World's oceans in 'shocking' decline

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


Really? are you really for real? We have over fished and tons and tons are wasted so some great person said well we can make it into compost. Then like it being said here we dump tons and tons of waste in the waters everyday. oh then we have the trash in the waters.

Charles Moore: Sailing the Great Pacific Garbage Patch

World biggest garbage dump - plastic in the Ocean

everyday I can tell you I pick out of the water beer bottles. not just one but about 6 to 12. How about us throwing trash in your home and seeing how long you survive?

reply to post by SkipperJohn


uh SkipperJohn - this thread isn't about trash in the ocean. This thread is about ocean acidification

Tired of control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


oh you are so right. it is not the trash it is all a hoax. the break down of plastic and all the other crap has nothing to do with it.

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
Further MARRIAH3330 - I think you should re-read the climategate emails, particularly the ones from Phil Jones. He will tell you all about how to subvert the peer-review process in order to keep anyone who doesn't agree with you quiet.

I have now uncovered two scientific scams in my lifetime - one relates to tobacco and the other to climate change. Both used exactly the same techniques and propaganda.

No - I am sorry that you went to school to become a scientist but I will tell you true. Try to do research or come out with results that don't agree to the government-santioned school of thought on any subject and watch your grants dry up.

Tired of Control Freaks

"Try to do research" that is what I do for a living, 20 - 50 hrs a week. Honey, I do get your point, but only like maybe 7-10 percent of Scientists are actually in it just for grant money, at least here in the pacific northwest where I live. Most of us really love to study, observe, analyse, etc. species and systems we CARE ABOUT. Plus remember, I'm a biologist, not saying I know it all I'm just saying in order for me to be a wildlife biologist - I have done my own studies and experiments that had no grants involved, no direction from the university or government, nothing to gain for me besides college credit, I didn't just listen to professors and read books and say, "yep you are right about it all" I have designed my own experiments that haven't quite yet been explored. For example I did a study last year on - the effects of roadside noise pollution on the foraging behavior of pacific northwest bird communities. That was my own research, no one told me what to do, and I wasn't paid to do it, no grants nothing.


Biology, or any science for that matter is a lot about the scientific method, its about personal observations, questions and conclusions based on data. I have been to the ocean and studied diatoms and flagellates myself, (small organisms within the sea that are often the base of a food web, amazing little organisms that unfortunately bio-accumulate toxins -and the animals that eat them- that cause red tides, and shellfish poisoning in humans and other animals).

I have seen first hand with my own eyes what is going on inside these organisms bodies, and in areas where there is direct agriculture and sewage runoff, I have conducted my own studies on the anthropogenic (human) effects on organisms, all of science isn't a big lie and conspiracy. Did you watch any of those videos?



If the science community is all about money, which like I said I know some scientists are, what do marine biologists gain by telling our government and countrymen that we should not fish in this certain area here anymore, or we should not have tourism here anymore, because ocean life is at danger?? If anything the government wants to HIDE the fact this is true, because this effects the big guys' pockets from large commercial fishing, to huge hotel businesses that rely on tourists of these tropical islands where the boats motors slice up manatees and the scuba divers step all over sensitive coral reefs ruining them? They have nothing to gain, I think there are some conspiracies within the science community for sure, and some money hungry bitches too, but that is rarely the case when it comes to this type of biology, wildlife biology. Our studies really usually cost the government money, and we only make 50-70 grand a year. It's not like we are getting rich from some grand deception we are trying to play on you.


I'm really done trying to explain my point to you, maybe I'm not getting you right? Are you telling me that humans do NOT have the capability of destroying ecosystems at all and that every scientific data report that supports this idea is all a big conspiracy for a science grant? It's just not like that, I'm sorry, it's really not. Did you watch any of those videos I linked to the above post? Start there, and then you can tell me your theories on them or ask me whatever you want about them or why I wanted to share them here. I am very willing to respond to anything regarding those first since that was my reply to you yet you haven't replied to any of those at all.


Hey maybe its a conspiracy that global warming is a conspiracy? LOL who knows. I know what your trying to say I think, and I agree with you somewhat to an extent on certain subjects, but its not ALL like that. I don't think we will ruin the whole entire earth into oblivion either, it's just we are doing things to this earth at such a rapid pace and it is effecting us too. Please, I'm not trying to be mean or argue with you at all hon, it's just that this is a really sensitive subject for me, it always has been, thats why I got into this field of work, I care about our planet and us and all the animals deeply, that is why I am so passionate about it and why Im trying to tell you my side. So it kinda hurts my feelings when you say that people like me only do these "fake" studies for money.
Peace,
Marriah

Originally posted by ziggy1706
Let us not forget too, out in the pacific, the great garbage patch* an area as big as texas ALL lpastic bottles, and anything plastic

imagine all the poly chemicals being leeched outta the plastic into the ocean..
products we use at home, that we buy at stores are just as responsable..lever 2000 soap and many others, use petrolatum* a petroleum skin conditioner* all the chemicals in shampoos, soaps, toothpastes, allg oes downt he drain. its impossible to clean everything up at the sewage treatement plant ya know*

The videos I posted on page one or two are about the pacific gyre garbage patch, that is a recent interest of mine.
Peace,
marriah

Marriah3330

Please don't get emotional here. Lets look at the original article.

First of all - lets look at the headline - it uses the word "shocking" - Really, from a scientist? implying that no one knew anything about the ocean prior to "this" study?

Notice how it links pollution and overfishing with climate change and threatens a human extinction? but then not really "The IPSO report concludes that it is too early to say definitively." What scientist talks about things like human extinction when they have only inconclusive evidence?

"But the trends are such that it is likely to happen, they say - and far faster than any of the previous five." Again - taking conditions today and extroplating it to the future. IF my aunt had balls, then she would be my uncle.

Is that fear mongering I hear? Do you remember Lake Erie being declared dead in the 1960s? And it really really was. I was a small part of the effort to clean it up. Do you remember what happened? Communities got together, built sewage plants to get phosphorus out of the lake. The algae Clodophera stopped blooming. Fish stopped dying. Then in 1990s - zebra mussels appeared. Now ships have been coming to Lake Erie for over a century from other countries and dropping their bilge loads but all of a sudden, nature allow zebra mussels to flourish and chemical contamination get cleaned up. So the trend DID NOT continue.

Unless you dry up an aquatic ecosystem - you cannot destroy it. Nature adapts and survives. If you pollute, you simply create an environment for other species - species that may be less desirable but species none the less.

Notice the announcement of a tipping point - "We have to bring down CO2 emissions to zero within about 20 years," Professor Hoegh-Guldberg told BBC News. Twenty years to reduce manmade emissions to zero or the oceans die?

Now we know for a fact that atmospheric CO2 has been higher in the history of the world. And we know the oceans survived the experience - but all of a sudden - ocean aciditification is combining with plastic pollution to kill the oceans? But notice how the study doesn't talk about cleaning up the garbage patch? Only about reducing carbon emissions.

Sorry Marriah3330 - this has all the hallmarks of a scam!

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS

And Marriah3330

Don't get me wrong - if taxes were raised to build sewage treatment plants to prevent pollution - I would pay up and gladly but this study isn't focusing on that common sense solution now is it? Its recommending that carbon emissions be reduced to zero within 20 years. If you ask me to contribute to a clean up fund for the garbage patch - baby you got it! But this heavy handed approach to supporting climate change taxes - SCREW THAT!

Do you remember AL GORE's - tipping points in the 1990s - we only have 10 years left?

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


Marah3330

Please re-read the original post!

If this "study" is correct, then we all have to go back to living in caves with no established agriculture and we have to do it within 20 years or the oceans are dead and mankind is extinct.

all this from a study with a result that says "The IPSO report concludes that it is too early to say definitively."

Now what does your head (not your heart)? tell you about these scientists?

Tired of Control Freaks

Originally posted by TheUniverse
Yes they are insane and they want to depopulate the humans and commit genocide and eugenics on the populace. That is part of their plan

Refer to my post on the thread about this exact same topic for a break down of exposing this fraud.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I went to your other post, and rather than exposing fraud, you agree with 2 of the 3 main points in the article:

Pollution and Overfishing on the other hand is something that can be a problem.

Those are two of the three main problems cited in the article, and even fisherman will tell you they are finding problems with availability of fish stocks so this claim of declining fish stocks isn't some fraud by scientists.

So let's look at overfishing for starters. Why are we overfishing? At least partly because the population keeps growing and there are more mouths to feed, so we catch more fish to feed more mouths.

Then Bill and Melinda Gates come along and say they want to limit the population growth so it doesn't grow as fast as current projections. That sounds to me like it's getting at the heart of the problem, yet why are you talking about "depopulation" as something evil, when limiting population growth is one way to reduce the problem of not only overfishing, but pollution also, since more people generate more pollution?

Regarding the CO2, the article seems a bit biased to me when it says that can cause toxic algal blooms, because can't it also feed algae which is the basis of the food chain ion a manner that's not necessarily toxic? I think toxic algal blooms can occur regardless of CO2 levels. It seems to me like growing more algae can feed more fish, though perhaps indirect effects like warmer ocean temperatures are likely to have a mixture of effects, some beneficial, and some detrimental. So I'm ambivalent about the CO2 claims, but at least it seems like we all agree on the pollution and overfishing as problems, and why wouldn't you want to limit population growth to help deal with those problems?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Reply to Abitrageur

First of all - I never said I agree to anything! If a study is biased - it ALL has to be discarded and NONE of it can be believed.

However, it seems to me that when you don't have to pollute - why would you? Would it really be THAT hard to clean up the garbage patch? Why are ocean side communities allowed to flush their toilets into the ocean?

As for overfishing - I am very unsure of myself on that topic. It seems to me that some methods of fishing are overly destructive (ie drag nets) and should be banned.

As for the over-population - what you are espousing is called Malthusian theories. Malthusian was a preacher who observed that since the food supply only increased mathematically and population increased geometrically, then population control was needed in order to avoid having populations starve to death.

Malthusian policies have been used as the justification for all kinds of genocides - like eugenics and forced sterilization.

The only trouble is that food supply has not outstripped population needs since Malthusian first proposed his radical theories of "let the poor starve" almost 300 years ago! He was another fear monger!

But we are all born into this world with more or less zero resources to care for ourselves. And we all have to take our chances. If you are born into a developed country with 2 parents - you get a good running start. If you are born into a starving african village - you don't! And such is the reality of life.

All of man's policies to control population have been a failure resulting in gender biases. The only thing that works is voluntary birth control and that only works in developed countries where people have the resources and the education to use it.

The problem of the food supply is not one of supply but rather one of distribution.

NO - I don't buy into Malthusian policies and predictions at all! People have an inate right to breed and to take care of their children as best they can.

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
As for the over-population - what you are espousing is called Malthusian theories. Malthusian was a preacher who observed that since the food supply only increased mathematically and population increased geometrically, then population control was needed in order to avoid having populations starve to death.

Malthusian policies have been used as the justification for all kinds of genocides - like eugenics and forced sterilization.

The only trouble is that food supply has not outstripped population needs since Malthusian first proposed his radical theories of "let the poor starve" almost 300 years ago! He was another fear monger!

So according to your "anti malthusian theory" population can increase at a greater rate than food supply forever? I think you better recheck your math. Not only that, but the Earth itself is a finite resource. The oceans aren't getting much bigger, maybe just a tiny bit from global warming. And we're already stripping rainforests at an alarming rate to make new farms. If you can't see where this is headed, it's pretty short sighted.

Also, most people are not talking about addressing this population issue by eugenics, but simply by reducing the expected growth rates.

I'm not sure if you meant to say "food supply has not outstripped population needs", it seems like that statement agrees with the authors that there is a problem with the supply of fish in the oceans. I think anyone trying to seriously dispute this isn't listening to what fishermen themselves are saying, let alone scientists. It seems pretty self evident that the fish supply is already outstripped by the population and that you're in denial about this. Or maybe you made a Freudian slip there and deep inside you realize it's true and you just admitted it to yourself subconsciously.

cimss.ssec.wisc.edu...


Our dear leaders have let scientists run mad at shooting this planet with.......you'll have to read the article.

Why?

A: Find oil and quick
B: Find the enemies submarines
C: Because scientists were given money to kill the Earth, not save it.

Slight correction. They are infact on an incline in terms of volume and sea levels!

Originally posted by RoguePhilosopher
Slight correction. They are infact on an incline in terms of volume and sea levels!

Did you read my link above?

The worlds scientists have been beaming Microwaves at extremely high power at the poles, which melted the ice.

Why?

A: Looking for oil
B: Looking for subs
C: because we gave them billions and no one is keeping them from killing the planet as they "practice science" to see what happens beaming enough microwaves to pop this planet like a popcorn kernel.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Reply to Arbitraeur

And again - you choose to hear my words through your own emotionalism.

Food supply HAS NOT outstripped human population since Malthusian first proposed his theory 300 years ago!!! That is NOT math - that is a plain and simple fact. An Malthusian proposed his theory when the world population was less than a billion. Ever since then, his theory has been proven wrong over and over again.

Second - let us propose for a moment that we are at that point in history where population has overtaken the planets ability to support us. The question now becomes so what do we do about it?

Do we control births? Ok - but who will make the decisions about the criteria over who will be allowed to breed and who won't? And how will it be enforced? Can you not see that there is no one person or entity who can be entrusted with such a task? Can you not see that it would be a massive intrusion on civil rights on a level never hereto contemplated? That the innate rights of human beings to life must be set aside?

So what if we don't control births - if there is insufficient food - then its obvious that the death rate will increase, now isn't it? Nature has its own way of checking the population of any species that grows beyond its ability to feed itself, now doesn't it?

Why would you want to interfere with Mother Nature on this issue? Do you really think that fishermen who want the best price for their catch are the best source of information?

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
Marriah3330

Please don't get emotional here. Lets look at the original article.

First of all - lets look at the headline - it uses the word "shocking" - Really, from a scientist? implying that no one knew anything about the ocean prior to "this" study?

Notice how it links pollution and overfishing with climate change and threatens a human extinction? but then not really "The IPSO report concludes that it is too early to say definitively." What scientist talks about things like human extinction when they have only inconclusive evidence?

"But the trends are such that it is likely to happen, they say - and far faster than any of the previous five." Again - taking conditions today and extroplating it to the future. IF my aunt had balls, then she would be my uncle.

Is that fear mongering I hear? Do you remember Lake Erie being declared dead in the 1960s? And it really really was. I was a small part of the effort to clean it up. Do you remember what happened? Communities got together, built sewage plants to get phosphorus out of the lake. The algae Clodophera stopped blooming. Fish stopped dying. Then in 1990s - zebra mussels appeared. Now ships have been coming to Lake Erie for over a century from other countries and dropping their bilge loads but all of a sudden, nature allow zebra mussels to flourish and chemical contamination get cleaned up. So the trend DID NOT continue.

Unless you dry up an aquatic ecosystem - you cannot destroy it. Nature adapts and survives. If you pollute, you simply create an environment for other species - species that may be less desirable but species none the less.

Notice the announcement of a tipping point - "We have to bring down CO2 emissions to zero within about 20 years," Professor Hoegh-Guldberg told BBC News. Twenty years to reduce manmade emissions to zero or the oceans die?

Now we know for a fact that atmospheric CO2 has been higher in the history of the world. And we know the oceans survived the experience - but all of a sudden - ocean aciditification is combining with plastic pollution to kill the oceans? But notice how the study doesn't talk about cleaning up the garbage patch? Only about reducing carbon emissions.

Sorry Marriah3330 - this has all the hallmarks of a scam!

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS

Yes, if the corals were oh-so-sensitive to temp changes in the oceans, how did they survive all the Ice Ages and interglacials?

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
So what if we don't control births - if there is insufficient food - then its obvious that the death rate will increase, now isn't it? Nature has its own way of checking the population of any species that grows beyond its ability to feed itself, now doesn't it?

Yes, that's true. But if people want to fall back on nature's solution and face starvation, that's not too smart. And if you think the earth can continue to support any population no matter how large, you really haven't thought this through. The Earth is not an infinite resource. It's finite and can only support a finite population. I don't see how any intelligent person can deny this.

Actually the population growth problem seems to have taken care of itself in some extent in some countries. Japan's problem isn't growing too much for example. One method to influence population growth is with financial incentives, like give people tax breaks for having small families and pay penalties for having large families. Japan's population growth has slowed so much, they are actually giving incentives for people to have children in some areas. China imposed more draconian measures on population control like their 1 child per family limit in the city and 2 children in rural settings. That's not ideal and we can avoid those kind of measures with better incentives. To be honest I wouldn't like it if that restriction were imposed on me, but China saw were they were headed without such restrictions and decided to do something perhaps not pleasant, but intelligent.

Why would you want to interfere with Mother Nature on this issue?

Because I don't really like mother nature's solution too much. And you won't like it either. You and other people will be asking why didn't we do something about this problem when we saw it coming.

Do you really think that fishermen who want the best price for their catch are the best source of information?

They want the maximum income they can get. This means not only the biggest price per pound but also the most pounds.

And despite better fishing methods, they're getting fewer pounds:

'Only 50 years left' for sea fish

There will be virtually nothing left to fish from the seas by the middle of the century if current trends continue, according to a major scientific study...

Bigger vessels, better nets, and new technology for spotting fish are not bringing the world's fleets bigger returns - in fact, the global catch fell by 13% between 1994 and 2003....

Without a ban, scientists fear the North Sea stocks could follow the Grand Banks cod of eastern Canada into apparently terminal decline.

"I'm just amazed, it's very irrational," he said.

"You have scientific consensus and nothing moves. It's a sad example; and what happened in Canada should be such a warning, because now it's collapsed it's not coming back."

The dangers of overfishing are not just a decline in the total amount of fish caught, but decimating populations to the point that they don't recover (his reference to what happened in Canada's waters), which makes the fish shortage kind of snowball. When there's less fish the remaining fish are fished that much harder which decimates them even more rapidly.

Indeed as the scientist suggests, some people are thinking very irrationally on this topic. You apparently think the Earth can support an infinite population? That's not rational. Some people think we are already populated at unsustainable levels as of 2006:

Earth's population carrying Capacity

Humanity as a whole was using, by 2006, 40 percent more than what Earth can regenerate.

www.footprintnetwork.org...

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Arbitrageur

This is exactly what I don't agree - governments should not be involved at all with personal decisions and personal liberties. Once you give them that right - there is no taking it back.

If you want to take the carrot approach of paying people not to have children - please feel free to do so with YOUR own money! Or if you really believe that over-population is an issue - please feel free to step off the plant yourself and take your willing loved ones with you. You have no right whatsoever to decide who will have life and who won't. No one does.

As for China and India - they devalued the lives of females to the point where now there are insufficient females to provide sex. As a result, females are being kidnapped and forced into marriage. Not a society I care to be part of.

Yes - starving people will wail and cry - but it is their fate! And who are you to decide that a life isn't worth living? To deny people the right to fight for their own survival.

And no - I have no problem with nature providing the solution. At least nature has no motivations of genocide or eugenics! She will starve people as is necessary and not one person more! Nature will not manipulate and deceive the way governments can.

The canadian fishery is not a good example of over-fishing. It was managed by man who made the decision that only adult fish could be caught. The fact that only adult fish can breed seemed to have escaped their attention. The Atlantic cod fishery is a prime example of what will happen when scientists are never questioned.

Personally, since the cod fishery has not recovered in 20 years, despite severe fishing limits and moratoriums and the almost total destruction of the east coast fishing industry, I don't believe that the fish are "gone" at all. I believe that temperature changes on the Grand Banks caused the cod to move offshore - that at least is where all the foreign boats are catching them.

Further, I have high hopes for a more effecient aquaculture now that David Suzuki has been proven wrong about fish farms spreading fish diseases to the oceans. Aquaculture will relieve a great deal of pressure on ocean populations.

Further, there are also more efficient means of farming that use less land mass called "vertical farming"

You see - what you have failed to take into account is advances in technology and changes. Malthusian and everyone else who pretends to know the future are merely projecting current trends to their logical conclusion. Unfortunately, they cannot predict what the future can bring and account for it in their prophecies.


In the very early 1920s, mathematicians calculated that if the population of New York were to continue to grow and expand, then more horses would be required to provide transportation. They calculated that in a few decades, New York would be buried 7 stories deep in horse #. They were correct but what they couldn't possibly foresee was the advent of the automobile, which made horses irrelevant to transportation.

Tired of Control Freaks