Celebrities draw blood on whaling
Celebrities are joining the "fight against whaling" this week in rarely-seen numbers.
In a video produced by the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (WDCS), model Alice Dellal daubs and spatters a wall and herself with what I presume is intended to pass for whale blood, while intervening shots show us butchered bits of cetacean.
Meanwhile, former Dr Who actor Christopher Eccleston warns us that the International Whaling Commission (IWC) is about to embark on a meeting that could see the lifting of the 24-year-old commercial hunting moratorium.
"Don't let them," he enjoins - seeking to "be the change" without the aid of a sonic screwdriver.
A major rock star is about to lend his voice to the cause, I'm told; and you can listen to Pierce Brosnan's fulminations against Japan any time.
Whenever celebs are involved in an environmental issue, I can't help wondering how much of the story they've been told, and to what degree of complexity they have grasped the political realities.
Taking Ms Dellal and Mr Eccleston's certainties at face value, it appears unthinkable that anyone who is anti-whaling could view the reforms on the table at next week's IWC meeting in Morocco as a positive development.
Yet many of the activists who have been with the issue for the longest time - including some veterans of early Greenpeace forays - are urging now that whale peace be given a chance.
Let's be clear about the choice facing the anti-whaling movement, and facing countries that abhor the industry.
It is either to condemn and fight and declaim for what they all really want - a total end to whaling - or to accept that that is not for the moment realisable (they have after all been trying for decades) and to work for something that is markedly better than the current situation.
I outlined in April the elements of the 10-year reform package that now now lies before IWC delegations, which is being debated now in preliminary meetings in Agadir ahead of Monday's formal opening.
Three of the groups prepared to countenance a deal - Greenpeace, Pew and WWF - set out their six "bottom lines" in a press call during the week:
•An end to hunting in the Southern Ocean whale sanctuary
• Domestic use only for whalemeat - no international trade
• IWC science must be used to set quotas
• No hunting of threatened species
• An end to use of the scientific whaling regulation
•If there is a consensus, all governments must agree not to lodge an objection (as IWC rules allow)
Here's Pew's Sue Lieberman:
"A number of NGOs are looking at the current proposal from the chair and saying they don't like stuff in it.
"What we're saying is it can be made good. If we leave Agadir with no decision or no progress - that is not victory."
I gather that a number of anti-whaling countries are also setting "bottom lines" that are very close to the Pew/Greenpeace/WWF position.
I'm told that a modified package is likely to emerge by Monday morning that is closer to their lines of thinking.
If so, what are its chances of adoption?
The plan's backers - principally the US - are clearly hoping for consensus.
That appears to be an unlikely prospect. If anyone's clever enough to construct a form of words that could simultaneously please Australia at one extreme and Iceland at the other, they should immediately be put to work solving world hunger and nuclear proliferation.
So we're into the politics of voting blocs.
The EU commands more than a quarter of the votes, so its position is critical.
In principal, EU states are supposed to agree a common position on all environmental issues and to vote en masse.
But must that be done by consensus, with the inability to reach a consensus implying the need for a mass abstention?
Or can it be done by majority?
Or is there a third possibility - that countries can vote individually, according to their own consciences - as the UK did at the recent CITES meeting in defiance of the common position (a vote that has brought no recriminations from the European Commission)?
Soundings I've taken indicate they are close to agreeing a common position.
But it's entirely likely that negotiations during the week will throw up subtly different options for compromise, which some EU nations may find acceptable and others not; we'll see whether the bloc is nimble enough to respond on the hoof and maintain its co-ordination in what's likely to be a highly pressured environment.
Australia and the Latin American countries appear to be setting a higher bar for approving the deal than other anti-whaling nations such as the US and New Zealand.
South Korea, meanwhile, may vote against anything that doesn't give it similar whaling rights to Japan, while the positions of nations such as China and Russia are hard to gauge.
In short: all is to play for.
And the mechanics of the process received a late twist when it emerged during the week that the Chilean IWC chairman Cristian Maquieira, who outlined his case for trying to agree a deal in our Green Room series last week, will not be making the trip to Agadir - officially for health reasons, though some are voicing suspicions that his government vetoed his continued involvement because of the political opprobrium it was bringing.
For the vast majority of people stuck outside the circle of the IWC's immediate politics, the picture can appear hazy.
For example: the reform package can be viewed as a lifting of the 1986 commercial whaling moratorium. Yet given that Iceland and Norway are for historical reasons allowed to hunt commercially now, it could also reduce the number of whales being commercially killed each year. Confused?
Scientific whaling would end around Japan's coasts. But it would catch roughly the same number of whales, maybe more; but the hunting would have a different label, prompting some to ask: what's the point?
I'll be there during the week and endeavouring to clear the fog and make sense of it for you.
Any questions that you have, please post, and I'll do my best to answer them.
In the meantime: anyone prepared to tell Chris and Alice that it's not quite as simple as they're painting it?
UPDATE: I've posted some details of the EU's agreed position at comment 60 below.
I'm Richard Black, environment correspondent for the BBC News website. This is my take on what's happening to our shared environment as the human population grows and our use of nature's resources increases.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~59~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Concur.
The Times has a nice piece on it:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7149091.ece
Where Japan bribes other members of the UN to vote infavour.
"..The IWC commissioner for Tanzania said “good girls” were made available at the hotels for ministers and senior fisheries civil servants during all-expenses paid trips to Japan.."
and also here, with Dolphins:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100609/ap_en_mo/as_japan_dolphin_killing
The Japanese doesnt want/allow the showing of The Cove.
"..Fifty-five journalists, academics and film directors in Japan condemned intimidation and threats that led movie theaters to cancel screenings of "The Cove," a documentary about the slaughter of dolphins in a Japanese village......This is a film that has been widely shown abroad. If the work, which is about Japan, cannot be shown in Japan, it only underlines the weakness of the freedom of speech in Japan.."
About time the rest of the world took along hard look at Japan and what it does on the quiet!
Complain about this comment
Richard Black.
ah, the whale, so majestic, so -- whatever.
would that all other threatened marine life, our whole culture of industrial exploitation of the seas, too enjoyed the same attention from the 'darlings', even if temporary.
Complain about this comment
Dear Richard, I actually do think that Alice and Chris do know what they are doing and what this deal is peddling. I would suggest that being celebrities does not mean that they don't have the brain capacity to understand this issue.
And maybe that's the problem, too many people think this is too complex an issue for the 'little people' and governments and organizations think they can parachute themselves into the IWC and solve everything with one sweep of a compromise.
There is a simple choice here and you do note it. The package is a lifting of the moratorium, period. As soon as non-zero quotas are given, then the moratorium falls. And whatever the intent was this is now a charter that endorses commercial whaling if it goes through. The pressure to resume trade will be enormous, be in whale meat or the new ranges of medicinal products the whalers are developing.
The issue is not so complex and many would portray it, and is certainly within the understanding of those who are wiling to donate their time and energies to help stop this deal from going through, so thank you to Alice and Chris is what I would like to say.
Complain about this comment
I've traditionally been of the opinion that one should go for the best you can hope for. So I supported lobbying at the UNFCCC meetings in the run-up to the Earth Summit, rather than direct action. My view was that it would be OK if we worked within the international and political processes available.
I am now tending towards the opinion that this was a waste of time. Looking at climate change, nothing really ever happened. All that time and effort was effectively wasted. As a result, our children and particualrly our grand-children are doomed to what appears increasingly likely to be a very unfriendly and unhappy world.
One could argue that the direct action people didn't get anywhere either, but at the very least I would say that nothing, no form of opposition to evil deeds against the environment, should be off the table. Thus I have no intention of criticising forms of direct action that I would previously have condemned as calling for an unlikely or even impossible result. Basically, being nice hasn't worked. Time to try other methods.
Complain about this comment
Well Richard, here's a couple of questions.
Did you facilitate the round robin session towards the end of the Pew Whales Commission meeting on 10th February 2009, as listed on the Pew Whales site about that meeting:
http://www.pewwhales.org/pewwhalescommission/agenda.html
If that was so, it it worth mentioning? I ask because I've done a Google search of 'facilitator' on your BBC blog and checked through your entry following that meeting - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/02/as_regular_readers_of_this_1.html and I can't find a reference to it.
My apologies if I've missed where you've noted your role at that meeting.
I'm not asking this rhetorically - or to be smart - but because I'm interested in your opinion on your role in this. Facilitating a final round robin session seems a little more engaged than just observation, which is the general perception of a journalist's role. Or have I got some part of this wrong?
To modify your wording, does that make your take on this not quite as simple as you're painting it?
Complain about this comment
One of the Greenpeace/Pew/WWF 'bottom line' elements you mention is that "IWC science must be used to set quotas" and your piece then links to a page on the RMP on the IWC web-site.
In a letter which appeared in this week's issue of Science (18 June 2010), a group of scientists involved in the IWC process (and indeed the design of the RMP itself) are critical of the extent to which the Chair's proposal actually meets the stated intention that catches would be "within limits calculated according to the IWC's agreed, science-based, and 'extremely conservative' Revised Management Procedure (RMP)".
They note that this intent is not reflected in the wording of the actual proposal, arguing that it would allow "sufficient room for interpretation to potentially allow much higher catches than would be considered sustainable in the long term according to the agreed and published specification of the RMP".
They suggest that this confusion can only be resolved by explicit adoption of the published procedure into the IWC Schedule and tasking the IWC Scientific Committee with the relevant calculations. In this way, they argue that "[c]alculations of sustainable catch levels using the procedure and performed by the Scientific Committee, which includes scientists nominated by both whaling and non-whaling governments in addition to a number of independent experts, would be transparent, documented, and verifiable."
They also assert that many of the IWC members will not have the scientific resources themselves to assess the validity of the proposed catches - especially in a context where "inevitable claims and counterclaims" are being made.
Complain about this comment
Megaptera at #5
I guess you got distracted when you "checked through your entry following that meeting ... and I can't find a reference to it" if you missed the following:
"... I spent the beginning of the week in Lisbon at a seminar organised by the Pew Environment Group, the last in a series aimed at bringing important players together in an off-the-record setting where possible parameters of such a package could be thrashed around - which gave me the chance to gauge reaction to proposals which an IWC small working group released a couple of weeks ago."
- From 'Whales swim backwards' (Richard's blog 13 February 2009)
I guess you also missed the part which notes that the meeting was "off the record" as the Symposium’s discussions would be subject to the Chatham House Rule.
Complain about this comment
#5 megaptera - yes I did facilitate a session at that seminar - and at a previous seminar in Tokyo.
You mistake the reason why journalists are asked to undertake such roles. It is precisely because we are practiced at being impartial and at drawing out other peoples' views. There were many participants at both seminars hostile to the notion of a "deal", as well as some supporting it - and all stances had to be elucidated.
Now back to the subject matter... and thanks, #3 Chris and #6 Simon for valuable perspectives. No disrespect intended, Chris. Certainly, Simon, as things stand, the "deal" would not set initial quotas according to the RMP.
As an update, I'm informed that the EU does now have an agreed position, although I'm not 100% sure what it is. But the question still stands of how it'll maintain itself as the political heat increases...
Complain about this comment
#7 simon-swede, no I didn't miss that. It's just that as Richard was listed in the meeting documents online as being in a particular role, that seemed rather on-the-record to me, and I was wondering why it hadn't been mentioned. I wasn't asking for details of what happened in the meeting, as it was, as you note, described as"off-the-record".
Richard has provided an answer, which is fine.
Complain about this comment
Oh goody! Fading 'celebrities' seek publicity riding whales.
Why isn't the Danish dolphin slaughter ever mentioned?
Complain about this comment
Perhaps any apparently simplistic attitude of Dr Who's might be explained by his multiple encounters throughout time and space with adversaries whose self-declared objective is to "exterminate" all inferior beings?
Complain about this comment
Please note that WWF and Greenpeace, known among many aware anti-whaling activists as 'Wicked Wildlife Fund' and 'Greedpeace' respectively, do not represent the other side of the whaling debate: They have corporate and special interests at heart, despite what they say in their well-funded, carefully-worded messaging.
As two examples of this glaring conflict, in 2000 WWF attempted to reopen the ivory trade ban in Nairobi (as reported in the U.S. News & World Report), and in 2009 Greenpeace famously backed out of the effort to resist Japanese whaling in the IWC's Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary, despite having raked in millions during their international 'Whale Defender' fundraising campaign.
For an informed minority who are not swayed by WWF and Greenpeace's mighty PR dollars, the true heroes in history of anti-whaling activism since the 1986 moratorium are groups who actively resist the slaughter such as the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, whose representatives are conspicuously absent from the table.
Complain about this comment
#2 jr4412
"ah, the whale, so majestic, so -- whatever.
would that all other threatened marine life, our whole culture of industrial exploitation of the seas, too enjoyed the same attention from the 'darlings', even if temporary."
Commercial Whaling Caused Massive Ecosystem Decline - The research team was led by Alan Springer of the University of Alaska’s Institute of Marine Science in Fairbanks, and James Estes, a coauthor with the U.S. Geological Survey in Santa Cruz.
as always there's a failure to appreciate the interconnectedness of ecosystems. if we understood just a tiny amount about these interactions maybe we could set some considered quotas.....but we don;t so imho we shouldnt try.
Complain about this comment
#10 CanadianRockies wrote:
Why isn't the Danish dolphin slaughter ever mentioned?
Do you refer to the Faroe Islanders' annual bloodfest? I'm not entirely convinced that the Faroese consider themselves Danish, nor that the mainstream Danes consider Faroese as Danish as themselves.
On a couple of occasions I was a visiting lecturer in Iceland, where it was interesting to see the internal tensions that exist between the Scandinavians -- very similar in many ways to the tensions that exist in the British Isles.
It was especially interesting to see some very loud, self-confident Swedish football fans behaving like English football fans in Ireland -- and getting a rather similar reception!
Complain about this comment
Time for a fact check. Commercial shipping and western navies have been obliterating whales through collisions, etc. for decades, have they not? Certain whales are on the brink of extinction? And so, with a little thought, is it not true that all these multimillion dollar green beans are attacking a very small but highly marketable target?.. fisherman. And with a little more thought, we know that no one will stop this great idea we call globalization, attacking the idea of commercial shipping, etc?
Goodbye, whales.
Complain about this comment
Jamie at #15
Perhaps time for a you to have a "fact check". The problems posed for whales by vessel collisions (as well as other issues, such as acoustic interference) are being addressed by "green beans" as you call them.
See: http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/endangered_species/cetaceans/threats/shipping/
Complain about this comment
rossglory #13.
the link didn't survive but google found it:
"A new scientific study published on September 22 says that commercial
whaling by Japanese and Russian fleets over a half a century ago could be
the cause of a mysterious, massive decline of the ecosystem surrounding
Alaska's Aleutian Islands." (emphasis added)
"if we understood just a tiny amount about these interactions maybe we could set some considered quotas.."
I think that we should try and make the fisheries less 'efficient', ie. no sonars, limit sizes of nets (and vessels), no drag-netting, etc. then perhaps we wouldn't need quotas in the first place.
Complain about this comment
To Richard Black re questions!
"Any questions that you have, please post, and I'll do my best to answer them." (Richard)
============
Rossglory and jr4412 brought up a few points which resonate with me, as I read Sylvia Earle's superlative book "The World is Blue - How our fate and the Ocean's are One" (2009, for the second time:
Please consider this exchange:
13. At 7:43pm on 18 Jun 2010, rossglory wrote:
#2 jr4412
"ah, the whale, so majestic, so -- whatever.
would that all other threatened marine life, our whole culture of industrial exploitation of the seas, too enjoyed the same attention from the 'darlings', even if temporary." [jr4412]
---------
as always there's a failure to appreciate the interconnectedness of ecosystems. if we understood just a tiny amount about these interactions maybe we could set some considered quotas.....but we don;t so imho we shouldnt try. [rossglory]
==========================
Sylvia Earle discusses whaling, the International Whaling Commission, the Law of the Sea Convention, Maximum Sustainable Yield, and the cascading ecosystem damage wrought by our over exploitation of almost everything edible or marketable in the world ocean - in short, she makes rossglory's point in spades, with backup, and as she is apparently regarded as one of the foremost authorities on the world ocean and its life.
I was and am all ears, despite Bowman's distrust of 'experts.'
And Sylvia was a member of the IWC for years, and chief scientist at NOAA, etc...
Not being very knowledgeable on this subject, I was astounded at the near destruction of even a small fish called menhaden, which is according to H. Bruce Franklin of Rutgers University, "The Most Important Fish in the Sea." (p.56 "The World is Blue" hardcover ed)
Is any of this discussed at the IWC - the effect of the removal of both whales and all other species down to menhaden and even smaller creatures on the health of the world ocean?
Or is it just about whales and politics, and perhaps antiquated thinking - as jr4412 seems to suggest?
- Manysummits - a long ways inland -
Complain about this comment
This article is not strictly about whales, but it is strictly about where whales and most life on Earth lives, including the phytoplankton which produce ~70 percent of the oxygen we breathe.
This is the worry - the possibly unprecedented rate of increase in both atmospheric CO2 and oceanic uptake of CO2.
This is the stuff of mass extinction, and I thought to bring it up from last blogs link by simon-swede.
I have the article now - and it is truly terrifying - Biblical - in the sense of:
'Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. (Luke 23:34)'
=====================
Ocean Acidification Unprecedented, Unsettling
Richard A. Kerr
Science 18 June 2010:
Vol. 328. no. 5985, pp. 1500 - 1501
DOI: 10.1126/science.328.5985.1500
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/328/5985/1500
"Unconstrained emissions growth is likely to leave the current era of human planetary dominance "as one of the most notable, if not cataclysmic, events in the history of our planet," geochemist Lee Kump of Pennsylvania State University, University Park, and colleagues wrote last December in a special issue of Oceanography. The geochemical disruption will reverberate for tens of thousands of years."
===============
For those unfamiliar with the cited author Lee Kump, here is a link to a textbook on Earth System's Science, better known to many as James Lovelock's Gaia Theory:
http://www.amazon.com/Earth-System-3rd-Lee-Kump/dp/0321597796/ref=dp_ob_title_bk/177-8437190-8533228
The authors of this book are giants in this field - this is the real McCoy. Look them up on Wikipedia for confirmation.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
The issue may not appear as grand as issues of world hunger or nuclear proliferation - that doesn't mean it's not important. How human beings behave on this planet is a matter of ethics, and at the collective level we make ethical decisions through political processes. Is this planet, and all of the life forms that live on it, just one big resource for us to casually consume? We certainly have the power to behave as it is, but at what cost? In evolutionary terms, the end of diversity is death. How much biodiversity are we willing to sacrifice?
We face a great many environmental/extinction problems, and that number is only going to increase as resources become scarce. How we handle those problems is a measure of our intelligence, and by extension, our potential longevity as a species. It also sets a precedent for future generations. How can we hope to tackle even larger issues, if we can't even sort out the underlying economic issues that force countries into a position where they're dependent on whaling rights?
Complain about this comment
I presently live in Japan and have been talking with Japanese friends about their whaling. These friends of mine are highly educated. Here is what they think:
1. The numbers of all species of whales are fine and none of them are threatened with extinction. That the world has been misled on this by Seashepherd and other organizations.
2. Non-Japanese people think it has always been morally wrong to kill and eat whale.
3. Non-Japanese people feel morally superior because they do not eat whale and think eating whale is morally reprehensible.
4. Non-Japanese people are hypocrites because they eat cow, chicken, etc. and farm them in cruel conditions.
Some Japanese believe that there are lots of whales that have been caught and the meat is frozen in large warehouses in Japan, enough to feed the Japanese for years without catching more. But that the whaling continues for political, economic, and nationalistic reasons. I have also heard from non-Japanese sources that there is a huge stockpile of frozen whale meat.
Complain about this comment
manysummits #18, 19.
"Is any of this discussed at the IWC - the effect of the removal of both whales and all other species down to menhaden and even smaller creatures on the health of the world ocean?" and "This is the stuff of mass extinction.."
you might want to follow up rossglory's recommendation re. Dr Jeremy Jackson.
"Or is it just about whales and politics, and perhaps antiquated thinking.."
whales are simply a 'trophy' species, like wolves, or red kites (here in the UK); the 'celebrities' (or their sponsors!!) unfortunately do not promote the type of thinking needed to "..appreciate the interconnectedness of ecosystems" when they campaign to 'save' the whale; I find this single-issue stuff unhelpful.
Complain about this comment
Allowing even limited commercial whaling would increase the pressure for a legal international trade in whale meat. That in turn would increase the incentive for illegal whaling.
Also, once whaling openly becomes a legitimate industry again, rather than questionable 'scientific research', there will be pressure to expand quotas in order to protect whaling nations' economic interests, jobs etc. We humans have a long record of regarding a healthy, functioning biosphere as an optional extra which, though desirable, comes a long way down our list of priorities.
Given that cetaceans are extremely long-lived, slow-maturing and therefore extremely vulnerable to over-exploitation, the precautionary principle has to apply. The safest approach is to continue to marginalise whaling nations as far as possible, and to refuse to legitimise whaling.
Complain about this comment
I have no problem with the idea of eating whale or dolphin meat. If I ever visit Japan, I intend to try some.
My question is this: if whales can be hunted in a way that does not threaten their numbers, would that be enough to satisfy the anti-whaling nations/groups?
And if not, why not?
Complain about this comment
I have been a Sea Shepherd supporter for some years, and I am impressed with the bravery, commitment and professionalism of Sea Shepherd's crews.
However, I increasingly ask myself whether their approach is really helpful.
I was in Iceland in 1986 and witnessed the public backlash against the destruction of the whaling station at Hvalfjör∂ur. I know little of Japan but I wonder whether the Peter Bethune trial, and the actions of Sea Shepherd in the Southern Ocean generally, are really bringing the core issues to the attention of the Japanese people, or just antagonising the Japanese media and hardening opinion against the anti-whaling case. I find Expateach's comment very interesting in this regard.
Complain about this comment
Brunnen_G
I can see a problem with going down the route that you suggest:
Human beings tend towards confirmation bias, so whaling nations will claim that the figures show that whaling is sustainable, and anti-whaling nations will claim that the same figures show that it is unsustainable. It will all become very technical, lots of grey areas, and public opposition to whaling will evaporate. Just as there is no real public opposition to overfishing.
If whaling nations can come up with incontrovertible proof that, taking all other factors including bycatch and ocean acidification into account, limited commercial whaling is sustainable, then let's talk about it. Otherwise, not.
Personally, I find the idea of eating a sentient life form with an advanced social structure about as appealing as cannibalism. I also have problems with killing a massive creature by means that must cause extreme and prolonged suffering. But those issues are not as important as the ecological ones.
Complain about this comment
#17 jr4412
"I think that we should try and make the fisheries less 'efficient', ie. no sonars, limit sizes of nets (and vessels), no drag-netting, etc. then perhaps we wouldn't need quotas in the first place."
i'll think you'll find it's all 'could', that's the nature of science. my point is we cannot predict which elements of any ecosystem are critical so protect them all. i'm not sure but i think we're violently agreeing.
Complain about this comment
#jr4412
"find this single-issue stuff unhelpful." - indeed, i agree with that. but even the word 'ecosystem' seems to be a turn off for so many people.
however put a picture of a whale and a celeb on a poster and it seems to generate some interest at least. but if history is a guide, not enough to force the sort of changes you mentioned.....not feeling too optimistic tonight.
Complain about this comment
SteveW #26.
"It will all become very technical, lots of grey areas, and public opposition to whaling will evaporate." and "..the idea of eating a sentient life form with an advanced social structure about as appealing as cannibalism."
isn't this "public opposition to whaling" but not to consuming, say, boar or venison, an expression of "people are hypocrites"? (Expateach #21).
anyway, as you say, "those issues are not as important as the ecological ones".
Complain about this comment
#24 brunnen_g
"I have no problem with the idea of eating whale or dolphin meat."
Whalemeat served in school lunches in an area of rural Japan are contaminated with alarming levels of mercury - http://www.reuters.com/article/idUST6359120070801
fill your boots if you wish.........
Complain about this comment
rossglory #27, #28, #30.
"i'm not sure but i think we're violently agreeing."
seems that way, I blame the 'wider picture'. ;)
"..not feeling too optimistic tonight."
or tomorrow. [frown]
"Whalemeat ... contaminated with alarming levels of mercury.."
I wonder how common that would have been, say, one hundred years ago.
Complain about this comment
I'm also living in Japan. Living in a big city, the majority of Japanese people don't see whaling as a major issue. Whale meat is quite freely available - it is regarded as a speciality rather than "everyday" food - in Japan and it is not thought of as being any different from eating steak.
Personally, I think that the problem is not whaling per se, but unregulated whaling, and the changes that are being proposed would be a positive change. Japan and Norway are both civilized countries whose cultural attachment to whaling has effectively been criminalized by the ban. Far better to regulate and restrict than to allow them to continue to make their own rules.
My final point would be that the impact that the current level of sustainable whaling has on the environment is far, far lower than the impact of intensive beef farming in the Amazon (for example), or, more pertinently in Japan, industrialised tuna fishing, which is obliterating this wonderful animal and natural resource.
'Save the whale' is this wonderful, emotive phrase, but it is a misplaced sentiment. Saving the tuna should be a much higher priority.
Complain about this comment
I'll chime in here, if I may?
It really seems to me we are missing the forest for the trees, or more properly in this case, the ocean for the whales.
At seven billion people going to nine, with the atmosphere and the ocean picking up our excess CO2, in what must be the greatest fossil fuel campfire of all time, it seems we must first address this issue:
What is the carrying capacity of the Earth, and at what level of health do we want to live?
Then all of our 'separate' land and ocean practices fall into place.
And until we set up this overarching framework, we are operating in the dark.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
jr4412 #29
I'm not a marine biologist, but I understand that cetaceans are probably more intelligent and more socially complex than the terrestrial mammals we commonly hunt or breed for food. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetacean_intelligence) So there are serious ethical issues which need to be addressed with whaling. I don't think it's just a matter of cultural intolerance/hypocrisy.
As we agree though, the ecological issues are more important. Because these oceanic ecosystems are poorly understood, and may soon be under extreme pressure due to climate change, I think it imperative that we continue the moratorium on commercial whaling.
Complain about this comment
rossglory,
(at 00:34am on 19 Jun 2010)
"... Whalemeat served in school lunches in an area of rural Japan are contaminated with alarming levels of mercury - http://www.reuters.com/article/idUST6359120070801 ..."
Shame! Shame! Pure disinformation. That post was from August 1, 2007 - almost 3 years ago.
Complain about this comment
Its simple. Are we going to let a small group of capitalists run yet another species into extinction? When do we stop these capitalist corporations from treating mother earth as a sewer? Japanese whalers, BP oil executives ---its all the same battle.An economic system run solely for the maximum immediate quarterly profits with a 'to hell with the future' attitude. In the end if we lose the oceans we will lose the human race--Overpopulation and capitalism are the enemies and time is not on our side.
Complain about this comment
et69,
Ah yes! Those wicked capitalists! We all remember how tenderly our ecologically sensitive comrades from the Soviet Union treated the Aral Sea, don't we?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/08/090805-aral-sea-vanishing-picture.html
Complain about this comment
frontandcentre #32
"'Save the whale' is this wonderful, emotive phrase, but it is a misplaced sentiment. Saving the tuna should be a much higher priority."
I say save both. Why do we have to make a choice?
What it's really about is saving this planet's biosphere from massive degradation. But that's a difficult concept to get across to the public.
Complain about this comment
SteveW #34.
"So there are serious ethical issues which need to be addressed with whaling. ... Because these oceanic ecosystems are poorly understood.."
too narrow, to my mind; we have serious unresolved 'ethical issues' across the board, and it isn't just 'oceanic ecosystems' which are poorly undesrstood.
address the "..economic system run solely for the maximum immediate quarterly profits with a 'to hell with the future' attitude" (et69 #36) and there won't be controversy over issues like whaling.
Complain about this comment
SteveW,
(at 01:46am on 19 Jun 2010)
"... I say save both ..."
Good idea. How do you propose we do so?
Complain about this comment
Let's take this out for a spin, i.e. #33 - Earth's carrying capacity:
Using Lester Brown's figures (Plan B 4.0), the ideal diet [Italian/Mediterranean] utilizes 400 kg grain-equivalent per person, but this will only support five billion people.
A little math yields this:
At the current say seven billion on the planet, and equal allotments of grain-equivalent per person:
1) The United States would have to reduce their per capita take from 800 kg/person to 285 kg per/person.
2) Likewise Italy would drop from 400 to 285 kg/person.
3) And India would increase their per person to 285 from 200 kg/person.
Etc...
So - as population increases, either our allotment per person would have to drop lower than 285/person, or we would have to increase food production.
How much grain-equivalent per person can the Earth sustainably yield? This embraces fish from the ocean, animals from the land, actual grain...
The entire process can be repeated for carbon allotment per person, or energy...
Isn't this a framework worth exploring?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Chryses
I see you are an argument looking for somewhere to take place. Good luck with that.
jr4412
I don't think we're actually disagreeing about anything, are we?
I'm a bit pessimistic though about capitalist short-termism going out of fashion any time soon. In the meantime, we can only work with what we have. The public ('consumers' to business, 'voters' to politicians) can exert some influence for the good, but it's difficult to keep enough people interested. A few celebs adding their voices doesn't hurt, in my opinion. Play the system, rather than waiting for it to conveniently fall over.
Complain about this comment
In reply to kecsmar,
YOU'RE AN IDIOT. Have you looked at BP? That's what we Brits are doing! So what's your point? And in fact, as you can tell by the responses of the BP CEO, he hasn't got a clue as to what is going on with his company.
You're willing to slash the WHOLE COUNTRY OF JAPAN, just like terribly biased propaganda film "The Cove" all at once, due to a couple of political movements being made in regards to whaling and dolphin hunting? What's wrong with you?
As for the supposed "vote buying" read this:
"The purpose of the IWC as specified in its constitution is “in safeguarding for future generations the great natural resources represented by the whale stocks;” and the original members consisted only of the 15 whale-hunting nations. However, since the late 1970s and early 1980s, many countries which have no previous history of whaling (some of which are landlocked such as Switzerland and Mongolia) have joined the IWC. This shift was first initiated by Sir Peter Scott, the then head of the World Wildlife Fund. Labelling the IWC a “butchers’ club”, he mounted lobbying campaigns in developed countries with support from the green lobby and anti whaling block of IWC members to change the composition of the IWC’s membership, which was instrumental in obtaining the necessary three-quarters majority vote to implement the moratorium on commercial whaling in 1986. This campaign triggered the first accusations of vote-buying in IWC. According to Scott’s biographer, Elspeth Huxley, China’s decision to join was influenced by a World Wildlife Fund promise to provide $1 million to fund a panda reserve. Dr. Michael Tillman, former IWC Commissioner of the United States, said in a radio interview that “there was what we called ‘common knowledge,’ that a number of countries joined and that their dues and the travel support was reportedly due to conservation groups providing it. So that, in a sense, one could say that the conservation groups set out a strategy that the Japanese copied.”"
And yeah, that's from Wikipedia. So, YOU, the anti-whaling type, are just as culpable. So do be quiet. Please be more objective and not voice your opinion from your weak heart strings.
As for the question, Mr Black:
Do you believe that the numbers of whales being spouted by all parties concerned, from the "scientists" to IWC to the Japanese, are correct? Who really knows how many whales there really are out there, and are any of the numbers truly reliable? I ask, only because it seems the numbers are all very vague from all parties.
Complain about this comment
SteveW #42.
"I don't think we're actually disagreeing about anything, are we?"
given that you argue to 'play the system' I'm near certain that there'd be major differences of opinion. [smiles]
"A few celebs adding their voices doesn't hurt.."
given the wider context (ie celebrity being 'consumed', passive consumption), I disagree with this too; promoting specific causes instead of a fuller picture plays right into the attention span problem you identified ("..it's difficult to keep enough people interested").
Complain about this comment
Japan continues to enforce itself on the rest of world's opinion this time through their economic might, against the environment rather than military might against the people of Asia.
But let's not forget or repeat such mistakes of the past. And certainly not in the name of science or their morally corrupt culture.
Complain about this comment
Is all of this debate leading to what used to be called 'rationing' in the past. Is there now a search for an alternative to the word 'rationing' to one which the present-day public will accept? Is the propaganda machine searching our blog perceptions to see how 'rationing' can be represented?
Complain about this comment
Richard Black is so wrong. It really is simple, there should be no compromise and whaling should be totally outlawed. Japan, Norway and Iceland have continually broken the regulations, cannot be trusted and should not be rewarded for whaling during a supposed moratorium. Let's hope our new government in the UK, ignores the EU and votes against the resumption of commercial whaling.
Complain about this comment
#32 frontandcentre wrote:
'Save the whale' is this wonderful, emotive phrase, but it is a misplaced sentiment. Saving the tuna should be a much higher priority.
Whether or not the sentiment is misplaced depends what you're trying to achieve. If you are trying to "maintain the natural order" -- a bog standard religious objective -- by preventing extinction of species, then some tuna species have priority over some whale species.
But if you are trying to prevent harm to sentient individuals, whales are the priority, because as intelligent mammals with families and attachments, killing them causes more harm.
Complain about this comment
#41 manysummits wrote:
"The United States would have to reduce their per capita take from 800 kg/person to 285 kg per/person."
What a surprise -- no mention of what Canadians or Swedes have to do!
Complain about this comment
#42 SteveW wrote:
I'm a bit pessimistic though about capitalist short-termism going out of fashion any time soon.
What you're talking about here probably hasn't much to do with capitalism. A simple constraint on rationality is expressed by the phrase "one in the hand is worth two in the bush". In other words, prospective actions taken to achieve goals have to be weighed up both with respect to the value of the goals and the likelihood of achieving them. We can be more confident about achieving short-term goals than long-term goals, so they are -- and should be -- more heavily weighted in our "calculations".
You'll find that even anti-capitalists give more weight to short-term goals than long-term goals, unless they're idiots. We all care more about our children than our grandchildren, and more about our grandchildren than our great-grandchildren, and so on.
Only hypocrites pretend to care about generations far into the future.
Complain about this comment
@47 robbo100 wrote:
"Japan, Norway and Iceland have continually broken the regulations"
That is a false statement. Those three countries have operated within the existing IWC regulations. The proposed new regulations would reduce the number of whales killed.
People who have compassion towards these creatures should do what they can to reduce the killing and help pass the new whaling regulations.
Complain about this comment
Mylife,
(at 05:29am on 19 Jun 2010)
“... And certainly not in the name of science or their morally corrupt culture.”
Are we to understand that people with a different culture are morally corrupt?
Complain about this comment
To sensiblegrannie re 'rationing' #46:
Yes, that's the word all right. Funny you mention it - after my post I was thinking just that!
It's a good word, conveying a lot in a little.
As time passes on this blog, I am finding an air of unreality slowly but surely creeping in.
The posts one reads here actually confirm this, i.e. people not willing to change their lifestyles and the like, be it at the personal level or the hunting of whales.
I think at its heart - there is just too much information on too large a scale.
This planetary scale thinking might be necessary, but it's not what your basic hunter gatherer is used to, or designed for.
Is it possible we are more than basic hunter gatherers?
I don't know anymore?
I just read that paper on ocean acidification yesterday. There are some pretty serious scientists pretty seriously worried, and it's not really just about ocean pH levels - you sense that in reading their words.
It's this intransigence in the face on onrushing disaster.
We seem like rabbits standing on a road at night, transfixed by the oncoming lights, unable to move out of the way.
Personally I've got to lend my energies to short term thinking just now. But as I do scramble for the proverbial living, I realize how fully we have been taken over by this.
If we could all just stop and smell those proverbial roses - but we can't seem to do that either. And every day we work for our own short term survival, we seem nothing more than one step closer to that cliff up ahead - like a herd of Buffalo going over 'Head Smashed in Buffalo Jump.'
Take your pick - rabbit on the road, or Buffalo stampeding over the cliff - result - same.
Anyway, good to hear from you,
Manysummits
Complain about this comment
It's hard for me to write a response when the topic is whaling and hunting dolphins; these are intelligent, thinking, feeling creatures who grieve for the loss of young ones and members of the pack, much like elephants do...much like humans do.
I think it's wrong to slaughter (make to suffer) these awesome creatures that are not that far removed from homo sapiens in degree of intelligence, though it seems much further removed in terms of compassion.
Imagine if a "superior" race from some alien planet were to descend from its lofty planet in search of that tantalizing bit of meat called "homo sapiens". As we fell, bleeding, suffering, dying, it would be a scene of butchery, despair, and sorrow for humankind. What would you do when your litle one was snatched from out of your arms, slashed and hung upside down to drain of blood.
I'm obviously against whaling, but
- with the garbage we have strewn into the oceans - toxins, oil, computer parts, radiation disposal, plastic - endless plastic,
- with the oxygen being depleted with dispersants,
- with confused whales and dolphions beaching themselves,
I say, please, kill them, kill them quickly, with mercy; and then, if you can, take a moment to grieve for them.
Complain about this comment
For those who are, for one reason or another, unfamiliar with the facts would do well to read what the IWC chairman, Cristian Maquieira, has to say about the issue.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8726319.stm
Complain about this comment
To BluesBerry #54:
- Amen -
Manysummits
Complain about this comment
manysummits #41
"How much grain-equivalent per person can the Earth sustainably yield? This embraces fish from the ocean, animals from the land, actual grain..."
Your idea is an interesting one, but the main problem as I see it is the word "sustainably". To work out what's sustainable, you need to get right into the detail of pretty much every aspect of our biosphere. For example: is modern industrial agriculture sustainable? At present we are losing several tonnes of topsoil for every tonne of grain produced. In Australia for example the average is [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator] 7 tonnes.
I think the attempt to work out a sustainability framework for the whole planet would quickly run into all kinds of problems like this, mainly the limits in our scientific knowledge, and questionable assumptions would have to be made, devaluing the result.
jr4412 #44
You're right: we do disagree, if you believe that the fundamentals of our society have to be changed before any progress can be made on environmental issues, and that e.g. steps to protect iconic species are futile until the whole biosphere can be protected. In my view, incremental steps are the best that we can realistically hope for. The world revolution ain't going to come any time soon. Maybe you would find it rewarding to join Dark Mountain rather than nit-pick here?
bowmanthebard #50
There is much in what you say, this is a simple observation of human nature, something that jr4412 seems to know little about. I do take issue with this statement though: "Only hypocrites pretend to care about generations far into the future." I contend that people are well able to care about issues that do not impact on their self interest, and stating so does not make them hypocrites.
Complain about this comment
On the page with the link to this page:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/default.stm
... do you mean 'whale meet' (as written) or 'whale meat'?
Complain about this comment
It is interesting to watch what happens to a rational argument once one's assumptions are shown to be unsupportable/contradictory/inaccurate.
How difficult it seems to be, whether on the grand scale of a political position a government assumes, or at the individual level of a personal POV, to say “I was mistaken.”
Humans have a difficult time letting their rationality trump their emotion. Perhaps that helps explain why some will never admit they are wrong.
Complain about this comment
#58 Androsupial - "meet" is correct. I know the noun should properly be "meeting", but then the pun wouldn't work.
#47 robbbo100 - there's no-one in anti-whaling groups or on the delegations of anti-whaling nations who would disagree with you. The question is - how? Given the realities of international politics, the judgements governments make in the real world, what is your political recipe for making it happen? If you can come up with something that will actually work, you will have just about every member of every environment group in your debt.
btw, I now have the EU's agreed position. It answers some questions, but begs a few more. Among other things, the EU will:
"Seek reduced catch limits in the Northern Hemisphere, that would guarantee a significant improvement in the conservation status of whales in the long term, moving towards the final goal to ban the whaling activities which are not in line with the moratorium on commercial whaling within an agreed time-frame."
And:
"Support phasing down significantly all whaling in the Southern Ocean over the coming years and having a phasing out of whaling in that Ocean within an agreed time-frame."
Lots of room, I think you'll agree, for different interpretations there - especially on timescales. And the document makes it clear that decisions will have to be taken on the hoof:
"The final assessment of any compromise proposal at IWC 62 shall be done in the light of that proposal's overall content."
Watch this space...
Complain about this comment
The EU's position certainly seems to enable their vote in favor of the proposed regulation revision as described by the IWC Chairman: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8726319.stm
If, as others suggest, ( http://www.mywhaleweb.com/?p=5638 ) the Obama Administration is also on-board, the deal might have already been done.
Still, the Devil is in the details. It should be an interesting week at Agadir.
Complain about this comment
Not Kosher so I won't be eating any.
Complain about this comment
#35 chryses
"Shame! Shame! Pure disinformation. That post was from August 1, 2007 - almost 3 years ago."
it wasn't a post but a reuters news item. and the fact that whale meat was toxic in 2007 suggests to me it still is (unless you have evidence we've made massive strides in cleaning the oceans since). in fact i'd be pretty surprised if whale meat (especiall the blubber) has not accumulated high levels of toxins given their feeding habits/place in the trophic web and longevity.
there's plenty more 'information' out there (mercury could be a local issue because i know some japanes factories have a terrible pollution record) .
here's a taster for starters - just search 'whale meat toxin':
Pilot Whale Meat On The Way Out Of Faroese Food Culture - 2009
Whale and Dolphin Meat Contains Dangerous Levels of Toxins and is Unsafe for Human Consumption - Studies in high regarded medical journals have reported new contaminants data from whale meat sampled in Japan including mercury some 1,600 times above the government permitted level as well as large amounts of organic mercury and cadmium in whale meat that is sold in fish markets and whale sushi bars.
Japan finds high levels of toxins in whale blubber - 2002
Along with PCBs, the health ministry says 10% of whale meat is mislabeled -
Chances are, next time you eat whale meat it is loaded with toxins - 2003
now i'd like you to back up your disinformation accusation.....nothing from the japanese govt though.
Complain about this comment
#33 manysummits
"What is the carrying capacity of the Earth, and at what level of health do we want to live?"
if you're talking about human capacity my opinion is that we exceeded it some time ago. but the key factor is individual footprint. the planet could probably carry 9 billion people but not 9 billion suvs, 9 billion ranch style homes etc
Complain about this comment
bowmna
"Only hypocrites pretend to care about generations far into the future."
SteveW
"There is much in what you say, this is a simple observation of human nature, something that jr4412 seems to know little about. "
the pair of you are showing classic culture mediated thinking. of course in current western enlightenment cultures generally we care little past our own lifespans. but in other cultures and at other times it wasn;t uncommomn.
my advice is to be wary of bowmanesque pronouncements.
Complain about this comment
57. At 1:22pm on 19 Jun 2010, SteveW wrote:
manysummits #41
"How much grain-equivalent per person can the Earth sustainably yield? This embraces fish from the ocean, animals from the land, actual grain..."
Your idea is an interesting one, but the main problem as I see it is the word "sustainably".
=================
Agreed!
Which is why I suggest this exercise. The details are complex, which is shorthand for 'we know not what we do.'
All the more reason to get into it.
Understanding that limits to growth implies, even necessitates rationing, is the first hurdle - the beginning of the paradigm shift.
Understanding that we don't understand very much at all is step two.
Just now we are at step -1, i.e., Denial.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Since I was a child, I have protested at every opportunity about whaling and I know one thing, Japan will not give up whaling unless they are forced to.
Over 35 years later, Japan is still trying to increase their kill of minkes and are now adding whatever threatened species they wish to hunt. How long before they need to sample the recovering populations of blues or North Pacific rights?
The anti-whaling nations clearly don't want to upset Japan but they could learn a trick or two from their devious dealings. Just as Japan gives aid to countries to back pro-whaling proposals at the IWC so the anti-whaling nations should actively assist the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society in doing their dirty work. Free access to port facilities, high-seas refuelling and naval protection for the Sea Shepherd ships would soon make the hunt unprofitable and send a robust message.
I naively thought whaling was finally over in 1986. In this day and age, if we cannot eradicate a simple problem like whaling then there is really no hope for the truly massive conservation issues, or indeed, deforestation and climate change.
Complain about this comment
64. At 5:33pm on 19 Jun 2010, rossglory wrote:
#33 manysummits
"What is the carrying capacity of the Earth, and at what level of health do we want to live?"
if you're talking about human capacity my opinion is that we exceeded it some time ago. but the key factor is individual footprint. the planet could probably carry 9 billion people but not 9 billion suvs, 9 billion ranch style homes etc" (Ross)
==============
Agreed - we are apparently at ~ 1.3 Earth's now, (Worldwatch Institute) and you are entirely correct, it all depends on our level of consumption and the evaluation of what is and is not sustainable.
What I'm trying to do is bring the discussion into the living room, rather than the ivory tower, where it is now.
What does 1.3 Earth's mean?
Easier to think along the terms such as put forth by Lester Brown.
First - all this is to the first level of approximation - translation:
Baby Steps.
Think about it like this. (from Lester Brown Plan B 4.0)
An Italian has a really healthy diet - averaging a use per person of 400 kg of grain (fish, meat etc all converted to grain equivalents)
An average American (or Canadian) has an unhealthier diet, according to Lester Brown's statistics (he is an American), and consumes an equivalent of 800 kg of grain per person. So an American would be healthier if he or she adopted the Italian diet, and as a side benefit, would consume half as much, and reduce medical expenses.
The average resident of India gets by on only 200 kg of grain per person, but is malnourished on average, according to the statistics in Brown's book. So the average Indian needs to ramp up the Indian diet to get healthier, and presumably a healthier Indian will be more productive as a side benefit.
So to a first approximation, and as a thought experiment - let's say we all seven billion of us aim for a Mediterranean type diet, like the Italian, and at 400 kg per person.
At that level of food consumption - Lester Brown has calculated that the Earth can sustainably support only five billion, i.e., we are over the limit by two billion right now if we all wanted optimal health.
It's a frame of reference.
Conclusion - there are already too many people from two different points of view. Worldwatch Institute says we are at 1.3 Earth's right now, and we are also farming un-sustainably.
Lester Brown says that optimizing health for all, and farming sustainably, with best use land and ocean practices - we are two billion over the limit - right now.
Frame of Reference: That's the concept I think we need.
I.E. - How bad is it - and where, ballpark, should we aim?
Regards,
Manysummits
Lester Brown is recognized as a world authority, and has numerous awards and citations from the United Nations etc to prove it.
Complain about this comment
\\\ Whales ///
Frame of Reference:
We are down to something on the order of 10 percent of preindustrial levels of edible fish in the ocean, and we are simultaneoulsly trying to repopulate the ocean with one of its top predators - the whale.
Along with ocean acidification, which is apparently proceeding at rates ten times in excess of even the Paleocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum, we are disrupting the world ocean's entire ecosystem, with unknown consequences.
And at the same time using unsustainable practices almost everywhere, including farming and oil.
All the while increasing our numbers, and warring on each other.
Let's all wake up and smell the coffee!
This is not going to work.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
#57 SteveW wrote:
I do take issue with this statement though: "Only hypocrites pretend to care about generations far into the future." I contend that people are well able to care about issues that do not impact on their self interest, and stating so does not make them hypocrites.
I don't mean to say that we can't honestly care about things that don't serve our self-interest. We often do. I just mean that we can't honestly pretend to make rational decisions about things that are very, very uncertain.
If the next few generations see changes of the sort that the last few generations have seen, the world will be an unrecognizably different place for them. Just think of what our great-great-grandparents would have made of flight, computers, atomic power, nuclear weapons, penicillin, bicycles, cars, rockets, etc., etc.. We have no idea what future generations will be able to do.
So to get all hand-wringy and terribly terribly concerned about how "the little ones" of the distant future will cope with the world we leave them is just dishonest. It's like worrying about the money you might bet on a horse you've never heard of in a racing event that might take place in a racecourse that hasn't been built yet!
Let's worry about our own children -- and leave them to worry about their children with the better information they will have.
Complain about this comment
Getting back to Richard's first point I'm waiting for the world's celebs (step forward Bianca Jagger and Sting)to jet into the whaling conference upping their carbon footprints while pontificating to the rest of us.
While I'm here could those of you concerned with Mercury pollution please comment on the replacement of incandescent lights by their mercury-using fluorescent replacements.
Complain about this comment
rossglory,
(at 5:28pm on 19 Jun 2010)
“...it wasn't a post but a reuters news item ...” Ah, I see. That means that it was not dated August 1, 2007?
“...nothing from the japanese govt though” Are you suggesting that we are to assume that everything from the Japanese is false? An interesting blanket condemnation of an entire population, that - or will you suggest that the Japanese people are good, but that their democratically elected government is evil?
“…Chances are, next time you eat whale meat it is loaded with toxins – 2003 ...” & “...Japan finds high levels of toxins in whale blubber – 2002 ...” Thank you! Those are much more recent than the August 1, 2007 item you first provided.
This link (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100413202638.htm ) provides access to current data. Note that the biochemical analysis was sufficiently detailed to establish the DNA origin of the sample – Japan’s ‘scientific research’ whaling. Note what was missing – the “alarming levels of mercury” of years ago. No. I’m afraid that disinformation will not work in this instance.
What you might want to criticise is the failed current regulations which admit the illegal international trade in whale meat, and support the changes which are designed to reduce the number of whales killed. Or perhaps you might want to stick with what we have now.
Complain about this comment
#69 manysummits wrote:
We are down to something on the order of 10 percent of preindustrial levels of edible fish in the ocean
That might be true, but I think it's unlikely because I think the whole demeanor of the sea would have changed if it were true, yet it hasn't. I wonder if there has been some evolution on the part of fish -- adaptations that make them avoid the sort of behavior that gets them caught. In other words, they might behave in ways that keep them out of nets more. In which case, if the counts of fish are based on "numbers found in nets", we are underestimating the numbers.
we are simultaneoulsly trying to repopulate the ocean with one of its top predators - the whale.
Most whales just eat krill and stuff like that. I suppose they do eat stuff that some fish would eat, but they're decent enough, are whales!
Complain about this comment
Now for something completely different...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/16/whale-poop-fights-global-warming/
There's no end to junk science it seems.
Complain about this comment
#73 bowmanthebard
"Most whales just eat krill and stuff like that. I suppose they do eat stuff that some fish would eat, but they're decent enough, are whales!"
that's only baleen whales. killer, beluga, sperm whales etc wouldn;t touch krill if you offered it to them on a plate!
Complain about this comment
#72 chryses
ahhh, i see. the absence of evidence is evidence of absence argument eh? the article didn;t say there wasn't mercury but it also didn;t say the was not mercury. is that proof of no proof or no proof of proof?
go back and check my post #30. there is no disinformation whatsoever.
but let's leave it like this. i wouldn;t touch whale meat partly for ethical reasons and partly because i'm convinced by the evidence and my own understanding of bio-accumulation that it is likely to have toxins in it.
you make your judgement........
Complain about this comment
#75 rossglory wrote:
"killer, beluga, sperm whales etc wouldn;t touch krill if you offered it to them on a plate!"
I'll bet they would if you called it "scampi" (whatever that is) and offered it in a pub. No one can resist that stuff (whatever it may be).
Complain about this comment
#68 manysummits
don't disagree.
and of course the carrying capacity is reducing every day. so that's increasing population, increasing footprint and decreasing carrying capacity. and i wasn;t feeling optimistic last night :o(
i read lester brown's eco-economy - building an economy for the earth a few years back. i'm sure the economists gave it a really hard time when it was released 'dear me that would never work, look at the super system we have at the moment, much, much better'. it all seems so surreal to me.
Complain about this comment
simon-swede at #15
One of the only facts I found to your link was that:
"ship strikes are to blame for 90 percent of Northern right whale deaths"
..and no facts or links pertaining to exactly what they are doing. Perhaps I am lazy.
When 99% of the media's attention focus' on whale hunting bans, etc. and little attention to the very real and proven threats these animals face, then I find it hard to believe any real effort is actually out there.
Do I need remind, that what even the WWF claimed to be true, is that all the garbage in our homes, constantly shipped around the world, is pretty much responsible for the quote above? What do you think all these ships are doing? Defend globalization all you want, Nature just doesn't work that way.
Complain about this comment
#78 rossglory wrote:
"it all seems so surreal to me"
Let the word go forth the smoke be released from the Vatican chimney: for verily, we have an agreement. Anything an economist says is pure baloney, and anything an economist says by way of criticism of what another economist has said is a baloney sandwich.
Complain about this comment
#78 rossglory wrote:
"and of course the carrying capacity is reducing every day."
It's time for a lesson in evolutionary theory, almost the very first that Darwin himself learned, from Malthus: populations are always at the "ceiling" because reproduction is potentially "geometric".
So in fact, the "carrying capacity" of the Earth's human population has been increasing rather than reducing.
Which is not to say that we shouldn't try to slow or stop the population explosion -- it's still dangerous.
Complain about this comment
I wouldn't touch baloney sandwich, whatever that is. ;-)
Complain about this comment
rossglory,
(at 9:21pm on 19 Jun 2010)
"ahhh, i see. the absence of evidence is evidence of absence argument eh? the article didn;t say there wasn't mercury but it also didn;t say the was not mercury. is that proof of no proof or no proof of proof? ..."
The sharp-eyed among those who actually followed the url I provided may have noticed three other links on that page, two more to DNA analyses of whale meat, and a third referencing DNA analysis and the high mercury levels found in the samples. Oh yes, when there is heavy metal contamination, it is prominently displayed! When it is not reported, it is not reported for a reason.
It is good to learn that you shall not eat whale meat!
For whatever reasons.
Complain about this comment
I admit to enjoying a variety of seafood. We used to see Orange Roughy (presumably caught near New Zealand) on our menu. Later I read somewhere that Orange Roughy was an endangered species, a/c pressure from restaurants. So I changed to ordering "farm-raised catfish".
Can pressure be put on fishing industry by enough consumers changing their behaviour to eating fish that can be raised by humans as a part of aquaculture?
Consumers, when educated, can change behaviour. Seems wrong for humans to eat other species (whales, dolphins, porpoises) that show evidence of intelligence similar to (or even higher than) humans. Ocean ecology is a difficult environment for us to get a comprehensive understanding. The oceans are not helped by volcanic eruptions and BP style oil floods. How do individuals persuade whaling nations to adopt the equivalent of the Hippocratic oath principle in this regard: "First, do no harm"?
Participation of celebrities may not be effective - what would be? - but probably can't hurt.
TeaPot562
Complain about this comment
For the record:
The various opinions about the taste of whale meat suggest that it tastes like steak/venison/horse, but is sweeter and has a more tender texture. Some say it has a greasy in mouth feel and some say it has a flavour between meat and fish.
(Being slightly subjective here) Some say that whale meat tastes like shark meat, ugg! You would need a strong sauce to disguise the taste. I think in truth, that most people would have to be forcefully persuaded to eat whale meat even if it were abundant and harmless.
The Japanese want school kids to eat whale burgers but they don’t like whale meat. If the Japanese are stockpiling whale, perhaps it is for times of civil emergency or something?
The Japanese shave off thin slices of the meat and eat it raw with a strong horseradish tasting Japanese sauce. Sometimes the whale meat is processed and preserved other than freezing.
The Japanese have a population mainly preferring the Buddhist faith. They follow the principle that it is better to sacrifice a single soul to feed the many than kill many animals to feed one person. They consider that eating shrimp is less ethical.
In times of shortage, whale meat has been used to feed the troops in America (1918). Whale meat is higher in protein and lower in fat and calories than most cuts of pork or beef. The less popular cuts of whale meat were fed to the slaves during the slave trade.
Studies have shown that whale meat contains dangerously high levels of mercury at greater than 150 times recommended safe limits. Pregnant women stand to risk damage to the nervous system of their developing foetus. These large marine mammals also have high levels of PCB in their flesh, courtesy of our extreme consumer lifestyle. It would be useful for people to look up the side effects of mercury poisoning and PCB poisoning as many consume tuna on a weekly basis.
I am not going to cite all of these sources as you can google all of them easily.
Complain about this comment
I agree with the celebs. Why knock them? They can bring a higher profile to the issue. You should not let the cynicism of the tabloid press damage your judgment.
Also, the whaling (wailing) nations have been pushing for this deal for decades. It was a miracle to get the moratorium through in 1982. Now we shall lose it - & the likes of Japan can slaughter in ever larger numbers on the high seas.
Complain about this comment
sensibleoldgrannie,
(at 06:24am on 20 Jun 2010)
Studies have shown that whale meat contains dangerously high levels of mercury at greater than 150 times recommended safe limits. Pregnant women stand to risk damage to the nervous system of their developing foetus. These large marine mammals also have high levels of PCB in their flesh, courtesy of our extreme consumer lifestyle. It would be useful for people to look up the side effects of mercury poisoning and PCB poisoning as many consume tuna on a weekly basis.
Your post implies that the contamination is normal. You are mistaken. These reports are uniformly several years old, and your opinion is not supported by contemporary data.
This link (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100413202638.htm ) provides access to current data. Note that the biochemical analysis was sufficiently detailed to establish the DNA origin of the sample – Japan’s ‘scientific research’ whaling. Note what was missing – the “alarming levels of mercury” of years ago.
If you wish to avoid seafood based upon heavy metal contamination, be very selective about what tuna you eat. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100421075203.htm ) As I have had to say to another, no. I’m afraid that disinformation will not work in this instance.
There are other, good reasons to not eat whale meat.
Complain about this comment
Chryses
Thank you for the quality links. It is only through this blog that we can uncover misconceptions and find up to date information about issues. I personally have no reason to want to give disinformation and I am glad that you have given evidence of a general misconception shared by many of us. I would not have known to look on sciencedaily. From your link it appears that other fish are also contaminated with toxic materials and this is also worrying. I wish there was an up to date list of what toxic materials are present in which fish. Many people would appreciate such a thing, besides me. You are right and there are other good reasons to not eat whale meat.
We are here to learn from each other and peel away the propaganda.
Complain about this comment
What people enjoy eating or find disgusting seems to be a learned thing, and once "disgust" has been learned towards any particular kind of food, it seems quite hard to un-learn. In famines, edible items are sometimes available which are not eaten because they are treated as disgusting or dangerous to eat. For example, victims of the Irish famine were strangely reluctant to eat maize (regarded as "animal food") or even fish, which the seas were supposed to have teemed with at the time. Victims of the Icelandic famine were reluctant to eat mushrooms, although there were probably plenty around, because they assumed that most were poisonous. Icelanders still reproach themselves for their ancestors' "stupidity".
It is interesting to see packaged puffin and guillemot in Icelandic supermarkets, which are routinely eaten and enjoyed, and every visitor to Iceland gets treated once to their infamous rotting shark (but more as a joke or "baptismal" experience than for enjoyment). Most Icelanders speak positively about whale meat, and regard it much as people in the UK regard fillet steak -- very lean, high-quality meat, but perhaps not quite gourmet material. However, as far as I know Icelanders have complied with international whaling rules, despite genuinely missing the experience of eating whale meat.
On my first visit to Iceland, I mistakenly bought a large salami-type sausage made out of horse meat in an ordinary supermarket, and ate some of it -- without enjoyment, as after cooking it my apartment smelled as if a troop of cavalry had marched through it. I should have known that it was horse from the label in Icelandic, because the English word is not derived from the French (cheval) nor the German (pferd), and the Icelandic word 'hross' should have rung a bell. Younger Icelanders regard horse as an older person's food -- much as younger Europeans regard traditional offal products such as tripe and drisheen (blood sausage in Ireland), or "faggots" (in the UK). This may happen with whale meat if a generation of young Icelanders do not get the experience of eating it.
Humans have populated almost all habitats because we are uniquely omnivorous. We eat everything from fried dog skin to the rotting coagulated milk of other mammals (i.e. cheese -- and most of those who enjoy the former find the latter disgusting). An important development in human evolution was our ability to grow, process and eat grasses (in the form of bread, rice, pasta, etc.) -- something other animals have great difficulties with and need special adaptations to overcome (such as multiple stomachs).
As I've already said on numerous occasions, the real reason why there are so many humans nowadays is not because our ancestors were more sexually abstemious than us, but because they had less plentiful, poorer quality food, and so they tended to die younger. There is perennial political idea that our ancestors were much more sensible than us, and more in harmony with nature al la Rousseau's "noble savages". I think that is a dangerously mistaken myth, and I leave it as an exercise where it came from.
Complain about this comment
That was an interesting piece of writing bowmanthebard
....never tried fried dog skin or (spit roast tarantula for that matter). Horse meat is ok but venison is heaps better. I don't know how modern society would cope with going back to WW2 style austerity. Could you imagine the younger generation going back to spam fritters, overcooked dark green cabbage, lamb-gristle stew with black and green 'pig' potatoes? Could you imagine the looks of horror and disgust at the sight and taste of butter beans? Ten years on, post war school dinners were heavily based on ration style cooking. Tapioca or 'frogspawn' pudding and a blob of unidentifiable jam (only interesting when flicked off the end of the spoon at some poor unfortunate victim).
I do not believe we are uniquely omnivorous as our more hairy cousins like to dine on a chunk of carcass occasionally, when they are not trying to look 'cute' and 'cuddly' for the cameras. Our ancestors could at least find lunch without going to the supermarket and if they couldn't find meat they would improvise and eat someone.
Complain about this comment
#90 sensibleoldgrannie wrote:
"I don't know how modern society would cope with going back to WW2 style austerity."
My parents used to speak in hushed tones of the dreaded "snoek" of WWII -- widely rumoured to be whale meat dressed up to look like pike, in fact some sort of canned pilchard.
"Could you imagine the younger generation going back to spam fritters, overcooked dark green cabbage"
I used to love Spam when I was a child in the 1960s, but haven't had it for decades. Dark green cabbage is forbidden in my house because my Irish wife was given it as a child with stringy boiled bacon. I think I'd like to try some, as I was always given more delicate fare during my own sissy middle-class upbringing.
Complain about this comment
#48 bowmanthebard wrote:
But if you are trying to prevent harm to sentient individuals, whales are the priority, because as intelligent mammals with families and attachments, killing them causes more harm.
---------------------------------------------------
Twaddle!
Tests have shown, time and time again that dolphins and whales have levels of intelligence comparable to an elephant or smart breed of dog like a German Shepherd.
This nonsense myth that they are on a level comparable to us is complete gibberish, unsupported by ANY science and, frankly, an insult to humans.
I expected better of you bowman.
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard #89.
"As I've already said on numerous occasions, the real reason why there are so many humans nowadays is not because our ancestors were more sexually abstemious than us, but because they had less plentiful, poorer quality food, and so they tended to die younger."
improved hygiene and better medical procedures mean that (a) more infants survive and (b) fewer accidents end fatally; together they'll account for a lot in the rise of numbers. people had lower average ages before, but individuals who did survive lived as long as we do today (and probably with their mental faculties intact too.)
Complain about this comment
SteveW #57.
"You're right: we do disagree, if you believe that the fundamentals of our society have to be changed before any progress can be made on environmental issues.."
a world where 200-odd nations plead for consideration of their 'special circumstances' will never find the time/means/motivation to address "environmental issues". "incremental steps" won't do, unless we're talking about abolishing the nation state as the first.
"Maybe you would find it rewarding to join Dark Mountain rather than nit-pick here?"
I nit-picks where I like, thank you!
Complain about this comment
#92 Brunnen_G wrote:
Tests have shown, time and time again that dolphins and whales have levels of intelligence comparable to an elephant or smart breed of dog like a German Shepherd.
Yes, but first, I was comparing them to tuna rather than to humans, and second, I was comparing them in terms of sentience rather than intelligence.
Sentience includes the capacity to feel pain, anxiety, the thwarting of plans, grief at the loss of loved ones, and so on, plus all the positive opposites of the above. In those respects whales as mammals surely score higher than fishes of any kind.
Intelligence isn't all that important for attachment. Most flying birds form pair-bonds (in other words, they in effect are lovers and they get married); and they exhibit quite high parental investment (in other words, they are caring parents). But none of them are all that bright.
The most important point I was trying to make, however, is that sentient individuals are much more important morally than any abstract collection, which is all a species amounts to. An abstract collection is not sentient, even if the individuals that comprise it are.
This nonsense myth that they are on a level comparable to us is complete gibberish, unsupported by ANY science and, frankly, an insult to humans.
It's about time humans were insulted! -- They deserve it if the penny hasn't dropped yet that non-sentient things just don't matter -- they're inanimate objects. They only matter inasmuch as they matter to sentient individuals who may or may not value them.
Complain about this comment
#95 bowmanthebard wrote:
Sentience includes the capacity to feel pain, anxiety, the thwarting of plans, grief at the loss of loved ones, and so on, plus all the positive opposites of the above. In those respects whales as mammals surely score higher than fishes of any kind.
---------------------------------------------------
Big deal.
We're apex predators, simple as that. I find the very notion of worrying about the feelings of prey laughable.
Conserving the numbers and avoiding a species from becoming extinct is a valid concern, but wondering about Flipper's grieving wife and kids? Give me a break...
Oh, and the plaural of fish is fish, not fishes.
Complain about this comment
Assessing creatures on the basis of sentience is Kingdomist.
Plants are living creatures too and shouldn't be killed to feed our rapaciousness.
We should all become fruitarians and only eat plants that are already dead or have fallen off trees or bushes. Fruit and nuts are OK. All else is murder.
Ref. 'Notting Hill'.
Mansummits should like that.
Complain about this comment
#96 Brunnen_G wrote:
"We're apex predators, simple as that."
Sounds like "natural = right", an error loosely called the naturalistic fallacy.
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard #95.
"But none of them [birds] are all that bright."
that explains, nay justifies, it.
Complain about this comment
"Rebuilding Global Fisheries" [including Whales?]
Worm, et al.,
Science 31 July 2009:
Vol. 325. no. 5940, pp. 578 - 585
DOI: 10.1126/science.1173146
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/325/5940/578
===============
I finally have a copy of this paper and read it this morning.
\\\ Happy Father's Day ///
A complex paper, hard to draw conclusions from I think, unless one is expert in this field.
But I have help deciphering it, and that help is Sylvia Earle and her book "The World is Blue", published in 2009, the year of the paper. Sylvia has the advantage of age and perspective, and unlike this paper, she writes clearly and with meaning to the public.
The paper is not about whales, but the central idea, 'Maximum Sustainable Yield,' applies. Here, from "The World is Blue," p 48, is Sylvia Earle:
"In the 1930's, a seductive strategy for managing fisheries emerged that aimed to extract the largest possible catch from a stock of fish over an indefinite period of time [maximum sustainable yield]...
...the idea presumes that a population is able to reproduce at its maximum efficiency when it is reduced to about half the number that can be sustained in a given area...
...they respond, in theory, by instantly making a lot more fish!"
============
Sylvia goes on to describe how this "seductive" strategy was adopted by the 'International Whaling Commission', the 'International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas', and other fisheries organizations.
She then goes on to savage this 'seductive' idea, presenting twelve good reasons why it is not working as planned. I will only relate one of the twelve:
"Fourth, there is no surplus in a natural healthy system." (ibid, p49)
To summarize, here is a quote by biologist P.A. Larkin, in a keynote address in 1976 to the American Fisheries Society (also from Sylvia's book):
"M.S.Y. [Maximum Sustainable Yield]
1930s - 1970s
Here lies the concept, MSY.
It advocated yields too high,
And didn't spell out how to slice the pie.
We bury it with the best of wishes,
Especially on behalf of fishes..."
=============
Sylvia then goes on to relate a series of ideas which she considers more "robust," but I will pass on this, as I wish to bring the forementioned around to focus on the 2009 paper by Worm et al:
The paper discusses at length and in depth the concept of Maximum Sustainable Yield - it is in my opinion the center-piece of the whole discussion.
But it gets lost in detail - at least for general readers!
So I'll summarize, and draw what conclusions I can from a look at the graphs and mathematics of 'fish exploitation':
1) For me, fishing at 10 percent of a healthy fish population looks like about right, from Figure 2. This is the point at which statistically no collapse is expected.
2) If I read the paper correctly, not an easy task, Boris Worm et al are advocating a 'new maximum sustainable yield,' based not on taking ~ 50 percent of a healthy population, but ~ 25 percent, i.e., higher than my 10 percent, but much lower, by about half, than the current paradigm.
3) Normally I would defer to 'expert' testimony, but as I consider Sylvia Earle more expert than Boris Worm, this calls for some interpolation.
4) Without copying and pasting entire chapters of Sylvia's book, which is warranted given her expertise and ability to write, you will have to settle for my shortened and undoubtedly less informed views. (I urge all to get this book!)
5) Bowman - you made an interesting point from my point of view earlier with regard to the ocean fishery! You said that if the levels I quoted, i.e. ~ '10 percent of fish left from pre-industrial times' were right, the entire ocean ecosystem should have been disrupted!
Bowman - you have potential as a scientist, as your observation happens to coincide exactly with Sylvia Earle's assessment.
According to Sylvia, and of course many many others, from James Kasting and Lee Kump (geochemists - Earth System's Science - ocean acidification etc etc...), that is exactly the situation - and a more terrifying prospect it would be hard to envisage. I am expecting Hollywood to make another movie!
6) Common sense suggests 10 to 20 percent might be feasible, and I am all for common sense.
===============
So, after all that, I simply say that these individual agencies are a waste of time, and not only that, but they are a distraction from the real issue, which is the entire ocean ecosystem!
We need a comprehensive strategy which takes into account everything from the phytoplankton that produce 70 percent of our oxygen to the whale, arguably the oceans most iconic top predator and keystone species.
- Manysummits @ the Climate Change Cafe -
Complain about this comment
The disturbed personalities of a few posters here is I think very obvious, and does not obviously require CO2 to display.
Thinking feeling hunters have always developed regard for their victims - in almost all cultures close to the land.
I myself know this from personal experience. E.O. Wilson, the great biologist, relates a near identical personal experience in his first novel "Anthill."
The disturbed personalities of which I speak lead us inevitably to war and advanced hierarchy, and now - to ecocide.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
#101 manysummits wrote:
"Thinking feeling hunters have always developed regard for their victims"
But not enough regard, apparently, not to kill them! Some regard -- I do hope no one ever decides to treat me with that sort of "regard"!
Complain about this comment
#101 manysummits wrote:
The disturbed personalities of a few posters here is I think very obvious, and does not obviously require CO2 to display.
Thinking feeling hunters have always developed regard for their victims - in almost all cultures close to the land.
I myself know this from personal experience. E.O. Wilson, the great biologist, relates a near identical personal experience in his first novel "Anthill."
The disturbed personalities of which I speak lead us inevitably to war and advanced hierarchy, and now - to ecocide.
- Manysummits -
-------------------------------------------
More hippy nonsense from the resident tree hugger.
Care to name names of these 'disturbed personalities', or are you too much of a coward?
I would define anyone stupid enough to anthropomorphise seabound mammals as fairly disturbed, but then I'm odd, I think anyone who is willing to sacrifice billions of human lives to "save" the planet should be locked in a rubber room.
And in case you're wondering, that last part means YOU manysummits. Your 'sustainability' plan that can feed 5 billion means 2 billion have to either starve, be exterminated or emigrate to Narnia.
Makes Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot look like a bunch of amateurs...
Oh, and I'm STILL waiting for my apology.
Complain about this comment
ooooh doesn't it sound posh........ Apex Predator. The trouble with being at the top of the food chain is that there are supposed to be a smaller proportion of 'apex predators' than producers and herbivores and tertiary feeders. If we stuff up the food chain, to be the cause of no more fish, no more frogs, no more bees everything else looses its natural link to food. Even little kids know that much. The signs of imbalance are too many of a particular species who are enjoying the gap in the food chain. However, once that over breeding species polishes off the remains of its natural food source, it starves and dies out and so do the other dependent species in that food web. One could argue that another species will fill in the gap left by the departing species but it does at a cost. Anyone for dominoes? We humans are a peculiar lot as apex predators with the capacity to be producers and consumers at the same time.
Perhaps in time with all of these DNA experiments we will be given chloroplast wings to create our own energy along with a blood circulation for human transactions. Meet hybrid plant/man. ;-)
hello manysummits
Complain about this comment
@92. Brunnen_G
Tests have shown, time and time again that dolphins and whales have levels of intelligence comparable to an elephant or smart breed of dog like a German Shepherd.
This nonsense myth that they are on a level comparable to us is complete gibberish, unsupported by ANY science …
You are quite correct.
Careful assessments of the intelligence of cetaceans indicate that they are no more intelligent than ferrets. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetacean_intelligence ) Long paeans to ‘sentience’ are merely attempts to misdirect the debate. By asserting that ‘sentience’ is what is important, and claiming that ‘only’ intelligence has been measured, the fact that these animals do not rank anywhere near that of, and should not be confused with human intelligence, can be conveniently swept under the rug.
That being said, I am firmly in the ‘let us stop killing whales’ camp. I just cannot abide intellectual sleights of hand, and linguistic gymnastics that some feel entitled to.
Complain about this comment
If we are saying that from various figures/surveys etc. That there are only 10% of the fish (we like to eat) left in the oceans. Then Surely taking 10% of the remainder is temporarily too high until stocks rebuild. We could be close to one of those "tipping points" where the numbers simply never recover... Where is the that level 8%? 3%? Do we want to find out?
3-5% seems to me the maximum number we should take until numbers return to pre- industrial levels, then common sense suggests that the 10% discussed would be acceptable/sustainable
Regarding sentience I think a better word, and a word that was used in the past for hunter-prey relationships is, respect.
P.S. Manysummits, such is your enthusiasm for The World is Blue that I have today ordered a copy. I will report back on my opinion :)
Complain about this comment
@sensibleoldgrannie
No, apex predator sounds accurate, not posh. Try not to sound so condescending next time.
The rest of your post is just as full of waffle. Can you name the last species that humans hunted to extinction for food? I can, it was the passenger pigeon in 1914.
It's not as if we're hunting species to extinction as a hobby, it's actually very rare.
Complain about this comment
@ChangEngland
I agree with you, sort of.
I just don't think cutting the numbers of fish we catch down is going far enough. If indeed there are only 10 of the fish stocks left, we need to stop commercial fishing altogether until such time as the numbers have recovered and are abundant once more.
When it comes to hunting whales and dolphins, I think that likewise we should only hunt species that are not under threat of threat of extinction.
That is a hunter's respect, ensuring there will be more prey for his children to hunt.
Complain about this comment
#106 ChangEngland wrote:
"Regarding sentience I think a better word, and a word that was used in the past for hunter-prey relationships is, respect."
The "respect" that a hunter has for his prey is the same as the "respect" that rapist or murderer has for his victim -- i.e. none at all. It's an obvious lie made up by people who want to cover up their own cruelty with a bit of "native American" mystic-speak.
Furthermore, what reason would a non-religious person have to respect any sort of "natural order"? There's no such thing as the "natural order" to anyone who believes evolutionary theory instead.
Complain about this comment
To ChangEngland #106: re 10 percent of fishery left
You may be entirely correct (3 - 5 percent). In that same book you have ordered, "The World is Blue," the consensus which I respect does indeed suggest that no matter the statistical estimate used, because of near total ignorance with regard to the working of 'the whole,' we should in addition err on the side of caution, and reduce from the statistically derived 'catch.'
And in the paper I cited earlier, by Boris Worm et al, there are apparently now documented cases of actual predator/prey reversals in the world ocean. I am afraid I don't know enough to comment further - perhaps we have some readers who do?
I was an avid hunter as a youngster and then an adolescent, living entire summers in the Laurentian Mountains just north of Montreal. My father died as I turned twelve, and being a former United States Marine, I had persuaded him to buy me a real rifle when I turned thirteen.
My mother allowed me to buy a 303 Lee Enfield on my thirteenth birthday, and many were the fennant martin who fell to my sharpshooting. I used jacketed target shells which produced less damage than a lead .22, and could usually take a head shot to avoid damage to the pelt.
But as one ages, and one's understanding of the natural world increases, there comes a day when taking life unnecessarily becomes not a thing of beauty, but one of disgust.
So it was for me, and for E.O Wilson, and for countless millions of our forebears.
For the primate with the big brain, the taking of life to feed one's family and oneself has always been an everlasting conundrum, addressed in different ways by different cultures.
But I think you are entirely correct in describing this as 'respect.'
As usual, the artists are way out front in terms of truth, and most everything else.
"He prayeth best who loveth best all things both great and small.'
- Samuel Taylor Coleridge
I believe you will enjoy Sylvia Earle as much as I - she has a sense of humor to go along with her science.
Regards,
Manysummits
Complain about this comment
Brunnen G
I was unaware of appearing condescending as it was not my intention.
Man nearly hunted cod to extinction, google: cod fishing Newfoundland
Man nearly hunted bison to extinction, google: bison
Man nearly hunted certain types of whale to extinction, google: whales
etc. etc
Man's pet cat has decimated small bird populations
Man's introduction of non native species has decimated wild creature populations google: hedgehogs
Man's introduction of farmed salmon into wild rivers has hit wild salmon populations
How do you know the passenger pigeon was hunted to extinction, did you eat the last one? (now that was rude)
There have been quite a few near extinctions due to 'hobby activities' hence strict import controls of certain goods.
There is an amazing photograph of a cheetah and its prey, where the cheetah plays with the deer and allows it to escape after an almost-friendly game. google: cheetah and deer.
Obviously humans are getting some things right and are correcting some past mistakes, with some success.
Complain about this comment
#95 bowmanthebard
"But none of them are all that bright."
by who's measure? very spacies and cultural centric thinking there bowman.
we're not even smart enough to recognise the intelligence of white mice!
Complain about this comment
@sensibleoldgrannie
Nearly?
Nearly is meaningless. Ask the first guy to nearly run a mile in under four minutes.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't all the species we nearly hunted to extinction now protected by various laws?
With the exception of cod, but governments are planning to protect them too. Whether or not they'll provide enough protection is a different matter.
I don't think we can wag the finger too hard at our ancestors for introducing non native species. They simply didn't know what the effects would be.
That said, sometimes it worked out great. Can you imagine the devastating effect on predators in the UK if the rabbit was to be eradicated?
Complain about this comment
beats me why you bother trying to engage manysummits when it is obvious he is clearly beyond reason
/Mango
Complain about this comment
#87 Cryses
"biochemical analysis was sufficiently detailed to establish the DNA origin of the sample"
what are you talking about? dna analysis has absolutely nothing to do with toxicity. just because you analyse the dna of a sample does not imply you've looked at mercury, pcbs or any other toxic material. and if you want to back up your ideas (which your evidence is not doing) it's pointless linking to something that has links you haven;t referenced.
and pcbs are very, very long lived chemicals so as i said previously unless these toxins have reduced dramatically then analysis a few years old is just as valid today. in fact bio-accumulation means that if a whale was toxic in 2007 and was plonked is a salt water simming pool with no toxins for three years it would still have toxic chemicals in it.
sensibleoldgrannie - if you think chyrses has highlighted an urban myth can you try something for me?
1. go to google
2. in the toolbar select 'scholar'
3. select 'advanced scholar search'
4. type 'whale toxin' in the find all words
5. type for date '2008-2010'
now have a scan through and ask yourself if it is disinformation to suggest that whale meat contains toxin or to suggest it has miraculously disappeared in the past few years.
and it's not unique to whales, as chryses pointed out you have to be careful of many species from the ocean but whales are particular long lived and therefore can potentially accumulate high doses.
Complain about this comment
104. At 5:48pm on 20 Jun 2010, sensibleoldgrannie wrote:
"hello manysummits"
===================
Hello sensibleoldgrannie! I hope you are well.
\\\ Intelligent Life ///
The Lichen - here ~ 800 million years
The Shark - here ~ 400 million years
Man - here ~200,000 years, and possibly near extinction or collapse.
Isn't there something about people living in glass houses??
All the best,
Manysummits
Complain about this comment
#110 - manysummits
I assume you mean martens... martins are birds.
But what is "fennant" supposed to mean?
We have martens on our property, and see them regularly. Very intelligent, as evidenced by their curiosity and quick learning. Given how you feel now, those memories must be a major guilt trip for you.
And we actually have something in common. I too used to have the same rifle in my youth. Bit big for martens. I used mine for deer. Originally designed for Germans... or perhaps Boers.
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #109
Quote "The "respect" that a hunter has for his prey is the same as the "respect" that rapist or murderer has for his victim -- i.e. none at all."
How do you get from "respect" (for your prey) to ... "rapist". Rape is a demeaning, insulting, mentally damaging crime against women or in unusual cases, men (I doubt it occurs in animals I honestly don't know). You are right in one thing: there is certainly no element of respect contained in rape.
Respecting the beauty and life of an animal that is about to be ended fr your own survival and needs, has nothing to do with religion or Darwinism. It simply, is; or should be.
Complain about this comment
thanks for the tip rossglory,
I have never used the 'advanced scholar search' tool before because I have never noticed it. We learn something new every day.
The plot thickens and the truth blurs.
Brunnen_G
'A miss is as good as a mile' and 'nearly' is nonsense.
Complain about this comment
manysummits quoted Coleridge:
"He prayeth best who loveth best all things both great and small."
But are you seriously suggesting that shooting at little animals is a way of "loving" them? I'll bet they'd disagree!
Complain about this comment
#113. Brunnen_G -
The cod off Newfoundland are now definitely protected by fisheries closures in Canadian waters, but the recovery still appears very, very slow.
Its the cod in the North Sea that still seem to be inadequately protected as far as I know.
P.S. You are right about the official date of the passenger pigeon extinction, but that was the last one surviving in a zoo. The effective extinction in the wild happened earlier.
Complain about this comment
#88 sensibleoldgrannie
you had no need for contrition. you were right, chryses is wrong. he mistakenly seems to think that dna analysis is 'detailed' enough to highlight toxins. this is not the case (and even if it was, to suggest that omission from scientific research is an indicator of any kind is flat wrong). if the study is interested in genetic links there is no reason at all to analyse toxins.
this highlights a key aspect of a lot of the debate here. how can you tell who is feeding you misinformation? shouting 'shame! shame! disinformation' is not a good indicator.
the google scholar search i mentioned is very useful in this respect and the abstracts of most research is enough to understand what the research is about and some of its conclusions.
i just spotted stevew's post:
"Chryses - I see you are an argument looking for somewhere to take place. Good luck with that."
he's quicker on the uptake than me :o)
Complain about this comment
#manysummits
getting less and less optimistic every day :o(
"The first comprehensive synthesis on the effects of climate change on the world's oceans has found they are now changing at a rate not seen for several million years.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100618103558.htm"
Complain about this comment
rossglory,
(at 8:53pm on 20 Jun 2010)
what are you talking about? dna analysis has absolutely nothing to do with toxicity. just because you analyse the dna of a sample does not imply you've looked at mercury, pcbs or any other toxic material. and if you want to back up your ideas (which your evidence is not doing) it's pointless linking to something that has links you haven;t referenced.
What I am talking about is customarily called chemical analysis.
Do you really think anyone believes that the biochemists who are performing these analyses are saying “Well, even though we have the tissue samples in front of us, and the tools at hand to do the toxicology analysis of the samples (they do you know, just follow this link http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100421075203.htm [and for once, do follow the link, there is useful information at the destination – even if it is inconsistent with certain presumptions]), we arbitrarily decided to throw the samples into the rubbish bin now that we have completed the DNA analysis.” Of course they don’t! As is clearly evidenced in the linked article they analyze the sample ninety-eight ways from Sunday! And when - and only when evidence of other noteworthy features is sufficiently unambiguous they publish it!
This is Science being published, don’t you know, not Romantic Fiction.
sensibleoldgrannie - Actually, if you do as the good rossglory suggests, you’ll be presented with a page containing a collection of links, the very first one of which was (on my machine) “The impact of ecotourism boats on the St Lawrence beluga whales!” No really! LOL! And when I followed that link, the copyright was 1994! That would be, what, 16 years, yes? Long lived indeed! The next link was to “Domoic acid exposure in pygmy and dwarf sperm whales (Kogia spp.) from southeastern and mid-Atlantic US waters.” What is domoic acid I hear you ask? Well, I can tell you definitively that it is neither a PCB nor is does it contain mercury (Hg). If you follow that link you will discover that, and I quote, “The neurotoxin domoic acid (DA) was detected in urine and fecal samples recovered from pygmy sperm whales …” Well, I daresay that if any of us feasted exclusively on the urine and feces of pygmy sperm whales, we would die. You have been warned! The next two abstracts are also in re Domoic acid, and are equally irrelevant. The fifth abstract contains, and I quote, “No information is available on toxin levels in this population” etc, etc, etc.
Do as rossglory suggests, and you’ll see what utter nonsense you’ll get. Let his own directions guide his refutation.
whales are particular long lived and therefore can potentially accumulate high doses. Scare tactics again! Remember, potential is NOT actual.
Let us not eat whale meat, but let us do so for good reasons.
Complain about this comment
#118 ChangEngland wrote:
How do you get from "respect" (for your prey) to ... "rapist".
You question should be: How do you get from killing to rape? -- My answer is: In both cases, these are both acts of violence with victims who would very much prefer not to be victims.
My question is: How do YOU get from perpetrating an act of extreme violence to "respect"?
Complain about this comment
#118 ChangEngland wrote:
"Respecting the beauty and life of an animal"
You do not "respect" the beauty and life of an animal by killing it. You respect your own hunger, perhaps, but not the animal.
Complain about this comment
Why don't celebrities fight stupidity?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/20/firms-paid-to-shut-down-wind-farms-when-the-wind-is-blowing/#more-20818
Complain about this comment
#124. Chryses
I'm sure that if you translated "the urine and feces of pygmy sperm whales" into French it would sound more appetizing, and perhaps could be sold in expensive restaurants to the sophisticated set.
And those belugas in the St. Lawrence are one population that are particularly loaded with toxins. No surprise when you look where they are and all the industry upstream.
The killer whales in the Puget Sound are also apparently a similar case due to where they live.
But each species and population is different of course. All this overgeneralization about "whales" misses the point entirely.
Complain about this comment
CanadianRockies,
(at 11:59pm on 20 Jun 2010)
But each species and population is different of course. All this overgeneralization about "whales" misses the point entirely.
I couldn't agree with you more! A point that SOME of us have yet to understand! LOL!
Complain about this comment
rossglory wrote:
(at 9:58pm on 20 Jun 2010)
the google scholar search i mentioned is very useful in this respect and the abstracts of most research is enough to understand what the research is about and some of its conclusions.
I must agree with you! Who would have expected that! LOL! Did you actually read any of the abstracts that were listed in the result set?
Complain about this comment
123. At 10:02pm on 20 Jun 2010, rossglory wrote:
#manysummits
getting less and less optimistic every day :o(
"The first comprehensive synthesis on the effects of climate change on the world's oceans has found they are now changing at a rate not seen for several million years.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100618103558.htm
===============
Hello Ross!
Just read the link. The Pine Island Glacier, West Antarctic Ice Sheet - John Mercer territory. He will be proven right yet, I fear.
From my researches, WAIS (West Antarctic Ice Sheet) is definitely our Achilles Heel as far as sea-level rise is concerned. The article on the BBC on the transverse ridge under this Pine Island Glacier, one of the largest in the world, is sobering. Direct observation by an unmanned submersible.
And I share your pessimism, the news just keeps getting worse and worse.
"Ocean Acidification Unprecedented, Unsettling"
Richard A. Kerr; Science; vol 328; p.1500-1501
==================
Any positives?
Yes, I think so. I've noticed our board getting more serious comments, and this is all to the good, because our problem is really that not enough, not even nearly enough, know or believe how serious the situation is becoming.
That is changing now, and I have a hunch that this year will see that sea-change in public perception.
President Obama's Oval Office Speech marks the beginning, for the United States carries the weight.
You know, if you really want something to think about - consider the methane clathrates. Apparently, the best estimates now see the amount of CH4 sequestered in this way dwarfing the amount sequestered and possibly released at the Paleocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum, ~ 55 million years ago. The world was much warmer then, before the release, from pole to pole - effectively no ice cover.
Now the situation is different, and we are releasing CO2 perhaps ten times faster than then, according to sources cited in the article I mentioned above. CH4 oxidizes to CO2, which then has that long life in the atmosphere. Between the greenhouse heating capacity of CH4 if it is ever released by the same warming ocean that is melting the bottom of the WAIS, and its later conversion to long-lived CO2 - we have a runaway tipping point. If this happens - well - it's Peter Ward time, i.e., mass extinction by an ocean full of green and purple bacteria, releasing H2S - Hydrogen Sulfide. With all the money in the world, we couldn't build machines fast enough to draw down the CO2.
Regards,
Manysummits
Complain about this comment
manysummits,
Your mention of the ice sheet alarms me and so does the prospect of H25. Do you think things will happen suddenly?
Complain about this comment
Chryses at #72; Ross at #76, (and subsequently)
Chryses, I agree with Ross that you are mistaken if you believe that the research mentioned in the ScienceDirect link reveals that there were no “alarming levels of mercury” of years ago. It does nothing of teh sort, nor does it present ANY results that would allow such an assertion to be made.
If you go an look at the actual published research, you will see that it ONLY reports on genetic material analyses. In terms of processing the samples, the laboratories conducted DNA extraction and amplification. Concerning the analyses, specifically they report on analysis of mtDNA cytochrome b sequences for species identification, and control region sequences and seven published microsatellite loci for individual DNA profiles. Such focused analyses of genetic material do not yield data on tissue contamination levels.
They paper does NOT report on any other chemical analyses of samples. Moreover, I doubt that the sort of heavy metal analyses you mention would be undertaken at the laboratories involved, as the samples were analysed at two specialist genetics laboratories - the Conservation Genome Resource Bank at Seoul National University and the Laboratory of Conservation Genetics at Oregon State University.
The full research paper (and supplementary material) is available free as an open access paper at: http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/04/08/rsbl.2010.0239.full
Complain about this comment
Ross at #115
Might I suggest you refine your search terms for a Google Scholar search somewhat?
Rather than use 'whale toxin' I would recommend, for example: heavy metals, organochlorines, cetaceans.
Complain about this comment
132. sensibleoldgrannie
I hate to see a grannie get too alarmed...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/19/antarctic-agreements-and-disagreements/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/18/hot-times-in-antarctica/
Complain about this comment
@sensibleoldgrannie #132
manysummits,
Your mention of the ice sheet alarms me and so does the prospect of H25. Do you think things will happen suddenly?
I don't think you have anything to worry about, grannie, manysummits continual campaign of disinformation cintinues with his "ocean acidifiaction" claim, but see here and you will see the ph of the ocean isn't the same everywhere anyway
http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl1002/2009GL040999/
but look - they first of all tell us that ph varies from the tropics (Hawaii) to the North Pacific (Alaska), the water becomes less and less alkaline. So even without any CO2, if you want to experience “acidification” of the ocean water, just go from Hawaii to Alaska
see here for more details:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/19/the-electric-oceanic-acid-test/
/Mango
Complain about this comment
Chryses at #124
The interpretation you provide about the article you link to from ScienceDirect in your message at #124 is equally disingenous or deliberately misleading.
That they report both DNA and mercury contamination results is not accidental - the researchers set out to do both!
As the paper notes, the researchers "used DNA barcodes to identify tuna sushi samples analysed for mercury and demonstrate that the ability to identify cryptic samples in the market place allows regulatory agencies to more accurately measure the risk faced by fish consumers and enact policies that better safeguard their health."
Once again the full research paper is available as open access (free) and can be viewed at:
http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/04/13/rsbl.2010.0156.full
(P.S. My apologies for the typos in my earlier #133 - I hope that the meaning is nonetheless clear, at least to anyone who is trying to understand!)
Complain about this comment
132. At 05:36am on 21 Jun 2010, sensibleoldgrannie wrote:
manysummits,
Your mention of the ice sheet alarms me and so does the prospect of H25. Do you think things will happen suddenly?
=====================
Top scientists in this field, such as James Zachos of the University of California, Santa Cruz; Lee Kump of Pennsylvania State University; Ken Caldeira of Stanford; etc..., have said essentially that nobody knows, but that the potential for rapid change exists...
As each day passes, our top scientists get more and more worried. If there is one theme which represents a pattern, it is that as the new information pours in, the situation looks grimmer and grimmer.
Here is the abstract for a recent 'News' article in 'Science':
"Ocean Acidification Unprecedented, Unsettling"
Richard A. Kerr
Science 18 June 2010:
Vol. 328. no. 5985, pp. 1500 - 1501
DOI: 10.1126/science.328.5985.1500
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/328/5985/1500
In this article, Lee Kump characterizes the 'current era of human planetary dominance' as:
"one of the most notable, if not cataclysmic, events in the history of our planet."
James Zachos on our CO2 emissions:
"you could argue that the rate of release is 10 times faster [than at the PETM], if not faster"
Richard Feely of NOAA's Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle, Washington:
"Now ocean pH is lower than its been for 20 million years, and its going to get lower...
modeling predicts a drop from a pre-industrial pH of 8.2 to about 7.8 by the end of this century. That would increase the surface ocean's acidity by about 150 percent on average."
===============
There are posts just previous to this telling you not to worry - accusing me of disinformation.
Nothing could more clearly demonstrate the insidious work of what I call 'the lobby.'
Here, from the article on ocean acidification cited above:
"Over the past four years, there's been a crescendo of concern [about the acidification of the ocean]...
"Now the geochemists are weighing in...
there cannot be an iota of doubt...
gigatons of acid are lowering the pH of the world ocean [and]
humans are totally responsible."
==============
I wish these articles were 'open access.'
In lieu, here is a NASA photo from space of a minor amount of H2S in the world ocean:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=44340
I also wish I could afford to spend the time I have these past few months on this type of information. But our wonderful way of life has arranged things such that most of us must scramble for a living...
'and the band plays on.'
- Manysummits to sensibleoldgrannie -
[1] Lee Kump;
http://www.eesi.psu.edu/people/Kump.shtml
[2] James Zachos;
http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~jzachos/Professor%20of%20Earth%20%26%20Planetary%20Sciences.html
[3] Ken Caldeira;
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/
[4] PETM;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PETM
Complain about this comment
Mango at #136
Looking at the abstract of the article from Geophysical Research Letters to which you provide a link, I note that it states:
"Global ocean acidification is a prominent, inexorable change associated with rising levels of atmospheric CO2. ... Future mixed layer changes can be expected to closely mirror changes in atmospheric CO2, with surface seawater pH continuing to fall as atmospheric CO2 rises."
Umm, are you disagreeing with their conclusions that they identified "prominent", "inexorable", change associated with rising levels of atmospheric CO2 that they expect to see continue. Or did you simply miss that bit?
Complain about this comment
Addendum to sensibleoldgrannie, re #138:
Here is something from a man from Ireland - a long time ago:
"Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey,
where wealth accumulates, and men decay."
- Oliver Goldsmith, 'The Deserted Village' (1770)
Regards,
Manysummits
Complain about this comment
To Simon-swede:
Good morning!
Do you think there is any chance International Polar Year will get an extension to an International Decade for Polar Research?
Manysummits, in Calgary
Complain about this comment
Manysummits at #141
Hello!
I don't think so and am not sure that it would add much. The current format seems to work pretty well in any case.
Complain about this comment
Sorry to continue the side-track away from whaling, but related to some of the above posts, there is a paper “The Growing Human Footprint on Coastal and Open-Ocean Biogeochemistry” by Scott C. Doney which was included in the special feature on oceans published last week in Science.
This discusses how rising atmospheric carbon dioxide, excess nutrient inputs, and pollution in its many forms are altering the chemistry of the ocean, often on a global scale.
See: Science 18 June 2010, Vol. 328. no. 5985, pp. 1512 – 1516.
Complain about this comment
I'm jolly relieved to hear excess nutrients are doing something to counteract the sterilization of the oceans due to temperature rises at temperate latitudes. JaneBasingstoke had me worried about that a few months ago!
It's all "swings and roundabouts", isn't it? Lucky there's no such thing as the natural order -- otherwise you might be worried about disrupting it!
Complain about this comment
#133 simon-swede
many thanks for that.
Complain about this comment
#130 chryses
"I must agree with you! Who would have expected that! LOL! Did you actually read any of the abstracts that were listed in the result set?"
Yes
Complain about this comment
#124 chryses
if you want to debate what is in peer reviewed scientific papers i'm happy to continue.
if you want to debate what is NOT in peer reviewed scientific papers the you are in lewis carroll territory and i have better things to do.
your choice.
Complain about this comment
Ross at #147
But at least Lewis Carroll is worth reading!
Complain about this comment
#144 bowman
"I'm jolly relieved to hear excess nutrients are doing something to counteract the sterilization of the oceans due to temperature rises at temperate latitudes. JaneBasingstoke had me worried about that a few months ago!"
i don;t think you worry about this stuff anyway, but excess nutrients (eutrophication) can be just as damaging as stratification caused by increased surface temps.
'apologies, sarcasm alert'
hey, hey chyrses, over here. look it's some real disinformation. do i hear a claim of 'shame! shame!'? ....no? that's very odd.
'sarcasm over'
Complain about this comment
@Chryses
Please pardon me for giving unsolicited advice, but you might want to google “denialism” before investing too much more time about the purported “contamination of whale meat.”
I noticed that once the scientific basis of their position (Google Scholar search) was shown to be false, new search terms were promptly advanced to ‘correct’ that problem. This is a classic case of “Moving the goalposts.” Further, the original argument to disavow killing whales was to avoid poisoning oneself with contaminated meat; this “appeal to consequences” is a logical fallacy. The old data looks rather like “cherry picking” data.
I doubt that you will be successful in shaking their faith in what they believe to be true.
But so what? They seem to be, after all, opposed to whale hunting (the ends), so their fixation on supposed PCBs and Mercury in the meat (the means) is of secondary importance.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Complain about this comment
Saltpeter at #150
One look at the links provided by Chryses shows that he was misrepresenting what was said.
Not even worth tuppence.
Complain about this comment
#150 saltpeter
you seem to have joined chyrses in lewis carroll world. enjoy.
#148 simon
i heartily agree :o)
btw it's my un-birthday today. i haven't received the un-birthday card you didn't send yet!
Complain about this comment
Ross at #150
Re your non-event. Is it permissible to express my lack of regrets at this omission on my part?!
Complain about this comment
@simon-swede #139
No, the point I am making, Simon, is there is no single ph level for the worlds oceans, so how do we know what we are actually measuring against and if any harm will be caused?
Did you read the other link or just the first one?
The change in ph caused by mans emissions is stated as 0.03 over the 15 year study, but since marine life of the same species is quite happy to exist in differences of ph between Hawaii and Alaska, is the so-called “acidification” such a problem?
/Mango
Complain about this comment
Mango at #154
I did read both. The first presents results and lets the reader decide what to make of them. The second is heavier in attitude than it is in science.
The second paper's claim about impacts on marine organisms is even vaguer than yours, namely that "creatures in the ocean live happily in a wide range of alkalinities". That is not a serious assessment!
Complain about this comment
#154 MangoChutneyUKOK wrote:
is the so-called “acidification” such a problem?
If one supposes that there is a "natural" way things should be arranged, then any change is a problem.
Alas for our supposedly "secular" age!
Complain about this comment
little off topic (well a lot actually) but you may be interested to hear that the sunday times has retracted its 'amazongate' article. essentially, it accused the ipcc of using non-expert lobby info wrt effects of reduced rainfall in the amazon but now accepts the ipcc used data from peer reviewed articles.
another one down.
Complain about this comment
I'm afraid I'm with Chris on this one - the thought of harm coming to these beautiful creatures is abhorrent, and no one will ever persuade me any differently....
Complain about this comment
rossglory #152.
"btw it's my un-birthday today. i haven't received the un-birthday card you didn't send yet!"
oh dear, what is one to do, is it permissible to wish an unhappy birthday?
:-)
Complain about this comment
#159 jr4412
"oh dear, what is one to do, is it permissible to wish an unhappy birthday?"
no, it most definitely is!
:o)
Complain about this comment
#153 simon-swede
"Re your non-event. Is it permissible to express my lack of regrets at this omission on my part?!"
yes, it most definitely is not :o)
our discussion prompted me to read the jabberwock (which i learnt at school and still remember the first two verses) to my 4 1/2 year old. he loved it.
the 'mad gardener's song' went down well too (which prompted the following):
'He thought he saw a hid decline,
And vile statistics trick,
He looked again and found it was,
A perfect hockey stick.
'If there's much more of this' he said,
'The lobby will be sick'
Complain about this comment
#156 bowmanthebard
"If one supposes that there is a "natural" way things should be arranged, then any change is a problem."
here are some changes i would not consider a problem:
1. reduce destruction of rainforest
2. reduce ocean acidification due to anthropogenic co2 emissions
3. reduce/halt rate of human population growth
4. increase forest replanting
5. increase protection of wilderness areas (especially hotspots)
6. stop drilling in deep water and near fragile ecosystems
etc
etc
etc
want any more? (avoided agw to preserve mango's blood pressure)
Complain about this comment
@simon-swede #155
I would agree there is some attitude in the authors writing, but the point is still valid - if the oceans ph naturally varies by over 10 times the recorded variation over only 15 years, then a recorded value of 0.03 change is insignificant. Also real life ph readings were taken at Monteray Bay Aquarium and found to vary by as much as 0.5 in the same month
http://www.sanctuarysimon.org/monterey/sections/oceanography/project_info.php?projectID=100240&sec=o
also at Shiraho Reef, the pH of the water inside the reef changes in 12 hours by one full pH unit (7.8 to 8.8). (google "Reef Water CO2 System and Carbon Production of Coral Reefs", Suzuki & Kawahata - see page 239)
/Mango
Complain about this comment
@rossglory #162
want any more? (avoided agw to preserve mango's blood pressure)
it's not my blood pressure you need to worry about - i'm not worried about AGW, therefore my blood pressure is fine, thanks. You should be worrying more about Manysummits, because I think he really is close to the edge and i would hate it if he fell over
having said that, i agree with items 1, 4 & 5, but i'm not too fussed about the rest
/Mango
Complain about this comment
#162 rossglory wrote:
here are some changes i would not consider a problem:
1. reduce destruction of rainforest
2. reduce ocean acidification due to anthropogenic co2 emissions
3. reduce/halt rate of human population growth
4. increase forest replanting
5. increase protection of wilderness areas (especially hotspots)
6. stop drilling in deep water and near fragile ecosystems
I agree with most of those, but do you notice how all of the above are attempts to undo changes that modern humans have already made?
As an exercise, can you think of any changes humans have made that make things better? For example, I would suggest the irrigation of the desert, or the development of agriculture to reduce our dependence on meat-eating (and hence less dependence on killing).
I would go even further and say that the extra CO2 already liberated by humans has made the world more fertile, which is a good thing, and releasing even more of it would make the world even more fertile. (But I don't expect you go along with that last one!)
Complain about this comment
#155. simon-swede wrote:
""creatures in the ocean live happily in a wide range of alkalinities". That is not a serious assessment!"
What?!? Are you denying that plankton are happy? I'll need to see some peer reviewed research to prove that.
Complain about this comment
CanadianRockies at #166
I would challenge the contention that the mere presence of plankton in waters at differing levels of pH is an indication that CHANGES in pH do not pose a problem. The second link that Mango gave was spin, not science.
I am unaware of any literature whatsoever on the "happiness" of plankton per se, although I seem to remember a somewhat compulsive, obsessive prawn in the Nemo cartoon...
Complain about this comment
Just now there is a clear and present danger, but it is only clear and present in the minds of the imaginative few.
Perhaps the Arctic Sea Ice will do something obvious this summer, which is now officially underway in the northern hemisphere.
I think no one can absorb all of the new information streaming in from around the world as regards 'state of the planet.'
I was looking over all of my personal collection of articles this morning, and it is downright intimidating.
So many specialists - all trying no doubt to 'get their lives back' a la Tony Hayward, and all unable to do so, I would imagine.
There's that pesky imagination again!
- Manysummits, west of the main flooding in southern Alberta -
Complain about this comment
#167 simon-swede - Clearly a need for some serious sociological and psychological research on plankton happiness, perhaps related to pH. After all, the acronym for plankton happiness is PH. So perhaps that is what is actually changing?
Perhaps more plankton now have "disturbed personalities" or have become pH change deniers?
Time for a UN conference in some nice resort to discuss this pressing issue!
Slightly more seriously, I believe this pH discussion goes back to comment #138... and this alarming headline "Ocean Acidification Unprecedented, Unsettling"
Needless to say, I don't take this premise seriously at all. But it must be "unsettling" to those who do.
P.S. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/21/new-research-sheds-light-on-antarcticas-melting-pine-island-glacier/#more-20841
Complain about this comment
Saltpeter,
(at 12:05pm on 21 Jun 2010)
Interesting point – I had not noticed that before. Until I read rossglory (at 12:47pm on 21 Jun 2010) I would have discounted it, but the “conspiracy” is the fourth of the five tactics denialists employ.
#150 saltpeter
you seem to have joined chyrses in lewis carroll world. enjoy.
Still, your point is well taken; the value of their opposition to whale hunting sufficiently outweighs their peculiar motivation, so it might be best to leave them with their beliefs.
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #144
(@rossglory)
"JaneBasingstoke had me worried about that a few months ago!"
The problem is that topology means the continental shelves are already alright for nutrients, and that's where the agricultural runoff causes the excess nutrient problem.
So no, excess nutrients and "ocean desert" can't cancel out, they're in different places. Instead excess nutrients damage fertile parts of the ocean.
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/greening.jpg
http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=171951&direct=1
Meanwhile satellite monitoring of chlorophyll in the oceans does not look good, "ocean desert" has got bigger.
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2008/01/25-01.html
Complain about this comment
Richard Black.
"The annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) has opened ... a day and a half of private talks.
Some observers condemned the secrecy, one commenting that recent UN talks on North Korea's nuclear programme were held in public - so why not on whaling?"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10362015.stm
nudge, wink, handshake, and the deal is done, eh?
Complain about this comment
#168 manysummits wrote:
Just now there is a clear and present danger, but it is only clear and present in the minds of the imaginative few.
-----------------------------------------------------
I couldn't have put your views on the planet any better.
Complain about this comment
... an expression remembered from childhood,,,,'feast before famine.' The trouble with information is that it is stored all over the place and to get an overview of the whole planet one would have to research 24 hours a day. A nice animated map would help, in an easy to locate place, for those without the time to spare. The BBC has an easy to find list of information to countries of the world. Could this resource be extended?
Complain about this comment
\\\ The Imaginative Few ///
In the mountains where I spent seven years of my life, to confuse reality and fantasy is as good as a death sentence. This is probably why, in stepping off the beaten path one so often finds oneself alone, with only the sky above and a friendly raven for company.
It has been argued that we in the West now live in "An Empire of Illusion." (Chris Hedges, 2009)
Without a doubt I share this sentiment.
Richard Black reports that the doors are closed in Agadir. It might be argued that this is all for the good - our illusions can remain intact for awhile longer. Surely the mucky-mucks will do the right thing, especially if we are not there to distract them.
I believe it to be a fact of history, almost a natural law, as it were, that only the few 'see.'
In the UK, one need only hearken back to the years prior to 1939, when Winston Churchill was the proverbial 'voice in the wilderness.' I have a copy of the documentary "The Gathering Storm," in which Richard Burton plays Churchill, and a fine documentary I have always considered it - one of my prize possessions.
James Lovelock also relates this time in "The Vanishing Face of Gaia," in trying for an analogue to our own time and 'State of Denial.'
I think we have been conditioned from birth to 'fit in,' a normal enough development.
Unfortunately, many of us were born in societies which spent their time exploiting the world at large, and the weaker peoples in it, to their own advantage, externalizing in truly grand style - enough to make even a modern trans-national corporation blush.
Having recently destroyed our manufacturing base and impoverished our working class, we have nevertheless managed in a sort of Houdini-like master illusion to have convinced the electorate that if only we will swing further right politically, all will be well. And if a little religious zeal is added, all will be really well.
I mentioned in an earlier post that in surveying all of my collected scientific articles this past year and a half, I found myself marveling at the presumption that any one individual could think to master even a fraction of the studies.
It also occurred to me that one of the reasons for all this personal devotion was not to change the world, but rather to change myself.
And all this revelatory musing on the northern solstice.
So as to begin the new season aright, I offer simplicity rather than complexity - something to think about:
\\\ "We are as much alive as we keep the Earth alive." ///
- Chief Dan George
- Manysummits, off the beaten path -
Complain about this comment
A little off topic, but then, since the doors are closed in Morocco, we have to find something to talk about other than whales!
I was just reading the BBC article on 'tough budget cuts.'
Here in North America the talk is similar, and there is also talk of raising interest rates.
Cut spending - raise taxes... or, how to collapse an economy.
- Manysummits - waiting on the whalers -
Complain about this comment
Hi manysummits. Just a little heads up for you and the family.
It may be a good time to think about moving a bit south. I'd like to know if you have undertaken du-diligence about this research which over the recent months seems to be gaining traction:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/03/global_warming_seen_before/
It was not that long ago that your home was under the ice and it looks to be returning.
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard @#165 said “I would go even further and say that the extra CO2 already liberated by humans has made the world more fertile, which is a good thing, and releasing even more of it would make the world even more fertile.”
May be we should organise one of those campaigns-
“CO2 IS INNOCENT, RELIESE CO2”
Complain about this comment
@jr4412 #172
nudge, wink, handshake, and the deal is done, eh?
It is starting to look that way.
Complain about this comment
The BBC reports that -- according to a "study", no less -- "Some 98% of climate scientists that publish research on the subject support the view that human activities are warming the planet."
More reporting of the my-uncle-was-a-great-man-he-told-me-so-himself variety!
Four comments:
1. I'm amazed that 2% of published practitioners of this orthodoxy-ridden pseudo-science are prepared to swim against the political tide. Surely it is pure tokenism that the "climate change" journals publish anything that is not "on-side"?
2. It is interesting, too, that "studies" are now being published at the "meta level". Shall we call these "studies" pseudo-pseudo-science? Next: a "scientific study" that reports the shocking fact that 98% of self-described Catholics believe in God!
3. I'm sure that a somewhat smaller proportion of genuine scientists toe the line of received opinion. When shall we see a survey of their opinions? But in any case, even I believe that "human activities are warming the planet" -- marginally, probably, with no significant "catastrophic" effects -- so what's the big deal? I still think CO2 is good for the planet.
4. But anyway, as manysummits pointed out in respect of Churchill's opposition to the appeasing multitudes, consensus doesn't matter much except in elections. In science, consensus counts for less than nothing because it has the negative effect of promoting conformism and preventing people from asking penetrating questions.
Complain about this comment
#165 bowmanthebard
"As an exercise, can you think of any changes humans have made that make things better? For example, I would suggest the irrigation of the desert, or the development of agriculture to reduce our dependence on meat-eating (and hence less dependence on killing)."
i agree, not everything we do is detrimental. however, it's difficult to think of much behaviour that when replicated 9 billion times does not cause a problem. irrigation id fine but if we try to extend it to all deserts we run out of fresh water and/or energy. and it is believed the development of agriculture had some less appealing consequences, e.g. ironically malnutrition, disease, the means of waging war (not just tribal rivalry), overpopulation.
"I would go even further and say that the extra CO2 already liberated by humans has made the world more fertile, which is a good thing, and releasing even more of it would make the world even more fertile. (But I don't expect you go along with that last one!)"
it's not whether i go along with it that matters, the science i've seen suggests co2 fertilisation is real but limited and photosynthesis has already hit other limiting factors in most areas (e.g. water, nutrients, space). so the downside of more co2 is far larger and increasing rapidly.
Complain about this comment
after reds under the bed, it's now sceptics under the bed
good to see McCarthyism is alive and kicking
/Mango
Complain about this comment
#181 rossglory wrote:
photosynthesis has already hit other limiting factors in most areas (e.g. water, nutrients, space)
I would urge you to re-think this. The spread of life is nearly always limited by supplies of the sort you mention, so it doesn't "hit" limiting factors so much as is already at its limit because of such factors. For example, a newly-weeded garden or cleaned pond quickly fills with all of the life it can sustain. The same applies to the Earth itself, or a greenhouse. You can push the limit up in a greenhouse by adding CO2, or more light, or more heat, or nutrients of various kinds. I'll leave it as another exercise what might happen to the Earth if there were more heat at the polar regions.
One of my many problems with the AGW non-lobby is that they seem to to grasp this simple point -- a point that made such a deep impression on the young Darwin.
Complain about this comment
\\\ A Whale's "Funeral" ///
The setting:
The peeled and beheaded behemoth has been cast adrift, and the sharks and the vultures are doing their work.
Seen from afar by 'orthodoxy', the whale's body is mistakenly reported as:
"shoals, rocks and breakers hereabouts: beware!"
"Thus, while in life the great whale's body may have been a real terror to his foes, in his death his ghost becomes a powerless panic to a world."
- Herman Melville, "Moby Dick," Ch 69
=====================================
I can see why revisionist historian Ronald Wright thinks so highly of Melville's 'novel.'
We know in conscience that we have erred, and continue to do so - the International Whaling Commission and its history is proof of that.
Is our 'erring' restricted to adventure on the high seas, I wonder?
This society - the globalized Western Way - has never grown up, and in place of responsible adults we have instead an irresponsible and degenerate electorate, conditioned since birth to respond to the machinations of established hierarchy, in our time, a plutocracy.
When we awaken from this fantasy world, it will be to a nightmare of the first order.
I think the odds even - whether it will be economic or geophysical collapse which will usher us into this new world. Perhaps they are the same thing - two sides of the same coin.
- Manysummits | Dark Mountain -
Complain about this comment
Titus #177 - 'moving south?'
I would rather take you north - to the Alberta Tar Sands.
A senior scientist employed by 'Alberta Environment,' a branch of the pro-tarsands conservative Alberta government, has been ordered by the courts to apologize to two scientists who dared criticize the Tar Sands Project's environmental record.
This government 'scientist' has apologized in full and retracted his slander and lie, but I note he has not been fired!
'And the band played on' ("Ball of Confusion," the Temptations)
Alberta apologizes to oilsands critics
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100621/national/oilsands_scientists_defamed
=============================
Instead of your research on whether to move south or not, I will substitute credible science:
Tropical Ocean Temperatures Over the Past 3.5 Million Years
- Timothy D. Herbert et al.
Science 18 June 2010:
Vol. 328. no. 5985, pp. 1530 - 1534
DOI: 10.1126/science.1185435
"The inception of a strong carbon dioxide–greenhouse gas feedback and amplification of orbital forcing at ~2.7 million years ago connected the fate of Northern Hemisphere ice sheets with global ocean temperatures since that time."
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/328/5985/1530
============
As stated in previous posts, as new evidence streams in, the case for AGW strengthens and is enhanced as our understanding of the Earth's climate system deepens.
For the unimaginative many, distracted by the baubles of the modern world, these findings are as easily dismissed as were Churchill's warnings in the years previous to World War Two.
- Manysummits @ the Climate Change Cafe in Calgary -
Complain about this comment
@manysummits
i fear you will never wake up from your fantasy world, manysummits
/Mango
Complain about this comment
MangoChutneyUKOK #186.
"i fear you will never wake up from your fantasy world.."
better than walking wide-eyed into disaster (IMO).
Complain about this comment
@jr4412 #187
better than walking wide-eyed into disaster (IMO)
agreed, but since i'm not wide eyed, i and the rest of the planet will be fine
/Mango
Complain about this comment
MangoChutneyUKOK #188.
oh, come on now, do you seriously disagree with:
"This society - the globalized Western Way - has never grown up, and in place of responsible adults we have instead an irresponsible and degenerate electorate, conditioned since birth to respond to the machinations of established hierarchy.."
seems to me that all the ingredients for disaster are in place.
Complain about this comment
#183 bowmanthebard
"One of my many problems with the AGW non-lobby is that they seem to to grasp this simple point -- a point that made such a deep impression on the young Darwin."
not too sure where to start with this one.
1. you implied more co2 = good because it fertilises.
2. i said, that's partially true but where co2 is 'the limiting factor' others would soon kick in
3. you come back with 'what if the poles were warmer'
well i think you may find co2 is not the limiting factor at the poles.
strewth, debating with you bowman reminds me too much of arguing with my ex-wife.
Complain about this comment
180. bowmanthebard - Here's one of the 'kindest' critiques of that junk study:
Scientists 'Convinced' of Climate Consensus More Prominent Than Opponents, Says Paper
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/06/scientists-convinced-of-climate.html
Complain about this comment
189. jr4412
The ingredients for disaster are always in place.
Why are doomsday cults so popular?
Complain about this comment
CanadianRockies #192.
"Why are doomsday cults so popular?"
cannot answer that since I'm not part of any cult; the problems humans create both for themselves and for the planet per se are plain to see though.
Complain about this comment
@jr4412 #189
the end of the world has been nigh since the beginning of the world - and it's still here
/Mango
Complain about this comment
#190 rossglory wrote:
1. you implied more co2 = good because it fertilises.
Correct -- we're making progress! (And if you're ex-wife was ever reasonable enough to say that, rejoice, because my ex-wife wasn't.)
2. i said, that's partially true but where co2 is 'the limiting factor' others would soon kick in
My point is that they must be already fully kicked in, just like an untended garden is always full of weeds, and a garden pond is full of various life forms, except for the very brief period after it has been cleaned.
Take the garden pond. If you throw in something extra -- by bubbling oxygen through it, or by adding tap water (full of nitrates, apparently), something changes. The "something that changes" is usually bad for some life forms and good for others. Tap water tends to fertilize the water, which makes it better for plant life, including algae which make it cloudier, which in turn is worse for fishes. The "struggle for existence" continues, but be assured that all "sides" in this struggle are making every possible gain they can.
If you cover your garden pond with something dark, the plant life will do less well, but the fishes may do better. Perhaps all will fare less well -- but be assured that all of them will always be doing as well as they possibly can, given the raw materials that are available to them.
The Earth is covered in plants, wherever plants can live. And a considerable proportion of those plants are clinging to life -- not because anything has "gone wrong", but because that's the way life works. At the edge of the desert, they are barely able to survive because of shortage of water. On the forest floor, they are barely able to survive because of lack of light. Everywhere, plants would grow faster if they got more light, water, CO2, etc.
You find more plant life per unit area in Ireland than in California, because there is more water. There is less of the other factors (such as light and heat) that helps plants to grow Ireland, but the plentiful water in Ireland allows plants to be limited by some other factor than shortage of water. Hence Ireland is greener than California. It;s greener even than Greenland.
More CO2 similarly allows plants to be limited by something other than shortage of carbon. CO2 is as vital for plant growth as water, and their growth is good for the vegetarians that live on them, and hence for the predators that live on the vegetarians.
Please note that all life forms are already at their "ceiling" population levels, so obviously all life forms are limited -- but when one of the most important limiting factors such as water or CO2 is less limited, the "ceiling" is raised. That is why Ireland is very green, and why one might hope that Greenland might eventually be greener than it is now.
3. you come back with 'what if the poles were warmer'
That would also raise the "ceiling" to most of the life that would be able to live there.
Complain about this comment
MangoChutneyUKOK #194.
"..since the beginning of the world.."
sure but nerve agents, nuclear weapons and inter-continental missiles, and all sorts of (unpleasant) others stuff is relatively recent.
Complain about this comment
#193 jr4412 wrote:
the problems humans create both for themselves and for the planet per se are plain to see though
There are problems, yes, but also stunning ways in which humans have overcome their problems. It isn't "plain" to me that the "planet per se" has been rendered "problematic" by its own production of humans.
I note that among the "problems" you mention, there is no mention of the problems carnivores create for the sentient individuals they kill.
Complain about this comment
180. bowmanthebard - Here's some less kind critiques of that junk study, including from two people on that black list. How do you spell Lysenko?
"may very well mark a new low point in the pathological politicization of climate science. But hey, at least now we have a list. A black list."
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/06/new-black-list.html
"Just when you think things can't sink any lower, the National Academy of Sciences has now published a list compiled by a non-academic weblogger that attempts to rank scientists by expertise, credibility and (oh!) belief in the consensus position on global warming."
http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2010m6d21-Global-warming-Black-list-a-black-day-for-science?cid=exrss-Environmental-Policy-Examiner
"This paper is yet another example of the attempt to marginalize and “bin” scientists who differ from the IPCC perspective (except for those such as Jim Hansen who are more alarmist in their viewpoint)..."
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/06/21/comments-on-the-pnas-article-expert-credibility-in-climate-change-by-anderegg-et-al-2010/
Complain about this comment
#180 bowmanbard - Its also covered at WUWT...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/22/the-blacklist-of-climate-science/#more-20897
"It doesn’t get much uglier than this. A stasi-esque master list of skeptical scientists and bloggers, with ratings put together by a “scientist” that rants against the very people he rates on his blog. Meet the author, Jim Prall here. And he uses this for a peer reviewed paper. What next? Will we have to wear yellow badges to climate science conferences?"
Complain about this comment
#195 bowman
i'm afraid you're not right. it is simple plant physiology. i would explain in more detail but i fear it may be one of your proscribed pseudo-sciences and i'll get accused of mumbo-jumbo because you've gone out and measured the stomata of all your greenhouse plants and they are all less than 1/8 inch.
most plants are not co2 limited (and i use limited in its physiological sense) and the few that are (mostly rainforests) we're lopping down so fast, a little co2 fertilisation is going to make little difference...and indeed recent research has shown the effect to be slowing anyway.
more co2 will make no difference to the poles (for the foreseeable future) except as a greenhouse gas. plants there are limited by temp, water (lots of it but mostly frozen), nutrients (not much to liberate them in the soil) and to some extent light (although summers are pretty good!).
Complain about this comment
more co2 will make no difference to the poles (for the foreseeable future) except as a greenhouse gas.
Have you forgotten what it's all about? Do you remember there's supposed to be a big connection between CO2 and warmth? Warmer water does this thing called "melt"!
Complain about this comment
#199 CanadianRockies quoted:
"It doesn’t get much uglier than this."
It sure doesn't get much stupider than this -- a "study" of how much morons actually believe, with the idea that that is a decent basis for how much clever people ought to believe.
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard #197.
"There are problems, yes, but also stunning ways in which humans have overcome their problems."
like, for example, this?
"I note that among the "problems" you mention, there is no mention of the problems carnivores create for the sentient individuals they kill."
inadmissible -- eating others (and being eaten) to survive started well before the 'ascent of man'.
Complain about this comment
CanadianRockies #199.
"Will we have to wear yellow badges to climate science conferences?"
yes! in the shape of an ostrich with its head in the sand. ;)
Complain about this comment
CanadianRockies at #198 and #199
If the idea of a "black list" is so offensive, why not complain to the guy who cam up with it?
That person would appear to be none other than Pielke Jr - at least as far as I can tell from your links, he's the guy thát labelled the PNAS papers description in this way.
Complain about this comment
I don't bother replying to this sort of thing:
"i would explain in more detail but"
"Nope. Guess again."
"You really don't realise that you don't have a clue do you?"
Complain about this comment
#205. simon-swede - You are missing the point. Nixon called it an "enemies list." Not sure what Stalin or his "science" tool Lysenko called them.
Even worse, its junk research. Says more about how politicized the PNAS is than anything else.
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard #206.
confused by your post, two of the three quotes you provide (as an excuse: "I don't bother replying to this sort of thing") do not exist on this blog. what gives?
Complain about this comment
Black lists... hmn.
Some here might like these.
'Don't tell him, Pike!'
Maybe the BBC should run another poll amongst folk they find more agreeable?
Complain about this comment
Bowman at #206
But you did!
Complain about this comment
CanadianRockies at #207
My point is that the authors of the PNAS paper don't refer to their results like this. Readers who objected to the analysis, got upset and applied the label.
It seems to me that if you think the analysis is flawed, then the description/conclusions of the paper are invalid - so if it is meaningless, what does it matter? Just point this out (and why).
It also seems to me that it is if one thinks that the analysis may have some merit that the distinction the researchers make could be telling - and I wonder if that is what has triggered the vehement 'black list' type reactions from some.
Complain about this comment
#206 bowman
"I don't bother replying to this sort of thing:"
but you did reply and said:
"more co2 will make no difference to the poles (for the foreseeable future) except as a greenhouse gas. - rossglory
Have you forgotten what it's all about? Do you remember there's supposed to be a big connection between CO2 and warmth? Warmer water does this thing called "melt"!"
have you forgotten what 'greenhouse gas' means? or did you only read the first half of my sentence?
Complain about this comment
re #199 do i get a prize for spotting the first instance of godwin's law on this post?
Complain about this comment
Postscript to #211 and preceding discussion about teh PNAS paper
Last week's issue of Nature (17 June 2010) launched a new discussion about the use of metrics to measure and assess scientific performance and how they could be developed and used.
Nature's metrics-related articles are collected at http://www.nature.com/metrics and are available for online comment.
Complain about this comment
#12 rossglory wrote:
"have you forgotten what 'greenhouse gas' means? or did you only read the first half of my sentence?"
Where there is enough warmth for liquid water, and enough light for photosynthesis, photosynthesis will occur, and it will occur more vigorously the more CO2 there is to be photosynthesized. Once that happens, the CO2 will be doing more than just helping to melt water.
But our real disagreement has to do with the nature of life. Life is a bit like a gas -- it fills its container. A lot of AGW believers seem to think that a change in conditions "disrupts a balance" (translation: the proper balance) and leads to less life, when more CO2 means more life, not less life.
Complain about this comment
213. At 09:18am on 23 Jun 2010, rossglory wrote:
re #199 do i get a prize for spotting the first instance of godwin's law on this post?
Maybe a big shiny medal?
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
And a gold star, of course:)
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Blsx_6dnFT4/R0AszrWCBbI/AAAAAAAAAWQ/CI4G8vofLxk/s400/ist2_1803807_gold_star_2.jpg
Complain about this comment
#215 - bowman
"But our real disagreement has to do with the nature of life. Life is a bit like a gas -- it fills its container."
don;t see much evidence of that in deserts, the arctic, the mid-oceans, high altitudes......they're containers are they not?
life is just a process (very complex admittedly), you seem to be sanctifying it.
"and it will occur more vigorously the more CO2 there is to be photosynthesized."
only, as i keep saying, if it is not limited by anything else (which in most parts of the world it is). even with warming most of the arctic would still hit other limiting factors long before co2 came into play (e.g. most of the soil isn't great, light during winter etc)
in fact most co2 fertilisation is not how you imagine it (like adding nutrients to the soil). it works because plants can reduce the size of their stomata and therefore reduce water loss which was the limiting factor before co2 levels increased.
see i'm not arguing about the nature of life, this is pretty basic plant physiology. it's well worth studying if you want to understand it.
Complain about this comment
#216 junkkmale
not sure what the medal was but i'll take the gold star :o)
Complain about this comment
Rossglory at #217
But who would "want to understand it" if they can simply "imagine it" and thereby avoid all those bumptious annoying would-be experts who are really quasi-religious wet-blankets in disguise?
Complain about this comment
wrote:
bowmanthebard #215: "Life is a bit like a gas -- it fills its container."
rossglory #217: "don;t see much evidence of that in deserts, the arctic, the mid-oceans, high altitudes......they're containers are they not?"
bowmanthebard: It's more like the edges of the deserts are analogous to the edges of the "container". So the edge of the green area of the Nile basin, say, is a fuzzy cut-off area between it and the Sahara.
rossglory #217: "most co2 fertilisation [...] works because plants can reduce the size of their stomata and therefore reduce water loss which was the limiting factor before co2 levels increased."
bowmanthebard: So with more CO2 in the atmosphere, the plants that are barely able to survive in the fuzzy cut-off area described above find it that little bit easier to conserve water. So the fuzzy cut-off area extends a little further into the Sahara. In that way, the edges of the "container" are extended.
Complain about this comment
Why do we leave this to political emmisaries who are swayed by lobbying groups? What's wrong with a bit of people power - a boycott of Japanese goods would very quickly focus their minds during these hard economic times (assuming enough people participated) - I've just cancelled delivery of my new (Japanese) car, for what its worth. My own, probably token, gesture....
Complain about this comment
#220 bowman
"So the fuzzy cut-off area extends a little further into the Sahara."
which goes full circle to my original point, co2 fertisiation has a very limited affect, far outstripped by the problems of extra co2 (global warming and ocean acidification).
#219 simon-swede
indeed !
i keep promising myself i'll just reply to one more comment from bowman and leave it. but he's a master at the 'just enough sense to appear plausible but just enough nonsense to wind you up' post. pure genius :o)
Complain about this comment
#222 rossglory wrote:
"which goes full circle to my original point, co2 fertisiation has a very limited affect, far outstripped by the problems of extra co2"
You have done absolutely nothing to argue for that. I have demonstrated to you that more CO2 = more plant life = more life in general. QED. I rest my case -- Next!
Complain about this comment
@rossglory
@simon-swede
I think your problem is it doesn't rain enough where you live so you don't understand that water availability does not limit plants.
;-)
Complain about this comment
#214. simon-swede wrote:
"Postscript to #211 and preceding discussion about teh PNAS paper
---------
For some very intelligent discussion about this PoliticalNAS junk/flawed research paper, including a defensive comment from the compiler - a computer geek - check this out...
http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/06/21/the-climate-experts/#comment-8555
For a humourous look:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100044445/climate-change-sceptics-have-smaller-members-uglier-wives-dumber-kids-says-new-study-made-up-by-warmists/
Complain about this comment
Rossglory at #222
I know what you mean (and must admit, 'been there, done that' too!).
Complain about this comment
Bowman at #223
All you have done is demonstrate your "religious" belief that more CO2 = more plant life = more life in general.
As usual your beliefs owe much to your imagination and little to knowledge about the real world, biological systems and ecology.
You seem unable to grasp that there may be complex interactions between multiple factors, rather than simple linear cause & effect relationships. Simplicity of imagination may be beguiling, but it is no substitute for learning from things in the real world.
Complain about this comment
CanadianRockies at #225
What most people are saying is that they don't like the fact that the analysis was done. Few have any meaningful comments about the analysis itself.
What I do not see is a serious discussion about the statistical treatment and whether it is valid (i.e. does it allow meaningful distinctions to be drawn)? If so, are the conclusions drawn justified on the basis of the results obtained from the statistical analysis?
What do you think?
Complain about this comment
#227 simon-swede wrote:
"You seem unable to grasp that there may be complex interactions between multiple factors"
I'm well-aware of "complex interactions", I just don't think we have to prostrate ourselves in the face of complexity by giving up thinking. Are we supposed to throw our hands up and say it's all too complicated to speculate or talk about? All reasoning and all expression in language "distills" some details from the background noise and thereby simplifies things to some extent. And the more complicated a bit of reasoning is, the less trustworthy it is.
To return to the main issue. CO2 (with enough liquid water, sunlight, etc.) is in effect "the very bottom of the food chain", since almost all life depends on carbohydrates. In general, the bigger the bottom, the bigger the biomass that can sit on it. To disprove that, you should be discussing cases where more CO2 is a hindrance to life.
Complain about this comment
Boman at #229
I'm not advocating "giving up thinking", rather the opposite! But I am saying that "imagination" divorced from the real worl is not helpful for understanding relationships. Your simplicity becomes incoherent when it fails to take into account what is observed in the real world.
You again miss the point about CO2 and plants. You "assume" as given that there is "enough liquid water, sunlight, etc". But these are not "gvens" in a world with increasing levels of CO2 (if the general features of AGW are more or less correct). These things are also impacted by increasing levels of CO2, and so the assertion "more CO2 = more plants" is oversimplistic.
Complain about this comment
#230 simon-swede wrote:
You "assume" as given that there is "enough liquid water, sunlight, etc". But these are not "gvens" in a world with increasing levels of CO2 (if the general features of AGW are more or less correct).
All decision-making is necessarily made with limited information, and simplification is an unavoidable aspect of it. It's a bit like being "forced to place a bet on a horse".
Now, suppose someone puts a gun to your head and forces you to put your money on (A) "more CO2 will result in more plant life" or (B) "more CO2 will result in less plant life". Which "horse" would you place your "bet" on? A or B?
Complain about this comment
@rossglory
@simon-swede
I find that about 99% of my disagreements with Bowman come down to different use of language, often subtly different. And it's always worst with abstract concepts.
Take some advice from his hero Wittgenstein and flesh out the abstract with real life examples.
Complain about this comment
#232 JaneBasingstoke wrote:
Take some advice from his hero Wittgenstein and flesh out the abstract with real life examples.
Good point. I've already asked for some real-life examples of CO2 harming life. If the best anyone can come up with is out-and-out suffocation (etc.) in concentrations of CO2 far in excess of anything even AGW-worriers worry about, then I think we'll have to place our "bets" on "horse A"!
Complain about this comment
228. simon-swede wrote:
"CanadianRockies at #225
What most people are saying is that they don't like the fact that the analysis was done. Few have any meaningful comments about the analysis itself."
I guess you didn't look too hard.
First problem is that it simplistically broke this down to "convinced" and "unconvinced" when it is not that simple. There is a whole range of opinions that cannot be categorized like that. Moreover, convinced of what exactly? Check out Pielke Sr or Jr's blogs to see people who do not fit that simple construct.
Second, this is based on publication in "peer-reviewed journals" ... and we know from the Climategate emails - if one did not know already - that that is a totally skewed sample and the peer review process has been corrupted. Even setting that aside, the AGW camp has been so well funded and supported that that alone has allowed them to produce tons of papers while the other side has not... and of course, the other side simply can't get past the AGW gatekeepers who now control most journals in any case.
But as Einstein famously said, it only takes one scientist or paper to prove a 'consensus' false.
Third, there is all sorts of problems showing up in the basic data base here, as pointed out in some comments in that collide... blog. Depending on the search words many papers never showed up. There were also simple errors in the numbers of papers from various authors. And then there's the basic problem with categorizing them, again...
This is junk research using junk data and a biased sample... and thus the results have no statistical validity let alone any valid substance. Like I said, its publication says more about the political corruption of the NAS than anything else. And it is going to backfire because it is soooo obvious.
As for determining the 'credibility' of anything, it is utterly meaningless and won't fool anyone except those who choose to be fooled because it fits their beliefs.
You really ought to look into this thing more carefully before defending it too hard. This paper has no merit whatsoever except as a political tool, the likes of which we haven't seen in 'science' since Lysenko.
Doesn't really surprise me. We are not exactly living in the age of truth these days, and The Powers That Be are pushing AGW full tilt to milk the carbon cash cow. Maybe Goldman Sachs should do all the peer review from now on?
And, yes, many people do not like the fact that it was done because it WILL be used as a blacklist by some. Do you think this is a good thing? After all, this is SUPPOSED to be about science... and this is definitely not that.
Complain about this comment
simon-swede
Another link for you...
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/24/notes-from-the-whaling-and-warming-wars/
Complain about this comment
Sceptics should welcome this "research". Anyone who thinks a "show of hands among the already-convinced" should rationally persuade the unconvinced is logically backward, an epistemological idiot, and a liability to anyone whose opinions he cites.
Anyone who thinks an "opinion poll" has a bearing on scientific questions just hasn't a scientific bone in his body. I wouldn't waste any time discussing the methodology of the survey -- it would just be engaging in sociology.
Complain about this comment
@simon-swede
what do you think about this link which claims:
On the basis of this "consensus of one" solar physicist, the IPCC proclaimed solar influences upon the climate to be minimal. Objection to this was raised by the Norwegian government as shown in the AR4 second draft comments below (and essentially dismissed by the IPCC): "I would encourage the IPCC to [re-]consider having only one solar physicist on the lead author team of such an important chapter. In particular since the conclusion of this section about solar forcing hangs on one single paper in which J. Lean is a coauthor. I find that this paper, which certainly can be correct, is given too much weight"...:
http://climaterealists.com/?id=5910
/Mango
Complain about this comment
@bowman
i agree with most of what you say, but the paper "‘Expert Credibility in Climate Change’ published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is being presented as science
/Mango
Complain about this comment
and then we get idiotic things like this:
The author of a damning study about the failure of Spain’s “green jobs” program — a story broken here at PJM — received the threatening package on Tuesday from solar energy company Thermotechnic.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/24/green-energy-company-threatens-economics-professor-%e2%80%a6-with-package-of-dismantled-bomb-parts/
perhaps the BBC could report on Thermotecnics death threats in the same way they reported that Jones had received death threats from anonymous sources
I doubt it
/Mango
Complain about this comment
#236. bowmanthebard
If you check out the blogs it already is backfiring, big time. It ranks as one of the stupidest things the increasingly desperate AGW gang has done lately.
I am sincerely ashamed to say that it was a CANADIAN computer geek who compiled it. And one of the usual fear-mongering AGW 'scientists' named Stephen Schneider put his name on it... and since he was a member of the NAS that meant that it did not have to be peer reviewed (!!!) for publication in the 'prestigious' PNAS.
Just found out about that last detail in this article:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/24/global-warmings-stephen-schneider-the-light-that-failed/#comments
10,000 lemmings must be right... or something like that.
Complain about this comment
I'd like to comment on the remark that clever minds could better be put to work on solving the problem of world hunger. Actually, we already know what works against hunger: intelligent national policies, gender equity, updated technical known-how, microcredit for small-scale farmers, fair trade, etc. The problem is this: very few governments have ever made it a top priority to eliminate chronic hunger. Hunger is a quiet problem that doesn't lobby, picket or even vote en bloc. It's easy to ignore. If you'd like to help the world's hungry make NOISE, consider signing the United Nations petition to end hunger. The goal is 1 million signatures by the end of October. Check it out here:
www.1billionhungry.org/sharonlee.
SHARON LEE COWAN
Chief, Communication and Design Group
Office of Corporate Communications and External Relations
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Rome, Italy
www.fao.org
Complain about this comment
#221. John Bailey wrote: "I've just cancelled delivery of my new (Japanese) car"
i guess japanese cars are the most green cars in the world.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS