Which is morton: and activist or a biologist? I do not believe papers that she signs off on have much merrit seeing how she is a anti salmon farming activist for starters.
Pehaps it is your reality but is there really an abundance of proof here in bc or is it our reality that the majority of this evidence is science signed of by morton the activist?
Not only are you ignorant about ecology and the environment, you are totally ignorant as to how science publication works. This paper posted by Seadna, is authored by 6 scientists (NOT just Morton) and is published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. This is a prestigious, respected peer reviewed journal. The article is therefore reviewed for accuracy and correctness by other objective scientists who are not authors of this paper. Only when it has gone through this rigorous review process does it get published!!
Morton is an activist BECAUSE of the science. Not because she is able to create a conspiracy among scientists or corrupt the process with money like the feed lot owners!!
Your attempt to denigrate a respected scientist and in so doing call into question the integrity of the other 5 authors and the National Academy itself is pathetic and typical of the feed lot owners’ ethics.
No, I have read the these papers before by that crew. I am not a biologist either so some of it is jiberish to myself. I'll stick to my very basic observations thanks and not ride the coat tail of activist and whole heartily believe that those are hands down facts. Much work remains to be done on pacific pathogen to better understand what really is going on.
I rest my case. You are not a biologist but you believe you are qualified to make pronouncement and worse will, accusations. You are uneducated and cannot even understand a scientific paper, yet you are “qualified” to mess with the environment without any understanding of what you are doing. I repeat, you should be ashamed!!
You will not get much of a debate from me. I just do not think it is solid science.
Again, you are NOT qualified to decide what is solid science and what is not. Your statement is therefore meaningless and has no value whatsoever. The independent scientists who reviewed the paper determined it was solid science. Therefore it IS!
I understand you prefer your own data but this is just a basic observation that applies to the question at hand. I and others interested prefer to consider all possible information that is out there even mortons activist science.
Not true. By your own admission you do not understand science, so you are not considering “all possible information”. You ignore what you do not understand and do not wish to know about, to maintain your ridiculous position.
Sure as with everything this is true but what is not know is the measurement of risk. Given some very basic observations such as my chinook farm scenario, 30 million socks returning one year, large chum returns being reported this year it kinda indicates that not all is as being reported in your paper posted.
The Precautionary Principle means that the burden of proof that there is no harm should have rested with the feed lot owners in the first place. There is risk, and the consequences of that risk are serious harm to the ocean environment. Therefore the risk is unacceptable.
For you to keep quoting one off salmon return events, is like a global warming denier saying the science must be wrong because we have had one cooler summer or it is cooler where they live. You really do not understand science or the environment at all do you Birdsnest?!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
Again this is only true if the information in your paper is correct and the risk is proven to be hi or elevated at least. As noted from cohen much research remains to be done on this.
The science is already in. To keep saying we need more research, before we actually do anything is a dangerous game, putting the whole ocean ecosystem at risk. For you, no research will be enough, because you cannot understand and refuse to accept the results!!