Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 
Send Topic Print
Why is Walter so bitter? (Read 24673 times)
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Why is Walter so bitter?
Reply #105 - Aug 1st, 2010 at 8:05pm
 
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.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male
Re: Why is Walter so bitter?
Reply #106 - Aug 1st, 2010 at 8:16pm
 
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?

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male
Re: Why is Walter so bitter?
Reply #107 - Aug 7th, 2010 at 3:33pm
 
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.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male
Re: Why is Walter so bitter?
Reply #108 - Aug 7th, 2010 at 3:36pm
 
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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Why is Walter so bitter?
Reply #109 - Jan 2nd, 2011 at 9:30pm
 
Moved from this thread:

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

freediver wrote on Jan 2nd, 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 2nd, 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
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male
Re:  Marine parks next wave of water wars
Reply #110 - Jan 2nd, 2011 at 4:25pm
 
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
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male
Re:  Marine parks next wave of water wars
Reply #111 - Jan 2nd, 2011 at 4:29pm
 
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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re:  Marine parks next wave of water wars
Reply #112 - Jan 2nd, 2011 at 4:31pm
 
Do you know what the term 'verify' means PJ?

For a genuine scientist, it would be no problem.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male
Re:  Marine parks next wave of water wars
Reply #113 - Jan 2nd, 2011 at 4:38pm
 
freediver wrote on Jan 2nd, 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?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re:  Marine parks next wave of water wars
Reply #114 - Jan 2nd, 2011 at 7:16pm
 
Sure. Who do you think I have defamed?

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

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male
Re:  Marine parks next wave of water wars
Reply #115 - Jan 2nd, 2011 at 7:49pm
 
]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?   
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re:  Marine parks next wave of water wars
Reply #116 - Jan 2nd, 2011 at 9:27pm
 
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.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male
Re:  Marine parks next wave of water wars
Reply #117 - Jan 3rd, 2011 at 6:27am
 
freediver wrote on Jan 2nd, 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.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jan 3rd, 2011 at 6:50am by pjb05 »  
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Why is Walter so bitter?
Reply #118 - Jan 3rd, 2011 at 8:50am
 
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.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
It_is_the_Darkness
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 4000
in a ReTardis
Gender: male
Re: Why is Walter so bitter?
Reply #119 - Jan 3rd, 2011 at 8:59am
 
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.  Embarrassed
Back to top
 

SUCKING ON MY TITTIES, LIKE I KNOW YOU WANT TO.
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 
Send Topic Print