From the BBC's science department, another totally fact-free article.
'Impact'? 'Threat? 'Toll'? You have to quantify these things, then try to explain them and then run experiments (or at least find fair comparatives) to see if the explanation is the correct one and so on, that's what science is about!
On an even less serious note, this map suggests to me that land has no effect on the oceans, and as we all live on land, we can't be having any impact, can we? Natch.
Oh yes, and it is quite possibly true that there are less fish in The North Sea than a decade or two ago, that's down to the bloody EU, and is easily fixed.
Nothing subtle about it
1 hour ago
3 comments:
Oh dear, the BBC let this leak out in your quoted report(my emphasis):
"He said the two biggest drivers in destroying marine habitats were climate change and over-fishing.
"Out on the high seas, climate change and fishing were far and away the strongest influences," he explained. "The least impacted areas are the polar regions but they are not untouched." "
So the BBC's David Shukman's blather earlier this year about the instantaneous conversion of Greenland to St Tropez is, as the sane among us suspected, a load of crap and is now admitted by the BBC's scientists of choice. This is what happens when you make up the news.
Mark, I'm not sure if you're disputing the evidence of over-fishing because let me assure you that it is real and not exclusive to the North Sea. However, as you point out, it is mainly due imperfect markets because of an absence of properly delineated property rights. The other problem is that governmental organisations, such as the EU, don't bloody listen to the scientists and choose no-catch areas that bear no relation to spawning grounds and only follow the optimistic versions of models. Their choices are chiefly responsible for the crashes that follow.
U, that bit is icing on the cake!
PT, exactly. I have not looked at fishing particularly closely, but I think that UKIP have got it spot on.
Post a Comment