do the credibility of the conservation case in the public mind much good at all.
Tuna: Fin words, suspicious tail 5:57pm on 22 Jul 2009 I am not sure what is being proposed here: a ban on international trade or an international ban on trade. If it is the former, expect some fireworks with respect to the rules regarding trading within the EU (which cannot be "banned" by any one or more member states individually) and EU fisheries policy which more than likely would support this. It would be a nice example of conflicting objectives... And without seeing figures of bluefin catch and products traded internationally, rather than localy, it is difficult if not impossible to form a view on how effective this will be with respect to bluefin survival.

an international ban on trade would also ban trading catches in local markets which have significant other implications, not only $$ wise but also food-wise for a number of nations where fishing is an important earner or where fish is an important and cheap part of the local diet.

banning trade of course also does little for bluefin caught as by-catch (it cannot be landed but is dead on return to the water anyway; highly selective fishing and avoidance methods would but the success of those in existence for other species is limited (fishing is and remains something like hunting by night, aiming for shadows)and the time to develop and leisurely study the success of these without endangering what is left of bluefin has passed.....

No, the future for bluefin is grim and despite the best intentions the current rather shallow proposals in terms of content are little more than window dressing, although with the best of intentions..., or political opportunism... the idea of the UK sponsoring a "ban" of any kind on a subject in which it has no economic interest whatsoever (unlike some of the fisheries for species in which the UK does have an economic interest but which don't receive the same level of even verbal support that bluefin is receiving now) shows the depth of "commitment"
Fish farming and the green gap 10:32pm on 03 Mar 2009 I think we need to narrow the discussion somewhat here; despite its grand name, the WWF's Aquacuture Stewardship Council actually seems to focus on marine aquaculture rather than all aquaculture, including traditional freshwater systems.

Marine, and in particular open pen salmon aquaculture is a particularly "hot potato" here in BC, not so much because of the amount of fish oil and meal it consumes (although maybe it should) but the supposed effect on wild salmon populations. What doesnt help of course is that one of the largest players in BC is a Norwegian, largely state-owned company which can no longer expand and operate in its home country due to environmental regulations, so it now operates here (and in Scotland).

Other forms of aquaculture, including shellfish are also controversial but much more because of it limiting access to areas, rather than the resources it may or may not consume. Interestingly marine aquaculture in BC has a long "native" history here; in pre-historic times (which means here largely before say 1850) clams were extensively farmed by our coastal First Nations (Canadian indians to the rest of the world) so it is not entirely an industrialised world phenomenon.

And there is the traditional and very much sustainable traditional farm-based aquaculture, much of it in Asia but also in Eastern Europe and Israel, concentrating on "vegetarian" fish or at least those much lower in the food chain and having much less of an impact. Environmentally beneficial even..

Although salmon aquaculture utilizes about half of the 1.5-2 million tonnes of fish oil produced world wide annually, there are also 6-7 million tonnes of fish meal produced annually, much, or even the bulk of which goes to other animal feed, including chicken. So although without a doubt very important, (salmon) aquaculture is only part of the resource problem.

Also, if we are concerned with resource conservation , it would be interesting to see the figures for fish oil and fish meal "spent" on trout farming for instance, almost universally neglected in this discussion because it takes place in confined reservoirs and land-based farms, occupies the same place in the carnivorous fish food chain, is far more extensive than marine salmon farming and which is not bred so much for food but sport... And don't underestimate the 'take" of sport fishing; it is reliably estimated that up to one half of the annual wild salmon runs for instance fall prey to anglers, rather than commercial fishermen. Now add up the number of trout sport fishers..

I have no objections to an Aquaculture Stewardship Council, quite the opposite actually. But lets be clear here and make sure not all of "aquaculture" gets tarred with the same brush... nor is the Aquaculture Stewardship Council going to do much for anything else but (intensive)marine aquaculture.
A questioning climate 5:31pm on 20 Feb 2009 thanks Richard; at last a moderating and coolish analytical piece on effectively what science can do: it can add to the weight of evidence and assign probability, never prove conclusively and/or provide certainty. We scientists know that all too wel but it is not a message that the public, our leaders and our funding providers want to hear. They want results and certainty for their money.. so they get the data, an executive summary of our work and conclusions stripped of al the cautions in the main body of our work and an accompanying request for more funding.

As a scientists and biologist I "believe" climate change is occurring (it always did anyway), I can see the irrefutable logic of humans having an influence on that this time round, but I am simply not sure where it will all lead to this time round, especially when it comes to species diversity, distribution and population.

Part of the problem is we have a lot of detailed knowledge and data on the current situation and the dim and distant past (paleolontological evidence) but nothing much in between. We compare today with a catastrophical event (ice age, meteor strike etc) and extrapolate, which can only lead to another catastrophical scenario.

Let us remember that Greenland was green in historical memory, but we know very little about global species distribution, diversity and populations in that period, even less about change in the comparatively micro-timescale since then other than say (over-) exploited fish stocks. So it is very difficult to extrapolate much more subtly than we are doing now.

Human actions undoubtedly have an effect, good or bad. But that is simply another variable thrown into the mix of data we have to handle, even though it may well be an extremely important one. But where it leads to in the short term, the next couple of hundred of years or so... impossible to predict authoritatively. It may end up being a wobble or a catastrophe. Even part of a recurring longer term cycle. No idea.

But that doesnt mean we dont have to do anything. The question is what, how much and when. But the doomsday scenario being promulgated at present to make us act is both scientifically indefensible and unsustainable in the longer term.
Blues for Bush 5:48pm on 06 Jan 2009 Bush's legacy or the legacy of the period that Bush was occupying the White House?

Although some of the items on the list can be credited to Mr Bush, at least in part, much of it has more to do with the attitudes and policies of individual departments such as the EPA and states (e.g. fisheries policy, greenhouse gas emissions reductions) which exhibit a fiercely independent streak and longer term view in the US.

As for the new marine reserves... probably no oil there then.. but most welcome nevertheless.
Why blogs matter to the BBC 10:24pm on 01 Jan 2009 I actually enjoy the blogs, in particular Peston's very much.
I dont look at them for "news" but for angles to the news that, even though I may not always agree with them, make me think, think in a different direction... different even from the blogger's conclusions, something the news "sec" cannot do; it just leads me into my familiar thinking patterns, including my prejudices (although of course I strenuously deny having any of those..).

so keep up this, to me, valuable service.
looking forward to reading many many more in 2009.

best wishes to all at the BBC; keep going

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

paulvanp