Reef Central Online Community

Home Forum Here you can view your subscribed threads, work with private messages and edit your profile and preferences View New Posts View Today's Posts

Find other members Frequently Asked Questions Search Reefkeeping ...an online magazine for marine aquarists Support our sponsors and mention Reef Central

Go Back   Reef Central Online Community Archives > General Interest Forums > Responsible Reefkeeping

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #126  
Old 01/04/2008, 11:52 AM
samtheman samtheman is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 483
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/bear-facts/


Polar Bear Status Report

Polar bears are a potentially endangered species living in the circumpolar north. They are animals which know no boundaries. They pad across the ice from Russia to Alaska, from Canada to Greenland and onto Norway's Svalbard archipelago. No adequate census exists on which to base a worldwide population estimate, but biologists use a working figure of 20,000 to 25,000 bears with about sixty percent of those living in Canada.
  #127  
Old 01/04/2008, 11:54 AM
samtheman samtheman is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 483
Rossini,

Since we don't know how many there are, how do you have any confidence in your poisition that the population is declining?
  #128  
Old 01/04/2008, 12:38 PM
MiddletonMark MiddletonMark is offline
troublemaker
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 13,532
Quote:
Originally posted by samtheman
Order Back Issues Index 1988-1999 Advert. Rates Contact Us
21st Century, P.O. Box 16285, Washington, D.C. 20041 Phone: (703) 777-6943 Fax: (703) 771-9214
www.21stcenturysciencetech.com Copyright 2005 21st Century Science Associates. All rights reserved.
Checking out their website, in their statement of purpose they sure appear to be an advocacy group.

Um, not exact the best source of information.

That said, I see no reason to drag DDT into this discussion, unless you want to admit that we've handled global warming + have decided not to throw that theory out
__________________
read a lot, think for yourself
  #129  
Old 01/04/2008, 12:59 PM
samtheman samtheman is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 483
Quote:
Originally posted by MiddletonMark
Checking out their website, in their statement of purpose they sure appear to be an advocacy group.

Um, not exact the best source of information.

That said, I see no reason to drag DDT into this discussion, unless you want to admit that we've handled global warming + have decided not to throw that theory out
But remember, if the group is an Environmentalist one or claims to be, the data must be accurate.

Quit trying to attack the messenger, and respond with facts that disput the allagations.
  #130  
Old 01/04/2008, 01:14 PM
Buckeye ME Buckeye ME is offline
Always a Buckeye
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Evansville, IN
Posts: 793
Rossini - thanks for your facts backing up your claims. Until you put some numbers up to back your never ending hyperbole, I consider you an uninformed poster.
__________________
"Nothing cleanses your soul like getting the hell kicked out of you." - Woody Hayes
  #131  
Old 01/04/2008, 01:15 PM
MiddletonMark MiddletonMark is offline
troublemaker
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 13,532
How about putting together a cogent argument that is more than cut + pasted text from advocacy sites?

There's a big difference in between major peer-reviewed journals and web-based blogs/advocacy groups [whatever `side' they are on].
__________________
read a lot, think for yourself
  #132  
Old 01/04/2008, 01:42 PM
samtheman samtheman is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 483
Quote:
Originally posted by MiddletonMark
How about putting together a cogent argument that is more than cut + pasted text from advocacy sites?

There's a big difference in between major peer-reviewed journals and web-based blogs/advocacy groups [whatever `side' they are on].
So to post on a fishboard, I must do major research on peer-reviewed articles. I don't have acces to most such articles, since they require joining professional organizations or paying fees to access them. You just posted without doing so. Are you my example?
  #133  
Old 01/04/2008, 01:57 PM
HippieSmell HippieSmell is offline
I hug trees, not Bushes
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota
Posts: 2,613
Quote:
Originally posted by samtheman
I would hope not. Not thinking for yourself is what keeps the environmental movement alive. Running around picking up bottles while the earth dies, makes many feel better.
You seem to be under the impression that environmentalism is a new phenomenon, when it's been around for thousands of years. Many Native Americans based a large part of their culture around their land ethic. The environmentalist view is not new and doesn't need to be "kept alive", it's a very rational way to live.
__________________
The Sand People are easily startled, but they will soon be back, and in greater numbers.

All statements have been peer reviewed.
  #134  
Old 01/04/2008, 02:06 PM
MiddletonMark MiddletonMark is offline
troublemaker
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 13,532
Quote:
Originally posted by samtheman
So to post on a fishboard, I must do major research on peer-reviewed articles. I don't have acces to most such articles, since they require joining professional organizations or paying fees to access them. You just posted without doing so. Are you my example?
If you want to talk about reef aquaria, I don't think anyone asked for peer-reviewed articles. That is, if you're posting about fish on a fishboard. But we're not ....

If talking about other subjects, IMO I don't see why asking for scientific articles vs. web-postings is an outrageous thing to ask.
At least when claiming that the articles/studies others cite are incorrect, I guess I'd expect to have similarly scientific work if we are to agree that a theory is bunk.


And if you don't have access to the articles, why are you so quick to dismiss what you admit you haven't read?

Especially when people who have read them seem to think very different things about their validity than the non-readers.
__________________
read a lot, think for yourself
  #135  
Old 01/04/2008, 02:11 PM
samtheman samtheman is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 483
Quote:
Originally posted by MiddletonMark
If you want to talk about reef aquaria, I don't think anyone asked for peer-reviewed articles here. That is, if you're posting about fish on a fishboard.

But if talking about other subjects, IMO I don't see why asking for scientific articles vs. web-postings is an outrageous thing to ask.

And if you don't have access to the articles, why are you so quick to dismiss what you admit you haven't read?
Especially when people who have read them seem to think very different things about their validity than the non-readers.
Would you give me some peer-reviwed articles to back-up your opinions above. What kind of study addresses what people who read peer-reviewed studies think vs. those who didn't? Please, this should be interesting. I am glad you wern't just giving opinions.
  #136  
Old 01/04/2008, 02:24 PM
HippieSmell HippieSmell is offline
I hug trees, not Bushes
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota
Posts: 2,613
Quote:
Originally posted by samtheman
But remember, if the group is an Environmentalist one or claims to be, the data must be accurate.

Quit trying to attack the messenger, and respond with facts that disput the allagations.
The DDT argument should be dropped, as most of us don't really care and there is some evidence that it isn't as bad as they once thought. DDT's use to fight malaria is valid if it's found to be relatively safe, and Central and South America is starting to use it again anyway, but I see no need to use it here because there isn't any threat of mosquito borne disease. Like I said, let's drop it.

Regardless, you're right, environmental groups need to be taken with a grain of salt as well, BUT they often have legit research to back up claims, whereas that site you linked to doesn't as far as I can tell. Read the mission statement for websites, it's the first thing I do.

For example: 21st Century Science & Technology magazine challenges the assumptions of modern scientific dogma.

That first sentence alone tells me that this site is way out of the mainstream and needs very solid evidence to support the claims they are making. Evidence that they don't seem to have for many issues.

Also, please stop pasting entire articles, it muddies up the thread and we have no way of knowing where you got it from most of the time (which I'm sure is intentional on your part, as the stuff you post is not usually of very high standards, and you know it).
__________________
The Sand People are easily startled, but they will soon be back, and in greater numbers.

All statements have been peer reviewed.
  #137  
Old 01/04/2008, 02:24 PM
MiddletonMark MiddletonMark is offline
troublemaker
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 13,532
Sure, but I'll need a few days to dig them up.

As for studies about people who read peer-reviewed vs. not ... I don't know of a study.

But if you haven't read the scientific literature you claim is bunk, how do you claim it's bunk?
[don't tell me some pundit told you to think that, unless you want me quoting the Sierra Club and other opposing pundits .... my take is that we need to get away from advocacy/pundits when discussing SCIENCE, as advocacy/pundits only matter when it's all opinion IMO]
__________________
read a lot, think for yourself
  #138  
Old 01/04/2008, 02:25 PM
fishdoc11 fishdoc11 is offline
Catch and release
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Knoxville,TN
Posts: 9,480
Quote:
Originally posted by samtheman
Would you give me some peer-reviwed articles to back-up your opinions above. What kind of study addresses what people who read peer-reviewed studies think vs. those who didn't? Please, this should be interesting. I am glad you wern't just giving opinions.
I've been following this thread for a while.

Sam, greenbean has given you a plethora of scientific data supported by well done scientific research in an extrememly patient manner.

Chris
__________________
"Try to learn something about everything and everything about something" -- Thomas H. Huxley
  #139  
Old 01/04/2008, 02:29 PM
HippieSmell HippieSmell is offline
I hug trees, not Bushes
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota
Posts: 2,613
Quote:
Originally posted by MiddletonMark
And if you don't have access to the articles, why are you so quick to dismiss what you admit you haven't read?

Especially when people who have read them seem to think very different things about their validity than the non-readers.
Thank you. Quote of the month. I think I'm going to put this in my signature. You kind of shot yourself in the foot, didn't you samtheman?
__________________
The Sand People are easily startled, but they will soon be back, and in greater numbers.

All statements have been peer reviewed.
  #140  
Old 01/04/2008, 03:09 PM
samtheman samtheman is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 483
Quote:
Originally posted by HippieSmell
The DDT argument should be dropped, as most of us don't really care and there is some evidence that it isn't as bad as they once thought. DDT's use to fight malaria is valid if it's found to be relatively safe, and Central and South America is starting to use it again anyway, but I see no need to use it here because there isn't any threat of mosquito borne disease. Like I said, let's drop it.

Regardless, you're right, environmental groups need to be taken with a grain of salt as well, BUT they often have legit research to back up claims, whereas that site you linked to doesn't as far as I can tell. Read the mission statement for websites, it's the first thing I do.

For example: 21st Century Science & Technology magazine challenges the assumptions of modern scientific dogma.

That first sentence alone tells me that this site is way out of the mainstream and needs very solid evidence to support the claims they are making. Evidence that they don't seem to have for many issues.

Also, please stop pasting entire articles, it muddies up the thread and we have no way of knowing where you got it from most of the time (which I'm sure is intentional on your part, as the stuff you post is not usually of very high standards, and you know it).
Again, attacking the messenger doesn't change the message. Was Silent Spring based on science? It appears not.
Now these same people want us to quit using energy, because the "think" it might be responsible for .04 C over the last 100 years. Maybe! And none of the death mongers are riding bikes. Why believe those who say do as I say, not as I do? Lead by example. Get a coat, sell your car, and shut up.

Gosh I didn't know you ran this forum. Are there any other posting rules that I am not aware of.
  #141  
Old 01/04/2008, 03:20 PM
billsreef billsreef is offline
Moderator
10 & Over Club
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 12,688
Send a message via ICQ to billsreef Send a message via AIM to billsreef Send a message via Yahoo to billsreef
Well, has in past threads on this subject, I think this one has run it's course. Time to close it before anyone goes far enough overboard for a ban.
__________________
Bill

"LOL, well I have no brain apparently. " - dc (Debi)
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Use of this web site is subject to the terms and conditions described in the user agreement.
Reef Central Reef Central, LLC. Copyright 1999-2009