|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Feb 20, 2010 0:55:34 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 20, 2010 3:31:24 GMT
Perhaps the young sociologists and arts graduates who work in such publications are not really up to speed on such things - and if anything bad happens then all they know is to blame global warming <cough> climate change. But damage from trawling has been known and complained about for centuries.... "The first known record of trawling is found in a request made to King Edward III of England in 1376 to ban the destructive fishing gear.
“[shadow=red,left,300]The commons petition the King, complaining that where in creeks and havens of the sea there used to be plenteous fishing, to the profit of the Kingdom, certain fishermen for several years past have subtly contrived an instrument called ‘wondyrechaun’ [beam trawl] made in the manner of an oyster dredge, but which is considerably longer, upon which instrument is attached a net so close meshed that no fish, be it ever so small, that enters therein can escape, but must stay and be taken. And that the great and long iron of the wondyrechaun runs so heavily and hardly over the ground when fishing that it destroys the flowers of the land below water there, and also the spat of oysters, mussels and other fish upon which the great fish are accustomed to be fed and nourished.[/shadow]”
Wherever trawling spread it was met with controversy. In 1499, just a century after the English petition, the fishermen of Flanders were successful in protecting fishing habitats from trawl damage. A decree was passed that banned trawls that “rooted up and swept away the seaweeds which served to shelter the fish”. In 1583, the Dutch banned trawling for shrimp in their estuaries. France also made the practice of trawling a capital offence the following year, and in England two fishermen were executed for using metal chains on their beam trawls to help scare fish off the bottom and into the nets. Such chains are standard on the beam trawls of today."www.greenpeace.org/international/seafood/understanding-the-problem/overfishing-history/trawling-centuries-old-oppositionTrawlers turn the bottom of the sea into a featureless desert of destroyed ecosystems. Perhaps it is this and overfishing that has led to the demise of the cod and other fisheries in the North Sea more than a relatively small rise in average ocean temperature. |
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Feb 20, 2010 9:21:29 GMT
@kiwi: for once I agree with you ;D Anyway, trawlers are quite a disaster for marine life. Seems like the English kings were rather intelligent back then. This is a great example of big money wins over common sense  . The market/economy does not incorporate the environment (enough) into their decisions. |
|
|
|
Post by gahooduk on Feb 20, 2010 18:11:07 GMT
( Postscript: The BBC doesn't mention a word about climate change: They are learning. Are they?, last week we had a nature program aimed at kids, alarmist views that plants and animals will die as they cannot cope with springs that are 14 days earlier due to global warming, immediately followed by the main evening news article that the National Trust of england reporting that spring in their gardens was one month behind the recent years and 14 days behind long term average...but ending with a AGW comment by the presenter on the news desk, total unscientific veiwpoint :that we must expect more severe weather events like this winter, due to AGW causing such severe changes |
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Mar 6, 2010 20:37:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Mar 6, 2010 20:45:00 GMT
You Rang my Lord?
I'm here!!!
Pick me pick me!!
I have heard methane scare stories before, but as posted before (a link to realclimate) it seems to be a scare story and not likely to lead to disaster.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 6, 2010 21:43:08 GMT
You Rang my Lord? I'm here!!! Pick me pick me!! I have heard methane scare stories before, but as posted before (a link to realclimate) it seems to be a scare story and not likely to lead to disaster. If we are thinking of the same scare story, it is already 2 years old. And if one reads the actual report from the scientist, they have no idea if this is recent, or if this methane has been bubbling since the beginning of the Holocene. The main thrust is.........this is not a big deal. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 6, 2010 22:27:09 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 7, 2010 11:11:44 GMT
Yes... ""Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.
"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.""and "Former US Vice President Al Gore cited Professor Maslowski's analysis on Monday in his acceptance speech at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in Oslo"They made the classic mistake of overexcited climate 'scientists' - forecast a date inside their lifetime - so now they have to face validation by actual observation. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 7, 2010 15:01:45 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Mar 8, 2010 6:46:47 GMT
On another forum where I lurk, a warmer posted this:
The Washington Times also known as "The Republican Bugle"! I rest my case!
Is that a generally accepted fact?
|
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Mar 8, 2010 7:10:03 GMT
On another forum where I lurk, a warmer posted this: The Washington Times also known as "The Republican Bugle"! I rest my case!Is that a generally accepted fact? The Washington Times is considered a conservative paper much like Fox news is considered to be conservative. But then I no longer consider the Republicans to be conservative. They certainly have thrown the tenets of limited government and less government spending overboard. |
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Mar 8, 2010 8:32:43 GMT
On another forum where I lurk, a warmer posted this: The Washington Times also known as "The Republican Bugle"! I rest my case!Is that a generally accepted fact? The Washington Times is considered a conservative paper much like Fox news is considered to be conservative. But then I no longer consider the Republicans to be conservative. They certainly have thrown the tenets of limited government and less government spending overboard. I just found this in Wiki (which I trust implicitly  ): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_biasAn academic study cited frequently showing a liberal media bias in American journalism is The Media Elite,* a 1986 book co-authored by political scientists Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda Lichter. They surveyed journalists at national media outlets such as the New York Times, Washington Post, and the broadcast networks. The survey found that most of these journalists were Democratic voters whose attitudes were well to the left of the general public on a variety of topics, including such hot-button social issues such as abortion, affirmative action, and gay rights. Then they compared journalists' attitudes to their coverage of controversial issues such as the safety of nuclear power, school busing to promote racial integration, and the energy crisis of the 1970s. |
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Mar 8, 2010 13:47:09 GMT
socold,
Your side does not get to declare a climate crisis, an impending apocalypse, and then complain when people notice that the policies your side wants to implement are extreme.
And when we find out that the apocalyptic predictions are just more in a long line of historic apocalyptic claptrap, you don't get to pretend it is the skeptic's fault.
|
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Mar 8, 2010 16:11:16 GMT
I just found this in Wiki (which I trust implicitly ): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_biasAn academic study cited frequently showing a liberal media bias in American journalism is The Media Elite,* a 1986 book co-authored by political scientists Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda Lichter. They surveyed journalists at national media outlets such as the New York Times, Washington Post, and the broadcast networks. The survey found that most of these journalists were Democratic voters whose attitudes were well to the left of the general public on a variety of topics, including such hot-button social issues such as abortion, affirmative action, and gay rights. Then they compared journalists' attitudes to their coverage of controversial issues such as the safety of nuclear power, school busing to promote racial integration, and the energy crisis of the 1970s. Yes the media as a whole leans left. The NYT and Washington Post leading the way. The Washington Times is one of the few considered conservative. The editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal are considered conservative and I think there are one or two smaller ones here in California. |
|
. The market/economy does not incorporate the environment (enough) into their decisions.
):