Views on underwater hunting

[danvolker]

I'd be interested danvolker, in the references. In general I have not found anything consistent in the area of climate science from either side and find it interesting how people hold such strong views on a subject that cannot even be modelled accurately yet.

Which is exactly the point...if all we have is junk data being put out, any modeling would be ridiculous.
I will pull out references tomorrow.

Regards,
DanV

 

[Mike Boswell]

There are always those who reject any new idea or theory. Many times these people are correct, and they do us a great service by their skepticism. But sometimes they're wrong, and IMO this is one of those times.

The GW skeptics don't want global warming to be true, because they fear they will be forced to reduce their energy use and make other painful lifestyle changes. They resent Al Gore, scientists, politicians, and the affluent in general, because they know that the costs of fixing the problem will fall disproportionately on the poor and the middle class.

What they don't realize is that the cost of NOT solving the problem will be far, far worse. The consequences of GW will impact the poor and middle class disproportionately, because, just as with Katrina, the middle class has limited options and the poor can't even afford to get out of the way.

 

[vladimir]

So, PM me why you think shell-collecting is stupid. I am seriously interested.

I think shell-collectors as a group may have a deleterious effect on the environment. For example, it has been argued that depletion of the giant triton population by shell collectors is in part responsible for crown-of-thorns seastar proliferation (though I think they have been exonerated as the main culprit). As I indicated in my original post on this subject, if shell collection doesn't threaten a species or habitat, I don't have a problem with it. I also don't have a problem with those Lladro porcelain figurines that wealthy housewives collect, but I think they look silly and kitschy, show a lack of esthetic sense, cost a ridiculous amount of money that could be spent, for example, on camera gear, and are roughly analagous to shell collections.

 

[Sas]

There are always those who reject any new idea or theory. Many times these people are correct, and they do us a great service by their skepticism. But sometimes they're wrong, and IMO this is one of those times.

I would be interested to see your evidence for why climate skeptics are wrong? And say if there is a problem, I would like to see your CBA on fixing problem versus not fixing problem...

I am not saying that what you are saying is incorrect, just that you are unlikely to have any understanding of the modelling used on climate to know whether the science is valid or not so I am not sure how you can even hold an opinion on it.

Which is pretty much why I do not have an opinion either way on global warming. It's ok to say that one doesn't know but most people feel they have to pick one side or the other :S

 

[TMHeimer]

I think shell-collectors as a group may have a deleterious effect on the environment. For example, it has been argued that depletion of the giant triton population by shell collectors is in part responsible for crown-or-thorns seastar proliferation (though I think they have been exonerated as the main culprit). As I indicated in my original post on this subject, if shell collection doesn't threaten a species or habitat, I don't have a problem with it. I also don't have a problem with those Lladro porcelain figurines that wealthy housewives collect, but I think they look silly and kitschy, show a lack of esthetic sense, and cost a ridiculous amount of money that could be spent, for example, on camera gear, and are roughly analagous to shell collections.

Vlad, I look to hunt Atlantic Triton Trumpets soon in Panama. I know they are
hunters of the Thrown of Thorns. They are "scarce" in Florida because they are a "beautiful" big shell. They are predetors of the Crown of Thorns Starfisish. I do question your knowledge regarding shell collectors and depletion of species. Do you
know much about the Crown of Thorns? And the Atlantic Triton's Trumpets? Are you just talking about what you have "heard" about Tritons Trumpets, or do you know some serious facts? From what I have "heard" the Tritons are big "tourist" keep-sakes,
and this is the reason they are scarce. Crown of Thorns is a common anti-Triton arguement. They are not listed with CITES which includes Queen Conchs. OK, Vlad,: Do you know where Crown of Thorns and Triton Trumpets do their thing?

 

[TMHeimer]

Vlad, I look to hunt Atlantic Triton Trumpets soon in Panama. I know they are
hunters of the Thrown of Thorns. They are "scarce" in Florida because they are a "beautiful" big shell. They are predetors of the Crown of Thorns Starfisish. I do question your knowledge regarding shell collectors and depletion of species. Do you
know much about the Crown of Thorns? And the Atlantic Triton's Trumpets? Are you just talking about what you have "heard" about Tritons Trumpets, or do you know some serious facts? From what I have "heard" the Tritons are big "tourist" keep-sakes,
and this is the reason they are scarce. Crown of Thorns is a common anti-Triton arguement. Tritons are not listed with CITES which includes Queen Conchs. OK, Vlad,: Do you know where Crown of Thorns and Triton Trumpets do their thing?

. Please respond and argue(?) my freind.

 

[TMHeimer]

Vlad, I look to hunt Atlantic Triton Trumpets soon in Panama. I know they are
hunters of the Thrown of Thorns. They are "scarce" in Florida because they are a "beautiful" big shell. They are predators of the Crown of Thorns Starfisish. I do question your knowledge regarding shell collectors and depletion of species. Do you
know much about the Crown of Thorns? And the Atlantic Triton's Trumpets? Are you just talking about what you have "heard" about Tritons Trumpets, or do you know some serious facts? From what I have "heard" the Tritons are big "tourist" keep-sakes,
and this is the reason they are scarce. Crown of Thorns is a common anti-Triton arguement. They are not listed with CITES which includes Queen Conchs. OK, Vlad,: Do you know where Crown of Thorns and Triton Trumpets do their thing?

Am I OK collecting in Panama? I have no doubt a lot of divers on one tropical reef could be harmful to Tritons and Crown of Thorns. Commercial collection of Tritons
for people to buy as "souveniers" are ""apparently" (I don't know) big business.>
I'm not going to be feeling bad picking up a Triton, not that I ever would.

 

[PeterET]

I have no problem with hunting on the surface or underwater. I have as yet to partake in underwater hunting/Collecting, but to the best of my abilities I am going to follow local regulations regarding hunting. As I do on the surface.

 

[Crush]

The GW skeptics don't want global warming to be true, because they fear they will be forced to reduce their energy use and make other painful lifestyle changes. They resent Al Gore, scientists, politicians, and the affluent in general, because they know that the costs of fixing the problem will fall disproportionately on the poor and the middle class.

The proper term is global climate change - temperatures can rise or fall locally.

There is no global warming debate or global climate change debate amongst scientists - it is happening, and we have measured it. Scientifically illiterate people and those that don't want to believe in global climate change perpetuate the myth that there is a "debate." It is natural to want to deny global climate change since we aren't wired for it - evolution has given us fight-or-flight reflexes for immediate dangers and threat to life. History shows that we seem incapable of taking a long-sighted outlook.

There has been no reduction in the global warming trend of 0.15-0.20°C/decade that began in the late 1970s. There is no "model" being used here. We measure global temperatures with satellites, and the temperature is going up, regardless of what various models predict.

Finally, let's imagine that you are diagnosed with cancer. You might want a second opinion from a specialist. Think of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as a group of 2000 specialists. If 2000 specialists reached consensus that you had cancer, why would you chose to not believe them?

 

[Mike Boswell]

I would be interested to see your evidence for why climate skeptics are wrong? And say if there is a problem, I would like to see your CBA on fixing problem versus not fixing problem...
:S

It's not MY evidence. It's evidence collected by thousands of trained professional scientists all over the globe who have been studying the issue for many decades.

I am not saying that what you are saying is incorrect, just that you are unlikely to have any understanding of the modelling used on climate to know whether the science is valid or not so I am not sure how you can even hold an opinion on it.

I understand the mechanisms of global warming quite well. It's really very simple: CO2 and Methane trap heat in the atmosphere. This can be proven with a simple lab experiment.

Levels of CO2 and Methane in the atmosphere have risen dramatically over the last 50 years. This has been measured all around the globe.

Global temperatures have been rising. This has been measured all around the globe.

Rising air temperatures have led to melting ice in Greenland, Antactica, the Arctic Ocean, the Alps, the Himalayas, Mount Kilimanjaro, and on and on and on. Melting ice has caused sea levels to rise.

Rising air temperatures have caused average ocean temperatures to rise, causing seawater to expand, also raising sea levels. This has been measured all around the globe.

Which is pretty much why I do not have an opinion either way on global warming. It's ok to say that one doesn't know but most people feel they have to pick one side or the other :S

Most people feel a moral obligation to inform themselves about a danger which may threaten their world, or destroy other species or their habitats.