3 ms·

a) s/yourself/you to/ b) a laughably small number of whales -- even though it's more than it was -- doesn't invalidate the premise of the article. The only reas

a) s/yourself/you to/ b) a laughably small number of whales -- even though it's more than it was -- doesn't invalidate the premise of the article. The only reason there are a few more whales than there were is the ban on hunting. The reason there aren't lot more of them is that there isn't enough food, because you, and me, and everyone else is fucking up the climate.

pvaldes 5y ago
Fixed, many thanks. If the main predator of one species is increased by, lets say x500 (nobody knows the real value really) and we observe a significant reduction in the number of preys, this is the first thing that we must assure to mention in our discussion. As research is a so slow process I'm having a hard time thinking that everybody just forgot to see the 'big whale in the room'. A logical explanation is that they put their bet in the winner horse (those that would sell better and had more options to end the publishing race). The logical, but boring explanation would be put under the rug. I could be wrong, of course, but this is not how science should work (in my arrogant opinion). > The reason there aren't lot more of them is that there isn't enough food, because everyone is fucking up the climate. We need to choose between the truth or the ideology. A simpler alternative explanation is that the ecosystem changed and do not have room for allowing more whales. Other that we just see the population in the middle of a recovery, not the final phase and our grandsons will see much more whales and even much less krill. Whales mature and breed slowly so they recover slowly. Ship traffic, fish nets, fish hooks, diseases or whale fishing quotes don't help. The lack of food can be related with climate warming, but also with over-fishing and plastic pollution.

3 ms·

a) s/yourself/you to/ b) a laughably small number of whales -- even though it's more than it was -- doesn't invalidate the premise of the article. The only reas

by hallarempt 5y ago

pvaldes 5y ago
Fixed, many thanks. If the main predator of one species is increased by, lets say x500 (nobody knows the real value really) and we observe a significant reduction in the number of preys, this is the first thing that we must assure to mention in our discussion. As research is a so slow process I'm having a hard time thinking that everybody just forgot to see the 'big whale in the room'. A logical explanation is that they put their bet in the winner horse (those that would sell better and had more options to end the publishing race). The logical, but boring explanation would be put under the rug. I could be wrong, of course, but this is not how science should work (in my arrogant opinion). > The reason there aren't lot more of them is that there isn't enough food, because everyone is fucking up the climate. We need to choose between the truth or the ideology. A simpler alternative explanation is that the ecosystem changed and do not have room for allowing more whales. Other that we just see the population in the middle of a recovery, not the final phase and our grandsons will see much more whales and even much less krill. Whales mature and breed slowly so they recover slowly. Ship traffic, fish nets, fish hooks, diseases or whale fishing quotes don't help. The lack of food can be related with climate warming, but also with over-fishing and plastic pollution.