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?