next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00A0_01CC4CA6.13B93A10 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am afraid I don't hold the scientific community in the same high = esteem that Richard does. In fact, I believe segments of the scientific = community have a growing credibility problem.=20 In our efforts on some environmental issues here on the Neck and = Islands, we have come up against all sorts of scientists who interpret = "facts" to suit the wishes of their political or business masters. =20 A recent example came from DFO scientists who told a crowd in = Shelburne that there is no scientific evidence to show that open net = salmon farms do damage to the local lobster population. They made it = sound as if they had actually studied the issue. But of course, they = haven't...they have quite intentionally not studied it, presumably for = fear of what they might find. When government scientists make this sort = of claim, I ask myself, where is the test of a "high degree of proof" = that Richard refers to in his note. =20 The people who have studied it, the lobstermen of NB, who have 20 = years or more experience of seeing their livelihood destroyed by open = net fish farms, don't have PhD after their names, so their observations = are dismissed, often by scientists. In many cases, I'll take local = knowledge over the political/scientific agenda of those who are paid to = provide advice that the politicians want to hear. All too often, the = science has been tainted to reflect a reality that has more to do with = creating jobs and making money than accurately or fairly assessing the = environmental impact of some of these projects. So I think the scientific community has a long way to go to clean up its = act before it can rightly claim any holier than thou attitude about who = is right, and who is wrong on these issues, or, if fact, what the = criteria should be for determining what is the truth. =20 Andy in Freeport ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Richard Stern=20 To: NatureNS=20 Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 7:48 PM Subject: [NatureNS] Cougars and Ivory-billed woodpeckers Hi, I'll weigh in on the interesting thread about E.cougars, elephants = etc., mainly because I enjoy this kind of debate. Wild cougars (or = Eskimo curlews, or Coelocanths etc.) may or may not be present in NS, = and people can believe whatever they want. But I agree with Ulli etc. = that convincing the naturalist and scientific community would require a = pretty high degree of proof - preferably independently analysed and = corroborated photos, videos, DNA etc., and then proof beyond a = reasonable doubt that any photos aren't faked in some way, and that the = creature wasn't a zoo or collection escape, like Paul's elephant.=20 I would urge interested parties, and for that matter all birders and = naturalists interested in reporting sightings, to read David Sibley's = refutation of the "proof" that the Ivory-billed woodpecker still lives = in Arkansas, for a great example of what to look for and how to go about = it , and the sort of analysis that should convince skeptics on rare bird = committees etc.! = (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/311/5767/1555.1.full), followed by = John Fitzpatrick's response = (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/311/5767/1555.2.full). These are 2 = highly respected well-known birders with multiple books and publications = to their name, who give apparently convincing evidence to prove opposite = "facts", neither of which has subsequently been corroborated, although = apparently Fitzpatrick has backed down somewhat and the Cornell team = have stopped searching till more definitive evidence is found. Keep debating and looking! Richard --=20 ################# Richard Stern,=20 317 Middle Dyke Rd. Port Williams, NS, Canada B0P 1T0 sternrichard@gmail.com ################### ------=_NextPart_000_00A0_01CC4CA6.13B93A10 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" = http-equiv=3DContent-Type> <META name=3DGENERATOR content=3D"MSHTML 8.00.6001.19088"> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff> <DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial> I am afraid I don't hold the = scientific=20 community in the same high esteem that Richard does. In fact, I=20 believe segments of the scientific community have a growing=20 credibility problem. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial> In our efforts = on some=20 environmental issues here on the Neck and Islands, we have come up = against all=20 sorts of scientists who interpret "facts" to suit the wishes of=20 their political or business masters. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial> A recent example came from DFO = scientists=20 who told a crowd in Shelburne that there is no scientific evidence to = show that=20 open net salmon farms do damage to the local lobster population. = They made=20 it sound as if they had actually studied the issue. But of course, = they=20 haven't...they have quite intentionally not studied it, presumably for = fear of=20 what they might find. When government scientists make this = sort of=20 claim, I ask myself, where is the test of a "high degree of proof" = that=20 Richard refers to in his note. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial> The people who have studied it, = the=20 lobstermen of NB, who have 20 years or more experience of seeing their=20 livelihood destroyed by open net fish farms, don't have PhD after their = names,=20 so their observations are dismissed, often by scientists. In many = cases,=20 I'll take local knowledge over the political/scientific agenda of those = who are=20 paid to provide advice that the politicians want to hear. All too = often,=20 the science has been tainted to reflect a reality that has more to do = with=20 creating jobs and making money than accurately or fairly assessing the=20 environmental impact of some of these projects.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial>So I think the scientific community has = a long way=20 to go to clean up its act before it can rightly claim any = holier than=20 thou attitude about who is right, and who is wrong on these issues, or, = if fact,=20 what the criteria should be for determining what is the truth.