Quote:


So it blew up in their face, but no-one knows about it? I don;t see any grand revelations in the media of these scientists getting pressured by golden triangles.

Quote:


There isn't really much to expand on. There is simply no real evidence. If your magic golden triangles were real, the evidence would come out, just as it did with NASA.  

Quote:


I think your belief in these golden triangles is a significant issue. Like I mentioned in regard to Pew, to seems to be a common thread to all the anti marine park rhetoric, yet for some reason the accusation is rarely made as directly as you did. You took it from nudge nudge wink wink to standing on a street corner proclaiming it to the world.

Quote:


I am asserting that you have no real evidence.

Quote:


It might be very similar to the evidence in the NASA case. At the very least, you would get scientists complaining that they are being prevented from speaking the truth. It seems pretty obvious to me. Not even any of the scientists you have put on a pedestal are making this accusation. Except perhaps Walter, but he can't bring himself to say it directly. He is still doing the nudge nudge wink wink thing. Maybe he does still value his reputation after all.

What grandiose conspiracy do you have to explain how all these scientists are being pressured to mislead the public, but none have spoken up about it?

Quote:




Either that, or they aren't even aware of it.

Quote:




I hope they haven't 'filed' it.

freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2010 at 9:10pm:


Samosas? yum

pjb05 wrote on May 13^th, 2010 at 9:01am:


They aren't substantive at all. They certainly provide no real evidence of golden triangles, or the government pressureing these scientists to change their conclusions.

That is only a small part of the acusations. You don't even want to talk about the scientific and economic criticisms. You flat assertions amount to you declaring victory in a debate you don't want to take part in.

You have some very odd notions about obligation in debate. It's like you see it as a teacher-student relationship, where you decide which topics are to be discussed, which questions are to be answered, how they are to be answered, and pretty much what the answer should be.

You have ignored the most important allegations and resorted to rhetorical devices and red herrings in a pathetic and self serving attempt to defend the cause you are attached to.

Now you seem to think the government is obligued to give a detailed technical response to every loonie that writes to them with absurd accusations. [/quote]

Why are they absurd? What makes Walter Starck a loonie? What a pathetic response!

] Quote:


So now you are arguing that golden triangles and scientists being prevented from speaking the truth is insignificant, and we should focus instead on the technical arguments?

Strawman - I didn't say that the iron triangle was insignificant and I didn't say they were prevented from speaking the truth. Why must you twist around my words/ misquote me? I didn't even say we should focus instead on the technical arguments. You haven't said one word about the technical arguments yet spent pages arguing about conflict of interest/ iron triangles, don't you think that this is more than a bit lop sided? Even then you arguments aren't even logically consistent, ie are self contradictory. You say they have declared conflict of interest then spend pages arguing there isn't any. You say circumstantial evidence is not real and then concede it is and then that the evidence is not circumstantial after all. Who do you think your kidding FD?


You made the allegation of golden triangles. I picked up on it because I think it is the most important one. None of the technical details will shed any light on whether scientists are being pressured to mislead the public.

Duh, if the paper is misleading then the public is being mislead. The bias in the paper supports the other claims of conflict of interest/ iron triangle. If it is not out of conflict of interest then the only other explanation is that they are incompetent. The later seems unlikely with the bias being so consistent and one sided.  

Just out of interest, which do you think are the most important allegations?

Like I said the economic and scientific errors and bias. They fact that the conclusions are at odds with their own work and past finding sticks most in my mind. This also conflicts with the rules of the journal which state that the conflicting evidence must be dealt with/ explained.

[] Quote:


I'm pretty sure I did not say that. I said that they had acknowledged that they work for GBRMPA on the front page of their paper, and that this is more than sufficient acknowledgement. To expect them to acknowledge Walter Starck's fantasies about golden triangles pressuring them to mislead the public is absurd.

So now your saying there is a conflict of interest?

PS: Walter Stark didn't say anything about iron or golden triangles. Also why is it so hard for you to get the term right?

Quote:


No it doesn't. Even if Walter was right and the scientists were wrong, he has not presented any evidence at all that they ere pressured into it. You are confusing evidence that someone is wrong with evidence of their motive for being wrong, or even evidence that they had a motive.

Put it this way. If the paper was fair and not misleading there would be no talk of conflict of interest or iron triangles. As it is not the only other explanation is that they are incompetent. How is that more reasuring?

PS: How do you claim to have any credibility on the subject of evidence when you argued that circumstantial evidence is not 'real'? That demonstrates a great deal of ignorance (a problem you have with a lot of subjects).

Quote:


Your bias is consistent and one sided, that is all. [/quote]

Don't just turn my own arguments back on me.  

] Quote:


No PJ. I said that they acknowledged on the front page that they work for GBRMPA. I see no need for them to acknowledge Walter's little fantasy and claim that working for the GBRMPA is a conflict of interest because the GBRMPA is out to mislead the public. If they were obligued to acknowledge every lunatic theory about possible motives for misleading, the acknowledgements would be longer than the paper itself.

Thats not exactly right. There names are under the GBRMPA address as authors, thats all. You seem to be still confused as to what conflict of interest is also (rather like the way you embarrased youself over what circumstantial evidence constitutes). And you still haven't provided a definition of it. Everything you have said is just a convoluted attempt to obsfuscate the topic. It would appear misleading the public is exactly what the GBRMPA is up to. No doubt with an eye on the juicy prospect of expanding it's empire with the proposed Coral Sea Marine Park.

Quote:


He did accuse them of failing to acknowledge a conflict of interest. It seems most likely to me that it is of the goldent triangle variety, but you are right that it is impossible to tell exactly what Walter is going on about. He seems to prefer letting people like you fill in the blanks with their favourite conspiracy theory.

Well did they fail to or didn't they? What is your point about the front page? The relationship fits the dictionary definition of conflict of interest, do you concede that?

Quote:


Another error of logic. People like Walter and you would still make the accusation. Not everyone is capable of judging whether the paper is fair or misleading. That is why they use peer review rather than asking pundits like Walter.

Just projection again on your part (a common trait of lefty greens). Also peer review is a cop out that you call on when your in trouble. If you use that argument then everything you have said on marine parks must be ignored as well because it hasn't been peer reviewd either!

Quote:


I would leave it up to their peers to make that judgement.

Walter Starck has more experience than most of the authors as well as a being just as well qualified. Doesn't that make him a peer?

Quote:


Why not? Are you the only one allowed to make these accusations? Am I supposed to disprove every silly accusation you make first? [/quote]

Because you do it mindlessly with nothing to back it up, (usually just projecting back on to me exactly what your doing).