Saving the world and the ocean, one activist opinion at a time – another NGO flap, this one duped global media

It seems the alarming story of “Ocean extinction has started in our time” making the rounds of the alarmist blogs and gullible media is nothing more than an unpublished, unchecked opinion, and some pal review amongst activists at a three day conference.

Barry Woods writes:

Oh for goodness sake (parallels to IPCC 80% greenpeace renewables story)

The International Panel on the State of the Ocean !!! IPSO – modest bunch – see mission statement (front page website)

http://www.stateoftheocean.org/

The International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) was established by scientists with the aim of saving the Earth and all life on it.

Another Press release – Gets a shocking headline – the wait for the report (so that it can be checked) so that it is forgotten about and at the end – it is too early to say, but the trends are, etc,etc,etc

Maybe the Oceans are in a shocking state, I’m just getting too cynical to care…

BBC: World’s oceans in ‘shocking’ decline – Richard Black – 20th June 2011
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13796479

“The oceans are in a worse state than previously suspected, according to an expert panel of scientists.”

“In a new report, they warn that ocean life is “at high risk of entering a phase of extinction of marine species unprecedented in human history”.

The International Panel on the State of the Ocean !!! IPSO

This is getting beyond satire ‘panel for the State of the ocean’ but no doubt lots more UN jobs and research required, plus urgent action and control of the oceans.

“The findings are shocking,” said Alex Rogers, IPSO’s scientific director and professor of conservation biology at Oxford University.

“Its report will be formally released later this week.”

Its worse than we thought (they considered)

”…As we considered the cumulative effect of what humankind does to the oceans, the implications became far worse than we had individually realised.”

“We’ve sat in one forum and spoken to each other about what we’re seeing, and we’ve ended up with a picture showing that almost right across the board we’re seeing changes that are happening faster than we’d thought, or in ways that we didn’t expect to see for hundreds of years.”
” These “accelerated” changes include melting of Arctic sea ice and the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, sea level rise, and release of methane trapped in the sea bed.”

BUT at the end. – It is too early to say !!!!

“The IPSO report concludes that it is too early to say definitively.”

But the trends are such that it is likely to happen, they say – and far faster than any of the previous five extinctions.

I’m sorry but I have utter contempt for this sort of pseudo-science by press release…

I wonder what the report really says, and how well it holds up to the headline, I wonder if anyone will bother to check…

Seriously though: The International Panel of the State of the Ocean (IPSO)

With a name like that and their mission statement, – “with the aim of saving all life on the planet!” – they are hardly ever going to come to the conclusion, that it might be doing ‘just fine’,

Diagnosing the state of the Ocean’s health

IPSO is currently compiling the Global State of the Ocean Report, which will collate world-wide marine science to give a comprehensive overview of the health of the Ocean. The Report is due to be published in 2012 but we already know that the Ocean’s health is in a critical state.

http://www.stateoftheocean.org/howbad.cfm

=================================================================

Thanks Barry, but wait there’s more. Ben Pile, of the website “Climate Resistance” writes:

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water…

World’s oceans in ‘shocking’ decline

Warns Richard Black at the BBC.

The oceans are in a worse state than previously suspected, according to an expert panel of scientists.

In a new report, they warn that ocean life is “at high risk of entering a phase of extinction of marine species unprecedented in human history”.

They conclude that issues such as over-fishing, pollution and climate change are acting together in ways that have not previously been recognised.

The impacts, they say, are already affecting humanity.

The panel was convened by the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO), and brought together experts from different disciplines, including coral reef ecologists, toxicologists, and fisheries scientists.

Call me a cynic, but I no longer take claims about ‘expert panel of scientists’ at face value. Sadly, Richard Black of the BBC does.

Ok. So who the hell are the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition?

Surprise, surprise…

A coordination team works together with a Steering Group that currently consists of the Ecology Action Centre, Greenpeace International, Marine Conservation Biology Institute, Natural Resources Defense Council, Pew Environment Group and Seas at Risk. The DSCC has developed a formidable international team of scientists, policy and communication experts, lawyers and political activists who on behalf of the deep sea have established a strong reputation and profile on the issue at the UN and in other fora.

The ‘panel of experts’ — IPSO — may well be expert. But, look, again, we see Greenpeace’s name up there, steering the research — in its own words — alongside the Pew group, and Friends of the Earth.

I don’t believe a word of it. This is not scientific research, it’s ‘grey literature’, put out by yet another grey institution, the true nature of which is concealed from first appearances. Not far behind, the agenda is revealed.

[Anthony: Ben Pile also located a helpful video:]

From the video description on YouTube:

Dr. Alex Rogers, Scientific Director of IPSO and Professor of Conservation Biology at the Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, gives the overview of the main problems affecting the ocean – and some suggested solutions.

Pile continues:

So, yeah, another NGO lobbying outfit, in cahoots with government and businesses, blurring the lines between activism, scientific research, and so on.

Back to IPSO. Here’s the web-page that relates to the new report. It describes the background to the report:

The 3 day workshop, co-sponsored by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), looked at the latest science across different disciplines.

The 27 participants from 18 organisations in 6 countries produced a grave assessment of current threats — and a stark conclusion about future risks to marine and human life if the current trajectory of damage continues: that the world’s ocean is at high risk of entering a phase of extinction of marine species unprecedented in human history.

So it turns out that this report took the scientists just three days of chin-wagging. Says the report:

The workshop provided a rare opportunity to interact with other disciplines to determine the net effect of what is already happening to the ocean and is projected to do so in the future.  Over the  three days 27 participants from 18 organisations in 6 countries (Annex 1) assessed the latest information on impacts and stresses, and the synergistic effects these are having on the global ocean.

Through presentations, discussions and recommendations the workshop documented and described the cumulative effects of such impacts, how these commonly act in a negatively synergistic way, and why therefore concerted action is now needed to address the consequences set out in this report.

==============================================================

Here’s the team from the IPSO website:

A high-level international workshop convened by IPSO met at the University of Oxford earlier this year. It was the first inter-disciplinary international meeting of marine scientists of its kind and was designed to consider the cumulative impact of multiple stressors on the ocean, including warming, acidification, and overfishing.

The 3 day workshop, co-sponsored by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), looked at the latest science across different disciplines.

The 27 participants from 18 organisations in 6 countries produced a grave assessment of current threats — and a stark conclusion about future risks to marine and human life if the current trajectory of damage continues: that the world’s ocean is at high risk of entering a phase of extinction of marine species unprecedented in human history.

Delegates called for urgent and unequivocal action to halt further declines in ocean health. (click for press release)

(They seem really upset about this photo, this fish seems happy with his new home though, and anyone who knows anything about aluminum in the ocean will tell you the fish will probably outlive the can – A)

So, the BBC story “World’s oceans in ‘shocking’ decline” seems to be based on nothing more than some joint opinion at a conference with Greenpeace activists, a regurgitated press release, and no peer reviewed publication yet.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Alarmism, Oceans and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

143 Responses to Saving the world and the ocean, one activist opinion at a time – another NGO flap, this one duped global media

  1. MattN says:

    You just KNOW the first sentence is “worse than we thought.”

    How many times do they have to say that? Who are they trying to convince? Us or them?

  2. kim says:

    And the Walls of JerIPCCo come a tumballin’ down.
    ===================

  3. James Reid says:

    I would like Australian readers (at least) of this blog to know that there is a poll running on the ABC;

    http://www.abc.net.au/polls/thedrum/vote/total.htm

    I’m curious to see how the numbers might change after it is publicised here :-).

    “If a plebiscite was held on the issue of a carbon tax would you be:”
    In favor of a carbon tax 59%
    Opposed to a carbon tax 37%
    Undecided 4%
    6040 votes counted

  4. Jimbo says:

    It’s worse than we thought!!!

    Correlates of rediscovery and the detectability of extinction in mammals
    Proceedings of the Royal Society B. – September 2010
    “We conclude that extinctions owing to habitat loss are most difficult to detect; hence, impacts of habitat loss on extinction have probably been overestimated, especially relative to introduced species. It is most likely that the highest rates of rediscovery will come from searching for species that have gone missing during the 20th century and have relatively large ranges threatened by habitat loss, rather than from additional effort focused on charismatic missing species.”

    I say stick to over-fishing and pollution issues and leave the co2 bull at home.

  5. AleaJactaEst says:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/oceans-on-brink-of-catastrophe-2300272.html

    and the Independent in the UK led with it splashed all over it’s front page.

    the web version is getting many interesting comments though. Sublime to the ridiculous. Go there and bring some sense to the world (and Independent readers – good luck with the last one)

  6. Robert says:

    For me “unprecedented in human history” is not automatically “unprecedented in history” in my book.

  7. Roger Carr says:

    Australian Carbon Tax poll.
    Vote here

  8. AleaJactaEst says:

    James Reid says 04:11 (GMT)

    James, your link doesn’t allow you to vote, just gives the results:

    go here and make your esteemed vote count:

    http://www.abc.net.au/thedrum/

  9. KnR says:

    That is how its works , you get your friends in the media to run with scare story and you give it scientific bent even if its not research. Of course once the facts become know and the scare factor drops through the floor , you known the stories moved on and that the all so important ‘details ‘ will never see the light of day . Certainly Mr Black will not be revisiting this claim once the report is actual available, has his work will be done .

    Its a dam effective way of working , but its got little to do with science in reality .

  10. Tom says:

    Presented as responsible and reasoned , this is more fraudulent, misleading, strident and alarmist than ever, there’s no doubt that there are some problems, Greenpeace et al are notable in their avoidance of the worst ones for fear of being tarred as racist or tackling folk who play hardball.

    It’s all about keeping the funding pot bubbling – out of the pockets of taxpayers and guilt ridden urban types.

    The conceit and arrogance in the press release is nauseating –

    “The!combination!of!stressors!on!the!ocean!is!creating!the!conditions!
    associated!with!every!previous!major extinction!of!species!in!Earth’s!history”
    ‘damn the copy n paste!

    Crikey – sorted a few mysteries in a single sentence – wow, impressive.

    “The!speed!and!rate!of!degeneration!in!the!ocean!is!far!faster!than!anyone!has!
    predicted”

    Except Greenpeace et al methinks – we’re doomed

    “Many!of!the!negative!impacts!previously!identified!are!greater!than!the!worst!
    predictions”

    Doomed I tell ye, dooooomed

    This is really woeful stuff – which the likes of Richard Black at the BBC parrot and squawk doom with their bells and sandwich boards across the public media space without sensible challenge.

    Why is it that they can’t construct a coherent and referenced space where this can be properly examined ? – oh yeah, that’s it – the squeaking wheel gets the grease and the louder and more often it squeaks the more likely it’ll be lubricated.

  11. Ken Hall says:

    Apparently, all you need to be an “expert” scientist, (according to the BBC and other believers), is the ability to spread massive amounts of alarm based on nothing more than hearsay and personal belief.

    Funny how the BBC refuse to place the word “expert” in front of other eminent and equally qualified scientists when they do not spread alarm and gloom. They label them sceptical scientists or maverick scientists.

    If Richard Black considers any scientist an Expert, then they are generally merely “repeaters” and “advocates” not scientists. When one is labelled an “expert purely based on point of view, rather than quality of research, then the word “expert” becomes meaningless.

    The really sad and frustrating part in that is the fact that real environmental harm is overlooked because of the “boy that cried wolf” effect. There are real problems in some oceans with over-fishing of some species. Other species are increasing and throwing “balance” of species out of kilter.

    However tying all this up with the false fear of ocean acidification and sea-level rise, makes the real problems fade as the whole bunch of false fears are rejected by a sceptical public.

    The oceans are not becoming acidic. They are becoming slightly less alkaline. There is a whole world of difference between the two and the rate of sea level rise is not accelerating, but is declining.

  12. Al Gore's Holy Hologram says:

    How many times the size of Manhattan is this disaster?

  13. Espen says:

    Jimbo: I say stick to over-fishing and pollution issues and leave the co2 bull at home.

    Couldn’t agree more. I already saw this story on BBC and my immediate thought was that “if they had just dropped the CO2 part and toned down the doomsday angle to it…”. But what do you expect when Greenpeace activist Hoegh-Guldberg is involved?

    About the NGO involvement: I didn’t manage to find out myself who actually funds IPSO, and this article makes a strange jump from IPSO to “Deep Sea Conservation Coalition” – what’s the connection?

  14. PaulH says:

    A nice gang of white, balding, overweight, privileged experts. Instead of wearing myself at university studying math and computer science, I should have become a “communication expert” – I would have fin in nicely!
    [end of sarc]

  15. Servius says:

    …“with the aim of saving all life on the planet!”…

    Is Bruce Willis joining?

  16. James Reid says:

    @AleaJactaEst
    @Roger Carr

    Thanks for fixing the link!

  17. Jim Barker says:

    IPSO seems to have left out the FACTO.

  18. bikermailman says:

    Forget the ‘gray’ literature, I think it needs to be called ‘brown’ literature. You can guess why.

    Kim, very nice play on words!

  19. The BBC are flagrantly breaching their own charter! There are none so corrupt as the the righteous – those like the BBC who will not examine their own corrupt practices of pushing a particular point of view because it just happens to fit with their image of being a “nice” organisation.

    Well it isn’t a “nice” organisation. It is a corrupt organisation that has been pushing a particular political dogma which is anti-industry anti-engineering, anti-impartiality, anti-truth, in short: anti-British. Whilst I couldn’t prove a relationship, it is noteworthy that the period of economic decay of the UK seems to exactly match the period of time when the BBC has existed. Coincidence or correlation?

  20. Jaypan says:

    And, at the same time, Rahmstorf and colleagues are telling us that the sealevel is rising as fast as never before. OMG

  21. Harry the Hacker says:

    Espen: the connections is they all have their trotters in the trough.

  22. Les Francis says:

    Here’s some more background of the delegates and organisations

    Whos who of activists

  23. More BBC/Common Purpose hysteria.

    Sad thing is most people are so stupid that they fall for this bilge.

  24. RB says:

    Make no mistake. Richard Black is the shoddiest journalist working in the BBC today in the UK by far – and that’s against some pretty stiff competition.

    Laughably there have been over 240 comments on the article – when I went there a while ago it shows only 3 comments described as “Editor’s Picks” – the usual fawning nonsense.

    Black could get a press release from any warmist anytime about anything and he would just regurgitate it without a thought. The man is a joke as a journalist. Environmental correspondent, my arse. He is nothing more than a loud hailer stuck to the gob af any climate change NGO or activist “scientist” that wants it.

  25. Ken Hall says:

    Yeah Timetraveler, bio-diversity is increasing, BUT, the alarmists only pay attention to increases in those species of plant and animal which are nasty, stinging, poisoning creatures.

    Climate change will cause uncontrollable increases in poison ivy, huge clouds of angry wasps and nasty stinging nettles, but the lovely fluffy polar bears will drown… aw bless.

    The other way that they get round increases in bio-diversity is to invent “localised extinction”. A global increase in any species can easily be offset in media hype by a ‘localised extinction’ or at least a dramatic fall in numbers in the region of that species.

  26. P Wilson says:

    simply hilarious.

    that is all

  27. But that’s not all! In the morning Metro this was on the same page as “Birds ‘face oblivion’ if farm payments cut” “… decimate bird life, the RSPB is warning …” “…species face possible extinction …”

    So, no fish, no birds and the last polar bear floated away on his tiny iceberg long ago …. we’re doomed I tell you, doomed!

  28. Curiousgeorge says:

    There’s a technical term for what ails these people: Manic-Depressive. Possibly in their case, more than a little paranoia thrown in for good measure, as well as the Jesus complex. They really should get some professional help. Seriously.

  29. UK Sceptic says:

    Oh noes! Does this mean, gulp, that we’ll be reduced to eating Soylent greenies?

  30. AleaJactaEst says:

    James Reid says:
    June 21, 2011 at 4:39 am
    @AleaJactaEst
    @Roger Carr

    Thanks for fixing the link!

    that’s OK. I’m keeping an eye on it as I suspect a fraud. The vote counts have continued to rise but the percentage breakdowns haven’t budged. 59% in favour, 37% opposed, 4% don’t know:

    Funnily enough the percentage breakdown by number of votes indicates that fractions of a person have made a vote. Funny that. I would have thought that a percentage breakdown of an online vote with only three choices would give percentage breakdowns of whole numbers. I guess not when the outcome appears to be rigged.

  31. Myrrh says:

    Distract and hide the real cause of the decline.

    The real problem is agrichemicals – and well known in the agri business to be the cause of malformations and decline of stocks through contaminated water, lakes, rivers and marine, and so affecting humans also, such as atrazine in Tasmania:

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Endocrine_disrupting_chemicals_in_Tasmania
    http://hancockwatch.nfshost.com/docs/adelaide.html#Bleaney

    “The developments follow The Australian’s report earlier this week that American researchers had found that atrazine caused damaging changes to human cells at levels half those of Australia’s drinkin-water health value.”

    For how much longer?: http://brandtasmania.com/show.php?ACT=Public&menu_code=600.300

    http://hancockwatch.nfshost.com/docs/adelaide.html for more back history

    Remember the worry about the rapidly declining bee populations? I think most have been left with the impression from MSM that it was some kind of ‘virus’..

    http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/article/wiki-bee-leaks-controversy-sparks-call-for-uk-ban/

  32. LeeHarvey says:

    Looking at the picture of the members of IPSO, I truly have to question where the Republican party got the reputation of being a bunch of middle-aged white men. I see a group that is much more deserving of that label…

  33. AleaJactaEst says:

    mods – my last comment got disappeared. It contained some “percents” maybe this is the problem? Can you retrieve?

    [Rescued & posted. ~dbs, mod.]

  34. David L. Hagen says:

    That sensationalist post hides the far greater real challenge of systemic overfishing and decimation of major fisheries. The industrial revolution created large overcapacity in fishing which in turn caused major overfishing and destruction of fisheries. Some reviews:

    B. Worm et al., Rebuilding Global Fisheries, Science 325, 578 (2009)

    Trends in the abundance of marine fishes

    Lessons learned from stock collapse and recovery of North Sea herring: a review

  35. Barry Woods says:

    Hi Anthony

    I haven’t had time to write any of this up..
    (working – own business – my time – trying to sort out some network cabling issues)

    Isn’t this how the IPCC (or what went before ) started, a small group of scientists, ngo’s the ‘concerned’ gathered, had a talking shop, etc, and started lobbying governments…?

    I sent a load of stuff to Ben PIle, after I saw he had written about it as well

    Ben has an update from me on his website…

    By the way The Guardian’s – Fiona Harvey is spreading the same story….
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/20/marine-life-oceans-extinction-threat

    Guardian: ‘Shocking’ state of seas threatens mass extinction, say marine experts
    “Overfishing and pollution putting fish, sharks and whales in extreme danger
    – with extinction ‘inevitable’, study finds”

    “The international panel of marine experts said there was a “high risk of entering a phase of extinction of marine species unprecedented in human history”. They said the challenges facing the oceans created “the conditions associated with every previous major extinction of species in Earth’s history”.

    “The findings are shocking,” said Alex Rogers, scientific director of Ipso. “As we considered the cumulative effect of what humankind does to the ocean, the implications became far worse than we had individually realised. This is a very serious situation demanding unequivocal action at every level. We are looking at consequences for humankind that will impact in our lifetime, and worse, our children’s and generations beyond that.”

    So no doubt as The Guardian has it, so will the entire world’s media….

    The Guardian is one thing, the BBC is supposed to be neutral and independant by it’s CHARTER, it SHOULD do better than a BBC actvist correspondent, passing on this type of briefing without question…

    I AM concerned about the oceans, overfishing , real pollution, etc. but all the NGO’s that have leapt on this, are advocates of ‘climate change’ and are using this to push their climate change policies to government.

    So 27 people attended a 3 day conference… (peer, pal or groupthink reviewed?

    “We’ve sat in one forum and spoken to each other about what we’re seeing, and we’ve ended up with a picture showing that almost right across the board we’re seeing changes that are happening faster than we’d thought, or in ways that we didn’t expect to see for hundreds of years.”

    the world’s media is hearing and repeating this…..

    “The world’s leading experts on oceans are surprised by the rate and magnitude of changes we are seeing. The challenges for the future of the oceans are vast, but unlike previous generations we know what now needs to happen. The time to protect the blue heart of our planet is now, today and urgent”.

    And they (NGO’s a FEW scientists) call on the UN and governments to ACT.

    “The scientists called on the United Nations and governments to bring in measures to conserve marine ecosystems. Dan Laffoley, of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, said:

    “The world’s leading experts on oceans are surprised by the rate and magnitude of changes we are seeing.”

    “The challenges for the future of the oceans are vast, but unlike previous generations we know what now needs to happen. The time to protect the blue heart of our planet is now, today and urgent”.

    Haven’t we been here and heard it all before, urgent, unprecedented, faster than predicted, ‘if current trends continue’ ineveitable, catastrophic, extinctions….

    ………..at the hands of humankind

    I’m not a sceptic or denier I’m a climate cynic, with good reason I think with all this hyperbole…

    Especially as the Carbon Brief are now alerting the media…

  36. Raul F Iserhard says:

    I have only one question: which have been and where are the previous studies that underlying the current results?

  37. Jason F says:

    And yet the BBC article has comments open below the article – for a change, can’t see anyone mention the issues pointed out above unless they are being modded out of existance. I bet the comments won’t stay for long – the editors picks are hilarious – apparently there are too many people!

  38. Curiousgeorge says:

    I also find it amusing that the Green Brigade ignores the generally accepted view that people, and our technology, evolved on this planet and therefore we (and our technology) are as much a part of the “natural” world as anything else on this rock. Unless, of course, they think we “are not of this world”.

    Evolution does not stop simply because we wish it would. The current state of the planet (including people) is transitory whether they like it or not. It seems to me that their goal is to pick some point in past history that they feel is the “ideal” and declare that “evolution stops here”. Sorry to disappoint, but that’s not going to happen.

  39. Jason F says:

    WOW BBC comments closed – that was fast.

  40. View from the Solent says:

    “with the aim of saving all life on the planet!” Which must include those organisms responsible for typhoid, smallpox, malaria, …..

  41. Paul_T says:

    Why do you react on a media published news. Wait for the darn scientific papers/proofs.

    Yet, after filling multiple nets of plastic bags floating at sea it’s about time someone raise a flag , ask an off shore fisherman now stuck with jellyfish all over.

  42. John Q. Galt says:

    Very white family picture, there.

  43. Jimmy Haigh says:

    More from the BBC – an Antarctic penguin in New Zealand. Obviously the world’s first climate refugee…

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13856024

  44. John Q. Galt says:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/20/ipso-2011-ocean-report-mass-extinction_n_880656.html?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk3|71953

    Huffington is the neo-something of Amerika. Please go make notes next to Huffington’s boytoy’s face.

  45. Barry Woods says:

    3 day conference, 27 people (now many marine scientists in the world?) over half not scientists, report not out yet……

    and in main stream UK non-tablod newspaper, The Independant we have….

    The Independant: Oceans on brink of catastrophe
    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/oceans-on-brink-of-catastrophe-2300272.html

    Marine life facing mass extinction ‘within one human generation’ / State of seas ‘much worse than we thought’, says global panel of scientists

    By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor, 21 June 2011

    The world’s oceans are faced with an unprecedented loss of species comparable to the great mass extinctions of prehistory, a major report suggests today. The seas are degenerating far faster than anyone has predicted, the report says, because of the cumulative impact of a number of severe individual stresses, ranging from climate warming and sea-water acidification, to widespread chemical pollution and gross overfishing.

    * The speed and rate of degeneration of the oceans is far faster than anyone has predicted;

    * Many of the negative impacts identified are greater than the worst predictions;

    * The first steps to globally significant extinction may have already begun.
    —————————————————————

    Michael McCarthy says, ‘the report says’

    Has he seen the report for himseld (out in 2012 ? !)

    Is he qualified enough to make sense of it..

    Has he passed it on to some other marine experts for a professional opinion?

    Would other scientist in the field support it?

    Or has he just regurgitated a press release, and recycled the BBC or someone elses article….?
    or seen the Carbon Brief’s tweetings…

    One of the NGO’s presents is fynded by tHe Oak Foundation, which also fund the European CLimate Foundation, whose communications unit and head of, run and fund The Carbon Brief.. that just tweeted this story to the world’ environment media, Press Officers, Environment NGO, University, lobby groups, 350, 10:10, activists even the University of East Anglia and the UK Commitee on Climate Change that advice the UK government to PUSH for 30% reductions in emissin unilaterally (even with respect to the EU) in the UK…

    Will ANY of the above think to check the provenance of the above… Or does it all become FACT by media ‘consensus’

  46. Hoi Polloi says:

    Greenpeace is the GoldmanSachs of the environmental activist organisations:

    It’s big and powerfull and it has it’s tentacles stretsched out everywhere…

  47. Pete in Cumbria UK says:

    Exactly, curiousgeorge at 5:05
    Its what my ‘significant other’, a mental health nurse for over 30 years, calls ‘catastrophising’
    Its also noteworthy that these people have entirely no sense of humour, its all so deadly serious with them, not just ‘climate change’
    tallbloke made a comment (last week – ish) about the British being ‘controlled’ by cheap (relative to most other things) supermarket alcohol (a known depressant and that’s all its got going for it) and junk TV. I couldn’t agree more. And, what are the (two) most popular shows on British TV?
    Almost identical soap operas that revolve around (fictional) dysfunctional people walking in and out of public houses with the sole intention of slagging off, picking fights with and generally bad-mouthing the rest characters in the soap.
    Then 60%+ of UK adult females (the biggest fans of this televisual junk) are on anti-depressants, mostly Prozac of which the only real use of which is to cure premature (Read= prevent entirely) ejaculation (in boys and men obviously)
    This CAGW thing runs very deep indeed……

  48. Jimbo says:

    The Coelacanth is just a thing of the past.
    http://tinyurl.com/68p98zn

    Don’t be surprised by BBC bias on climate change – they have invested lots of their pension scheme in carbon schemes. The lack of balance is self-preservation.

  49. Mike McMillan says:

    Expert panels of scientists are in a worse state than previously suspected.
    In a new report, they warn that science is “at high risk of entering a phase of extinction unprecedented in human history.”

    How can the oceans be in decline? I thought the sea level was rising.

  50. Oscar Bajner says:

    Tribune: totus escendo est nostri (Trans: – All climate base are belong to us!)
    Caesar: IPSO facto? (Trans – is that a fact?)
    Tribune: unus villa habitum sicco (Trans: one village refuses to surrender its base to us)
    Caesar: quis est voluntas illius?
    (Trans: What’s up with that?)

  51. Leon Brozyna says:

    I didn’t see Chicken Little amongst the cast of characters.

    1. Decide on the agenda and the conclusion of the symposium report.
    2. Gather sympathetic academics to the symposium so that everyone’s on the same sheet of music.
    3. Issue a preliminary press release to announce the findings of the symposium.
    4. Perform studies and review each others work to ensure conformity to the results of the symposium.
    5. Write cover summary for the report; grab the scariest elements from each predetermined study.
    6. We’re uncertain of how certain the data is regarding certain future events, although we are certain that it’s certainly bad in certain areas. Therefore, to make certain that greater certainty exists in support of our grasp of certain elements of our study, we’ll need several billion dollars and euros with which to conduct several studies over the coming decades, to be certain of the uncertain depth of our uncertainty.

  52. Latitude says:

    Ken Hall says:
    June 21, 2011 at 4:29 am
    The oceans are not becoming acidic. They are becoming slightly less alkaline.
    ===============================================================
    Ken, we all know the oceans are buffered and the normal range of pH 7.5-8.5
    What has to happen to a buffered solution in order to lower the pH?

    …..you have to run out of buffer

    Denitrification is the largest consumer of buffer and the largest producer of acids.
    It’s impossible for CO2 levels to get high enough to produce as much acid as denitrification.
    If denitrification has never crashed the system, it’s impossible for CO2.

  53. Espen says:

    Hmm, the owner of “Communications Inc Limited”, Mirella von Lindenfels, was also “director” at IPSO and “head of Media” at Greenpeace (see http://www.linkedin.com/pub/mirella-von-lindenfels/14/407/455 ). And her current clients include (not very surprising) IPSO and Greenpeace: http://communicationsinc.co.uk/clients.cfm

  54. Olen says:

    How can it be much worse than they thought when what they thought before never happened?
    This is obviously a publicity stunt to propagandize their views and agenda to the public. And it is a whopper.

  55. Eyal Porat says:

    The scene that jumped to my mind was of the “lads” sitting around the table, each in turn try to top the others with his scare assessment:
    “and all the algae will die…”
    “The algae?! all the fish will be extinct!”
    “Pffff, fish! All the corals will die out!”
    “Ha! corals are small money, the whales will turn red and fly!”
    Etc…

  56. George Lawson says:

    June 21, 2011 at 5:12 am
    It would be rather nice if Richard Black, as the BBC’s Environmental Correspondent,did a more professional job of un-biased reporting and discussed contentious environmental issues with experts from both sides of the argument without always quoting, parrot fashion, questionable scare mongering press releases created by groups of political lobbying AGW ‘scientists’ that support his own pre concieved AGW position. Why are you afraid to open up the argument in your reporting Mr Black, the BBC should allow all points of view to be heard?

  57. golf charley says:

    Just googled alex rogers greenpeace

    No conflict, no pressure

    Ho hum

  58. The Times: (paywalled)Allmost a FULL page article.

    Quote it all almost word for word…….

    Times: Marine LIfe is Facing Mass Extinction – Hannah Devlin, June 21, 2011

    ‘the implications are far worse than we expected’ Rogers
    ”The marine scientists called for a range of urgent measure to cut carbon emission, etc”

    Guardian, Independent, Times, Daily Mail, BBC, Churnalism at its wost… (note dates)

    BBC: Worlds Oceans in Shocking Decline’ – Richard Black – June 20, 2011

    Daily Mail: Extinction of Oceans looms in a generation’ – June 21, 20011
    Guardian: Shocking State of the seas threaten mass exticntions – Fiona Harvey, June 21,2011
    Independent:: Oceans on the Brink of Catastophy – Michael McCarthy – June 21, 2011
    Times: Marine LIfe is Facing Mass Extinction – Hannah Devlin, June 21, 2011

    All tyhe above – word for word quotes, no analysis, no questioning who attended, do other scientists think differently in the relevant scientific fields, etc…..

    I imagine Ocean extinction story will go around the world a bit in the next few days…

    The Carbon Brief twittered a link to the BBC Richard Black article, to all its followers, which includeds the worlds environment medi and press officers for lobbysist, NGO’s, etc

    Shall we play a little game and watch over the next day or so, which news organisation and warmist bloggers can that follow The Carbon Brief, repeat it most closely, with out doing ANY questioning of the people, wheter other marine scientists and organisations agree with it, etc and the detail behind it.

  59. Jimbo says:

    New ocean species are just a thing of the past.

  60. D Shiply says:

    Important Information.

    The IPSO main report will not be issued until NEXT year.

    a short and long report of the Oxford meeting is being released today – Tues 21st .

    http://www.stateoftheocean.org/pdfs/1806_IPSOshort.pdf

    http://www.stateoftheocean.org/pdfs/1906_IPSO-LONG.pdf

  61. Douglas DC says:

    The Big green of Greene$$e strikes again..
    When I saw that breathless headline I knew that this
    was conducted by the ususal suspects..

  62. climatebeagle says:

    So the BBC had high profile coverage of this story, but seemed to neglect the decrease in solar activity. Was there any BBC article for the decrease in solar activity?

  63. Todd says:

    “policy and communication experts, lawyers and political activists”

    Once again, scientists yes, but scientists preceeded by the word “political.”

    Remember when one had to put down the beer, and study your butt off to be a scientist? Now one can just party their way to a Poli Sci degree, and play a real scientist at the UN.

  64. Billy Liar says:

    I think they should all sit in a room with a shrink, then they wouldn’t depress themselves.

  65. aaron says:

    IPSO-facto… we’re all gonna die.

  66. 1DandyTroll says:

    Ah, ,yes, the maniac-self-proclaimed-world-savior trick: to get in people’s face and promptly shout you’re gonna save them, mankind, and the world from doom and, or, damnation, without making the rational non-existing crowd believe you’re a high hippie kook, or religious fanatic.

    That seem to be working out real swell. :p

  67. Owen says:

    i take exception to the idea in the title that the media was duped. The media is in on the Climate Scam. They are important players in the con. Without them how long would this sham last; Not long ! They spread the lies because it fits perfectly with their leftist ideologically driven agenda that capitalism is bad, not living in poverty is bad, having children is bad, cars are bad, and so on. I used to think the media types are just stupid but now I believe they are just plain evil, broadcasting nonsense for their own benefit. We’re living in an Orwellian world where up is down and white is black. Propaganda, lies and distortions of reality are what the media deals in. The mainstream media is as corrupt as the people behind the climate change scam. The only dupes are the people who actually believe the media are telling them the truth.

  68. jack morrow says:

    Fly around at night around any Asian’s coast and you can see just how much trawling and fishing is happening-it’s amazing how much. Then, look at the loss of cod stocks around New England and the great N. Atlantic fishing regions. Sport fishing is not a problem-commerical fishing is. Then, take a day airplane or blimp ride off the coast of Manhattan and watch the many garbage ships dumping off the coast and observe the vast ocean area that turns brown from this. You will feel sad. Overfishing? Yes. Pollution? Yes. CO2? Not! We can solve the 1st two problems, but the last one is not a problem as I see it.

  69. lowercasefred says:

    There really are problems with overfishing and nutrients creating dead zones and these are recognized by a wide swathe of the populations, including conservative sportsmen. These guys are trying to piggyback their agenda on that recognition.

    In the last few years there has been a takeover of some sporting groups by well organized, well funded, watermelons, the CCA being a recent example. They took over the Sierra Club years ago.

    Wolves in sheep’s clothing.

  70. climatebeagle says:

    Since Richard Black did cover this prominently I made a complaint to the BBC. His scathing piece on the decrease in solar activity contains: “Firstly, the research itself has been presented at one rather small and rather select science meeting – not, as yet, formally published and peer reviewed.”.

    Similar criticism is missing from the articles on this claimed ocean decline and Phil Jones’ new take on significant warming, clear bias.

    You too, can complain to the BBC at:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/

  71. Martin Brumby says:

    Of course all this stuff has been high on the BBC’s agenda for ages. They have had numerous shots at talking up oceanic doom and gloom over the last few years, this is just the latest alarmist hook that they have latched onto.

    Having treated myself to a Blu-ray player recently, one of the disc sets I purchased was “South Pacific”. This is not the old Rogers & Hammerstein but the Beeb’s 6 part documentary series narrated by Benedict Cumberbatch. Cheap as chips from Amazon.

    I have to say that it typifies the Beeb in a number of respects. The photography is absolutely stunning (and at the end of each episode is a ‘diary’ showing how they filmed it.) Nature photography at its best. Well I may as well get to see something made with my “Licence Fee” (= BBC tax). It is also pretty good on outline history but pretty much ignores socio-political issues. Except for the Beebs obsessions. OK, they had me shouting at the screen when they did the usual über-greenie interpretation of Easter Island and how the natives had “destroyed their environment”. Forgot to mention about the slavers and also brushed over imported disease and rats. Funny that!

    But, predictably, in the sixth and final episode they let rip with the scary stories. Global warming, species extinction, acidification, pollution, coral reefs, Tuvalu drowning, more storms….you name it, they chucked it in there. They even had an extended sequence with the BBC crew breathlessly joining a Greenpiss ship “patrolling” International Waters to check out who was fishing there.

    Entirely expected but entirely annoying. I don’t doubt that it is a bad thing that huge Spanish factory ships are effectively dragging absolutely everything out of the water (having already decimated Atlantic fish stocks) and certainly there are other genuine over-fishing and pollution issues as well.

    But any rational person exposed to this much greenie political activist propaganda about ‘acidification’ and all the rest must be inclined to dismiss the whole thing as alarmist tosh.

    But it also made me scratch my head how, rather ineptly, they hadn’t always really matched up their agit prop commentary with the pictures they were showing. So just after every viewer had been reduced to helplessly sobbing into their handkerchief about the plight of the poor corals, obviously with only months to go; they have a sequence with ‘coral gardeners’ taking cuttings and attaching them to a nursery, letting them grow and then using cuttings from the cultivars to restock areas of damaged coral. Now, let’s get this right. Corals are dying out because the sea temperature is now so high and the human CO2 emissions have turned it all acid. OK, now they didn’t show anyone with cooling or lime dosing plant trying to fix this, so presumably the nursery is still sited in this over-warm acidic stew. Right? So how come the cutting appeared to be growing hugely in a matter of six to nine months? I hadn’t realised coral could grow that quickly! Some confusion in the message, surely? Didn’t they join up the dots?

    There are other examples. Disappearing fish stocks (and species) stories being followed by footage of absolutely amazingly large shoals of fish. Tuvalu disappearing ‘neath the waves followed by some of the damage that was being done (by the inhabitants) to the reefs. And so on.

    But I guess neither the Beeb, nor this bunch of 27 self-satisfied con men and assorted shroud-wavers masquerading as “scientists” really want you to think too much about the message with which they spoon feed us.

  72. jrwakefield says:

    Over fishing is a serious problem. Canada’s cod fisheries was shut down because the population of cod collapsed due to over fishing. Other parts of the world are also suffering from over fishing. Somolia, of all places, is being raped by other countries because there is no government to control the fishing off their coast. Declines in a number of major species has been well documented for decades.

    Just because some sensationalism is being misused doesn’t mean the problem doesn’t exist.

    I don’t east any sea food for this reason.

  73. ZT says:

    Isn’t it strange that CO2 zealots are so keen on international meetings?

  74. lowercasefred says:

    jrwakefield says:

    June 21, 2011 at 7:39 am

    “Over fishing is a serious problem.” I would amend that to say overfishing of SOME species and SOME locations is a serious problem. For many species and locations the fishing rebounds quite quickly when pressure eases, as the northern Gulf of Mexico has done due to the decline in shrimping and gill netting. Last year’s oil spill may have also eased some pressure.

    A lot of the stuff you hear, especially out of the watermelons at NOAA, is just lies. Red Snapper are abundant in numbers NEVER before seen in the northern Gulf due to habitat enhancement and effective management. These are not juveniles but spawning stock adults in the 10+ pound range.

  75. London Zoological Society appear to have removed Rogers from their webste.

    http://www.zsl.org/science/ioz-staff-students/

    He’s listed at the bottom of the above page, along with other “Recent leavers”. However unlike the others, his name links to the ZSL homepage. It appears that this link should have been this: http://www.zsl.org/science/ioz-staff-students/rogers,1079,AR.html but it is currently blank. Can’t really understand why though, google’s cache of that page from a few days ago shows him to be very well qualified:

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:V0dw4tIFuTsJ:www.zsl.org/science/ioz-staff-students/rogers,1079,AR.html

  76. Dave says:

    Can anyone please give names (and maybe afinities) to the people in the group picture? Do they all subscribe to the sensational headlines put out by the BBC?

  77. higley7 says:

    Rogers is an idiot. Ocean acidification, if any, still has ocean pH within the normal range that has been seen historically. He is outright lying when he says that we know that ocean acidification has caused extinctions in the past.

    Also, so what if pH change changes the “taste” or smell of the water? I seriously question if this effect has been defined, but he probably goes by the difference in taste of drinking water and vinegar. It is still something the organisms know how to handle as CO2 has spent the vast majority of the last 600 million years way higher than it is not. Again, he’s a know-nothing.

    Acid eats calcium carbonate, as hydrochloric acid would, but there is no way that acidity from the extended equilibrium from CO2/carbonic acid/carbonate/calcium carbonate can affect itself. Again and again, he’s a true idiot.

    He’s a talking head with no real marine, chemical, or biochemical knowledge, saying things to alarm the general public. Note how often he qualifies with “chance” and projections, with nothing that we are really seeing now. He points to no known extinctions.

    He ignores the fact that , with ocean warming, coral reefs expand. Around the world, during the recent warming coral reefs thrived with the higher temperatures and the higher CO2 , which they loved. Rogers is totally ignoring that life is much more resilient than he would like to pretend it is.

    Forrest Gump, “Stupid is a stupid does.” This is Rogers 15 minutes of blame.

  78. russ says:

    I find it amazing how these ‘chicken littles‘ never tire of humiliating themselves pubically…

  79. higley7 says:

    I forgot:
    Yes, we definitely have to worry about chemical and garbage pollution. Garbage is dropping off very nicely. Now we have to worry about runoff.

    BUT, what he says related to “climate change” and ocean acidification by CO2 is totally wrong

  80. HenryP says:

    (actual e-mail to Alex at the Oxford university)
    Hi Alex!

    I heard you on the radio here, in South Africa (Radio 702) causing considerable alarm about the oceans.
    I am with you 100% on us all doing our best to save our marine life!
    However, I am sure you would agree with me that we must just make sure that we do find the correct medicines.
    You repeatedly blamed an increase in carbon dioxide for the problem(s), and the failure of countries to negotiate a reduction of carbon dioxide.
    As an independent hobbyist, I did an investigation to see if the observed global warming really is caused by the carbon dioxide.
    So far, contrary to the popular belief,
    I have found in favour for the conclusion that the warming (and resulting climate change) during the past 4 decades was due to natural causes.
    My results clearly show that it was increasing maxima (that happened during the day) that caused the warming.
    If it had been the other way around, i.e. increasing minima (that happen during the night) I would have agreed with you that it was the increase in carbon dioxide (GHG’s) that had caused it.
    The truth of the matter appears to be that the sun got a bit brighter or there were less clouds; there are quite a few different theories about this.
    Either way, there was nothing anyone could have done or (still) can do.
    I will be happy if you could read my reports and comment on it!
    Thanks.

    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok

  81. JPeden says:

    ”…As we considered the cumulative effect of what humankind does to the oceans, the implications became far worse than we had individually realised.”

    short version: Adrian Monk restores the Audacity of Hope amongst us whilst adeptly avoiding our enslavement by Dora The Explorer:

    “Yes, We The Experts had indeed been struck with a Biblical woe of Job-less proportions, and we were sore afraid. Some of us hyperventilated, others got the vapors, “aliens from outer space” were suspected to have taken over Capitalist Societies, and the Wandering Uterus was no doubt about to take a severe toll of our women and Low T men alike….When suddenly as though by the last breath of a nearly exspired miracle, wee Adrian Monk, who had fortunately happened upon our small group of self-anointeds while incessantly seeking his own genetic roots, that particular strain of purely OCD Mutants from which he was sired, cried out, “Wait, Parasites, there’s still the BBC! Let’s go tell Mommy! She knows where the waning Mother’s Milk delivered by the Holy Smart Grid of intelligently designed scarcity is still lovingly stashed within the bowels and fibrocystic mazes of the Public Teat. Your quest for Social Justice need not yet be starved via McDonalds’ malnourishment! Hear me, friend Parasites, I have it on the high authority of Hollywood’s Michael Moore that The Green Soy and Arugula still exists secreted within The Wealth of Nations. We will be sustained or my Uncle’s name is not Kim Jong Il! Until then everybody sing! “Any day now, any day now, I shall be paid”. And so it was that Adrian Monk restored the disasterizing Audacity of Hope amongst us while completely avoiding the entrapping lure and methods of Dora The Explorer.”

  82. higley7 says:

    Rogers refers to huge changes in coral reefs starting in the 1970s. Coral bleaching never seen before? Does he mean before we really start scuba diving a lot?

    Why did they not notice ANYTHING during the cooling from 1938 to 1978? Suddenly things start changing because it stopped cooling and began warming? He is looking and expressing science using very selective blinders to only show what he wants.

    Yes, we need to seriously manage our fisheries and the means of catching fish to minimize collateral or direct damage.

    So, we have runoff and sewage pollution and fisheries management to address – and that’s it. He should have included COASTAL WETLANDS MANAGEMENT as that is where many of the fish young spend time before moving to the seas. The rest of his discussion is political sewage.

  83. John Tofflemire says:

    “The International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) was established by scientists with the aim of saving the Earth and all life on it.”

    At least they are modest in their ambitions.

  84. Curiousgeorge says:

    There is approx. 1.33 billion cubic kilometers of water in the worlds oceans. I seriously doubt there is anything people can do that would result in any significant impact on that mind boggling volume.

  85. aaron says:

    Fish breed fast. Enforcement of a moratorium can recover most fish populations quickly.

  86. mike sphar says:

    I once tried to SAVE the OCEAN but when I got in contact with the “Tongue of the Ocean” it gave me a lashing I will never forget…Eventually I was able to beat it into Nassau and escape the onslaught.

  87. Hugh Pepper says:

    Gentlemen, please, your cynicism eclipses your skepticism. When groups of scientists convene to discuss their work, they enter the conversation with worlds of experience. There are hundreds of research papers available to inform their discussions, and these inform the conclusions, which you dismiss or trivialize. You can consult these same research papers if you choose, and should you enter this exercise with an objective and skeptical mind, you might come to similar conclusions.

  88. Cassie King says:

    “The International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) was established by scientists with the aim of saving the Earth and all life on it.”

    And the BBC has these people on speed dial, an instant critical analysis free worldwide MSM platform from which these “saviours of all life on earth” can air their views at any time. The real question is just who is allowing and facilitating the MSM access?

    Wow these people have no shame do they? Set up a grand sounding organisation and make outlandish and outrageous claims imminent doom, siphon off as much funding as they can for as long as they can and then disappear into the night. Lavish on the scares and pump up the volume, its not just worse than we thought, not far worse but really really much worse than we could have possibly imagined and all with no evidence to back it up. Well they actually did imagine it didnt they? Ramp up the scares, tell ever more lies, up the stakes. Just how long has this institution been in action as it saves all life on earth?

    Faked up grant vampires are as common as sand on the beach or fake charities in a tax haven but what is new and dangerous is the direct connection between these fake fronts and the MSM, the fact that these fake fronts have instant access to the groups like the BBC, an uncritical, unquestioned platform to the world where their propaganda is aired around the world.

    Groups like this are really laughable but they have a direct line to the planets news rooms and that is the danger, its not the silly gang of rent seekers and buffoons and grant vampires who worry me, most rational sceptics can see the fraud a mile away on a foggy day but these people have something that other groups have no chance of ever attaining, a prime time uncritical worldwide MSM platform.

  89. woodNfish says:

    About the headline, the media isn’t duped, Anthony, they are complicit in the fraud and people know it which is why the major media is in decline.

  90. Julian in Wales says:

    The estimated vol of the oceans are 1.3 billion cubic meters. If the population of the world is 7 billion people there is a cubic meter of sea water for every five people. So each person on the planet has the equivalent of a private swimming pool of seawater that is 1kilometer by 1 kilometer and 200 meters deep.

    Throw all you used CO2 and weekly rubbish into that pool and see how long it takes before the water begins to get poisnous enough to kill the sealife.

  91. Smokey says:

    Hugh Pepper,

    Read the last sentence in the article. There are no research papers supporting this scare story.

  92. Ryan says:

    Seem like a cheerful bunch to me. Do they believe what they are prepared to put in print I wonder?

  93. George Lawson says:

    I recall reading a blog about some research on the acidity of the oceans which proved that the acidification scare was proven to be just a scare and had no foundation in reality. Does anyone recall where that research came from in order that we might confront the Richard Black of the BBC and others with scientific research which is contrary to his and and his scaremongering associates

  94. Bill Sticker says:

    No, no, it’s worse than they thought.

  95. Ryan says:

    To be honest, I’m beginning to get the feeling that anyone working in any branch of science relating to animals was a conservationist activist first and then looked afterwards to science as a means of obtaining a salary whilst they looked at coserving animals. Self-selecting bias, before you’ve even started.

    If this is the case then we will have little choice but to take monitoring of the land and oceans out of their hands and put into the hands of engineers that can construct means of counting numbers of ocean species without bias. At the moment anyone can say that there were trillions of a species yesterday and only 5 today and thus extinction by tomorrow and no-one is in a position to gain-say it.

  96. Crispin in Waterloo says:

    James Reid

    Thanks for the heads up on the ABC Poll. I see also that Auz has a novel method of greening its coal plants.

    http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/UnNews:Australian_coal_power_to_go_green

    Why didn’t I think of that?

  97. Mac the Knife says:

    IPSO ABSENTIA FACTO

  98. Les Johnson says:

    Ben Pile broke down the expertise of the people at the conference.

    Of the 26 listed, 18 were activists or members of activist organizations. Ben was generous in giving 8 the credentials to study marine life.

    Can one guess beforehand what any conference would conclude, if it was put on by an activist organization; sponsored by other activist organizations; and attended by activists outnumbering scientists by over 2-1?

    http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/climate-resistance/wCKX/~3/8Yyo2DkUQcg/the-fishy-wishy-washy-ipso-report.html

  99. Latitude says:

    Hugh Pepper says:
    June 21, 2011 at 9:06 am
    ====================================
    and you fell for it……………

  100. Latitude says:

    It’s not uncommon for CO2 levels to be ~2000 ppm inside homes and office buildings….
    …so ocean acidification makes this impossible inside a home

    http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS1hjq5dGVGqCDhJpi1g84TtO0x4cEFByKBXiEMVEAItnp7v5iC

  101. Matthew Bergin says:

    Julian in Wales I think you have missed quite a few zeros in that calculation. Try doing it again.

  102. Robert Stevenson says:

    Most, maybe all governments follow the warmist view and base their policies on IPCC reports , leads and off the cuff remarks, (to hell with the electorate), so doomwatch alarmists can say and do what they like and carry out funded falsified research (eg CRU at UEA ) – unfortunately crackpot greens rule at present.

  103. Curiousgeorge says:

    @ Julian in Wales says:
    June 21, 2011 at 9:23 am

    The estimated vol of the oceans are 1.3 billion cubic meters.

    ===============================================

    I’m sure this was only a typo. It’s 1.3 billion cubic Kilometers, not cubic meters. :)

  104. R. Gates says:

    Smokey says:
    June 21, 2011 at 9:29 am
    Hugh Pepper,

    Read the last sentence in the article. There are no research papers supporting this scare story.

    ____
    Don’t know about the accuracy of the story, but the full report lists dozens of sources of research done to back up what they say. In fact, some of those researcher have actually commented here on WUWT. So rather than quote newspaper stories about this report, best to have a look at the actual full report itself right here:

    http://www.stateoftheocean.org/pdfs/1906_IPSO-LONG.pdf

    The lengthy list of research they used to create this report begins on page 5.

    So, the bottom line is, there is actual research, and lots of it, to support their findings.

  105. Chris says:

    yea I read that story yesterday. Its getting to the point where im getting so jaded I cant even read the whole stories anymore before I roll my eyes.

  106. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:

    Don’t say I didn’t warn everyone about this for some time! As “global warming” sails off into the sun due to lack of data/proof, they would latch onto “the other climate change problem,” i.e. ocean acidification.

    I’m enjoying this!

    Keep in mind that overfishing impacts far more than the stuff we want to eat (cod, flounder & other groundfish etc.). I was working with the fishing industry of Gloucester, MA when the fisheries of the Georges Banks collapsed in the 1980′s. Pretty ugly, lots of good fisherman lost their boats (usually by sinking them with dynamite to collect on the insurance).

    However, the real pressure right now are on “industrial” fish used primarily for poultry and aquaculture feed formulations. Fisheries of Atlantic menhaden, Peruvian anchovies and, particularly, Antarctic krill are being decimated by immense factory ships sailing out of ports in Korea, China and other hungry Asian countries. This alone impacts the entire food web, as these critters are the forage for most higher forms.

    Wringing our hands and pointing our fingers at one another does absolutely nothing until we address the fact that China must feed 1.34 billion souls (that’s about 4 billion meals per day). The Green Peace guys never talk about that part. Start with China.

  107. lowercasefred says:

    Julian in Wales says:

    June 21, 2011 at 9:23 am

    “The estimated vol of the oceans are 1.3 billion cubic meters.”

    Based on your other figures I assume you realize that the volume is about 1.3 billion cubic KILOMETERS. A fifth of a cubic kilometer is quite a lot of water if it is bioactive. We do not throw all our rubbish in the ocean, most solid waste is landfilled. A fifth of a cubic kilometer of ocean can handle the biodegradeables of an individual human being quite handily except for the problem of the outfalls (the dead zones at the mouths of rivers).

    Most of the rest of the potential threats are due to long-lived chemicals and possibly mercury (we really do not know about mercury at the concentrations we encounter in fish) – point being, they are not “climate disruption” problems.

    Trash and shipping intrusions are problems, not threats.

  108. Anthony Scalzi says:

    @Julian in Wales

    That’s 1.3 billion cubic kilometers, not cubic meters. The rest of your analogy reflects this, but it’s very confusing when you switch from cubic meters to cubic kilometers.

  109. Al Gored says:

    “Dr. Alex Rogers, Scientific Director of IPSO and Professor of Conservation Biology at the Department of Zoology, University of Oxford…”

    There it is. As anyone who has bothered to read my too repitious comments on this, my favourite pseudoscience – “Conservation Biology.”

    This is NOT a real science at all. It is a ‘mission oriented’ post-normal joke based on all the junk techniques now made popular in AGW climastrology and driven forward by the Precautionary Principle. You know, mass extinction and all that… with the UN’s ‘Biodiversity’ project their Big Idea and future IPCC – they hope.

    Junk models, cherry-picked data, and historicial revisionism plus major financial incentives for the missionaries and practioners with the ‘species-at-risk’ listing/financial system.

    A perfect match for the AGW gang.

  110. Al Gored says:

    KnR says:
    June 21, 2011 at 4:26 am

    “Certainly Mr Black will not be revisiting this claim once the report is actual available, has his work will be done”

    Indeed. He will not be revisisting this one (May 9,2011) either:

    “Renewable technologies could supply 80% of the world’s energy needs by mid-century, says the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)…”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13337864

    Just because it is now discredited as another Greenpeace-fed fantasy doesn’t mean it needs any further comment, right?

    Black is a hopelessly blatant propagandist, and his knowledge appears to be no deeper than whatever UN or Greenpeace press release someone hands him.

  111. Verity Jones says:

    Former newsreader Peter Sisson’s memoirs described how it was heresy at the BBC to question claims about climate change http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350206/BBC-propaganda-machine-climate-change-says-Peter-Sissons.html

    From the beginning I was unhappy at how one-sided the BBC’s coverage of the issue was, and how much more complicated the climate system was than the over-simplified two-minute reports that were the stock-in-trade of the BBC’s environment correspondents.

    Environmental pressure groups could be guaranteed that their press releases, usually beginning with the words ‘scientists say…’ would get on air unchallenged.

    The only article on the BBC news website about the recent AAS Sunspot prediction was by Richard Black playing down any risk of cooling. Not a peep from a science correspondent, yet they’ll happily report on lesser astronomical news and climate predictions. http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2011/06/18/auntie-%E2%80%93-your-slip-is-showing/

  112. DirkH says:

    Ben Pile at climateresistance (see the link that Anthony gives) also lists the background of several participants; one of them being a philosopher, for instance… scientist yes, marine knowledge not so much. The Greens didn’t even try to produce more than a wholesale fabrication here. I wonder if they’ll manage to stoop even lower.

    And the ease with which they duped the BBC and Der Spiegel!
    http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/0,1518,769558,00.html

    The Soviet Pravda must have been the gold standard of reporting compared to what the flagships of reporting have become. BTW flagship, what’s the NYT doing? Check – fell for it.
    http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/oceans-are-at-dire-risk-team-of-scientists-warns/

  113. They really must end this habit of issueing press releases before the paper is available.
    Incidently, am I the only one to look at the group photo and think a lot of them look rather young to have gained the label “expert”?

  114. Tom says:

    Oxford University should be more careful who they rent space to, I take exception to the subterfuge of implied endorsement given by prominently announcing the venue.

    I doubt very much if the kitchen at Canonbury Villas, London, N1 2PN would carry as much weight – but it would be entirely appropriate.

    They also know that the papers purportedly referenced can’t be read and analysed in time to identify conflicting evidence – agitprop manipulation that’d have Goebbels smirking if he were still with us.

    It’s like the ” y’air dumed, Duumed! I say” soapbox preacher quoting the bible.

    Excreble antics really, designed to reel in believers, and fill the coffers.

    There are problems with pollution and overfishing – Greenpeace haven’t actually been particularly active in acting against the worst offenders…. No this all about urban, “left of centre” ex Marxist or closet Marxist activism.

    The overpowering stench of conceit and the undiluted scare tactics are just plain nasty, make no mistake these people want control – heaven help us if they achieve it…..

    I mean, would you employ Richard Black as your personal life coach?

  115. DirkH says:

    Hugh Pepper says:
    June 21, 2011 at 9:06 am
    “Gentlemen, please, your cynicism eclipses your skepticism. When groups of scientists convene to discuss their work, they enter the conversation with worlds of experience. There are hundreds of research papers available to inform their discussions, and these inform the conclusions, which you dismiss or trivialize.”

    From http://www.climate-resistance.org/2011/06/a-deep-sea-mystery.html :

    “Kelly Rigg is the Executive Director of the GCCA, a global alliance of 250 organizations cooperating under the banner of the tcktcktck campaign. She has been leading international campaigns for nearly 30 years on climate, energy, oceans, Antarctica and other issues. She was a senior campaign director for Greenpeace International during 20 years with the organization. After leaving Greenpeace she went on to found the Varda Group consultancy providing campaign and strategic advice to a wide range of NGOs, and led the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition’s campaign to protect the high seas from destructive bottom fishing.”

    I surely don’t want to dismiss Kelly’s worlds of experience in agitating mobs, blackmailing corporations and duping dumb environmental reporters with lies. Surely not. If i were a dictator i would make her my information minister in an instant! (Wouldn’t let her care for the fisheries, though…)

  116. Billy Liar says:

    Martin Brumby says:
    June 21, 2011 at 7:32 am

    Martin, do yourself a favor and don’t treat yourself to any more BBC propaganda!

    Your blood pressure will thank you for it.

  117. Billy Liar says:

    jrwakefield says:
    June 21, 2011 at 7:39 am

    I don’t eat any sea food for this reason.

    Why not try some tasty farm-raised salmon? Plenty of it about.

  118. Jason Bair says:

    Someone needs to tell MSNBC they can take their report down. They just posted it on the front page.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43479398/ns/world_news-world_environment/

  119. Billy Liar says:

    russ says:
    June 21, 2011 at 8:09 am

    I find it amazing how these ‘chicken littles‘ never tire of humiliating themselves pubically…

    I wouldn’t try that in public :-)

  120. vigilantfish says:

    aaron says:
    June 21, 2011 at 8:58 am

    Fish breed fast. Enforcement of a moratorium can recover most fish populations quickly.

    ————-

    Tell that to the Canadian scientists overseeing the Northwest Atlantic cod fishing moratorium, first imposed in 1992. The moratorium is still ongoing (19years later). Only in the past year have there emerged the first signs of a possible recovery – one that will take further decades if fish stocks are to recover their former density.

    Your comment shows a lack of knowledge of variant fish life histories. For short-lived fish what you say may be true, but some species live for 80 or more years, and unlike trees, experience increasing fecundity with age. Northern Cod females do not become effectively reproductive until around 7 years of age in northern waters, and as Canadian fisheries biologists belatedly discovered, their reproductive success increases with maturity.

    If a cod spawns 1 million eggs, only one or two of the hatching fish will survive to maturity. A 20-year old female may spawn 5 million eggs annually – with a consequently higher chance of reproductive success. Unfortunately, Canadian fisheries managers were treating the northern cod stocks as if they were identical to the cod stocks of New England, which mature at an earlier age, and allowing fish below reproductive maturity to make up the bulk of the catch leading up to 1992.

    Another instance is given by Pacific rockfish. Pacific rockfish live over 80 years, are slow to mature, and their fish stocks, were ‘managed’ as if they had a 10-year life span – i.e. most fish were taken before they had a chance to reproduce. Pacific rockfish will likewise take decades to recover under a complete moratorium.

    Another complication is caused by the dynamic and unpredictable ocean environment. In some years spawning occurs coincidentally with a massive plankton bloom and newly spawned fish fry have abundant food. In other years a late spring or unusually cold water may result in the newly hatched fry encountering essentially no plankton whatsoever, with predictable results. If a fish stock does not have a complex age structure available, due to overfishing, or existing stock depletion, the results can be catastrophic – and would further delay any recovery.

    Overfishing is not some environmentalist fantasy; the effects of removing entire species from an ‘ecosystem’ have further repercussions. Whilst I agree that the alarmist article is over the top, I hope that people here will not dismiss the very real problems facing the ocean environment, which are demonstrably caused by human intervention in several (if not many) cases.

  121. Wayne Richards says:

    At first sight of this press release, I wondered which hand they were holding out for grant money.

    But with the “it’s worse than we thought” message, I thought I had the answer: both hands.

    Then I noticed the “Intercontinental” part of the committee’s name. Now I know.

    Both hands, yes. Pushing a shopping cart!

  122. Rob Crawford says:

    “However tying all this up with the false fear of ocean acidification…”

    Amen. I saw a National Geographic magazine with a piece on “ocean acidification”. They were comparing a coral reef with a section of ocean atop a volcanic gas seep, and trying to connect the effects of the gas seep to the effects of atmospheric CO2.

    One, the idea that the atmosphere would EVER get so high in CO2 as to equal a volcanic source. Two, the comparison of the CORE of the vent area to a healthy area. Three, no mention of the effects the increased CO2 in the water had around the edges of the vent area.

  123. Rob Crawford says:

    “So, the bottom line is, there is actual research, and lots of it, to support their findings.”

    Rrrrriiiiiggghhhhhhttttt….

    There’s also actual research showing that Greenpeace is not an actual environmental organization, but rather one intent on the support and fostering of totalitarian governments.

  124. Billy Liar says:

    R. Gates says:
    June 21, 2011 at 10:56 am

    So, the bottom line is, there is actual research, and lots of it, to support their findings.

    Thanks for the link, but no -there is a long list of papers.

    I read the first referenced paper which supposedly supports ‘disturbances of the carbon cycle associated with each of the previous five mass extinctions on Earth’. The words carbon cycle only appear in that document in the title of a reference.

    So the first paper referenced in your linked document doesn’t support their findings. I can’t be bothered with the rest.

    Here is a quote for you to take away from the conclusion of that paper:

    Indeed, debates continue among paleontologists about whether some of these episodes (particularly the Late
    Devonian and end-Triassic) actually constitute mass extinctions

  125. TRM says:

    While I don’t like using the world’s water as our collective toilet I do think anyone’s save the planet and all life on it hubris is funny. Not just in a George Carlin way but I’d love to see their plan for moving the earth out farther in orbit as the sun expands.

  126. As an aside, the ‘alumium can lives in the sea for 500 years’ myth has been promoted by Greenpeace and ilk. However, in our seawater aquariums they disappear within 5 years, the flip tops take a bit longer.

    We may be mocking the fear and concern of ‘warmists’ and ‘conservationists’ but the world is somewhat in a mess. The problem is where to obtain reliable information rather than propaganda? As a skeptic I’ve been working on this since 1990, and my conclusion is that only reliable education can help us ‘do the right thing for the right reasons at the right time’. So spend some time informing yourself about the world’s foremost problems relating to land, sea and air. Some effort on your part will be needed, because this is pure science after all. Are you up to it? Then tell others. Let the skeptical snowball roll.
    http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/climate.htm
    With over 4000 printed pages and over 5000 images it has been a labour of love and is still not completed. I am working on the fisheries issue but the science of it is so politicised that truth and fact are very hard to find.

  127. ScientistForTruth says:

    It is reported on the BBC website that ‘Carbon dioxide levels are now so high…that ways of pulling the gas out of the atmosphere need to be researched urgently…”We have to bring down CO2 emissions to zero within about 20 years,” Professor Hoegh-Guldberg told BBC News.’

    I’m surprised that anyone making such silly statements can be taken seriously. Hoegh-Guldberg is one of the most crazed of these chicken little, alarmist types who discredits the name of science. I care nothing about his scientific credentials – he is using them to get a platform with the media to spread falsehood.

    In 1999, Hoegh-Guldberg warned that the Great Barrier Reef was under pressure from global warming, and much of it had turned white. When others checked up on him and found that wasn’t the case he said the reef had made a ‘surprising’ recovery.

    In 2006, he warned that “between 30 and 40 per cent of coral on Queensland’s great Barrier Reef could die within a month”. When it didn’t he had to admit there had been ‘a minimal impact’.

    In 2007, he warned again that global warming was bleaching the reef. The following year the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network announced that there had been no significant damage to the reef caused by climate change in the four years since its last report.

    Anyone can set up a body with a grandiose name like the International Programme on the State of the Oceans and then generate absolute nonsense, and the likes of Richard Black at the BBC will just pick it up. This is not the output of a scientific body, this is advocacy, and if you look at the co-sponsors of the report you will find the likes of Greenpeace all over it. Who are those on ‘IPSO’s unique consortium…including those from the legal, communications and political arenas’? Who were the ’27 participants from 18 organisations in 6 countries [who] produced a grave assessment of current threats’?

    Well, there’s

    Barry Gardiner, Labour MP for Brent North, and Vice President Globe UK, the Global Legislators Organisation, a pressure group for ‘advancing domestic legislation on climate change’ according to their website.

    Aurelie Spadone, Dan Laffoley, James Oliver, Kristina Gjerde, and Patricio Bernal of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, an advocacy group.

    Kelly Rigg, Executive Director, Global Campaign for Climate Action, former senior campaign director for Greenpeace International during 20 years with the organization.

    Josh Reichert and Karen Sack of the Pew Environment Group, an advocacy group.

    Mirella Von Lindenfels representing IPSO, the organizing advocacy group.

    Conn Nugent of the JM Kaplan Fund, a fund that bankrolls Green advocacy.

    Matt Gianni, Policy Advisor of the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition (DSCC), an advocacy group with Greenpeace on the Steering Committee.

    Charlotte Smith, Senior Accounts Director of Communications Inc, which does corporate communications for Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, WWF, the JM Kaplan Fund, IPSO, DSCC, and other Green advocacy groups.

    Derek Tittensor, who works for the United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre.

    Oh my, I’m really impressed by this line up at the IPSO ‘high-level international workshop’! More than half the delegates work for, bankroll or are suppliers to Big Green. This is just an echo chamber for green advocacy groups who have an incestuous relationship in projects like this with politically motivated ‘scientists’ who like to get off on an ego trip and have their views splashed around the media.

    What are the recommendations of this IPSO workshop apart from an immediate deep cut in carbon emissions? All deep green, deep socialism, total world governance by the UN (of course!), I’m afraid. There are no recommendations whatsoever to do with science:

    ‘universal implementation of the precautionary principle by reversing the burden of proof’

    ‘urgent introduction…of effective governance of the High Seas beyond the jurisdiction of individual nations…Such a regime should include powers to levy fines [and] suspend a State’s right to flag vessels…’

    ‘[to] avoid, reduce or at minimum universally and stringently regulate oil, gas, aggregate and mineral extraction’

    Imagine a world with no oil, gas, aggregate or mineral extraction, and with shipping suspended, and nothing ever being able to be done because the burden of proof is reversed under universal precautionary principle. The end of civilization, a world where billions die in poverty and starvation. This is a world where mankind has no environmental impact, because mankind will have done the planet a favour and exterminated itself, except for those who are servants and clients of the UN. Welcome to the Green paradise.

  128. Stephen Brown says:

    @Tom says:
    June 21, 2011 at 12:25 pm
    You wrote:-
    “I doubt very much if the kitchen at Canonbury Villas, London, N1 2PN would carry as much weight – but it would be entirely appropriate.”
    I Googled the address and ruined my keyboard!!
    Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

  129. Paul Ehrlich, in 1981, predicted that by the year 2000 half of the earth’s species would be extinct and all would be gone by 2015.

    Just four years to go folks and we’re gonners!

    I can’t even see the pesky grey squirrels going extinct round here!!

  130. Mike Borgelt says:

    ScientistForTruth says:
    June 21, 2011 at 2:49 pm

    Huge-Goldbrick isn’t a crazy. He’s a very good used car salesman who got into the wrong field.

  131. ScientistForTruth says:

    Dr Alex Rogers has done loads of work for UN agencies, for GLOBE, and as he says “I have also worked for other NGOs including the WWF, Greenpeace and the Deep-Sea Conservation Coalition”

    http://static.zsl.org/files/alex-rogers-research-information-1091.pdf

    Rogers is on the steering group (along with Greenpeace) of the DSCC.

    His ZSL page (now taken down but still available in cache) confirms that he has worked for: “UN Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO), UN Division of Oceans and Law of the Sea (UN-DOALOS), UN International Seabed Authority (ISA), and NGOs including WWF and Greenpeace.”

    Why am I not surprised?

  132. Gary Pearse says:

    If you call your org int’l program on the state of oceans you have already concluded in advance that they are already in rough shape. You’re not going to meet, decide the oceans are hunky dory and go home! Indeed this built-in foregone conclusion in the name is a grey lit giveaway. I recall on an earlier post some time ago on the rapid extinctions being caused by cagw,Willis Eschenbach asked “Where are the bodies?” If you are having mass extinctions there would be millions of tons of bodies putrifying along the shores, plugging the estuaries, interfering with navigation. Remember the previous SH winter the bitter cold in S. America wiped out domestic and wild animals in Brazil, froze several hundred children in Peru and choked the waterways of Ecuador with dead fish, turtles and crocs – hey there were lots of bodies and this was the reverse of gw. I hardly saw much reporting on this “weather” disaster.

  133. Louis says:

    Harold Camping used his twisted interpretation of the Bible to predict the end of the world. And even when he was proven wrong (twice), it doesn’t deter him. He just keeps on making new predictions — and the scientists laugh. But how are these scientists any different? They keep twisting the scientific process to make their own predictions about the end of the world. Be it overpopulation, a silent spring, acid rain, China syndrome, ozone depletion, global cooling, global warming, or the death of the oceans, they keep making dire predictions and getting it wrong. But that doesn’t stop them. As soon as one prediction fails to materialize, they immediately come out with another.

    “The superstition of science scoffs at the superstition of faith.” – James A. Froude

  134. Brian Hall says:

    Louis says:
    June 21, 2011 at 7:33 pm

    As soon as one prediction fails to materialize, they immediately come out with another.

    Same reason as Camping had: predictions pay! They induce politicians and other fools to throw money at you to avert the putatively almost inevitable. The direr the doom, the more money. CAGW, for instance …

  135. Brian Hall says:

    P.S. About Camping: how soon will he finally be D. Camping?

  136. anticlimactic says:

    The sad thing is that by emphasising climate as the main cause it suggests the solution is the impossible task of ‘fighting’ climate change, which could only be done on a global scale, and would fail anyway.

    Overfishing and pollution IS a problem and CAN be tackled on any scale, from small local initiatives to a global effort.

    In general green organisations are failing in what they originally meant to do by making the solution too massive to achieve.

    For example in China the emphasis has been on CO2 reduction, but it would have been more fruitful to concentrate on reducing pollution, again which can be done on any scale from individual factories to the country as a whole.

    Most so-called ‘ Green’ organisations are no longer really green.

  137. It is a shame that science has degraded to this. But it needs to be said….so let the truth speak for itself.

    Also…Barry Woods made it clear about his concerns from overfishing and pollution. Thanks for the commitment to logic, Barry. Much appreciated.

    BTW…Vigilantfish your comments are on point.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  138. R. Gates says:

    Billy Liar says:
    June 21, 2011 at 1:32 pm

    R. Gates says:
    June 21, 2011 at 10:56 am

    …So, the bottom line is, there is actual research, and lots of it, to support their findings.

    Thanks for the link, but no -there is a long list of papers.

    _____
    Yeah Billy, there actually is, but as you said, “you can’t be bothered” with such a long list.

  139. Jeff Alberts says:

    Jeezus there’s a group for everything. I’ll bet there’s even an international group against public nail clipping…

    What?

    http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2263435357

    That’s it. I must end my life.

    /sarc

  140. George Lawson says:

    TRM says:
    June 21, 2011 at 2:08 pm
    “While I don’t like using the world’s water as our collective toilet I do think anyone’s save the planet and all life on it hubris is funny”

    Whales, sharks, fish, birds and the billions of other animals in the sea have all been using the oceans as their collective toilet since time began. I have a relatively small pool with over 100 large goldfish in it. They have been using the pool as their collective toilet for many years, and so far they remain in the best of health and the water remains pure. Could we be wrong about the dangers of human bodily waste contaminating the seas, in other words could any human waste that is discharged into the sea be contributing to other forms of life in the oceans, we know it does on land?.

  141. klem says:

    This story has been parroted all over the world on TV, radio and print. Apparently the lefty alarmist journalists are still around, perhaps trying to make some kind of revival. I thought the MSM had already learned their lesson regarding this type of alarmism, this is like some kind of throwback to the good ol’ days before Climategate and Copenhagen 2009. I hear a lot of alarmists are trying to call our era the anthropocene, perhaps this report is part of that strategy. The left with its self-loathing; I don’t know how these people get through each day, yuck.

    WikiP defines it “The Anthropocene is a recent and informal geologic chronological term that serves to mark the evidence and extent of human activities that have had a significant global impact on the Earth’s ecosystems.”

  142. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:

    Even the Chinese seem to blame themselves for overfishing!

    http://www.chinapost.com.tw/life/environment/2008/04/17/152382/Over-fishing-causes.htm

Comments are closed.