For some reason, every time the anti marine park lobby get wound up over the latest bit of research to contradict them, they make sure to point out if any of the researchers involved are Pew fellows, as if this proves some kind of grand conspiracy. I'm sure that whenever they talk about it in person there is a whole lot of nudging and winking going on, but I am yet to see an explanation of what they have against Pew.

Quote:


Not just you PJ. It's a recurring theme.

Quote:


I don't know whether they are or not, but they are high on the agenda of many fisheries management institutions. So even if they are this is not an indication of bias. It merely reflects the reality of modern fisheries management research.

Quote:


I wouldn't consider that generous. How far do you think that money would go?

Quote:


All Pew fellows, or just the ones researching fisheries management? Are you trying to say that Pew is targetting this area?

Quote:


PJ, asking people to join the dots is a euphemism for asking them to jump to unfounded conclusions. You may be right that the dots you see are consistent with an agenda to mislead, but what you fail to appreciate is that they are also consistent with responding to the facts, which happen to support marine parks. You need to look at the whole picture to tell the difference, not just whatever dots certain loonies show you.

Quote:


I mean that other people bring up Pew as well. The whole anti marine park lobby seems to be getting into the nudge nudge wink wink act. It's a lot easier to handle than the facts.

Quote:


I did not intend to leave you out.

Quote:


Your other thread.

Quote:


What on earth is that supposed to mean? Are you suggesting that big political changes can be traced back to a single nucleus?

Quote:


Like the ones who signed the consensus statement? Or the ones in the paper you are criticising in the other thread? I suspect you are confusing being in a tiny minority with individualism.

Quote:


But they don't give it to 'individuals', do they? I would have thought it would go to research managers in charge of significant budgets, to be part of that budget.

Quote:


I think they have a very broad interest and this is only a tiny part of it.

So that's it eh? All this nudging and winking is down to some fool drawing a circle between two points?

Another point  - what is the 'anti-marine park lobby'? It's mostly ordinary people devoting their spare time to fight an injustice/ poor policy. They are far more grassroots than the professional agitators in the green movement campaigning for them. Most of the latter will never even visit these marine parks.

Quote:


The reality is that is that they use their government and Pew slush funds to mislead the public regarding overfishing and to soften them up for marine parks. Eg the Empty Nets - Empty Oceans report, talking wrasses on TV. They have little direct interest in these parks and like you little actual knowledge of fisheries. Professional agitators would be a good description.

Yes I do 'actually' have information on Pew. You seem to have forgotten I put it up here. You also spent pages nit picking and hair splitting over it. I just shows how much thought you actually put into these debates that you can't recall!

freediver wrote on Apr 30^th, 2010 at 9:12pm:


I put up an article regarding Pew, it's finances, campaigns and how it pays to influence marine research. I will put it up again when I get around to it so I wouldn't push your strawman too far.

PS: In the other thread your last post critcised me for putting up a reference instead putting it in my own words! Do you actually think about your drivel before you post it?

freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2010 at 8:28am:


About everything you have posted on these recent two threads.