So do the iron triangles actually exist here, or are they a figment of an overactive imagination? Do they encompass so many universities and other institutions that they prevent scientists from speak the truth about marine parks? Or is this just an extraordinarily convoluted way of explaining away why Walter Starck is a joke in academic circles?

Yes there are dots there and you can join them any way you want. But is that the reality for a practicing scientist or not?

Quote:


No marine scientist would even bother responding. It is all a load of poo, and criticising one bit might mislead people into thinking the rest had some validity. Not that it takes an expert to pick big holes in his arguments.

I have pulled up Walter on dozens of his 'errors'. It gets pretty old. Plus there doesn't seem to be much point. Has he apologised to those scientists for accusing them on not stating something that was on the front page of their paper? Or do they have to spend a few days answering all his silly questions before he will admit his mistake?

freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2010 at 9:18pm:


The clincher is that the the public is mislead by members of the iron triangle regarding marine parks, as Prof Kearney ably pointed out. Are you going to call him names too or tell me he has been rejected by the marine science community?  

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 8:38pm:


Don't you know the difference yet - I never said it was a conspiracy, less still a 'grand' one. Strawman yet again. As to the rest of your weasel - one paper is what this post was about. And it's being widely cited to promote marine parks .

]Already? Who has cited it?

Marine park campaigners - have a Look at the 'Save our Marine Life' site.

Do you have any evidence that this golden triangle of yours is a reality for working scientists? [/quote]

It's an iron, not golden triangle FD - at least try to get the terminology right. And I have just spent pages putting the evidence up.  

Quote:


You have not put up any evidence that this is actually impacting on scientists. So far it only exists in your imagination. That some guy thought it happened over half a century ago is not evidence that marine scientists are unable to speak the truth because of golden triangles everywhere.

freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2010 at 8:14am:


They don't miss a trick, here's another example:

Conservation Council of Western Australia Inc.

MEDIA RELEASE –23rd April 2010
THE SCIENCE IS IN: WA MUST ACT ON MARINE SANCTUARIES

Today the Department of Environment released a landmark report strongly supporting the benefits of a network of marine sanctuaries for Western Australia.

Billed at the time of commissioning as the definitive scientific statement on marine sanctuaries in WA; this report was designed to end years of debate into the need for marine sanctuaries and their place in protecting WA’s marine life.

The Report on the Scientific Basis for and the Role of Marine Sanctuaries in Marine Planning, was completed by independent scientists appointed by the former Minister for the Environment, and recommended by the Western Australian Marine Science Institution with advice from the then Fisheries Minister and Resources Minister.
The report comes on the back of recent studies from the Great Barrier Reef that showed major environmental benefits from the increases in protection there – including a two fold increase in fish populations.