PDA

View Full Version : GBR article in The Australian



jockey
26-06-2004, 01:15 PM
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,9945341%255E30417,00.html

PinHead
26-06-2004, 01:37 PM
And what is your point ?????

jockey
26-06-2004, 01:39 PM
its interesting isn't it?

Kerry
26-06-2004, 01:46 PM
bloody scientists singing for their super and as for journo's well it would be difficult who to line up first, the scientists (who say what they are told to say), the journo's (sensationalism at the best of times) or jockey who thrives on believing everybody who doesn't matter

This was probably the same wack on the news yesterday who made some profound statement that one can't take the people out of the GBR (oh my) so they'll just have to "step" carefully. Like why let them step at all if it's that bad but of course it wouldn't be in the media if it wasn't hype, would it? #

Cheers, Kerry.

PinHead
26-06-2004, 01:54 PM
I've got a question for ya Jockey. Are we overdoing the protection of all speices bit at times? What about Mother Nature and her survival of the fittest rule..are we playing with this and stuffing things up even more. Thank God the WWF and every other mob weren't around in the dinosaur era..I really don't think I would enjoy having to tolerate Woolly Mammoths and Muttaburrasauras wandering round the place.

kc
26-06-2004, 09:01 PM
David Bellwood of James Cook University in North Queensland said preserving 33 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef in a pristine state - a new legislative measure that starts from July 1 - was a positive move, but more attention should be paid to the remaining 67 per cent.

I've got a big problem with this bit of motherhood statement!!

33% IS NOT BEING PRESERVED IN ITS PRISTINE STATE. They are just banning fishing. What about all the rest of the sh..t (literally) that they are allowing to continue. Hardly "pristine", more propogander from those in the employ of GBRMPA being told what to say for the greater good of the governments re-elction campaign!

When will they start telling the truth. What about Pink (ie no bloody tourist and diver/ home invader zones??)

KC

MTpockets
27-06-2004, 05:08 AM
Where's Derryn Hinch when you need him.......

jockey
27-06-2004, 07:21 AM
No we're not pinhead. Do you really want industrial society to be up there with asteroid impacts and ice ages for their impact on the earth? Do you really want to live in an impoverished environment? I'm not really keen on being the spokesman for the environmental movement here (I prefer to focus on the more obvious immediate benefits), but that much is clear.

Kerry there is no conspiracy. Scientific careers are based on being right, not saying what is politically popular.

PinHead
27-06-2004, 09:13 AM
" Kerry there is no conspiracy. Scientific careers are based on being right, not saying what is politically popular."

Oh wow..what a niaive attitude...most scientitsts rely on grants for their research funding and they will gladly toe the line to come up with the results that the man with the dollars wants. Especially when the man with the dollars can make millions from the so called research.

I get it...every result that a scientist comes up with is irrefutable...yeah..and some scientist once said what a marvellous drug Thalidomide was.

jockey
27-06-2004, 09:17 AM
You really think scientists will make stuff up for politicians? Why do you think they go to so much effort to separate the universities from political parties? Do you have any evidence that they have been skewing their results to get more grants, or are you just making that up? Perhaps you should look into the concept of peer review. Skewing the results is the quickest way to end a scientific career.

NQCairns
27-06-2004, 09:23 AM
Jockey wrote: Scientific careers are based on being right, not saying what is politically popular.

Just wondering jockey do you know what the modern defintiton of a scientist is today??

It is anyone with a degree!! and takes money (ie employed) to organise etc (do) research!!
If tommorrow that scientist has a seachange and decides to build model trains for a living he is no longer a scientist!!

That makes say a market research positions in where?.... Telstra, Ergon energy etc a scientific position!! by definition.

This definition is exactly what most gov funded scientists (sic)(researchers actually) are they are glorified officers/technicians.

Real science involves peer review/independance/repeatability/respected publication plus more. 95% of the papers peddled out from govermnment would not leave the editiors trash bin at a respected Jounal of science for one reason or more.

This is the standard of very most of the scientific proof/whatever! that you are profering to us as science. Also much of the frustration from some here is equated to same.

I think I posted before to you about what is science to give you a hand, there is no problem with informed debate/information but it may be time to chase up some real quotes from real scientists/researchers (refer to my afore mentioned post) if you do not understand.
It really is naive to ignore the realities of todays Government funded industries. nq

PinHead
27-06-2004, 09:27 AM
I just gave you an example..Thalidomide..now that would have been created by a scientist..he/they would have said how great it was..released onto the market and look at the catastrophic results.

What effort is made to separate Unis from Govt..they all put their hands out for Govt funds every year.

I am just wondering jockey if English is your first language or is it that comprehension is not one of your stronger points.

Anyway, I ain't wasting any more time conversing with someone as ridiculous as jockey..always asking for others to prove thier points but puts no valid proof for his arguments other than a newspaper article..wow..how decisive.

I really have to agree with Kerry on this one...some people are really just oxygen thiefs and have no ideas of reality..I think they call those people greenies and their supporters.

PinHead
27-06-2004, 09:29 AM
I have cast the lure...now just gotta wait for the victim to bite then set the hook...just like fishing from home.

jockey
27-06-2004, 09:51 AM
Thalidomide - they stuffed up once (many times actually). You are pulling that out against all the modern medical miracles? Was there some conspiracy behind thalidomide?


"Real science involves peer review/independance/repeatability/respected publication plus more. 95% of the papers peddled out from govermnment would not leave the editiors trash bin at a respected Jounal of science for one reason or more. "

perhaps you should read the article:

In a paper published internationally yesterday in the prestigious Nature magazine, Professor Bellwood and Terry Hughes, also of James Cook University, claim that the coral component of the Great Barrier Reef (the remainder being an algae-like substance) had halved from 40 per cent to 20 per cent since 1960.

It's intersting how people react when they find out something they don't like. Like trying to say there's something wrong with science in general. Using Thalidomide as proof of how modern medicine has damaged our health. Get over it people. Face facts.

NQCairns
27-06-2004, 10:07 AM
Yes that is a good reference jockey and does demand the next step ie peer - review etc to straighten it out if needed. Have you any others of quality?

Within Gov departments there is usually a principal scientist, this guy ok's what/how projects get researched, guess who ok's his continued/future aspirations or employment?

It's just the way gov industry works, if you want to be employed to do science in Gov then you tow the line, it's a shame.
Gov funded University research is of higher value but should be treated with care when many UNI scientists know that it is not in it's best interests to ailenate the Gov (future career interests). It really is a big bag of poo when gov holds the jobs and funding. Not going to change though when any minister can order the slanted push toward tairlored research and all those below must tow the line. nq

NQCairns
27-06-2004, 10:20 AM
When the fishing party gets up enough to start doing it's own research it will be intersting if they pic some of the inhouse research conducted by gbrmpa and their crc mates to replicate.
I do doubt the research permits would be fourthcoming from GBRMPA without a lot of arm twisting :P. Private reef research is needed not gbrmpa housed and resourced crc research :o but private and independant research on the reef.nq

PinHead
27-06-2004, 10:31 AM
"Using Thalidomide as proof of how modern medicine has damaged our health. Get over it people. Face facts. "

Maybe you should tell the poor kids that were born with defects as a result of that drug to get over it and face facts.

" In a paper published internationally yesterday in the prestigious Nature magazine, Professor Bellwood and Terry Hughes, also of James Cook University, claim that the coral component of the Great Barrier Reef (the remainder being an algae-like substance) had halved from 40 per cent to 20 per cent since 1960."

Notice the key word in that artivle.."claim"...they only claim it is true..it is therefore not irrefutable.

I might also get something in print in an international paper..like letters to the editor in the New York Times and state that the Great Barrier Reef is alive and kicking on well and that nothing needs to be done..same result...I claim that there it must be irrefutable also...nothing is irrefutable untill others have assessed their research etc...and responded to same.

Alas jockey...I have more important things to do now...than argue with you and your pro-green crap...there must be some paint I can watch dry or some grass to watch grow..have fun in green world..where every claim is perfect..gotta love Utopia.

jockey
27-06-2004, 01:03 PM
Nothing is ever irrefutable. NQCairns Nature is such a highly respected magazine because the articles get peer reviewed before publication. They will be getting scrutinised even more now that it is published. If you don't trust the results then kleep an eye on the magazine. I honestly don't see why we have any reason to doubt the findings about reduced coral cover.

Kerry
27-06-2004, 01:43 PM
I honestly don't see why we have any reason to doubt the findings about reduced coral cover.

So is that your OPINION or do you know something taht everybody else don't, apart from an opinion that is.

You know is rather strange the type of opinions that some mags appear to get hung up on, like if therewas an credibility in any of them then the media would pick them up for sure being the sensational types they are, but alas no media so not important, just dull old boring green crap, again, again and again.

jockey, you got any real evidence, you know evidence the stuff credibility is based on, real evidence not some cocked up hype.

Cheers, Kerry.

NQCairns
28-06-2004, 02:46 AM
I used to rifle through New Scientists Magazine fairly often once and know that Magazines are for entertainment mainly. I do doubt that Nature would be much different, certainly nowhere near a Jounal in credibility. But streaks ahead of a Gov employed nobody Scientist mouthpiecing in a press release.
I can remember New Scientist printing the urban myth about a study done on UK train seats, apparently there was layer upon layer of old sweat, skin, disease etc found on these seats, sounded truly disgusting, but it was all total crap. A magazine will print what is entertaining/provocative first and worry about the truth later. Will be intersting to see if the coral cover piece is straight or not, only time will tell.
Jockey I will check out Nature at the library. From memory real peer review starts after publication, collegue review is at best what happens before the submission to the publication. nq

Thud
28-06-2004, 07:51 PM
Quote - "You can't put a fence around nature," he said. "If part of the reef goes bad then that will infect the protected parts.
"We already know that reefs are going to be damaged - global warming is going to do that for us - but what we need to do is set up the systems so that the reef itself can regenerate."

Maybe if it was a really tall fence??
I can't see how this is relevant to stopping fishing. All of the research I have read, even from the pro green zone side, does not attribute fishing as a contribution to global warming. ;)

Quote - This included measures such as protecting and encouraging herbivorous fish that eat both the dead coral and the algae that could otherwise overwhelm coral reefs.

Go you herbivorous fish. You are the best!!
How much more encouraging should I be?? :D


Quote - Professor Bellwood said the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority had done a good job so far in managing the reef, but there were several bad examples of reef management around the world the authority could learn from and avoid.
The main one was in Jamaica where herbivorous fish had been removed and, as a result, the reef itself had been decimated.

I vow to never target, remove or harass any Jamacan herbivorous fish Mon, thereby ensuring that our reef will not be decimated.. ::)

jockey
10-07-2004, 08:22 AM
NQCairns I think you'll find that Nature is completely different from New Scientist. New scientist is a magazine with articles submitted by journalists, and has all the associated problems. But it does make for more interesting reading. I think that Nature on the other hand is one of those boring scientific types where the scientists actually write the articles and they go for ten pages instead of half a page. Yes pear review is mostly after publication, but they go out of their way (and generally succeed) to make sure the articles are accurate.