Forum

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

Pages: 1 2 3 ... 9
Send Topic Print
Why is Walter so bitter? (Read 24667 times)
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Why is Walter so bitter?
May 2nd, 2010 at 2:59pm
 
Does anyone know what happened to make Walter Starck become so spiteful against his former colleauges?
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 #1 - May 4th, 2010 at 12:09pm
 
freediver wrote on May 2nd, 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'.
Back to top
« Last Edit: May 4th, 2010 at 3:48pm by pjb05 »  
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Why is Walter so bitter?
Reply #2 - May 8th, 2010 at 10:56am
 
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?
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 #3 - May 8th, 2010 at 1:54pm
 
]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?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Why is Walter so bitter?
Reply #4 - May 8th, 2010 at 8:47pm
 
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?
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 #5 - May 9th, 2010 at 8:45am
 
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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Why is Walter so bitter?
Reply #6 - May 9th, 2010 at 1:41pm
 
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.
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 #7 - May 9th, 2010 at 2:40pm
 
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.
Back to top
« Last Edit: May 9th, 2010 at 3:21pm by pjb05 »  
 
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male
Re: Why is Walter so bitter?
Reply #8 - May 9th, 2010 at 4:06pm
 
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?
Back to top
« Last Edit: May 9th, 2010 at 5:01pm by pjb05 »  
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Why is Walter so bitter?
Reply #9 - May 9th, 2010 at 8:03pm
 
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.
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 #10 - May 9th, 2010 at 8:56pm
 
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. 



Fine, then as I asked previously, explain how in a case like this. Use an example if you like.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Why is Walter so bitter?
Reply #11 - May 9th, 2010 at 9:08pm
 
Back to top
« Last Edit: May 9th, 2010 at 9:16pm by freediver »  

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


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Why is Walter so bitter?
Reply #12 - May 11th, 2010 at 7:13pm
 
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.
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 #13 - May 11th, 2010 at 7:52pm
 
[] 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."

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


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Why is Walter so bitter?
Reply #14 - May 11th, 2010 at 7:54pm
 
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?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 9
Send Topic Print