filthy cruise ship thread (resurrected)

[Boogie711]

You asked.

Bjorn's official site

A newspaper account from the Committee for Scientific Dishonesty's "work" can be found here.

I share your view on traditional scientific review panels, Archman. Which is why this particular review panel was so odd. A fairly straight up assessment of what happened can be found here.

My favourite quote from the last link - "The committees did no independent investigation of the charges, instead relying almost exclusively on a series of articles in Scientific American by scientists whose conclusions Lomborg disagreed with."

 

[bermudaskink]

You asked.

Bjorn's official site

A newspaper account from the Committee for Scientific Dishonesty's "work" can be found here.

I share your view on traditional scientific review panels, Archman. Which is why this particular review panel was so odd. A fairly straight up assessment of what happened can be found here.

My favourite quote from the last link - "The committees did no independent investigation of the charges, instead relying almost exclusively on a series of articles in Scientific American by scientists whose conclusions Lomborg disagreed with."

My apologies. I have just looked at the links above and also found the following articles.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3340305.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3486894.stm

I had missed the recent news on this issue (it had not made the same headlines as much as the original critique of the book). So... am sorry for misinforming anyone! Last I heard there was a lot of scientific outrage about the book and then the media gave up on it. I should have known better than to accept that was the end of it.

:kopfab:

Back to Greenpeace later.

 

[bermudaskink]

Back to archman's request for scientific data on cruise ships.... this is the best I could do for now and apologies that the paper is over 10 years old....


Title CRUISE SHIPS A SERIOUS THREAT TO CORAL REEFS AND ASSOCIATED ORGANISMS
Author SMITH S H [a]
Author Address [a] SEACO INC, 146 HEKILI ST, KAILU, HAWAII, USA
Source Ocean and Shoreline Management 11 (3) 1988. 231-248.
Document Type Article
Abstract Qualitative and quantitative observations were made under cruise ships anchored over disturbed and undisturbed sections of reef off Grand Cayman, Island, West Indies. Measurements showed 3150 m2 of previously intact reef destroyed by one cruise ship anchoring on one day. Follow-up observations were made after cruise ship departure and additional data from below other cruise ships were collected for comparison. Recovery periods of more than fifty years are postulated. The effects of increasing numbers of cruise ships and live-aboard dive cruisers on corals, fisheries and tourism are discussed, and some solutions are proposed.


Hope this helps archman

 

[bermudaskink]

also of interest....

"A key conclusion of this study is that there is a pressing need for further research into the impacts of cruise ship activity on the environment. Although much is known in general about the effects of air pollution, oily water and untreated waste, there is little data on the specific impacts of cruise ships."

Read more here if you want:
http://www.celb.org/xp/CELB/news-events/press_releases/2003/12102003.xml

Also, please see the online newsroom materials for more info on this site, including a very interesting PDF document report by the International Council of Cruise Lines (ICCL).

 

[bermudaskink]

Back to Boogie's challenge for me to find actual parts of Dr. Lomborg's book which have been labelled as incorrect. Try http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=773 for a little reading and see what you think.

 

[Boogie711]

With respect Lisa, the aforementioned article basically just says, "Dr. Lomborg is wrong. The people that Lomborg said were wrong are actually right. Here are the people (who he said were wrong) saying they are right. So therefore, they must be right."

 

[bermudaskink]

OK OK! I thought I did good with that link Too late to get stuck into this again. To be honest, I don't have the time to do any more research on Lomborg, sadly (although I am keen to do so, maybe when I have more time). I do however, know that he is out numbered in many of his points with regards to scientific publishings, which report data contrary to his extreme statements. It would take me at least an entire week to go through and pull up all the scientific references, which Lomborg fails to mention and debunk in his book, plus I'd actually have to get his book back out of the library and that is like way to much effort. I simply don't have the time, despite spending a good part of the last couple of days on SB. I have had to be at home while people do work on the new house we just moved into, and sadly, after whale watching tmrw, I am back to work, with an overdue chapter for my thesis still unfinished and a really pi**ed off supervisor.

Catch ya'll sometime soon. I am afraid I wont be back for a while.

Is that a sigh of relief I hear from the mods?