Does anyone know what happened to make Walter Starck become so spiteful against his former colleauges?

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 2:59pm:

Does anyone know what happened to make Walter Starck become so spiteful against his former colleauges?

 Just a snide remark on your part FD. It's a constant theme with you. Whenever a scientist is quoted questioning you marine park mantra (and not just Walter Starck) you try to make out they are isolated, on the fringe, rejected by their peers and somehow all bitter and twisted. People who have studied propaganga call this the 'bandwagon effect'.

But he is rejected by his peers, right?

I thought he used to be part of the research community. He even got published in peer reviewed journals. Now he is on the sidelines as a cheerleader for the conspiracy theorists.

What happened?

Also, you keep complaining about golden triangles preventing scientists from speaking the truth, but insist there is no way to prove this. Surely Walter would be the poster boy for golden triangles?

]But he is rejected by his peers, right?

I thought he used to be part of the research community. He even got published in peer reviewed journals. Now he is on the sidelines as a cheerleader for the conspiracy theorists.

What happened?


Duh, people tend to retire when they get older FD.


Also, you keep complaining about golden triangles preventing scientists from speaking the truth, but insist there is no way to prove this. Surely Walter would be the poster boy for golden triangles? [/quote]

No, he is one of the scientists speaking the truth. Saying evidence is circumstantial is not the same as  insisting there is no way to prove this. Another one of your strawmans. Plenty of people have been sent to jail on circumstantial evidence.

PS it's iron triangles, not golden ones. Can't you even get that right?

Quote:

Duh, people tend to retire when they get older FD.

Not all retirees go to such great lengths to criticise their ex colleagues and industry. So what happened to make him so bitter?


Quote:

Saying evidence is circumstantial is not the same as  insisting there is no way to prove this.

This is what you said:


Quote:

It's curcumstantial of course along with evidence of their funding by the GBRMPA and Pew.  Short of a signed and witnessed confession (unlikely), thats the best your going to get.

So circumstantial evidence is the best we are going to get, but we can still prove the golden triangles?

Quote:

Duh, people tend to retire when they get older FD.

Not all retirees go to such great lengths to criticise their ex colleagues and industry. So what happened to make him so bitter?

That doesn't mean he is 'bitter' thats just your own snide interpetation.


Quote:

Saying evidence is circumstantial is not the same as  insisting there is no way to prove this.

This is what you said:


Quote:

It's curcumstantial of course along with evidence of their funding by the GBRMPA and Pew.  Short of a signed and witnessed confession (unlikely), thats the best your going to get.

So circumstantial evidence is the best we are going to get, but we can still prove the golden triangles?[/quote]

Duh, it's circumstantial evidence. Ie it is less direct than other forms of evidence, but if there is enough it becomes compelling (I thought I had explained this - people have been sent to jail on circumstantial evidence). PS why do you still insist on calling them 'golden' triangles - you seem to have a comprehension problem.

Quote:

That doesn't mean he is 'bitter' thats just your own snide interpetation.

The personal nature of his attacks points strongly to bitterness, as well as his appeals to ignorance. I can understand why someone unfamiliar with scientific journals would not know to look on the front page of the paper for the institution a person works for, but for someone from that line of work to sprout that sort of rubbish means he has an axe to grind. He does not seem to care how stupid he looks in front of his peers. He is just making a desperate attempt to get people to turn against them. He does not care for what is right or wrong, only winning people over in the vain hope of a political victory. It would not be unusual for a retired scientist to make specific and technical criticism of their colleauges (and stick to what they are certain about), but his idiotic conspiracy theories are something else entirely, and out of character for someone who got anywhere in academic research.

Do you know when he started this criticism? I see no evidence of it while he was still working full time. What is also odd is that researchers often do not actually retire. They stay on with whatever pet projects they choose and tend to have enough influence to get their own way. Going by his website he is still trying to spin money out of it. Maybe he got pushed out the door before he was ready. Do you have any idea of the timeline involved in him turning against his colleagues? Are you interested in this, or his possible motives, or would you rather  not know?


Quote:

Duh, it's circumstantial evidence. Ie it is less direct than other forms of evidence, but if there is enough it becomes compelling (I thought I had explained this - people have been sent to jail on circumstantial evidence). PS why do you still insist on calling them 'golden' triangles - you seem to have a comprehension problem.

This is absurd PJ. I am not the one with comprehension problems. You are suggesting that powerful lobby groups are influencing public institutions to prevent scientists from speaking the truth, yet the best you can do is collect circumstantial evidence. It just does not make sense. It does not reflect the reality of scientific research. Trying to get scientists to agree on anything new is close to impossible. You are suggesting that by throwing a relatively small amount of money at them, they will all suddenly fall in line, no questions asked, and they would get away with it. The obvious explanation is that the scientists are responding to the facts, and the extent of agreement within the scientific community reflects the extent of agreement of those facts. You are rejecting the obvious explanation in favour of the absurd, with no genuine evidence at all.

Quote:

I can understand why someone unfamiliar with scientific journals would not know to look on the front page of the paper for the institution a person works for, but for someone from that line of work to sprout that sort of rubbish means he has an axe to grind.

I don't suppose you realise how self negating this line of argument is FD. If the front page is a declaration of conflict of interest then you are admitting a conflict of interest does indeed exists and so provides a support and context for the claim of bias in the paper!

But then again you have spent the other half of your time arguing that a conflict of interest does not exist in this case! You try to cover all this up by being vague about why you think constitutes a conflict of interest.  

Quote:

That doesn't mean he is 'bitter' thats just your own snide interpetation.

The personal nature of his attacks points strongly to bitterness, as well as his appeals to ignorance.

There not personal - thats what your doing and then projecting it back on to me and Walter Starck.

I can understand why someone unfamiliar with scientific journals would not know to look on the front page of the paper for the institution a person works for, but for someone from that line of work to sprout that sort of rubbish means he has an axe to grind.

Didn't you yourself claim that the front page attribution is more a courtesy and acknowledgement of the organisation that sponsored it. The journal itself requires a conflict of interest statement in addition to that. Not surprising since the note on the front page does not signify the extent of the association (could range from being a full time employee to a one off assignment) or other assocaitions such as Pew fellowships. If your now claiming that the front page is a conflict of interest statement then this becomes rather self negating on your part (see previous post).   

He does not seem to care how stupid he looks in front of his peers. He is just making a desperate attempt to get people to turn against them. He does not care for what is right or wrong, only winning people over in the vain hope of a political victory. It would not be unusual for a retired scientist to make specific and technical criticism of their colleauges (and stick to what they are certain about), but his idiotic conspiracy theories are something else entirely, and out of character for someone who got anywhere in academic research.

If you look at the actual paper the bulk of it is factual and deals with the actual science of marine reserves and as such is not politcal or personal as you try to make out. The points he makes can be verified - in fact a lot of the past work of the very same authors makes Walter's points. The fact is that you don't want to deal with these factual criticisms but pathetically try to project back on Walter and myself the very things you are doing!

Do you know when he started this criticism? I see no evidence of it while he was still working full time.

The marine park mania hadn't taken hold back then.

What is also odd is that researchers often do not actually retire. They stay on with whatever pet projects they choose and tend to have enough influence to get their own way. Going by his website he is still trying to spin money out of it. Maybe he got pushed out the door before he was ready. Do you have any idea of the timeline involved in him turning against his colleagues? Are you interested in this, or his possible motives, or would you rather not know?

His bio is on Golden Dolphin and I have seen it elswhere. His experience is extensive, especially with coral reefs. However he was only briefly part of what you would call academia and has mostly worked as an independant consultant.

PS: he hasn't 'turned against his colleagues' as you keep snidely saying nor is he alone in his criticisms.


Quote:

Duh, it's circumstantial evidence. Ie it is less direct than other forms of evidence, but if there is enough it becomes compelling (I thought I had explained this - people have been sent to jail on circumstantial evidence). PS why do you still insist on calling them 'golden' triangles - you seem to have a comprehension problem.

This is absurd PJ. I am not the one with comprehension problems. You are suggesting that powerful lobby groups are influencing public institutions to prevent scientists from speaking the truth, yet the best you can do is collect circumstantial evidence. It just does not make sense. It does not reflect the reality of scientific research. Trying to get scientists to agree on anything new is close to impossible. You are suggesting that by throwing a relatively small amount of money at them, they will all suddenly fall in line, no questions asked, and they would get away with it. The obvious explanation is that the scientists are responding to the facts, and the extent of agreement within the scientific community reflects the extent of agreement of those facts. You are rejecting the obvious explanation in favour of the absurd, with no genuine evidence at all.[/quote]

Why is circumstantial evidence not real? What would you call real evidence in this situation? Why do you keep talking about facts but don't want to discuss them? Why do the conclusion in the paper be so at odds with the actual work of the very same authors? What makes you so pure when you are trying to establish a politcal party with marine parks one of your main policies?

Quote:

The journal itself requires a conflict of interest statement in addition to that.

Neither the journal or the academics involved are obligued to humour Walter Starck's fantasies about golden triangles. That he thinks they are just reflects an over-inflated ego, or maybe just another attempt to appeal to the ignorance of those who have no clue about what is going on.


Quote:

If you look at the actual paper the bulk of it is factual

Relating to facts, topped off with a thick layer of blubbering nonsense.


Quote:

PS: he hasn't 'turned against his colleagues' as you keep snidely saying nor is he alone in his criticisms.

Yes he has. They certainly don't take him seriously. Combine that with his absurd accusations against them and it is hard to conclude anything else.


Quote:

Why is circumstantial evidence not real?

You don't seem to be getting this PJ. If you conspriacy theories about golden triangles were real, the evidence would be more than circumstantial. Far more powerful lobbies have tried to buy off and pressure scientists before. They only ever managed to get a small minority to speak on their behalf and their actions were quickly exposed. To suggest that they are successfully pressuring an entire field of academia with nothing more than extremely circumstantial evidence coming out is absurd. I am not saying that circumstantial evidence does not count. I am saying that if that is all you have got, it is actually evidence of no golden triangles. If they did exist and were actually pressuring scientists into concealing the truth, there would be so much evidence that it would be impossible to suppress. Your allegations simply do not make sense. They reflect what can only be described as a delusion about the way the scientific community works - a delusion that Walter is more than happy to reinforce. It's as if you are saying something is happening every day right in front of people's eyes in a way that can be clearly seen, but you can only be expected to produce vague circumstantial evidence for it.

Quote:

[quote]Why is circumstantial evidence not real?

You don't seem to be getting this PJ. If you conspriacy theories about golden triangles were real, the evidence would be more than circumstantial.  [/quote]


Fine, then as I asked previously, explain how in a case like this. Use an example if you like.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1273400262/4#4

Quote:

However he was only briefly part of what you would call academia

His bio paints him as a pioneer of scientific investigation of coral reefs. It also claims his work has "encompassed the discovery of much of the basic nature of reef biology". Is he a non-academic scientific researcher? And what does that mean anyway?


Quote:

and has mostly worked as an independant consultant

What exactly was his role? A decky? His bio seems to be strangely lacking in any hint about who paid him to do what. Kind of odd for someone who likes to accuse others of not disclosing a conflict of interest.

[]
Quote:

However he was only briefly part of what you would call academia

His bio paints him as a pioneer of scientific investigation of coral reefs. It also claims his work has "encompassed the discovery of much of the basic nature of reef biology". Is he a non-academic scientific researcher? And what does that mean anyway?

It looks like you coined the phrase FD - why are you asking me?


Quote:

and has mostly worked as an independant consultant

What exactly was his role? A decky? His bio seems to be strangely lacking in any hint about who paid him to do what. Kind of odd for someone who likes to accuse others of not disclosing a conflict of interest.

Go to remedial reading class FD:

"In addition to his extensive coral reef investigations Dr. Starck has also conducted long term studies on the biology of the lemon shark and on the worldwide distribution of the billfishes (i.e. the marlin, sailfish and spearfish family). His research has been carried out under grants and contracts from the National Science Foundation, the Office of Naval Research, the National Geographic Society, the Engelhard Foundation, the Marine Research Foundation and his own personal funding."

Quote:

It looks like you coined the phrase FD - why are you asking me?

I am just asking whether you can explain an apparent contradiction between his bio and what you said about him.


Quote:

His research has been carried out under grants and contracts from the National Science Foundation, the Office of Naval Research, the National Geographic Society, the Engelhard Foundation, the Marine Research Foundation and his own personal funding.

What did they pay him to do? Did he publish his results anywhere?

1676]
Quote:

It looks like you coined the phrase FD - why are you asking me?

I am just asking whether you can explain an apparent contradiction between his bio and what you said about him.

I can't see any condradiction.


Quote:

His research has been carried out under grants and contracts from the National Science Foundation, the Office of Naval Research, the National Geographic Society, the Engelhard Foundation, the Marine Research Foundation and his own personal funding.

What did they pay him to do? Did he publish his results anywhere?

How would I know? And I'm am not going to chase it up so you can then drop the subject and go off on another tangent.

It just seems oddly vague to me, for a bio. It could make him anything from the manager of a large research institution with a huge budget and resources, or a successful businessman, or a decky and backyard mechanic who likes to travel and likes to talk up his connections with the big players and big inventions.  

Don't worry if you can't answer. You don't need to respond to everything that is brought up.

pjb05 wrote on May 15^th, 2010 at 6:47pm:

Walter Starck has more experience than most of the authors as well as a being just as well qualified. Doesn't that make him a peer?

Perhaps you know more about him than you are letting on PJ. From his bio I see no evidence of real experience. Just vague claims of grandeur. Can you back this claim up?

freediver wrote on May 15^th, 2010 at 7:07pm:

pjb05 wrote on May 15th, 2010 at 6:47pm: Walter Starck has more experience than most of the authors as well as a being just as well qualified. Doesn't that make him a peer? Perhaps you know more about him than you are letting on PJ. From his bio I see no evidence of real experience. Just vague claims of grandeur. Can you back this claim up?

Must be your comprehension problem again. Your already raised a couple of points which show you not having comprehended the bio at all. Perhaps you should read it over again - I don't know what more I can do.

Quote:

Perhaps you should read it over again - I don't know what more I can do.

I am looking for something a bit more substantial than claiming "I am one of the pioneers in the scientific investigation of coral reefs" without backing it up. There are very simple ways to demonstrate and verify genuine experience in scientific research, without simply asking people to take your word for it that you are an expert. Anyone who wanted to be taken seriously for their contribution to scientific research would provide this evidence. It is something that simply goes without saying for genuine researchers.

When you said he had more experience, were you simply taking his self promotion at face value, or do you actually know what experience he has?

freediver wrote on May 16^th, 2010 at 12:44pm:

Quote: Perhaps you should read it over again - I don't know what more I can do. I am looking for something a bit more substantial than claiming "I am one of the pioneers in the scientific investigation of coral reefs" without backing it up. There are very simple ways to demonstrate and verify genuine experience in scientific research, without simply asking people to take your word for it that you are an expert. Anyone who wanted to be taken seriously for their contribution to scientific research would provide this evidence. It is something that simply goes without saying for genuine researchers. When you said he had more experience, were you simply taking his self promotion at face value, or do you actually know what experience he has?

You really do have some sort of learning deficit FD. I have already posted this quote from his bio:

His research has been carried out under grants and contracts from the National Science Foundation, the Office of Naval Research, the National Geographic Society, the Engelhard Foundation, the Marine Research Foundation and his own personal funding.

That could just as easily mean he was a deckie PJ. It could mean anything. He could have made it up entirely. Anyone who has actually contributed to scientific research has a very simple way of demonstrating it, and no it is not by name dropping large organisations.

Tell me PJ, can you think of any way of finding out whether he is a fraud or the real deal, other than relying on the vague claims on his bio? You must have some awareness of how the scientific community works by now.

]That could just as easily mean he was a deckie PJ. It could mean anything. He could have made it up entirely. Anyone who has actually contributed to scientific research has a very simple way of demonstrating it, and no it is not by name dropping large organisations.

How many deckies get research grants or have Phd's for that matter? By definition to be a Phd you must have published some research. It's understandable he doesn't give a list demonstrating each paper or project - it just wouldn't read well. His bio mentions other achievement, do you really want me to post them all here bit by bit?

Tell me PJ, can you think of any way of finding out whether he is a fraud or the real deal, other than relying on the vague claims on his bio? You must have some awareness of how the scientific community works by now.[/quote]


If he was a fraud he would have been found out by now. If you want to back up your snide inuendo why don't you email him and ask what he has published and where then check with all the journals?

Quote:

How many deckies get research grants

Did Walter say he got a research grant? His bio seems deliberately vague on whether he got it or whether someone else did and it just funded his salary for a while.


Quote:

or have Phd's for that matter?

Would that be the PhD in interpretive dance? I've met a taxi driver with a PhD. He thought he was an expert on everything. Come to think of it, his name was Walter. I'm sure that's just a coincidence.


Quote:

By definition to be a Phd you must have published some research.

Not true, except that you have to 'publish' your PhD thesis, which can easily seat in the library of your univerity, never to be opened again. By the way, do you know which university (if any) awarded his PhD? It is obviously seen as a good thing if you published along the way, but it is hardly necessary.


Quote:

It's understandable he doesn't give a list demonstrating each paper or project - it just wouldn't read well.

All other scientists do. It doesn't have to read well. He wouldn't have to put in in the middle of that absurd piece of self promotion. Just a link would suffice, if he wanted people to take him seriously.


Quote:

His bio mentions other achievement, do you really want me to post them all here bit by bit?

No thanks. I am really only interested in his scientific work. Though if that turns out to be a fraud, it would be interesting to chase up the other claims also. But let's stick to the relevant bits for the moment.


Quote:

If he was a fraud he would have been found out by now.

Don't be so naive PJ. The internet is full of frauds like that. It is also full of people who want to believe so desperately that they will ignore the obvious gaps, and will tell you it is genuine even though they wouldn't know the difference. There are no 'fraud police' who go round taking their sites down. It is up to people like you to think for yourself before putting them on a pedestal. That's just how it works.


Quote:

If you want to back up your snide inuendo why don't you email him and ask what he has published and where then check with all the journals?

I have emailed him before and asked him to back up his claims. I got no response - not even a form letter. Any genuine scientist would make the effort to give people the info necessary to chase it up themselves rather than emailing the author. And besides, you are the one who claimed he had more experience than the genuine scientists he is criticising. Doesn't that put the obligation on you to back it up? Or is this one of those games where you rattle off claim after claim and it is up to everyone else to prove you wrong?

Looks like I will have to put it up bit by bit. The answers to your specific questions are in bold:

Walter Starck is one of the pioneers in the scientific investigation of coral reefs. He grew up in the Florida Keys and received a PhD in marine science from the University of Miami in 1964.  He has over 40 years worldwide experience in reef studies and his work has encompassed the discovery of much of the basic nature of reef biology. In this process over 100 species of fishes, which were new to science, were found as well as numerous, corals, shells, crustaceans and other new discoveries.  

In 1958, while still an undergraduate student Dr. Starck began what was to become a 10-year investigation of the fish fauna of Alligator reef in the Florida Keys.  As this was one of the first extensive uses of scuba diving for marine biological research it resulted in many new discoveries regarding reef biology.  Over 20,000 scientific specimens were collected. This work recorded what is still the greatest number of fishes known from any single locale in the New World.  The total was five hundred seventeen species, sixty of these had never before been found in U.S. waters and 19 were previously unknown to science.

In the early 1960’s he began the first extensive exploration of coral reefs at night. His photo story on this work in the January 1964 issue of National Geographic Magazine sparked the beginning of recreational night diving on reefs.  In conjunction with this work he was among the first to adapt and use SLR cameras and electronic flash underwater.  This in turn enabled the first underwater macro photography.

In 1968 he took delivery on El Torito, a purpose built 150 ton research vessel he designed and equipped specifically for coral reef research, exploration, and film work.  Its facilities included a lab, library, machine shop, diving chambers, an amphibious ATV, a 2 person enclosed Diver Transport Vehicle, and an amphibious ultralight aircraft of advanced design which he built himself . With this vessel he conducted extensive reef work for the next 20 years ranging from the Caribbean to the South Pacific.

Dr. Starck has participated in numerous other marine biological expeditions around the world including the Bahamas, the Caribbean, the Mediterranean, the Indian Ocean and the Eastern and Western tropical Pacific. Since 1978 his home has been in the far north of Queensland in Australia. From here he carried out ten years of work on the Great Barrier Reef.

In addition to his extensive coral reef investigations Dr. Starck has also conducted long term studies on the biology of the lemon shark and on the worldwide distribution of the billfishes (i.e. the marlin, sailfish and spearfish family). His research has been carried out under grants and contracts from the National Science Foundation, the Office of Naval Research, the National Geographic Society, the Engelhard Foundation, the Marine Research Foundation and his own personal funding.

[]
Quote:

How many deckies get research grants

Did Walter say he got a research grant? His bio seems deliberately vague on whether he got it or whether someone else did and it just funded his salary for a while.

See above.


Quote:

or have PhD's for that matter?

Would that be the PhD in interpretive dance? I've met a taxi driver with a PhD.

See above.


Quote:

By definition to be a Phd you must have published some research.

Not true, except that you have to 'publish' your PhD thesis, which can easily seat in the library of your univerity, never to be opened again.

Yes but still has to be research, ie new work and has passed the review of your examiners.

By the way, do you know which university (if any) awarded his PhD? It is obviously seen as a good thing if you published along the way, but it is hardly necessary.

Miami. PS: I suggest you watch your mouth, your getting close to defamation.


Quote:

It's understandable he doesn't give a list demonstrating each paper or project - it just wouldn't read well.

All other scientists do. It doesn't have to read well. He wouldn't have to put in in the middle of that absurd piece of self promotion. Just a link would suffice, if he wanted people to take him seriously.

Really, how many scientists have their own websites. Is there now some sort of rule on how they write their bio on their websites?


Quote:

His bio mentions other achievement, do you really want me to post them all here bit by bit?

No thanks. I am really only interested in his scientific work. Though if that turns out to be a fraud, it would be interesting to chase up the other claims also. But let's stick to the relevant bits for the moment.

The relevant bit is the validity of his critique of the paper - but you prefer to be off with the fairies.


Quote:

If he was a fraud he would have been found out by now.

Don't be so naive PJ. The internet is full of frauds like that. It is also full of people who want to believe so desperately that they will ignore the obvious gaps, and will tell you it is genuine even though they wouldn't know the difference. There are no 'fraud police' who go round taking their sites down. It is up to people like you to think for yourself before putting them on a pedestal. That's just how it works.

I'd watch your mouth again. Also note Walter Starck has been on ABC TV documentaries, quoted as an authority in newsprint, done radio interviews and been a member of various thinktanks. Do you think these people don't check their sources? Who is being naive?


Quote:

If you want to back up your snide inuendo why don't you email him and ask what he has published and where then check with all the journals?

I have emailed him before and asked him to back up his claims. I got no response - not even a form letter.

He travels quite a bit. Sometimes I haven't got a reply from him for that reason. He's just one guy - not a government department.

Quote:

From here he carried out ten years of work on the Great Barrier Reef.

As a deckie? Doing interpretive dance?

PJ, you don't seem to have realised what I am asking. I am not asking for you to regurgitate Walter's claims. I am asking you to verify your claim about his experience. Quoting him saying he has lots of experience hardly cuts it, especially in a field where having experience would be so easy to demonstrate, if it were true.

[]
Quote:

From here he carried out ten years of work on the Great Barrier Reef.

As a deckie? Doing interpretive dance?

Put it back into the paragraph FD, then the meaning will become apparent.

PJ, you don't seem to have realised what I am asking. I am not asking for you to regurgitate Walter's claims. I am asking you to verify your claim about his experience. Quoting him saying he has lots of experience hardly cuts it, especially in a field where having experience would be so easy to demonstrate, if it were true.[/quote]

You know very well I don't have more details at my fingertips.

Quote:

Put it back into the paragraph FD, then the meaning will become apparent.

It is obvious what he wants people to think. It is not obvious he did any actual research himself.


Quote:

You know very well I don't have more details at my fingertips.

I have no idea what you know PJ. I certainly would not claim that a person has more experience than practicing scientists without first checking that there are some facts behind the self promotion. This is after all why they have peer review, because people can say anything at all if you don't bother to check.

]
Quote:

I certainly would not claim that a person has more experience than practicing scientists without first checking that there are some facts behind the self promotion. This is after all why they have peer review, because people can say anything at all if you don't bother to check.

I thought the first place to check would be his actual arguments. But not you - you would have me on a wild goose chase checking on all his activities of the last 50 years. As to your cop out of peer review - don't you recall peer review scientist Prof Ray Hilborn's paper Faith Based Fisheries where he points to a complete breakdown on proper peer review regarding marine parks? Or is he some sort of internet loony too, whith made up qualifications and experience.    

Quote:

But not you - you would have me on a wild goose chase checking on all his activities of the last 50 years.

PJ, you made an appeal to his authority. I would be happy to withdraw my request that you back up this claim if you withdraw the claim. You started this goose chase. Only you can end it. Your goose is cooked, so don't be a goose, there is no golden egg, errr triangle.... :-X

freediver wrote on May 17^th, 2010 at 7:59pm:

Quote: But not you - you would have me on a wild goose chase checking on all his activities of the last 50 years. PJ, you made an appeal to his authority. I would be happy to withdraw my request that you back up this claim if you withdraw the claim. You started this goose chase. Only you can end it. Your goose is cooked, so don't be a goose, there is no golden egg, errr triangle.... :-X

Do you think that the authors of the GBRMPA paper are genuine? Are you going to provide 'proof' to me that they are really who they say they are?

pjb05 wrote on May 17^th, 2010 at 8:23pm:

[date=1274090941]What I said was that he is widely quoted in the media as a coral reef and fisheries expert in the context of you suggesting he is some sort of phoney. And so all those hard nosed journalists will then have to have been duped too.

Would you mind giving some examples?


Quote:

Are you going to provide 'proof' to me that they are really who they say they are?

Not right now. If I ever make any claims about who they are, you are welcome to ask me to back it up. For the moment I am happy to take your (and Walter's) word for it that they work for GBRMPA and published that paper.

]
pjb05 wrote on May 17^th, 2010 at 8:23pm:

[date=1274090941]What I said was that he is widely quoted in the media as a coral reef and fisheries expert in the context of you suggesting he is some sort of phoney. And so all those hard nosed journalists will then have to have been duped too.

Would you mind giving some examples?

He has been on an ABC documentary 'Reef Wars', their Counterpoint radio show, various commercial radio shows, written for fishing and boating magazines and has adressed think tanks such as the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Institute for Public Affairs. Do you really think that none of these have checked their source?  

Quote:

Do you really think that none of these have checked their source?

Let's start with what they claimed about their source before we get on to whether they checked it first. It is interesting that your list included no mainstream print media.

Which programs described him as a "coral reef and fisheries expert"?

]
Quote:

Do you really think that none of these have checked their source?

Let's start with what they claimed about their source before we get on to whether they checked it first. It is interesting that your list included no mainstream print media.

Why is that interesting? Now that I think about it I he has also been quoted in the Daily Telegraph.

Which programs described him as a "coral reef and fisheries expert"?[/quote]

From memory pretty much all of them.

Quote:

From memory pretty much all of them.

I guess that's why it's interesting that your list includes no mainstream print media. It is a lot easier to hear what you want to hear in your memory of audio media.

freediver wrote on May 19^th, 2010 at 6:53pm:

Quote: From memory pretty much all of them. I guess that's why it's interesting that your list includes no mainstream print media. It is a lot easier to hear what you want to hear in your memory of audio media.

Nice try but I mentioned the Daily Telegraph. Also the Counterpoint show has transcripts on the net as do some radio shows and then there's the think tanks I mentioned.  

Quote:

Nice try but I mentioned the Daily Telegraph.

True. You should have no problem providing the quote where they describe him as a "coral reef and fisheries expert".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Telegraph_%28Australia%29

A Roy Morgan media credibility survey found that 40 per cent of journalists viewed News Limited newspapers as Australia's most partisan media outlet, ahead of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation on 25 per cent. The survey found that readers took a generally dim view of journalists. In response to the question "Which newspapers do you believe do not accurately and fairly report the news?", the Daily Telegraph came third (9%) behind the Herald-Sun (11%) and "All of them" (16%).

freediver wrote on May 19^th, 2010 at 7:09pm:

Quote: Nice try but I mentioned the Daily Telegraph. True. You should have no problem providing the quote where they describe him as a "coral reef and fisheries expert". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Telegraph_%28Australia%29 A Roy Morgan media credibility survey found that 40 per cent of journalists viewed News Limited newspapers as Australia's most partisan media outlet, ahead of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation on 25 per cent. The survey found that readers took a generally dim view of journalists. In response to the question "Which newspapers do you believe do not accurately and fairly report the news?", the Daily Telegraph came third (9%) behind the Herald-Sun (11%) and "All of them" (16%).

If your trying to make claims of bias you have to at least show some consistency. News Limited is regarded having a right wing bias. The ABC is regarded as having a left/ green bias. He has been on/ in both!

Here you go, from the Daily Telegraph Dec 09 2009:


Dr Walter Starck received a PhD in marine science from the University of Miami in 1964 and was a pioneer in coral reef science. He has lived in Far North Queensland studying the Great Barrier Reef since 1978.

Link?

Yes it looks to me like they just copied from his bio without checking it. But you have my attention now at least.

The most damning criticism was about the Telegraph in particular, not news limited in general.

Link?

Just type his name on the Daily Telegraph search facility.

Yes it looks to me like they just copied from his bio without checking it. But you have my attention now at least.

No way of knowing that. And what about all the other outlets? Do you think they haven't done any checks? PS he has had a couple of papers published recently - which seem to have been peer reviewed.

The most damning criticism was about the Telegraph in particular, not news limited in general.[/quote]

My point still stands - he has been on the ABC quite often.

You are not doing your credibility much good when you forget simple things like the link.

freediver wrote on May 20^th, 2010 at 8:29pm:

You are not doing your credibility much good when you forget simple things like the link.

You really like arguing over nothing. I thought it would be obvious that all you need to do is put 'Walter Starck' in their search box.

Plus my computer was slow it the time and losing connection so I didn't do a second cut and paste.

Blaming your tools now?

freediver wrote on May 22^nd, 2010 at 10:22am:

Blaming your tools now?

It's fully referenced and can be verfied without the link - stop arguing about nothing.

It seems others are more intent on attacking the messenger and not the message. Walter Starck has something to say about this:

Serious concerns with report on adaptive management of the GBR.

In a recent article in the Cairns Post on this subject, Dr. Terry Hughes was quoted as stating I am not a marine biologist and have never published anything on the GBR. Although this is provably false on both counts it is also revealing as well as irrelevant. Such ad hominem attacks are invariably resorted to only when there is no effective defence for the real issue. It demeans the attacker more than the target. The real issue here is not a schoolboy pissing contest over credentials. It matters not if I were a garbo. In fact it could well be argued that such might even better qualify me to handle this matter.

This involves a serious matter of scientific impropriety and any attempt to ignore, deny or obfuscate it will only compound the ultimate discredit. I bring it to your attention as Chairman of GBRMPA in the hope and expectation that you will promptly and properly address it.

Quote:

In a recent article in the Cairns Post on this subject, Dr. Terry Hughes was quoted as stating I am not a marine biologist and have never published anything on the GBR.

Was this written by Walter? If so where?


Quote:

Although this is provably false on both counts

Did he prove it to be false, or just declare once again that he is the greatest scientist ever to sell DVDs online?


Quote:

it is also revealing as well as irrelevant. Such ad hominem attacks are invariably resorted to only when there is no effective defence for the real issue.

If Walter made yet another appeal to his own authority, then it is relevant. If he doesn't want people talking him down all the time, he should stop talking himself up and making far more absurd attacks on genuine practicing scientists. Or at least stop complaining when they try to bring him back down to earth.

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2010 at 9:23pm:

[ If Walter made yet another appeal to his own authority, then it is relevant. If he doesn't want people talking him down all the time, he should stop talking himself up and making far more absurd attacks on genuine practicing scientists. Or at least stop complaining when they try to bring him back down to earth.

Are you really that thick? Walter made an appeal to reason. Do you call him saying it wouldn't matter if he was a garbo an appeal to authority?

Note that you still haven't replied to any of the easily verifyable arguments in his critique. His comments above sum you up rather well.    

Quote:

Do you call him saying it wouldn't matter if he was a garbo an appeal to authority?

I call it an appeal to his own authority when he claimes to be "one of the pioneers in the scientific investigation of coral reefs" and to have "over 40 years worldwide experience in reef studies and his work has encompassed the discovery of much of the basic nature of reef biology". Especially when it is backed up by an aweful lot of hot and and nothing else.

It would matter if he was just a garbo, because people like you would stop trotting out every retarded idea he comes up with and expecting everyone to take him seriously.

freediver wrote on Jun 18^th, 2010 at 8:50pm:

Quote: Do you call him saying it wouldn't matter if he was a garbo an appeal to authority? I call it an appeal to his own authority when he claimes to be "one of the pioneers in the scientific investigation of coral reefs" and to have "over 40 years worldwide experience in reef studies and his work has encompassed the discovery of much of the basic nature of reef biology". Especially when it is backed up by an aweful lot of hot and and nothing else. It would matter if he was just a garbo, because people like you would stop trotting out every retarded idea he comes up with and expecting everyone to take him seriously.

That's just your construct - ie a strawman. If his ideas are 'retarded' then prove they are.

I already have, on several occasions. But you insisted that because he is a bigshot scientist, his ideas must have merit. Then you claimed that his status as a scientist has nothing to do with the veracity of his claims.

I tell you what, if you can prove he is the scientist he claims to be, I will start taking him seriously again and disprove a few more of his claims for you.

freediver wrote on Jun 19^th, 2010 at 6:59pm:

I already have, on several occasions. But you insisted that because he is a bigshot scientist, his ideas must have merit. Then you claimed that his status as a scientist has nothing to do with the veracity of his claims. I tell you what, if you can prove he is the scientist he claims to be, I will start taking him seriously again and disprove a few more of his claims for you.

FD, credibility comes not from authority, but a well made argument. It was you who nagged me to to provide his credentals. I am still waiting for you to justify your claims/ denials on the strength of the relevant arguments.  

Here, you can have a go at this:

FROM: Walter Starck, Ph.D, Australia

TO: Dr Russell Reichelt, Chairman, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Australia

Dear Dr. Reichelt,

Your response is appreciated. However, I am disappointed that it fails to address most of the substantiative concerns which I raised and serves more to obscure than to clarify the few matters which are touched upon.

Your reply somewhat muddles together the declaration of no conflict of interest and acknowledgment of funding sources which are two distinctly separate requirements for PNAS authors.  

It is difficult to conceive any meaningful concept of conflict of interest which would find no conflict in 21 employees and beneficiaries of generous funding from an organisation producing a glowing assessment of the management of that organisation. If this study had been produced as an in-house review published by the GBRMPA, the inherent interests would have been apparent and require no caveat.

However, by publishing in a leading international journal, bannering the authors as a who’s who of Australian marine science, explicitly declaring no conflict of interest and not making clear that all of the authors are deeply beholden to GBRMPA, a quite misleading impression has been presented that this is an independent assessment.  

Acknowledgment of support is not the same as disclosing sources of funding for “the work” as required by PNAS. The former is broad and loose in scope. The latter is much more specific.

What is important in this instance is not a listing of organisations which may in some manner have contributed to research used in this review; but, who funded this particular work in itself. It seems unlikely that an effort of this magnitude took place informally as a spare time voluntary effort without any specific funding or approval of resource usage from higher management.

For example, the review itself states that, “Another important observation emerging from this review is the extent of relevant data that are not published or readily accessible. A full picture of the effects and effectiveness of zoning on the GBR has required extensive use of grey literature, previously unpublished data, and collation of separate data sources.”

Surely, the task of assembling and collating this considerable body of diverse and scattered information must have required something more than incidental effort and funding.  

That the lead author and three of the co-authors are GBRMPA employees and only GBRMPA has access to much of the most important unpublished material, make it seem reasonable to assume that the GBRMPA has played a lead role in the production and funding of this report.

While the failure to make this clear might have been unintentional, it is far from unimportant and now that it has been brought to attention, any attempt to ignore or dismiss it can only be seen as deliberate obfuscation.

It should also be noted that not one, but three, of the co-authors of this review have been recipients of Pew fellowships and a fourth is also a co-author of a Pew funded study conducted by the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies.

The key finding of this study was that the most cost effective option for management of a vast new Coral Sea MPA would be make it entirely a no take area managed by GBRMPA.

Although the fact that McCook et al also emphasises the importance of “no take” zones and the cost effectiveness of GBRMPA management might be seen as affirmation of the Pew sponsored findings, it could also be seen as a concerted campaign to that end.  

Limiting disclosure of Pew involvement to the mention that one author has received a Pew fellowship is more than a little misleading in this regard.

Your reply further states that, “The paper also draws attention to cases of conflicting evidence and does not ignore them.” This is factually incorrect and such can easily be seen in the clear examples I cited in my own review of McCook et al. To briefly mention just four important examples:

1.The extensive long-term coral trout surveys by Ayling, which repeatedly found no statistically significant difference in trout numbers between closed and open reefs, have been ignored.
2.While much was made of a doubling of trout numbers on protected reefs in one of eight reef areas surveyed, the fact that numbers on reefs open to fishing also doubled was ignored, as was the decline in numbers on protected reefs in five of the eight areas.
3.McCook et al. claim that expanded protected zones have resulted in, “major, rapid benefits of no-take areas for targeted fish and sharks”. Yet, this is directly contradicted by Heupel et al., 2010, who found that in reef sharks, "few individuals showed fidelity to an individual reef suggesting that current protective areas have limited utility for this species." Although both studies appear to have been in press at the same time, Heupel was a co-author in both. It is thus difficult to understand how the claim in McCook et al. could be made in good faith and without qualification.
4.McCook et al. state that, “fish abundances in no-entry zones suggest that even “no take” zones may be significantly depleted due to poaching.” However, no discussion or even mention is made of the voluminous evidence which clearly shows the exceptionally low fishing pressure on GBR fisheries.
In your reply to me, you intimate that my concerns have no credibility because they have not been published in a peer reviewed journal. Such a position does not seem to be a very well considered one for several reasons:

•It would appear that you will also need to dismiss the McCook et al. study itself; because, as cited above, they admit making extensive use of “grey literature” and unpublished data.
•It will also require dismissing your own statements on this issue as mere opinion, for they too have not been published in a peer reviewed journal.
•What I have written on this matter is in fact a peer review and what you are suggesting would then be a peer review of a peer review. Presumably this too would be subject to further peer review.
•Recent exposure of the misuse of peer review to censor conflicting evidence as well as using non-peer reviewed status to dismiss such evidence, while at the same time freely citing the latter when it supports a desired agenda, has brought great discredit to climate science and the IPCC. It would be well advised for GBRMPA to drop this failed tactic.
In my first email drawing my concerns to your attention, I noted that PNAS authors must, “make materials, data, and associated protocols available to readers.”    

I then requested that such data be made available for independent examination via download from the internet and asked that it should include all of the numerous unpublished coral trout, crown-of-thorns and coral bleaching survey reports conducted for GBRMPA.

In your current reply you state that the situation, in respect to relevant data that are not published or not readily accessible, “refers to the situation prior to publication of this paper and the release of the data sources in this paper was a very positive step forward.”  

Perhaps it is my error; but, I can find no such data in either the McCook et al. review itself or in the online supplementary material and I cannot see any indication of where it may be found elsewhere.  

If you could please advise where the released data to which you refer can be accessed it would be appreciated.

For GBRMPA to find nothing to support any concern regarding scientific integrity in any of the above plus the multiple other, specific, well documented and easily verified matters to which I have drawn notice, is unacceptable.

Research integrity is not an optional extra which may be exercised at the discretion of GBRMPA. As the Chairman of an important Australian research institution, you have an obligation under the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research to properly investigate any credible allegations of research misconduct.  

Clearly, there is no requirement that such concerns be presented as a formal scientific report in a peer reviewed journal. Your one-page letter of dismissal, which fails to satisfactorily address any of the over 18 specific concerns I have documented, falls well short of properly meeting this obligation.  

The immediate response from James Cook University affirming that they take such allegations seriously and will properly investigate them with regard to the reef ARC stands in marked contrast to this belated and dissembling response from the GBRMPA.

So often in matters of propriety, the most serious malfeasance resides not in the original offence, but in the attempt to deny it. I hope that this issue does not have to be pursued down such an unnecessarily unpleasant path.

Quote:

FD, credibility comes not from authority, but a well made argument. It was you who nagged me to to provide his credentals.

If you hadn't been spruiking his 'credentials' I wouldn't have asked you to provide them. You are the one who put them on the table. Now you are backpedalling. Are you now saying that Walter's claims have no more authority than some bloke down the pub who can put together a well made argument?

Here is an example of you spruiking his credentials, in the opening paragraph of your reefgate thread:


pjb05 wrote on Apr 1^st, 2010 at 7:17am:

Following is a letter from Walter Starck [wstarck@gmail.com] to an academic journal about a recent article they published which violates many canons of science. Walter Starck is one of the pioneers in the scientific investigation of coral reefs.

]
Quote:

FD, credibility comes not from authority, but a well made argument. It was you who nagged me to to provide his credentals.

If you hadn't been spruiking his 'credentials' I wouldn't have asked you to provide them. You are the one who put them on the table. Now you are backpedalling. Are you now saying that Walter's claims have no more authority than some bloke down the pub who can put together a well made argument?

I didn't base my argument on a pissing contest regarding credentials - as you must very well know. And yes it doesn't really matter who makes the argument.

Here is an example of you spruiking his credentials, in the opening paragraph of your reefgate thread:


pjb05 wrote on Apr 1^st, 2010 at 7:17am:

Following is a letter from Walter Starck [wstarck@gmail.com] to an academic journal about a recent article they published which violates many canons of science. Walter Starck is one of the pioneers in the scientific investigation of coral reefs.

Duh FD, that quote is an introduction from the site the article was copied from. It is hardly an example of me 'spruiking' his qualifications or relying on an appeal to authority argument.

PS: I am happy to leave the issue of credentials aside and discuss the issue of the relevant arguments - why is this so hard for you?

Quote:

I didn't base my argument on a pissing contest regarding credentials

You seem to change what you 'base' it on to avoid whatever point I respond to. When I tried responding to the technical bits, you insisted his argument was sound becuase he is a bigshot scientist.

The point is, you brought it up, not me. If you withdraw your claim that he has any scientific authority I will hapilly drop the topic.


Quote:

PS: I am happy to leave the issue of credentials aside and discuss the issue of the relevant arguments - why is this so hard for you?

You want me to just ignore the bits of your argument that you don't feel like backing up? If you concede that he has no credibility after all I will leave it too.

I think you'll find that Walter's credentials are a big part of your belief system and you will have a hard time admitting he is a phoney, which is why you can't actually leave this thread.

[3]
Quote:

I didn't base my argument on a pissing contest regarding credentials

You seem to change what you 'base' it on to avoid whatever point I respond to. When I tried responding to the technical bits, you insisted his argument was sound becuase he is a bigshot scientist.

Crap. You haven't responded to the 'technical bits' at all - and you have admitted this.

The point is, you brought it up, not me. If you withdraw your claim that he has any scientific authority I will hapilly drop the topic.

Not wanting to base the argument on scientific authority does not mean I have to make a declaration that he hasn't any scientific authority - duh!


Quote:

PS: I am happy to leave the issue of credentials aside and discuss the issue of the relevant arguments - why is this so hard for you?

You want me to just ignore the bits of your argument that you don't feel like backing up? If you concede that he has no credibility after all I will leave it too.

As above. Also the point is that you have ignored the substantive parts of my argument and raised one red herring after another.

I think you'll find that Walter's credentials are a big part of your belief system and you will have a hard time admitting he is a phoney, which is why you can't actually leave this thread.

If he is a phoney then it wouldn't be hard to demolish his arguments.

Quote:

Crap. You haven't responded to the 'technical bits' at all - and you have admitted this.

I have responded to many technical criticisms from Walter, and also many of the personal criticisms he has directed against real scientists (as opposed to pretend scientists like him). Every single claim of Walter's that I have looked into has turned out to be completely bogus. Some examples are his comparisons of catch per unit area of the GBR and other reefs that made no effort to ensure that it was comparing apples with apples and which reached a predictably absurd conclusion. An example of a personal attack I looked into was his claim that some scientists did not disclose something that was on the front page of their paper. It all seems to be targetted not at an informed or scientific audience, but at an ignorant audience that would not know their arse from their elbow and hence who could easily be fooled into thinking Walter was a real scientists and that his claims stood up to scrutiny.


Quote:

Not wanting to base the argument on scientific authority does not mean I have to make a declaration that he hasn't any scientific authority - duh!

I just thought you wanted to run away from this particular topic. I am happy to continue discussing his credibility. The sooner you realise he has none, the better.


Quote:

If he is a phoney then it wouldn't be hard to demolish his arguments.

Sure it would be easy, but would it be worthwhile? Would you even be able to tell the difference? All the times in the past I have done so didn't make any difference to you. Wasn't it you who said you didn't really understand it anyway, but it must be right because Walter is such a bigshot scientist?

freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2010 at 6:08pm:

[quote]Crap. You haven't responded to the 'technical bits' at all - and you have admitted this.

I have responded to many technical criticisms from Walter, and also many of the personal criticisms he has directed against real scientists (as opposed to pretend scientists like him). Every single claim of Walter's that I have looked into has turned out to be completely bogus.

Except the topic of this post you mean? You haven't contested these claims at all.

Some examples are his comparisons of catch per unit area of the GBR and other reefs that made no effort to ensure that it was comparing apples with apples and which reached a predictably absurd conclusion.

Oopsy FD. Catch per unit area is commonly used to assess fishing pressure on coral reefs and is used as a guide to sustainability. Any 'apples with apples' issues are insignificant given that the fishing effort on the GBR is orders of magnitude below what is regarded as sustainable for coral reefs.

 
An example of a personal attack I looked into was his claim that some scientists did not disclose something that was on the front page of their paper.

Only one of the four Pew links were disclosed. Then there is the fact that there is an overt declaration of no conflict of interest when patently there is.

It all seems to be targetted not at an informed or scientific audience, but at an ignorant audience that would not know their arse from their elbow and hence who could easily be fooled into thinking Walter was a real scientists and that his claims stood up to scrutiny.

Pathetic ad hom.

Quote:

Except the topic of this post you mean? You haven't contested these claims at all.

I have addressed the topic of Walter's bitterness many times in this thread. I have also addressed his rediculous ad hominem's against genuine scientists.


Quote:

Oopsy FD. Catch per unit effort is commonly used to assess fishing pressure on coral reefs

Oopsy PJ. I said area, not effort. Surely you remember this one?


Quote:

Any 'apples with apples' issues are insignificant given that the fishing effort on the GBR is orders of magnitude below what is regarded as sustainable for coral reefs.

I guess you do, seeing as you trot this silly line out constantly.

freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2010 at 7:48pm:

[ Oopsy PJ. I said area, not effort. Surely you remember this one? [.

Thats why I brought it up. I do have references remember. Oopsy FD.

freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2010 at 7:48pm:

Quote: Except the topic of this post you mean? You haven't contested these claims at all. I have addressed the topic of Walter's bitterness many times in this thread. I have also addressed his rediculous ad hominem's against genuine scientists. [.

And you haven't addressed the scientific and economic arguments, have you. The points you rased have been red herrings.

You dont have to take my word for it:

Status of Pacific Island coral reef fisheries

by Tim Adams1, Paul Dalzell1 and Richard Farman2
1SPC Coastal Fisheries Programme
2Service de la mer, Province Sud, Nouméa, New Caledonia

(paper presented at 8th International Coral Reef Symposium, Panama, 1996)

Yield comparisons: Several estimates of actual fisheries yield per unit area of reef have been made (see Table 1), but studies that indicate the sustainable capacity of coral reef fisheries are rare. Jennings and Polunin (1995) have suggested, based on observations at different sites in Fiji subject to different levels of fishing activity, that a yield of at least 10 tonnes of fin-fish per square kilometre of reef is sustainable, at least where reefs are subject to low influence from human land-based activities. The overall average for the 43 Pacific Island fisheries detailed in Table 1 is 7.7 tonnes per square kilometre of reef. There are definite outliers, such as Niutao in Tuvalu, American Samoa, and Tarawa in Kiribati, but since the upper limit of overall sustainability is unknown, not a great deal can be said regarding overfishing per se. However, these areas should definitely be priority areas for fisheries management.

Quote:

And you haven't addressed the scientific and economic arguments, have you. The points you rased have been red herrings.

Which points do you think were red herrings? I don't recall there being an economic aspect to this particular argument.

freediver wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2010 at 7:57pm:

[quote] Which points do you think were red herrings? I don't recall there being an economic aspect to this particular argument.

Pretty much all of them. As to the economic argument you musn't have been paying much attention to the original post:

McCook et al. state, "The economic value of a healthy GBR to Australia is enormous, currently estimated to be about A$5.5 billion annually...." "Relative to the revenue generated by reef tourism, current expenditure on protection is minor." "Tourism accounts for the vast majority of reef-based income and employment. ...income from tourism is estimated to be about 36 times greater than commercial fishing."

These claims are highly misleading. The economic value cited includes the total value for all tourism in the region when half of all tourists do not even visit the reef. For those who do, the reef component of the large majority is a one day, one time participation in a reef tour and the value of reef tours is similar to the value of commercial fishing.

If one also considers the economic value of recreational fishing, retail fish sales and seafood meals in restaurants, the total value of fishing is closer to twice that of reef tours. In addition, the reef tour industry regularly uses only about 2 dozen out of the 2500 reefs of the GBR and, on those which are used, the actual area visited would only be about 1% of the area of even those reefs.

Unfished reefs to optimize scenic value for tourism could easily coexist with an order of magnitude greater fishing effort, and no detriment at all to tourism. The attribution of total tourism value to the reef is no more justifiable than attributing it to the similar numbers who visit the rainforest or who eat seafood meals while visiting the region.

Such claims have been repeatedly made by GBRMPA and would, if used by a business, constitute violations of advertising and corporate law. To see it done repeatedly and included in a report in a leading scientific journal is a sad indictment of GBRMPA sponsored science as well as basic honesty.

Quote:

Pretty much all of them.

Can you pick one in particular? The most red herringest of all the red herrings? Or have you forgotten what you were making stuff up about?

pjb05 wrote on Jul 21^st, 2010 at 8:51pm:

You dont have to take my word for it: Status of Pacific Island coral reef fisheries by Tim Adams1, Paul Dalzell1 and Richard Farman2 1SPC Coastal Fisheries Programme 2Service de la mer, Province Sud, Nouméa, New Caledonia (paper presented at 8th International Coral Reef Symposium, Panama, 1996) Yield comparisons: Several estimates of actual fisheries yield per unit area of reef have been made (see Table 1), but studies that indicate the sustainable capacity of coral reef fisheries are rare. Jennings and Polunin (1995) have suggested, based on observations at different sites in Fiji subject to different levels of fishing activity, that a yield of at least 10 tonnes of fin-fish per square kilometre of reef is sustainable, at least where reefs are subject to low influence from human land-based activities. The overall average for the 43 Pacific Island fisheries detailed in Table 1 is 7.7 tonnes per square kilometre of reef. There are definite outliers, such as Niutao in Tuvalu, American Samoa, and Tarawa in Kiribati, but since the upper limit of overall sustainability is unknown, not a great deal can be said regarding overfishing per se. However, these areas should definitely be priority areas for fisheries management.

Interesting. I don't see any of the absurd conclusions that Walter tried to draw. Maybe that's why this guy got published and Walter did not.

freediver wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2010 at 8:52pm:

[quote author=pjb05 link=1272776383/60#65 date=1279709483] Interesting. I don't see any of the absurd conclusions that Walter tried to draw. Maybe that's why this guy got published and Walter did not.

Do you know what you saying? It backs up the use of catch per unit area for assessing coral reef fisheries.

Also consider the other point that you tried to rubbish, ie a catch rate of 9kg per square km per year of the GBR is very low considering that up to 10 tonnes is regarded as sustainable.

The suggestion that Sustainable CPUA on one reef system should or could be the same as that on a coral reef in a different part of the Pacific, given that it is local ocean productivity that most affects the productivity of a fishery - and this varies greatly on a regional basis - has always seemed highly misleading.

fishfinder wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2010 at 5:38pm:

The suggestion that Sustainable CPUA on one reef system should or could be the same as that on a coral reef in a different part of the Pacific, given that it is local ocean productivity that most affects the productivity of a fishery - and this varies greatly on a regional basis - has always seemed highly misleading.

Your point being in the context of this debate?

-The scientists in the paper I put up think its a useful comparison.

- There is no evidence that the GBR is less productive than average. Actually the evidence is to the contrary.

- With 100x less fishing pressure on the GBR than what is regarded as sutainable for coral reefs, are you suggesting that the GBR is 100x less productive or that it is lightly fished?

Quote:

The scientists in the paper I put up think its a useful comparison.

Oh really. This is what I read: "not a great deal can be said regarding overfishing per se". Maybe you read something else?

Also, the fact that other scientists have attempted to calculate CPUA does not mean that Walter Starck calculated the same thing, or made any effort at all to make a valid comparison.

This is of course why you use Walter Starck's comparison to argue against retrictions on recreational fishermen, but for some reason common sense suddenly kicks in at the suggestion that the same figures could be used to argue against restrictions on commercial fishermen, even though if Walter's comparison had any merit at all it would justify huge increases in the catch.

Only an idiot would compare catch rates of the top quality fish over an area the size of the GBR with the catch rates of subsistence fishermen targetting the other end of the food chain on tiny reefs. Only Walter Starck.

Have you ever wondered why a bigshot scientist like Walter has no genuine scientific publications in peer reviewed journals?

I would have thought the important point would be not that CPUA is 100X lower on the GBR coral reefs than other reefs with different oceanography, biology and fishing methods etc.- but what CPUA can the GBR handle? We know quite a lot about the oceanography and biology of the GBR and fishing methods employed there. I don't think any other scientists have suggested ratcheting up the fishing pressure to that extent and it seems a pretty radical course of action based on a simple comparison and a lone voice.
I'm no expert but I would have thought not all coral reef fisheries are the same. Temperate fisheries are not.
Where I'm living in WA the entire demersal scalefish catch (of over 15 species) was ~1500t in an . It has been cut this year to ~750t to avoid 'high risk' of collapse of those fisheries. This fishery is spread over ~1000km of coastline. Just one of those species, Pink Snapper, in just one fishery zone in New Zealand - over about 100km of coastline - has an allowable catch of 4500t that is considered a sustainable yield. In other words one species in a fishery area a tenth of the size can produce six times more fish than all the fish in 1000km of coastline in Western Australia.
To me, this suggests that fishery productivity varies widely.

fishfinder wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 2:15am:

I would have thought the important point would be not that CPUA is 100X lower on the GBR coral reefs than other reefs with different oceanography, biology and fishing methods etc.- but what CPUA can the GBR handle? We know quite a lot about the oceanography and biology of the GBR and fishing methods employed there. I don't think any other scientists have suggested ratcheting up the fishing pressure to that extent and it seems a pretty radical course of action based on a simple comparison and a lone voice. I'm no expert but I would have thought not all coral reef fisheries are the same. Temperate fisheries are not. Where I'm living in WA the entire demersal scalefish catch (of over 15 species) was ~1500t in an . It has been cut this year to ~750t to avoid 'high risk' of collapse of those fisheries. This fishery is spread over ~1000km of coastline. Just one of those species, Pink Snapper, in just one fishery zone in New Zealand - over about 100km of coastline - has an allowable catch of 4500t that is considered a sustainable yield. In other words one species in a fishery area a tenth of the size can produce six times more fish than all the fish in 1000km of coastline in Western Australia. To me, this suggests that fishery productivity varies widely.

Exactly. You don't have to be an expert to figure that one out. Most people would laugh if a 'scientist' compared farm stocking rates in an arid region with those in a wet region and suggested this is a good way to judge whether stocking rates should be increased or decreased. It would get even more ludicrous if different animals from different parts of the food chain were being harvested and it was strongly impacted by size effects an inflows from surrounding regions.

Yet this is what Walter does with the oceans. He and his devoted followers accept the absurd simplification that because they are both called a 'reef' it is reasonable to expect the same level of productivity. His analysis is based on the equivalent of ignorance of the difference between a desert and a jungle.

I suppose you couldn't expect much more from a self described "pioneer in the scientific investigation of coral reefs" who does not have a single scientific publication in a peer reviewed journal.

fishfinder wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 2:15am:

I would have thought the important point would be not that CPUA is 100X lower on the GBR coral reefs than other reefs with different oceanography, biology and fishing methods etc.- but what CPUA can the GBR handle? We know quite a lot about the oceanography and biology of the GBR and fishing methods employed there. I don't think any other scientists have suggested ratcheting up the fishing pressure to that extent and it seems a pretty radical course of action based on a simple comparison and a lone voice. Strawman. He is not advocating ratcheting up the fishing pressure on the GBR 100x. Also you have ignored my point that there is no evidence that the GBR is less productive than other coral reefs.   I'm no expert but I would have thought not all coral reef fisheries are the same. Temperate fisheries are not. The scientists in the paper I put up would have some expertise wouldn't they? The must have thought the CPUA comparison was worth making. Where I'm living in WA the entire demersal scalefish catch (of over 15 species) was ~1500t in an . It has been cut this year to ~750t to avoid 'high risk' of collapse of those fisheries. This fishery is spread over ~1000km of coastline. Just one of those species, Pink Snapper, in just one fishery zone in New Zealand - over about 100km of coastline - has an allowable catch of 4500t that is considered a sustainable yield. In other words one species in a fishery area a tenth of the size can produce six times more fish than all the fish in 1000km of coastline in Western Australia. To me, this suggests that fishery productivity varies widely. What has this got to do with the GBR? Also your forgetting that NZ the fishery is far less diverse, ie fewer species. There snapper fill a lot of the ecological niches fill by a variety of species in Australian waters. Also primary productivity of oceans can be measured and compared. There is no evidence that Australian waters are lacking in productivity/.

Exactly. You don't have to be an expert to figure that one out. Most people would laugh if a 'scientist' compared farm stocking rates in an arid region with those in a wet region and suggested this is a good way to judge whether stocking rates should be increased or decreased. It would get even more ludicrous if different animals from different parts of the food chain were being harvested and it was strongly impacted by size effects an inflows from surrounding regions.

The fact that we don't target the herbivours like the susbsistence  fishermen of the South Pacific is a good thing, given their role in reef ecology.

Yet this is what Walter does with the oceans. He and his devoted followers accept the absurd simplification that because they are both called a 'reef' it is reasonable to expect the same level of productivity. His analysis is based on the equivalent of ignorance of the difference between a desert and a jungle.

The paper I put up makes a CPUA comparison from areas all over the South Pacific - so it's not just Walter. Also there is no evidence the GBR is less productive than these reefs. Actually it's probably more productive.    

I suppose you couldn't expect much more from a self described "pioneer in the scientific investigation of coral reefs" who does not have a single scientific publication in a peer reviewed journal.

Rubbish, he has published many papers in peer reviewed journals. Plus your argument is self negating FD. You don't even have any scientific qualifications or expertise and this doesn't stop you.

Quote:

The fact that we don't target the herbivours like the susbsistence  fishermen of the South Pacific is a good thing, given their role in reef ecology.

two points

1) It is not necessarily a good thing. Herbivores and carnivores both play a role in reef ecology and the overharvesting of either causes problems.

2) Given that herbivores are lower on the food chain, they can support higher catch rates, so it is definitely a bad thing if you use this as a benchmark for judging the sustainability of catch rates for a fishery dominated by higher level carnivores.


Quote:

The paper I put up makes a CPUA comparison from areas all over the South Pacific - so it's not just Walter.

True. It's the conclusions that Walter draws that are the problem. This is what the genuine scientist said about CPUA comparisons: "not a great deal can be said regarding overfishing per se". Also, a genuine scientist like the one you referenced would make effort to compare apples with apples and acknowledge the limitations of the comparison - pretty much the opposite of Walter's politicised approach.


Quote:

Also there is no evidence the GBR is less productive than these reefs. Actually it's probably more productive.

 

LOL. Did Walter tell you that?


Quote:

Rubbish, he has published many papers in peer reviewed journals.

I must have missed them. Can you give some examples please?


Quote:

Plus your argument is self negating FD. You don't even have any scientific qualifications or expertise and this doesn't stop you.

No it isn't. I make no appeals to my own authority on this matter. Walter does. Therefor the fact that he is a fraud is relevant.

[]
Quote:

The fact that we don't target the herbivours like the susbsistence  fishermen of the South Pacific is a good thing, given their role in reef ecology.

two points

1) It is not necessarily a good thing. Herbivores and carnivores both play a role in reef ecology and the overharvesting of either causes problems.

Herbivours play a role in the health of corals by keeping algal growth down. Experiments and exaples of overfishing of these herbivours have shown adverse effects on the health of corals. There is no evidence as far as I am aware of such dramatic effects from the overfishing of predatory fish. And with a harvest of 9kg per km2 per year there is no evidence that the predators are anywhere near overfished on the GBR.

2) Given that herbivores are lower on the food chain, they can support higher catch rates, so it is definitely a bad thing if you use this as a benchmark for judging the sustainability of catch rates for a fishery dominated by higher level carnivores.

The evidence above suggests the contrary. And not all fish lower in the food chain are herbivours.


Quote:

The paper I put up makes a CPUA comparison from areas all over the South Pacific - so it's not just Walter.

True. It's the conclusions that Walter draws that are the problem. This is what the genuine scientist said about CPUA comparisons: "not a great deal can be said regarding overfishing per se".

They weren't making comparisons with the GBR were they. If they were they may have well drawn the same conclusions as Walter. It was you who said you can't make CPUA comparisons of reefs whaterever the reason didn't you?

You have pulled out one quote but ignore the fact that they do quote a level of 10,000kg as sustainable. Others have made similar estimates. Also what's wrong with setting the bar a bit lower to make a estimate for sustainable fishing? Eg a conservation organisation put a level of 4000 kg as sustainable for coral reefs - still orders of magnitude higher than the GBR.

Also, a genuine scientist like the one you referenced would make effort to compare apples with apples and acknowledge the limitations of the comparison - pretty much the opposite of Walter's politicised approach.

He has acknowledged  the limitations. Just as I have done above. All fisheries measures have limitations - we don't throw them away or call scientists who use the frauds. Strawman.


Quote:

Also there is no evidence the GBR is less productive than these reefs. Actually it's probably more productive.

 

LOL. Did Walter tell you that?

Well do you have any evidence to the contrary? Doesn't the GBR get more nutrients being near a large land mass. Doesn't it have more large fish than other coral reefs?


Quote:

Rubbish, he has published many papers in peer reviewed journals.

I must have missed them. Can you give some examples please?

Even his critics say he hasn't published recently not that he hasn't published at all.


Quote:

Plus your argument is self negating FD. You don't even have any scientific qualifications or expertise and this doesn't stop you.

No it isn't. I make no appeals to my own authority on this matter. Walter does. Therefor the fact that he is a fraud is relevant.

Then why are you so sure that your not the fraud?

Quote:

The evidence above suggests the contrary.

No it doesn't actually. It suggests that herbivores can be overfished too, but does not suggest that this happens at a lower catch rate than for predators higher up the food chain. It doesn't make sense PJ.


Quote:

They weren't making comparisons with the GBR were they. If they were they may have well drawn the same conclusions as Walter.

No they wouldn't have. They are real scientists. They wouldn't say such silly things.


Quote:

Well do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Walter's stats indicate that it is less productive.


Quote:

Even his critics say he hasn't published recently not that he hasn't published at all.

So you don't have any examples of a genuine scientific publication in a peer reviewed journal? But you are still certain he has some? Why? Because he describes himself as the pioneer of scientific research?

freediver wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 2:57pm:

Quote: [quote]Well do you have any evidence to the contrary? Walter's stats indicate that it is less productive.

Which stats? I have never heard him suggest the GBR is less productive.

You provided the stats PJ. You just don't know how to interpret them sensibly.

freediver wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 3:20pm:

You provided the stats PJ. You just don't know how to interpret them sensibly.

Duh, the stats are of the catch, expressed as unit of area. They are no indication of the actual productivity.

The actual catch rates are a far better indication of potential productivity, at least for the species currently targetted, than the catch rates for other reefs. Which is why no-one takes Walter's interpretation of them seriously.

freediver wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 3:44pm:

The actual catch rates are a far better indication of potential productivity, at least for the species currently targetted, than the catch rates for other reefs. Which is why no-one takes Walter's interpretation of them seriously.

The commercial catch is limited by government restrictions and for recreational fishermen likewise, as well as the low population/ lack of accessability.

Or are you talking about something different, ie catch per unit effort? This is not what I or Walter have provided.

freediver wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 3:44pm:

The actual catch rates are a far better indication of potential productivity, at least for the species currently targetted, than the catch rates for other reefs. Which is why no-one takes Walter's interpretation of them seriously.

Catch rates alone can't be used as a guide to productivity. If you think they can then why don't you expain how?

PS: do you think anyone takes you seriously?

It just goes to show how bankrupt FD's policies are when his arguments aren't even internally cosistent. He (and other marine park advocates) happily quote marine park studies from waters far more heavily fished than our own and where fisheries management is non-existant or innefective, and say this is 'proof' that marine parks are needed here.

In the next breath he goes on to say that we can't compare fishing efforts between countries, even if there are a couple of orders of magnitude difference and there is no evidence that the lightly fished region is less productive!

You can compare it PJ. You just have to do it properly. Not assume the waters and species targetted are equally productive and leave it to your critics to do the actual research.

But only if you want to be taken seriously.

freediver wrote on Jul 28^th, 2010 at 8:52pm:

You can compare it PJ. You just have to do it properly. Not assume the waters and species targetted are equally productive and leave it to your critics to do the actual research. But only if you want to be taken seriously.

It's an observation, not an assumption. Plus you ignore the fact that the scientists quoted do in fact compare fishing pressure by such a comparison.

PS: How can you be taken seriously if you think catches alone are a guide to abundance and shy away from explaining how?

Quote:

It's an observation, not an assumption.

Actually, what he observed was vastly different actual productivities. What he assumed was that this was down to absurdly misapplied management policies.


Quote:

Plus you ignore the fact that the scientists quoted do in fact compare fishing pressure by such a comparison.

Can you explain what you mean by this? Are you talking about Walter's article?


Quote:

How can you be taken seriously if you think catches alone are a guide to abundance and shy away from explaining how?

You can't. I don't think anyone here said that.

2200]
Quote:

It's an observation, not an assumption.

Actually, what he observed was vastly different actual productivities. What he assumed was that this was down to absurdly misapplied management policies.

So aren't you saying the GBR is vastly less productive than other coral reefs, and this is on the basis of catch?


Quote:

Plus you ignore the fact that the scientists quoted do in fact compare fishing pressure by such a comparison.

Can you explain what you mean by this? Are you talking about Walter's article?

Duh the paper on the status of coral reef fisheries. By the way they found little difference between catch per unit effort between lightly fished and heavily fished reefs:

"Catch rates: Comparisons of Pacific Island coral reef fishery catch rates (catch per unit of effort) from survey areas where fishing pressure is definitely low, such as parts of Papua New Guinea, against catch rates where effort is significantly higher (such as Polynesia) show no discernible trends or correlations. This is apparent over all gear types (Dalzell et al, in press). If sustainability were exceeded in certain areas a significant reduction in catch per unit of effort with increased fishing effort should be illustrated, even by the meagre and heterogeneous data available on the subject."




Quote:

How can you be taken seriously if you think catches alone are a guide to abundance and shy away from explaining how?

You can't. I don't think anyone here said that.[/quote]

That contadicts your statement at the top of the page and your other quotes such as:

freediver wrote on Jul 24th, 2010, 3:20pm:
You provided the stats PJ. You just don't know how to interpret them sensibly.

Are you deliberately trying to be evasive?

I did not ignore the fact that those other scientists made a comparison. I responded to it.

I don't see any contradiction in those two statements.

freediver wrote on Jul 29^th, 2010 at 8:17pm:

I did not ignore the fact that those other scientists made a comparison. I responded to it. I don't see any contradiction in those two statements.

You have said that Walter's data of low catch per unit area indicates low productivity of the GBR haven't you?

freediver wrote on May 17^th, 2010 at 7:59pm:

[quote]PJ, you made an appeal to his authority. I would be happy to withdraw my request that you back up this claim if you withdraw the claim. You started this goose chase. Only you can end it. Your goose is cooked, so don't be a goose, there is no golden egg, errr triangle.... :-X

You might find this interesting. Hopfully it will put an end to this moronic line of argument of yours:

Re:
From: Walter Starck
Clarification of more Moore misstatements
Date: 2 November 2009

Recently I had begun to consider if I had perhaps been too harsh on Minister Moore and what I had thought to be poor judgement might be more a matter of poor advice. I must now thank Mr. Moore for relieving any such doubt and generously providing another opportunity to address some of his misstatements.

Who is a “Scientist” and Does it Matter?
At the WAFIC AGM of 23 October the Minister made some remarks implying doubt regarding my qualifications as a “scientist” (with the quotation marks his addition). This deserves some comment as it seems the Minister may not understand that matters of science are determined by reason and evidence, not by consensus or pissing contests over credentials. In fact, some of the most important advances in science have come when relative unknowns challenged prevailing expert opinion with an explanation which proved to be a better one. In scientific disagreements, attacks on personal qualifications are an implicit admission of defeat. They are invariably only resorted to when there are no credible answers to a better argument.

Although largely irrelevant, as the Minister apparently thinks my qualifications important enough to concern himself with, I will fill in a bit on my background. If nothing else, this might provide some small reduction in the ignorance under which he is so obviously labouring in this respect.

I grew up on an island in the Florida Keys in a family of fishermen and began catching and selling fish off the family dock at age 5. At age 6 I got my first boat and a castnet. During high school I dived for crayfish to earn pocket money and would regularly catch between 50 to 200 pounds in a day’s diving. I attended university at the University of Miami and on completing my BSc scored in the top one percentile in the national Graduate Record Examination. I went on to graduate school at the Institute of Marine Science under a National Science Foundation Fellowship, one of the highest academic scholarships in the U.S. The IMS (now Rosensteil School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences) was and is among the top marine science research institutions in the world. I completed my PhD studies in record time and was awarded the degree in early 1964.

Since then I have worked independently. This has included research grants and contracts from the National Science Foundation, Office of Naval Research, National Geographic Society and various private foundations. For twenty years I owned and operated my own 104 ton research vessel exploring widely from the Caribbean to the S.W. Pacific including 10 years on the Great Barrier Reef and in the Coral Sea. I have often worked in cooperation with various research organizations. In such capacity I have been a Research Associate of the Institute of Marine Science, The Bernice P. Bishop Museum in Honolulu, The Australian Museum in Sydney and the Western Australia Museum.

My research experience has included studies in over two dozen countries and resulted in numerous articles, books, scientific reports in peer reviewed journals and documentary films which have been(broadcast in over 50 countries. It has also resulted in the discovery of over 100 species of fishes that were new to science, numerous new invertebrates and over 100,000 specimens now in the reference collections of major museums. One, a rare slit shell, became a gift of state from the U.S. Government to the Emperor of Japan on the occasion of his visit to the U.S.

In addition to basic research, I have worked extensively in development of marine technology and hold two patents in this area. This design and development experience includes several boats, an amphibious aircraft, various underwater photographic and lighting equipment and the

successful closed circuit mixed gas electronically regulated breathing apparatus. The photographic equipment included original development of the optical dome port now used universally for wide angle underwater photography. The electronic rebreather was manufactured and sold to NASA, the U.S. Navy, the Israeli Army, some nameless government agencies and the Edwin Link Foundation among others. In Australia it was regularly used by one of the leading commercial dive companies involved in the early development of the Bass Strait oil field. Over the years I have frequently been a professional consultant on various matters relating to marine research and technology.

I could go on, but suffice it to say I probably have enough qualifications to be deemed a scientist without the need for quotation marks. Like most gratuitous comments on other people, Mr. Moore’s remarks in this regard reveals more of their source than of their subject.

pjb05 wrote on Jul 29^th, 2010 at 8:22pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 29th, 2010 at 8:17pm: I did not ignore the fact that those other scientists made a comparison. I responded to it. I don't see any contradiction in those two statements. You have said that Walter's data of low catch per unit area indicates low productivity of the GBR haven't you?

That sounds a lot closer to what I actually said.

Quote: PJB05
How can you be taken seriously if you think catches alone are a guide to abundance and shy away from explaining how?

FD:
You can't. I don't think anyone here said that.



And have you forgotten this exchange from a few posts back? Your all over the place FD.

Why all the stupid questions?

freediver wrote on Jul 29^th, 2010 at 9:07pm:

Why all the stupid questions?

Your really clueless aren't you. You can't present a coherent line of reasoning. I'm trying to tease one out of you and all your statements are illogical or contradictionary.

You keep accusing me of saying things I don't actually say. I grow tired of pointing this out. That's all. I'm not trying to avoid anything except monotony.

freediver wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 7:32am:

You keep accusing me of saying things I don't actually say. I grow tired of pointing this out. That's all. I'm not trying to avoid anything except monotony.

There simple and conflicting statements and in your words. Your happy to spin off topic after topic of red herrings yet you won't elaborate on these statements. Maybe you just realise what a hole you have dug for yourself.

Quote:

There simple and conflicting statements and in your words.

No. They are in your strawmen. If you think I have made two statements that contradict each other, quote both. Don't just quote one and your misrepresentation of the other. I am not going to explain the difference to you if you can't even be bothered doing this.

freediver wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 11:45am:

Quote: There simple and conflicting statements and in your words. No. They are in your strawmen. If you think I have made two statements that contradict each other, quote both. Don't just quote one and your misrepresentation of the other. I am not going to explain the difference to you if you can't even be bothered doing this.

I have quoted both, you can't even get that right. Once again, plus a few others:

"Actually, what he observed was vastly different actual productivities. What he assumed was that this was down to absurdly misapplied management policies."

If the GBR were to be dramatically less productive then this will show up in other measures, but they don't. All evidence points to very light fishing pressure, eg underwater surveys, no significant difference between fish no in green zones and fished reefs etc.

"Walter's stats indicate that it is less productive."

Now Walter's stats were of catch per unit area. That sound like saying catches are a guide to productivity. Then you go on to say:

"You cant. I don't think anyone here said that".

Yes it is pretty subtle isn't it? There is nothing there that I feel the need to retract.

freediver wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 12:40pm:

Yes it is pretty subtle isn't it? There is nothing there that I feel the need to retract.

Not really. If you think it's subtle then why don't your clarify? Ie:

What were you refering to by "Walter's stats"?

What was he observing to see "vastly different actual productivities".

Why is there no other coroborating evidence pointing to lack of productivity?

Quote:

What were you refering to by "Walter's stats"?

His 'article' comparing CPUA.


Quote:

What was he observing to see "vastly different actual productivities".

Vastly different CPUA's. FYI, by actual, I mean realised.


Quote:

Why is there no other coroborating evidence pointing to lack of productivity?

There is plenty, but Walter is certainly not going to give it to you, and I can't be bothered chasing it up.

date=1280657139]
Quote:

What were you refering to by "Walter's stats"?

His 'article' comparing CPUA.


Quote:

What was he observing to see "vastly different actual productivities".

Vastly different CPUA's. FYI, by actual, I mean realised.

Now were getting somewhere, so you are saying catches are a guide to abundance!


Quote:

Why is there no other coroborating evidence pointing to lack of productivity?

There is plenty, but Walter is certainly not going to give it to you, and I can't be bothered chasing it up.[/quote]

He did. It's ample and obvious. No statistical difference between green zones and fished zones with respect to fish nos, for instance.

PS: if you have to 'chase up' your so called evidence, then how can you be sure it exists?

Here's some more correspondence. And yes FD, Walter does refer to other evidence of light fishing pressure on the GBR:

FROM: Walter Starck, Ph.D, Australia

TO: Dr Russell Reichelt, Chairman, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Australia

Dear Dr. Reichelt,

Your response is appreciated. However, I am disappointed that it fails to address most of the substantiative concerns which I raised and serves more to obscure than to clarify the few matters which are touched upon.

Your reply somewhat muddles together the declaration of no conflict of interest and acknowledgment of funding sources which are two distinctly separate requirements for PNAS authors.  

It is difficult to conceive any meaningful concept of conflict of interest which would find no conflict in 21 employees and beneficiaries of generous funding from an organisation producing a glowing assessment of the management of that organisation. If this study had been produced as an in-house review published by the GBRMPA, the inherent interests would have been apparent and require no caveat.

However, by publishing in a leading international journal, bannering the authors as a who’s who of Australian marine science, explicitly declaring no conflict of interest and not making clear that all of the authors are deeply beholden to GBRMPA, a quite misleading impression has been presented that this is an independent assessment.  

Acknowledgment of support is not the same as disclosing sources of funding for “the work” as required by PNAS. The former is broad and loose in scope. The latter is much more specific.

What is important in this instance is not a listing of organisations which may in some manner have contributed to research used in this review; but, who funded this particular work in itself. It seems unlikely that an effort of this magnitude took place informally as a spare time voluntary effort without any specific funding or approval of resource usage from higher management.

For example, the review itself states that, “Another important observation emerging from this review is the extent of relevant data that are not published or readily accessible. A full picture of the effects and effectiveness of zoning on the GBR has required extensive use of grey literature, previously unpublished data, and collation of separate data sources.”

Surely, the task of assembling and collating this considerable body of diverse and scattered information must have required something more than incidental effort and funding.  

That the lead author and three of the co-authors are GBRMPA employees and only GBRMPA has access to much of the most important unpublished material, make it seem reasonable to assume that the GBRMPA has played a lead role in the production and funding of this report.

While the failure to make this clear might have been unintentional, it is far from unimportant and now that it has been brought to attention, any attempt to ignore or dismiss it can only be seen as deliberate obfuscation.

It should also be noted that not one, but three, of the co-authors of this review have been recipients of Pew fellowships and a fourth is also a co-author of a Pew funded study conducted by the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies.

The key finding of this study was that the most cost effective option for management of a vast new Coral Sea MPA would be make it entirely a no take area managed by GBRMPA.

Although the fact that McCook et al also emphasises the importance of “no take” zones and the cost effectiveness of GBRMPA management might be seen as affirmation of the Pew sponsored findings, it could also be seen as a concerted campaign to that end.  

Limiting disclosure of Pew involvement to the mention that one author has received a Pew fellowship is more than a little misleading in this regard.

Your reply further states that, “The paper also draws attention to cases of conflicting evidence and does not ignore them.” This is factually incorrect and such can easily be seen in the clear examples I cited in my own review of McCook et al. To briefly mention just four important examples:

1.The extensive long-term coral trout surveys by Ayling, which repeatedly found no statistically significant difference in trout numbers between closed and open reefs, have been ignored.
2.While much was made of a doubling of trout numbers on protected reefs in one of eight reef areas surveyed, the fact that numbers on reefs open to fishing also doubled was ignored, as was the decline in numbers on protected reefs in five of the eight areas.
3.McCook et al. claim that expanded protected zones have resulted in, “major, rapid benefits of no-take areas for targeted fish and sharks”. Yet, this is directly contradicted by Heupel et al., 2010, who found that in reef sharks, "few individuals showed fidelity to an individual reef suggesting that current protective areas have limited utility for this species." Although both studies appear to have been in press at the same time, Heupel was a co-author in both. It is thus difficult to understand how the claim in McCook et al. could be made in good faith and without qualification.
4.McCook et al. state that, “fish abundances in no-entry zones suggest that even “no take” zones may be significantly depleted due to poaching.” However, no discussion or even mention is made of the voluminous evidence which clearly shows the exceptionally low fishing pressure on GBR fisheries.
In your reply to me, you intimate that my concerns have no credibility because they have not been published in a peer reviewed journal. Such a position does not seem to be a very well considered one for several reasons:

•It would appear that you will also need to dismiss the McCook et al. study itself; because, as cited above, they admit making extensive use of “grey literature” and unpublished data.
•It will also require dismissing your own statements on this issue as mere opinion, for they too have not been published in a peer reviewed journal.
•What I have written on this matter is in fact a peer review and what you are suggesting would then be a peer review of a peer review. Presumably this too would be subject to further peer review.
•Recent exposure of the misuse of peer review to censor conflicting evidence as well as using non-peer reviewed status to dismiss such evidence, while at the same time freely citing the latter when it supports a desired agenda, has brought great discredit to climate science and the IPCC. It would be well advised for GBRMPA to drop this failed tactic.
In my first email drawing my concerns to your attention, I noted that PNAS authors must, “make materials, data, and associated protocols available to readers.”    

I then requested that such data be made available for independent examination via download from the internet and asked that it should include all of the numerous unpublished coral trout, crown-of-thorns and coral bleaching survey reports conducted for GBRMPA.

In your current reply you state that the situation, in respect to relevant data that are not published or not readily accessible, “refers to the situation prior to publication of this paper and the release of the data sources in this paper was a very positive step forward.”  

Perhaps it is my error; but, I can find no such data in either the McCook et al. review itself or in the online supplementary material and I cannot see any indication of where it may be found elsewhere.  

If you could please advise where the released data to which you refer can be accessed it would be appreciated.

For GBRMPA to find nothing to support any concern regarding scientific integrity in any of the above plus the multiple other, specific, well documented and easily verified matters to which I have drawn notice, is unacceptable.

Research integrity is not an optional extra which may be exercised at the discretion of GBRMPA. As the Chairman of an important Australian research institution, you have an obligation under the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research to properly investigate any credible allegations of research misconduct.  

Clearly, there is no requirement that such concerns be presented as a formal scientific report in a peer reviewed journal. Your one-page letter of dismissal, which fails to satisfactorily address any of the over 18 specific concerns I have documented, falls well short of properly meeting this obligation.  

The immediate response from James Cook University affirming that they take such allegations seriously and will properly investigate them with regard to the reef ARC stands in marked contrast to this belated and dissembling response from the GBRMPA.

So often in matters of propriety, the most serious malfeasance resides not in the original offence, but in the attempt to deny it. I hope that this issue does not have to be pursued down such an unnecessarily unpleasant path.

Moved from this thread:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1293248496/46#46


freediver wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2011 at 11:19am:

I have produced several consensus statements signed by many marine scientists. I have referenced entire books full of hard evidence on the practical benefits. You respond with 'scientists' like Walter Starck who seems to do little more than sell home made DVDs on his home made website and make up grandiose claims about his achievements, none of which can actually be verified. Sticking your head in the sand won't help you PJ. Marine Parks are being established all around the country. Whatever valid points you may have get completely lost in the nonsense you carry on with. All you achieve is to remove yourself completely from the political process by making it impossible for anyone to take you seriously.

freediver wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2011 at 4:07pm:

Quote: That's what the 'consensus' statements are designed to do. Shut down debate by saying it's already decided. Look around PJ. It has already been decided that we are getting marine parks. However, that is not the purpose of the consensus statement. It was designed to shut down attempts to misrepresent the views of the scientific community, such as your claim that the majority of scientists involved in fisheries management support your views. [quote]I don't know of any books you have referred to.

Here is one of them:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1228717032/10#10


Quote:

There not 'scientists' they are scientists and their credentials are impressive and easily verified.

This is the thread where I asked you to verify some of Walter's grandiose claims about himself. As I recall, you were unable to. This is highly unusual (to say the least) for a genuine scientist. Surely you can appreciate the harm it does to your credibility when I can count on my fingers the number of 'scientists' who even come close to agreeing with you, and some of them turn out to be frauds. Then you turn around and say the majority agree with you.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1272776383/17#17[/quote]

Oopsy FD, have you forgotten about this:

Re:
From: Walter Starck
Clarification of more Moore misstatements
Date: 2 November 2009

Recently I had begun to consider if I had perhaps been too harsh on Minister Moore and what I had thought to be poor judgement might be more a matter of poor advice. I must now thank Mr. Moore for relieving any such doubt and generously providing another opportunity to address some of his misstatements.

Who is a “Scientist” and Does it Matter?
At the WAFIC AGM of 23 October the Minister made some remarks implying doubt regarding my qualifications as a “scientist” (with the quotation marks his addition). This deserves some comment as it seems the Minister may not understand that matters of science are determined by reason and evidence, not by consensus or pissing contests over credentials. In fact, some of the most important advances in science have come when relative unknowns challenged prevailing expert opinion with an explanation which proved to be a better one. In scientific disagreements, attacks on personal qualifications are an implicit admission of defeat. They are invariably only resorted to when there are no credible answers to a better argument.

Although largely irrelevant, as the Minister apparently thinks my qualifications important enough to concern himself with, I will fill in a bit on my background. If nothing else, this might provide some small reduction in the ignorance under which he is so obviously labouring in this respect.

I grew up on an island in the Florida Keys in a family of fishermen and began catching and selling fish off the family dock at age 5. At age 6 I got my first boat and a castnet. During high school I dived for crayfish to earn pocket money and would regularly catch between 50 to 200 pounds in a day’s diving. I attended university at the University of Miami and on completing my BSc scored in the top one percentile in the national Graduate Record Examination. I went on to graduate school at the Institute of Marine Science under a National Science Foundation Fellowship, one of the highest academic scholarships in the U.S. The IMS (now Rosensteil School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences) was and is among the top marine science research institutions in the world. I completed my PhD studies in record time and was awarded the degree in early 1964.

Since then I have worked independently. This has included research grants and contracts from the National Science Foundation, Office of Naval Research, National Geographic Society and various private foundations. For twenty years I owned and operated my own 104 ton research vessel exploring widely from the Caribbean to the S.W. Pacific including 10 years on the Great Barrier Reef and in the Coral Sea. I have often worked in cooperation with various research organizations. In such capacity I have been a Research Associate of the Institute of Marine Science, The Bernice P. Bishop Museum in Honolulu, The Australian Museum in Sydney and the Western Australia Museum.

My research experience has included studies in over two dozen countries and resulted in numerous articles, books, scientific reports in peer reviewed journals and documentary films which have been(broadcast in over 50 countries. It has also resulted in the discovery of over 100 species of fishes that were new to science, numerous new invertebrates and over 100,000 specimens now in the reference collections of major museums. One, a rare slit shell, became a gift of state from the U.S. Government to the Emperor of Japan on the occasion of his visit to the U.S.

In addition to basic research, I have worked extensively in development of marine technology and hold two patents in this area. This design and development experience includes several boats, an amphibious aircraft, various underwater photographic and lighting equipment and the

successful closed circuit mixed gas electronically regulated breathing apparatus. The photographic equipment included original development of the optical dome port now used universally for wide angle underwater photography. The electronic rebreather was manufactured and sold to NASA, the U.S. Navy, the Israeli Army, some nameless government agencies and the Edwin Link Foundation among others. In Australia it was regularly used by one of the leading commercial dive companies involved in the early development of the Bass Strait oil field. Over the years I have frequently been a professional consultant on various matters relating to marine research and technology.

I could go on, but suffice it to say I probably have enough qualifications to be deemed a scientist without the need for quotation marks. Like most gratuitous comments on other people, Mr. Moore’s remarks in this regard reveals more of their source than of their subject.

Do you know what the term 'verify' means PJ?

For a genuine scientist, it would be no problem.

freediver wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2011 at 4:31pm:

Do you know what the term 'verify' means PJ? For a genuine scientist, it would be no problem.

Do you know what the term 'defamation' means?

Sure. Who do you think I have defamed?

Are you able to verify any of Walter's grandiose claims about his 'scientific' career?

]Sure. Who do you think I have defamed?

Walter Starck when you called him a fraud and claimed his achievements are made up.

Are you able to verify any of Walter's grandiose claims about his 'scientific' career?

I'm not at your beck and call. When will it end, do you want me to check up on all the other scientists (more than a handful), I have quoted? Are you able to back your fraud claims? Do you realise people get sued over that sort of thing?  

Quote:

Walter Starck when you called him a fraud and claimed his achievements are made up.

To defame someone you actually have to make people think less of them. That is hard to do in Walter's case. The few people who do take him seriously aren't the sort to listen to reason anyway. In any case, all he has to do is provide some kind of verification of his claims about his 'illustrious career' and my criticism will come to nothing. It would actually be quite simple for him, even for you to do, if he was a genuine scientist.


Quote:

I'm not at your beck and call.

You made all the appeals to his authority, not me. Obviously if you insist I should take him seriously because he is a bigshot scientist, but there is no evidence at all except his own claims about himself, people will expect you to either back up your claims or retract them.


Quote:

When will it end, do you want me to check up on all the other scientists (more than a handful)

I expect it will end with Walter. Or maybe it won't. Maybe you will go on forever clinging to your belief in him. It is not for me to say when this ends. To me, being able to tell the difference between a real scientist and a pretend one is the beginning, not the end.

freediver wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2011 at 9:27pm:

[quote]I expect it will end with Walter. Or maybe it won't. Maybe you will go on forever clinging to your belief in him. It is not for me to say when this ends. To me, being able to tell the difference between a real scientist and a pretend one is the beginning, not the end.

If he was a pretend one it wouldn't be hard to refute his 'reefgate' allegations would it? You don't even try. You don't apply the same standards to yourself either with your blind faith in the consensus statement. How many of the signatories are fisheries scientists? What about their suspicious Pew connections? Your just projecting your own faults back onto me.  

The high quality of his writngs, the fact that he has featured on the ABC and major newspapers, recent papers and submissions to government regarding fisheries and think tanks as a scientist should be enough for this forum. This line of argument says more about you and the weakness of your case.

Quote:

The high quality of his writngs, the fact that he has featured on the ABC and major newspapers, recent papers and submissions to government regarding fisheries and think tanks as a scientist should be enough for this forum.

It isn't. His writings are not of high quality, which is why they aren't in peer reviewed journals. They only appeal to the scientifically illiterate. Any moron can make a submission to the government or a think tank. You could mail in a clod of dirt if you wanted.

I have pointed out flaws in many of his 'papers'. You insist I keep doing this over and over again because he is a big shot scientist, but he isn't. It is time for you to step up.

FD has a point Pj. It all sounds pretty impressive, but is he a Robert Ballard? Could be, but many 'Scientists' out there "fluff and puff" themselves up (market themselves) to get those ($$ching-ching) Grants.
Is he the type, like many 'dux' and top 5%'ers - who follow what is set out in front of them to a tee. These people, when faced with (3)three paths to take, always choose the 'right' one ...mainly because they have a map in front of them.
Unlike others, not having a map at hand (or Uni) and are faced with no paths at all to take ...these go out and 'make' the paths and draw on the maps the missing links.
None is better than the other. One thinks highly of what is already known and the other of what there is to know.

Anyway, gonna have to catch up with these Topics.  :-[

[quote author=Jasignature link=1272776383/105#119 date=1294009162]FD has a point Pj. It all sounds pretty impressive, but is he a Robert Ballard? Could be, but many 'Scientists' out there "fluff and puff" themselves up (market themselves) to get those ($$ching-ching) Grants.
Is he the type, like many 'dux' and top 5%'ers - who follow what is set out in front of them to a tee. These people, when faced with (3)three paths to take, always choose the 'right' one ...mainly because they have a map in front of them.
Unlike others, not having a map at hand (or Uni) and are faced with no paths at all to take ...these go out and 'make' the paths and draw on the maps the missing links.
None is better than the other. One thinks highly of what is already known and the other of what there is to know.

Anyway, gonna have to catch up with these Topics.  :-[/quote]

I'm not saying you should accept his arguments on faith or authority, just judge them on their merit. FD can't or won't so just attacks him personally. He has used the same pathetic and scurrilous tactic on other scientists including Professors in fisheries science and one who recieved the order of Australia for his contribution to fisheries!  

Quote:

I'm not saying you should accept his arguments on faith or authority, just judge them on their merit.

You have made plenty of appeals to his authority before. Here is an example from this thread:


pjb05 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 9:43am:

Rubbish, he has published many papers in peer reviewed journals. Plus your argument is self negating FD. You don't even have any scientific qualifications or expertise and this doesn't stop you.

Quote:

FD can't or won't so just attacks him personally.

Walter makes lengthy appeals to his own authority. You have made plenty here on this forum. Adressing those claims is a perfectly valid response. You'll notice that the vast majority of my 'attacks' are merely requests for you to verify those claims.

Let's do an experiment. This is a topic from Walter that we have gone over plenty of times before, with me trying to address it on it's technical merit. You have never come up with a rational defence of his position. Let's see if you can this time, rather than just insisting he is right because he is a scientist:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1294011860

date=1294011957]
Quote:

I'm not saying you should accept his arguments on faith or authority, just judge them on their merit.

You have made plenty of appeals to his authority before. Here is an example from this thread:


pjb05 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 9:43am:

Rubbish, he has published many papers in peer reviewed journals. Plus your argument is self negating FD. You don't even have any scientific qualifications or expertise and this doesn't stop you.

You are going around in circles, FD. You nagged me about his credentials so I responded.  


Quote:

FD can't or won't so just attacks him personally.

Walter makes lengthy appeals to his own authority. You have made plenty here on this forum. Adressing those claims is a perfectly valid response. You'll notice that the vast majority of my 'attacks' are merely requests for you to verify those claims.

Actually he said the authority argument is largely irrelevant. Like me he was responding to attacks on his credentials.

Let's do an experiment. This is a topic from Walter that we have gone over plenty of times before, with me trying to address it on it's technical merit. You have never come up with a rational defence of his position. Let's see if you can this time, rather than just insisting he is right because he is a scientist:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1294011860

Just your selective amnesia at work again FD. Does this sound rational?

- Catch per unit area is commonly used to compare fishing pressure on coral reefs.

- Your knit-picking criticisms ignore the fact that the fishing pressure on the GBR was orders of magnitude below what is regarded as sustainable for coral reefs.

- There is other abundant independant evidence that the GBR was lightly fished. Eg no statistical difference between fish no's on fished reefs vs greens zones. Assessment of coral trout no's as healthy and robust by Dr Ayling.    

Quote:

You nagged me about his credentials so I responded.

I asked you to verify his credentials. You should try doing that instead of just 'responding'. That way we wouldn't have ten pages of your meaningless diversions.


Quote:

Actually he said the authority argument is largely irrelevant. Like me he was responding to attacks on his credentials.

The attacks came after he and his supporters made extensive appeals to his authority. He brought it up, so it is hypocritical of him to blame his detractors for it becoming an issue. Obviously he will try to brush it all aside once he is exposed as a fraud. If he wanted the debate to focus on the technical merits, he and his supporters should have focused on that instead. I suppose he found the only way to get people to pay attention to his silly claims is to give them an undeserved air of credibility.

[date=1294017715]
Quote:

You nagged me about his credentials so I responded.

I asked you to verify his credentials. You should try doing that instead of just 'responding'. That way we wouldn't have ten pages of your meaningless diversions.

What I offered is good enough for here. Do you expect me to chase up institutions for references, qualifications etc?


Quote:

Actually he said the authority argument is largely irrelevant. Like me he was responding to attacks on his credentials.

The attacks came after he and his supporters made extensive appeals to his authority. He brought it up, so it is hypocritical of him to blame his detractors for it becoming an issue. Obviously he will try to brush it all aside once he is exposed as a fraud. If he wanted the debate to focus on the technical merits, he and his supporters should have focused on that instead. I suppose he found the only way to get people to pay attention to his silly claims is to give them an undeserved air of credibility.

Rubbish. Don't just mindlessly turn back your own shortcomings on to me.

PS: what about your little experiment?

Quote:

What I offered is good enough for here

.

No it isn't. All you offered was Walter repeating the same claims about himself that you were asked to verify. I'm not sure what kind of forum you would expect to accept at face value a scientist blowing his own trumpet like that. It is absurdly naive. Science is the one field where a person's credibility is dead simple to verify, if they have any.


Quote:

Do you expect me to chase up institutions for references, qualifications etc?

Not really. I don't think you'd have much luck anyway. You should start with asking Walter for a way to independently verify his claims. I expect you will find him to be very evasive on providing any more detail to what are some unusually vague claims.


Quote:

Rubbish. Don't just mindlessly turn back your own shortcomings on to me.

They are not my shortcomings. Both you and Walter made an appeal to his authority, now you are both backpedalling.


Quote:

PS: what about your little experiment?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1294011860

You failed. You cannot back up any of your appeals to Walter's authority. Nor can you give a rational argument in support of his technical points. An undergraduate would fail for making the conclusions drawn by Walter.

freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2011 at 3:34pm:

Quote: What I offered is good enough for here . No it isn't. All you offered was Walter repeating the same claims about himself that you were asked to verify. I'm not sure what kind of forum you would expect to accept at face value a scientist blowing his own trumpet like that. It is absurdly naive. Science is the one field where a person's credibility is dead simple to verify, if they have any. [quote]Do you expect me to chase up institutions for references, qualifications etc?

Not really. I don't think you'd have much luck anyway. You should start with asking Walter for a way to independently verify his claims. I expect you will find him to be very evasive on providing any more detail to what are some unusually vague claims.

How else do you verify the claims if what I have told you is not good enough? How come the same standard doesn't apply to you. What about all the other scientists I have quoted. Are you saying Prof Kearney didn't really get the Order of Australia or Prof Ray Hilborn doesn't really work for Washington University?


Quote:

Rubbish. Don't just mindlessly turn back your own shortcomings on to me.

They are not my shortcomings. Both you and Walter made an appeal to his authority, now you are both backpedalling.

Parrot.


Quote:

PS: what about your little experiment?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1294011860

You failed. You cannot back up any of your appeals to Walter's authority. Nor can you give a rational argument in support of his technical points. An undergraduate would fail for making the conclusions drawn by Walter.

Why is it not rational? Simply saying so is not good enough. PS you haven't beeen even undergraduate in the field - you don't even seem to have average intelligence.

Quote:

How else do you verify the claims if what I have told you is not good enough?

I believe I suggested a good place to start.


Quote:

Parrot.

You are more than happy to mindlessly parrot Walter's claims.

[url]Why is it not rational?[/url]

Read the thread.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1294011860

date=1294034608]
Quote:

How else do you verify the claims if what I have told you is not good enough?

I believe I suggested a good place to start.


Quote:

Parrot.

You are more than happy to mindlessly parrot Walter's claims.

How come you can't contest them?

[url]Why is it not rational?[/url]

Read the thread.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1294011860[/quote]

I have read the thread - you haven't countered the points I have point down in this thread or in the earlier thread .  

Who's 'Walter'?? Is he Waldo's brother???

Walter Starck, see the other thread.


Quote:

How come you can't contest them?

I am doing just that.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1294011860

Hmmm? Walter Starck - sounds like a 'theorist' scientist  ::)
What are his 'practical' proofs?

Quote:

Are you saying Prof Kearney didn't really get the Order of Australia or Prof Ray Hilborn doesn't really work for Washington University?

I don't doubt this, but I remember "SeaSports" in Jervis Bay reigned as "Australia's Number One Dive Shop" for years ...only because it paid for it to be so.

Anyway, I think I have run out of constructive input this far.
I stand by 'the official gossip' on the water out there.
I personally can't see something 'that big' being zoned off, but I do know from situations like this where 'word of mouth' preludes the official end product, that there will be large sections of the NSW Coastline Zoned off as No Take soon.
This is all in good, especially if these No Take Zones are placed in accordance with the Aquatic areas that really matter and yeild a substantial increase without need for further intervention.
Wonder if the Scientists are out there Scuba Diving to actually see?

All in all, I still shake my head at the amount of Recreational Fisherman Fishing in restricted areas ...even in full sight of us Diving.
This is why I think, unlike in New Zealand, Australia is yet to discover the real impact of Recreational Fishers supplying Restaurants, etc. In NZ, the practice is rife. Enforcement in NSW needs to be upped.

/120#131 date=1294062829]Hmmm? Walter Starck - sounds like a 'theorist' scientist  ::)
What are his 'practical' proofs?

A lot of scientific papers consists of reviews of other scientists original work and good things come out of such reviews - it's not really a valid criticism.


Quote:

Are you saying Prof Kearney didn't really get the Order of Australia or Prof Ray Hilborn doesn't really work for Washington University?

I don't doubt this, but I remember "SeaSports" in Jervis Bay reigned as "Australia's Number One Dive Shop" for years ...only because it paid for it to be so.

Anyway, I think I have run out of constructive input this far.
I stand by 'the official gossip' on the water out there.
I personally can't see something 'that big' being zoned off, but I do know from situations like this where 'word of mouth' preludes the official end product, that there will be large sections of the NSW Coastline Zoned off as No Take soon.
This is all in good, especially if these No Take Zones are placed in accordance with the Aquatic areas that really matter and yeild a substantial increase without need for further intervention.
Wonder if the Scientists are out there Scuba Diving to actually see?

Don't you know that waters up to 3nm are under state control and past 3nm are commonwealth? How likely is it such a plan would be considered under two different jurastictions, and considering the stae government is facing the voters soon and is likely to lose.

All in all, I still shake my head at the amount of Recreational Fisherman Fishing in restricted areas ...even in full sight of us Diving.
This is why I think, unlike in New Zealand, Australia is yet to discover the real impact of Recreational Fishers supplying Restaurants, etc. In NZ, the practice is rife. Enforcement in NSW needs to be upped.

Perhaps they would have without the distraction and expense of uneccessary marine parks. Indeed no money seems to be spared on marine parks boats, rangers, managers officers.

Quote:

Don't you know that waters up to 3nm are under state control and past 3nm are commonwealth? How likely is it such a plan would be considered under two different jurastictions, and considering the stae government is facing the voters soon and is likely to lose.

Well considering the States do more on 'our' behalf than what the Federal/Commonwealth does because they are at the beg and call of the International Community - thats right, Federal is our 'Weakest Link' of Politics (especially unlike the USA  ;)). This is probably why our country is not quite right and I don't agree with "if it ain't broke...",  - because the Federal is working 'just right' for the Union Jack, let alone the President.
Is pretty obvious the 'flip' of it all is about to occur with Liberals to take all States for want of the ALP Federal. ("yawn")
...I think Australian Waters will be going through some changes soon anyway. We'll see what happens then? :-?


Quote:

A lot of scientific papers consists of reviews of other scientists original work and good things come out of such reviews - it's not really a valid criticism.

More 'paperwork'. ::) Australian Medical Industry has 2/3rds more paperwork than any other industry too.


Quote:

Perhaps they would have without the distraction and expense of uneccessary marine parks. Indeed no money seems to be spared on marine parks boats, rangers, managers officers.

I think you live in a world where a small 'pot plant' grows in a big city.
I live in a world where a small 'processing plant' works in a big wildlife zone.
...considering yours is the more 'northern hemisphere' philosphy ;)

Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic.