Ever wonder why your "peer reviewed research" doesn't get the level of respect from regulators you think it deserves?
It is not because it is some great conspiracy to protect the interests of salmon farmers, it is because it is shoddy, unsupported, thoroughly flawed and based on biased assumptions.
This is an attack on the scientific results and on the scientists who have carried it out. You present no evidence for your accusation. Just a bald statement of opinion with nothing to back it up. Where are the analyses of the published papers which prove your unsubstantiated accusations? Where are the published retractions from the journals withdrawing the papers because of bias, or flaws or shoddy work?
You are completely ignorant of how science publication works because they are all peer reviewed. So you are accusing the reviewers of shoddy or poor work too, because they must have missed all these “flaws” you say exist.
CK your “opinion” is just that, and uninformed opinion with nothing to back it up. Your accusations are baseless!
Science is not about massaging data and collecting support for a hypothesis, it is about looking for things to invalidate it.
Wrong again CK. Science is about gathering data and information and then forming a hypothesis. What does the evidence tell you?
Further evidence is then collected and it may support the hypothesis or it may not, in which case the hypothesis may have to be modified. That is how science advances. It does not start out to invalidate anything. Data and evidence first and hypothesis testing second.
Again CK you are ignorant of science and the scientific method and unqualified to make the weird statements you do.
If any of the speculative, fill in the blanks pseudoscience created by the likes of Morton and Krkosek (and his wonderfully predictive models) actually mirrored what was happening in reality - it would certainly be a different story.
There you go attacking the scientists again and calling into question their integrity and professionalism. This is a low and dirty tactic.
In addition these two scientists are NOT the only ones working in the field. Far from it. Many scientists have published papers from all over the world with similar findings. I suppose they are all biased or carry out flawed work eh CK?
I shake my head at your paranoia and at your unethical and nasty attacks.
Fortunately, there is no evidence to be found looking at any number of historical returns which shows a negative impact which could be even remotely linked to the presence of farms.
Absolutely wrong again. Take this one paper the link to which was posted by Agent.
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/....1371/journal.pbio.0060033&representation=PDF
This paper clearly shows run impacts from many parts of the world, including Ireland, Scotland, Eastern Canada and BC.
So go ahead, prove your assertion CK that this paper is flawed. Show us your analysis of the statistics and methodology to prove it wrong. Or since you are not qualified and can only state belief based opinions, show us where this paper has been shown to be “shoddy work” or has been withdrawn by the publishing journal.
Or are you simply going to attack those scientists too (Ford and Myers). I suppose they are all part of the “biased” scientific community as well eh CK?
The majority of people need not go further than this simple truth, but some, like you guys, seek to gather any type of material which supports your idea that farms are bad.
This so called “simple truth” that you state is a simple lie. You falsely accuse the entire scientific community of bias, incompetence and conspiracy and then call it truth. CK you are travesty of a normal rational person who can debate from facts and evidence. You have nothing to back up what you say except accusations and then you have the effrontery to call it “truth”.
By constantly ignoring, or suppressing evidence which runs counter to the hypothesis of farms doing harm, opponents of aquaculture fail in not only scientific methodology - but logic as well.
This one is absolutely amazing. You turn our accusation against you and your industry around and baldly accuse we fish feed lots opponents of ignoring evidence. Please show us the papers and science which supports your opinions and stop making baseless attacks.
There will most likely never be a paper written that definitively proves farms have no impact, because it is quite plain to see.
Wrong again CK. Again, take a look at the paper I have linked to above which clearly shows run declines in many parts of the world correlated to fish feed lots. However, since you cannot refute it with clear science and facts, you will ignore it or make baseless accusations about it being biased and flawed etc without a shred of evidence to back it up.
Just imagine the rest of the country looking at this scenario:
- Some fishermen are mad at salmon farmers because they think that the farms are killing the wild salmon they want to catch and kill,
- The fish keep returning in varying numbers all over the coast - regardless of the presence of farms,
- When the runs are low the fishermen get even madder at the farms, but don't stop fishing
- When the runs are high the fishermen shrug and say it must be ocean conditions, and keep fishing
If you guys can't see the hypocrisy and oh so delicious irony here, I can't help you.
This is a rant this is not science! Yet you seriously believe this is a counter to the paper above and to the hundreds out there containing an overwhelming amount of evidence on the impact of fish feed lots on the ecosystem?
I am absolutely blown away by the child like level of your intellectual discourse and reason on this topic CK. It is totally unreal.
So, there you go - I do like salmon farming, and that is my rational reason for it.
Again, you consider this a rational reason? Unbelievable!
You have not provided any science, any data or any shred of evidence and yet you call this “rational reason”?
The motivation for your total suspension of all reality and the ignoring of all the links to factual papers myself Agent and Charlie keep posting up here, is simply economics and greed. No more no less