dolphin slaughtering?

[Paul's daughter]

hey, i was just trying to help the guy out - he appreciated it i think! and dad, of COURSE i looked up the anemone thing first before responding (that's where "spinelessness notwithstanding" came from)! i'm here as your fan, not an editor! of course!!

 

[Paul B]

You looked up the anemone thing? Thats cool

 

[Reefposer]

My friend has a pig that lives in his house and is smarter than my dog. What this thread taught me is I should make bacon from my dog, not pigs because pigs are smarter. People need to get a grip. Killing dolphins... not cool but do you really think the actions in one cove of Taiji are going to wipe out the bottlenose poulation? Nope. Maybe with the high mercury content it will wipe out some of the Japanese. People are also forgetting that many of the dolphins in that documentary were sold to trainers. Is a trainer buying a dolphin any different than us buying a new fish for the aquarium? Nope. Maybe if they were not buying dolphins to train for a ton of money a piece then the fishing would stop because the meat is much less lucrative. Atleast the trained dolphins get affection and training... we just chuck our fish some mysis once and a while and claim we are preserving reefs. Go buy your tickets to Seaworld and keep Taiji in business hippies.

 

[AquaKnight]

Denialists are awful about cherry picking data. THere is one example of a scientist in the majority fudging numbers and you think it throws out all the data on that side. You look for the data which supports your side and assert the majority of respected scientists must be wrong. When your side of an argument is reputed by the vast majority of scientists in the field, as well as most people with a college education.... don't you think you might want to rethink it? WHen I read comments like this I hope I see gas hit 10 dollars a gallon, because it is the only way some people will consume less. And the fricking kool aid comments :rolleye1: Let's be serious here. I am trying very hard to be respectful of your ignorance, you could at least be respectful knowledge.

Some pretty gross assumptions on your part. It's just hilarious that pretty everyone from Algore down, that likes pushes Global Warming, to Global Change, Man Made Global Instability (or whatever they're calling it now because they have no idea what's actually going on:lolspin likes to force businesses and consumers into paying Carbon Credits, to companies, which they have ownership in. Interesting, very interesting.....

As far as being respectful, I got called a halfwit about a dozen because I don't buy into that. I also don't buy into being forced to drive a Prius who's carbon footprint is worse then any Hummer's ever will be. But hey, change, for the sake of change, right? Let's go phosphorous mine India to hell and back so we can have batteries in our hybrids....

If you're talking about the Climategate "scandal", then you're just another reason as to why the public has no business interpreting scientific dialogue. The results were neither skewed nor compromised by egotistical bias. The words and phrases used in the email exchanges are part of well-known science jargon that only goes towards ratifying the evidence of Man Made Climate Destabilization.

That's writing it off pretty easily. If you want to chalk "hide the decline" off to "science jargon" have fun with that.

 

[jenglish]

Some pretty gross assumptions on your part. It's just hilarious that pretty everyone from Algore down, that likes pushes Global Warming, to Global Change, Man Made Global Instability (or whatever they're calling it now because they have no idea what's actually going on:lolspin likes to force businesses and consumers into paying Carbon Credits, to companies, which they have ownership in. Interesting, very interesting.....

As far as being respectful, I got called a halfwit about a dozen because I don't buy into that. I also don't buy into being forced to drive a Prius who's carbon footprint is worse then any Hummer's ever will be. But hey, change, for the sake of change, right? Let's go phosphorous mine India to hell and back so we can have batteries in our hybrids....

I make no assumptions. You may want to fact check the whole hummer being greener than a hybrid thing, that has been debunked about a 100x over. I LOVE how you think that all the money is being made by carbon credits... there is certianly no money in fossil fuels

Read some science and get back to me... seriously. If you want to start an actual comparison of the numbers I would be more than happy to.

How do you explain away the vast majority of scientific bodies and journal publications showing a trend towards anthropomorphic climate change? Anxiously awaiting your canned FOX news reply.

 

[3.99AfterTaxes]

Some pretty gross assumptions on your part. It's just hilarious that pretty everyone from Algore down, that likes pushes Global Warming, to Global Change, Man Made Global Instability (or whatever they're calling it now because they have no idea what's actually going on:lolspin likes to force businesses and consumers into paying Carbon Credits, to companies, which they have ownership in. Interesting, very interesting.....

As far as being respectful, I got called a halfwit about a dozen because I don't buy into that. I also don't buy into being forced to drive a Prius who's carbon footprint is worse then any Hummer's ever will be. But hey, change, for the sake of change, right? Let's go phosphorous mine India to hell and back so we can have batteries in our hybrids....

This is a strawman argument. No one is actually making the assertions you are imposing here.

That's writing it off pretty easily. If you want to chalk "hide the decline" off to "science jargon" have fun with that.

Yeah, that's actually really easy.

Hide the decline - As taken from the following quote by Phil Jones, Director of Climate Research:

"I've just completed Mike's nature "trick" of adding the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's (Briffa) to hide the decline."

Let's look at what this really means:

Trick is used by researchers to describe a dexterous use of implementation. See here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/

Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that "œI've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the "˜trick' is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term "œtrick" to refer to a "œa good way to deal with a problem", rather than something that is "œsecret", and so there is nothing problematic in this at all.

In proper context (that is, when interpreted by SCIENTISTS), the trick was simply a tool used to merge Mann's data with more recent graphs plotting the rise in temperature.

This is where the "hide the decline" part comes in. Mann's earlier work used tree-ring data, which largely diverged from other measurements such as ice cores, oceanic deposits, geological measurements, etc. Phil's trick was to artfully "hide the decline" or divergence from the rest of the trend data behind the chart to remove the inconsistency which resulted from other factors (pre-industrial pollution being chief amongst them - look it up).

So yeah, I did have fun with that. Maybe on your end, you would do well to do a little more research rather than lap up all the dribble that Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are spouting on the American populace.

 

[3.99AfterTaxes]

Back to Dolphins.

Pigs, cattle, whatever; they're domesticated animals that are raised for the masses on farms. They are not crucial to any particular ecological chain.

Dolphins are not of the same palette.

I fail to see why this is such a difficult thought process. Then again, as above, being intellectually lazy probably has a lot to do with it. Why bother thinking when others can do it for you right?

 

[AquaKnight]

Hilarious. You guys accuse me of spewing Rush/Beck crap, yet you post stuff from realclimate.org. Why not just post stuff from Generation Investment Management LLP? You guys act if like if I punch climate change hoax into google, I don't get as many or more results as 'save our planet' or 'climate truth' or whatever..... Or act like any argument for one side doesn't have 10 counter-arguments for the other side.

What is the by far the most hilarious bit, is acting if the change is caused by humans, we can do anything. If every single American recycled their cars tomorrow, like the world isn't going to be polluted from India/China anyways....

 

[AquaKnight]

Back to Dolphins.

Pigs, cattle, whatever; they're domesticated animals that are raised for the masses on farms. They are not crucial to any particular ecological chain.

Dolphins are not of the same palette.

I fail to see why this is such a difficult thought process.

Agreed.

 

[jenglish]

Hilarious. You guys accuse me of spewing Rush/Beck crap, yet you post stuff from realclimate.org. Why not just post stuff from Generation Investment Management LLP? You guys act if like if I punch climate change hoax into google, I don't get as many or more results as 'save our planet' or 'climate truth' or whatever..... Or act like any argument for one side doesn't have 10 counter-arguments for the other side.

What is the by far the most hilarious bit, is acting if the change is caused by humans, we can do anything. If every single American recycled their cars tomorrow, like the world isn't going to be polluted from India/China anyways....

Yes, a site ran by a bunch of respected Ph. D.s in climate science doesn't mean anything if you can find something by a guy in his basement. :rolleye1: This isn't a scientific debate. WHile there are some major scientific organizations that are neutral, there are none refuting anthropomorphic climate change. There may be 10 counterarguments by lay folks, there are precious few scientists with publications in peer reviewed journals falling into the stick our head in the sand side of this. It is scientifically almost a non-argument.

China and India are never going to seriously sit down at a table to talk about carbon output caps if we do not

 

[3.99AfterTaxes]

Hilarious. You guys accuse me of spewing Rush/Beck crap, yet you post stuff from realclimate.org. Why not just post stuff from Generation Investment Management LLP? You guys act if like if I punch climate change hoax into google, I don't get as many or more results as 'save our planet' or 'climate truth' or whatever..... Or act like any argument for one side doesn't have 10 counter-arguments for the other side.

What is the by far the most hilarious bit, is acting if the change is caused by humans, we can do anything. If every single American recycled their cars tomorrow, like the world isn't going to be polluted from India/China anyways....

Whether or not I pulled my referrences from a source of known bias does not change the nature of the evidence to back up that bias.

At the end of the day, the points that the media focused on during this so-called scandal are superfluous.

Did you even read what I wrote? How do you refute any of that?

And yes, I would agree that the changes in global climate destabilization is caused by humans. What evidence would you have to indicate otherwise?

In any case, I'm glad we can agree on the dolphin thing. The point being that this is not an issue of ethical nature, it is one of ecological nature. For those of you don't think that man harvesting an unregulated species is of little consequence in the grand scheme of thing, then I suggest that you do your homework and look up such grandiose examples of population mismanagement such as the Passenger Pigeon, the Dodo and Steller's Sea Cow. Methinks there is only so much that one can deny until they realize they're wanting for a lie against the truth...

 

[TamiW]

Pigs are ranked above dogs and highest among quadrapeds (maybe behind elephants) last I read into animal intelligence which is admittedly been a few years. My point is that we commonly eat an animal that is intelligent, can suffer, forms family groups, etc. Maybe they take it a step further, but it is a quantitative rather than a qualitative difference.

I struggle with this. I like pigs. I think they're smart and they're treated so poorly.

But I really like bacon.

And then I think to myself, "but what if dolphins tasted like bacon?".

They'd be so screwed.

 

[3.99AfterTaxes]

I struggle with this. I like pigs. I think they're smart and they're treated so poorly.

But I really like bacon.

And then I think to myself, "but what if dolphins tasted like bacon?".

They'd be so screwed.

FishGrrl for president!

 

[AquaKnight]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus

Have fun with that one. A list of kid nobodies that live in their basement. Totally

The reason it might appear to you that it magically seems like every scientist wears GloboChange on their right shoulder, is vogue. It's the same as it was trying to be a student in college who was a Bush supporter in 2004, or a McCain supporter in 2008. The opposition just screams as loud as they can. They throw out absolute crap like "An Inconvenient Truth." You really gonna defend that one?

I dunno, I guess my thing is they throw up a picture of CO2 next to a fabricated rise in average temperature and I'm suppose to flip out without seeing any firm connection? But wait, there isn't? There's no actual firm connection that the rise in temperature caused by greenhouse gases from humans? Interesting...


Also, how people just blast whatever's convenient for them. This whole thing started because something wasn't an issue for them so what do they care? They aren't into cars, and drive a crappy econobox. So hey, if they do, everyone should as well. Maybe look in the mirror sometimes. Geez, I dunno, if certain people really cared that much about greenhouse emissions, they wouldn't be involved in a hobby that require fish/corals/etc to shipped overnight via gas-guzzling cargo planes. But hey, that's just me.

Did you even read what I wrote? How do you refute any of that?

And yes, I would agree that the changes in global climate destabilization is caused by humans. What evidence would you have to indicate otherwise?

Yep read. From what I gather, the old tree ring measurement method didn't fully illustrate their 'views.' Nor did simply plotting the new findings. They had to manipulate the graph in order to more clearly show the rise in the recent years.

In any case, I'm glad we can agree on the dolphin thing. The point being that this is not an issue of ethical nature, it is one of ecological nature. For those of you don't think that man harvesting an unregulated species is of little consequence in the grand scheme of thing, then I suggest that you do your homework and look up such grandiose examples of population mismanagement such as the Passenger Pigeon, the Dodo and Steller's Sea Cow. Methinks there is only so much that one can deny until they realize they're wanting for a lie against the truth...

More on that. People should really study the reproduction rates of dolphins. These aren't sows that have a litter of 20 pigletts. Dolphin pregnancies usually last at least 12 months. Dolphins only reproduce every 4-5 years, and sexual maturity isn't reached till 7-12 years for female, 10 to 15 for males.

 

[Rossini]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus

Have fun with that one. A list of kid nobodies that live in their basement. Totally

The reason it might appear to you that it magically seems like every scientist wears GloboChange on their right shoulder, is vogue. It's the same as it was trying to be a student in college who was a Bush supporter in 2004, or a McCain supporter in 2008. The opposition just screams as loud as they can. They throw out absolute crap like "An Inconvenient Truth." You really gonna defend that one?

I dunno, I guess my thing is they throw up a picture of CO2 next to a fabricated rise in average temperature and I'm suppose to flip out without seeing any firm connection? But wait, there isn't? There's no actual firm connection that the rise in temperature caused by greenhouse gases from humans? Interesting...


Also, how people just blast whatever's convenient for them. This whole thing started because something wasn't an issue for them so what do they care? They aren't into cars, and drive a crappy econobox. So hey, if they do, everyone should as well. Maybe look in the mirror sometimes. Geez, I dunno, if certain people really cared that much about greenhouse emissions, they wouldn't be involved in a hobby that require fish/corals/etc to shipped overnight via gas-guzzling cargo planes. But hey, that's just me.



Yep read. From what I gather, the old tree ring measurement method didn't fully illustrate their 'views.' Nor did simply plotting the new findings. They had to manipulate the graph in order to more clearly show the rise in the recent years.



.

haha still trying to pass off people who are NOT climate scientists as experts in the matter, these meteologists are being funded by the oil and gas companys.

Richard lindzen is the most corrupt scum bag. He was being paid by the tobbaco industry to say that there is no link between lung cancer and tobbacco smoke.

Why oh why do you cling to these corrupt scum bags?

Please educate yourself on what is going on here. These people dont give a damn about you or middle class america they are proetecting the elite at the expense of all life on this planet. :spin1:

Check this link out or do some research there is so much evidence available about these people taking money from big industry and how their science has bene debunked over and over again.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/reports/skeptics.html

 

[jenglish]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus

Have fun with that one. A list of kid nobodies that live in their basement. Totally

The reason it might appear to you that it magically seems like every scientist wears GloboChange on their right shoulder, is vogue. It's the same as it was trying to be a student in college who was a Bush supporter in 2004, or a McCain supporter in 2008. The opposition just screams as loud as they can. They throw out absolute crap like "An Inconvenient Truth." You really gonna defend that one?

I dunno, I guess my thing is they throw up a picture of CO2 next to a fabricated rise in average temperature and I'm suppose to flip out without seeing any firm connection? But wait, there isn't? There's no actual firm connection that the rise in temperature caused by greenhouse gases from humans? Interesting...


Also, how people just blast whatever's convenient for them. This whole thing started because something wasn't an issue for them so what do they care? They aren't into cars, and drive a crappy econobox. So hey, if they do, everyone should as well. Maybe look in the mirror sometimes. Geez, I dunno, if certain people really cared that much about greenhouse emissions, they wouldn't be involved in a hobby that require fish/corals/etc to shipped overnight via gas-guzzling cargo planes. But hey, that's just me.

.

That is pretty much a chin hair above guys in their parents basement. That is not a list of climate scientists anymore than my local weathergirl's opinion. It is pretty funny how well you keep illustrating my points here. If we remove the oil and coal scientists and weathergirls you may have a half dozen scientists there. There is a pretty firm connection between co2 and heat. To say there isn't is simply ignorant. Now that your position is becoming completely untenable you are trying to get personal. :spin1: I'm not going to play into that immature game. THough it is funny how you think that those who think there is a connection must drive econoboxes that affects their judgement. But you believe the fact you love GM V8s does not skew your opinion one bit. I drive a car that gets 30+ MPG because I recognize what burning fossil fuels do, not the other way around.

 

[Paul's daughter]

But I really like bacon.

And then I think to myself, "but what if dolphins tasted like bacon?".

i've read that people allegedly taste quite like pig...if you want to struggle more.:hmm4:

 

[KarlBob]

I understand the bacon struggle. Force feeding ducks and geese isn't very nice either, but foie gras is sooo tasty. Then again, geese are mean. Try petting one and you'll understand. Let's just make foie gras out of geese from now on

Regarding climate change, I don't think anyone here is on the fence, ready to switch teams if they read a great quote or compelling argument. Not to mention, it's liable to get this thread closed if the debate goes on much longer.

One village in one country killing lots of one globally-distributed animal isn't likey to drive that animal extinct. On the other hand, many people find it emotionally disturbing to watch any animal being harmed or killed. That's what started up this thread in the first place, the OP watching a bunch of charismatic, bright, non-food animals (in Western eyes) getting killed.

To me, things that pollute less are preferable to things that pollute more, whether they help protect global climate or just the critters that live near the factory. Cutting down on pollution is good for its own sake.

Everything has a cost. Many windmills, especially those built more than 10 years ago, chop up lots of birds. Solar panels are made with elements that have to be mined, sometimes in open pit or mountaintop-removal mines. Crude oil will eventually get rare and pricy; distilling and burning it produces nasty by-products. Nuclear power doesn't release any CO2, but it produces waste that will be dangerous for hundreds of years, and nobody wants that waste in their backyards. Everything has a down side. We just need to do the best we can to choose wisely and minimize the problems.

Influence-peddling, vote/opinion-buying, prestige, reputations, and peer pressure are all very real factors. That's why it's so effective for each side to point them out on the other side. The less we consider them, and the more we look at the real costs and benefits, the better off we'll be.

 

[AquaKnight]

That is pretty much a chin hair above guys in their parents basement. That is not a list of climate scientists anymore than my local weathergirl's opinion. It is pretty funny how well you keep illustrating my points here. If we remove the oil and coal scientists and weathergirls you may have a half dozen scientists there. There is a pretty firm connection between co2 and heat. To say there isn't is simply ignorant. Now that your position is becoming completely untenable you are trying to get personal. :spin1: I'm not going to play into that immature game. THough it is funny how you think that those who think there is a connection must drive econoboxes that affects their judgement. But you believe the fact you love GM V8s does not skew your opinion one bit. I drive a car that gets 30+ MPG because I recognize what burning fossil fuels do, not the other way around.

Just more on my argument. You guys can pass off bias information and take it as fact, yet just because someone might work for an oil company, it's completely irrelevant. Yea, I'm sure someone like Roy W. Spencer on that list has no idea what's he's talking about You act like if you posted a list of pro-changers, more then half of them wouldn't be some former Algore cabinet member, or have ties to some carbon trading company.

You still have not answered why it seems like every pro-changers from Algore down has ties to a carbon trading companies. Buying carbon credits from yourself, and then sell them to companies. Ingenious. Undeniable proof tying from human CO2 emissions and rising temperatures, huh? I would love to see it. Again, a CO2 chart next to a rising temp graph isn't going to cut it.

I didn't get personal first. I simply recapped what this was about. How do you answer the whole aquarium keeper vs. emissions thing?

My whole issue is this should be consumer decisions. If consumers want as a whole to help reduce power consumption and use CFL's bulbs, instead of incandescent bulbs I am 100% fine with that. I have issues with a few goons in Washington telling what I should buy. I have issues with the dimwits mandating these stupid CAFE standards for cars. Guess what? Even when gas was $4/gal, wanna guess what the most popular 2 vehicles were and still are? The Ford F150 and Chevy Silverado. If people wanted as a whole to drive econoboxes, we would. But as a consumer market as a whole, we don't. Trying to turn the US into some EU monarchy is something I don't what a part of (slightly kidding of course). But they still have V8's in Europe, so maybe it's okay :thumbsup:

 

[ackee]

Just curious, AquaKnight: when you write Rush/Beck do you mean that silly radio guy, and the sweaty-faced pop-eyed clown on Fox, that amusing mediocrity selling supermarket newspaper-level conspiracy stuff, much like the stories headlined "Octomom impregnated by Martian Rastafarians"?