4 ms·

Perhaps your friends work in a region like the GOM where anoxic zones are a substantial and growing issue or regions where management remains poor so the sentim

by kuhewa 3y ago

Perhaps your friends work in a region like the GOM where anoxic zones are a substantial and growing issue or regions where management remains poor so the sentiment would be accurate for their domain, but it isn't even close to holding true globally for all fish stocks, neither effects of low oxygen nor overharvesting etc. There were big improvements in stock assessment and fisheries management around 15-20 years ago and many formerly overfished stocks are on a positive trend since [1] [1] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1909726116 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1909726116

a_bonobo 3y ago
While Ray Hilborn is one of the biggest (most publishing) voices in academic fisheries research, others absolutely hate him: Greenpeace calls him a 'overfishing denier' https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/research/overfishing-denier/ https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/research/overfishing-denier/ >As part of their investigation into our appeal, the journal also posted a correction noting that several authors of a paper defending the Marine Stewardship Council were actually employed by the MSC – and Ray Hilborn had received funding from certifiers employed by the MSC. Small victories, perhaps, but in an era where we need strong scientific advice more than ever, we cannot afford to have research clouded by undisclosed conflicts of interest.
- kuhewa 3y ago
  Ray never denied receiving industry funding, and is pretty transparent about it. It's pretty common in fisheries science. Greenpeace's big gotcha was rather feeble in my opinion. As you said he is prolific in the field. Yet the best Greenpeace could do was get a correction published on a minor paper to say he received industry funding in the five years prior — but that didn't support that particular research [1]. He also received funding from WWF in that period, so is he also a environmentalist shill along with a fishing industry shill? Note that Greenpeace can't manage to critique, nor find someone to critique, the actual science. [1] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0210843#pone.0210843.s001 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
  - rcme 3y ago
    You can’t deny it’s a massive conflict of interest. You cannot trust science done in such an environment, sorry.
    - kuhewa 3y ago
      I'm curious, Please find the list of funding bodies appended to the PLOS one article and let me know which presented a 'massive conflict of interest' due to being in the five years preceding that article?
      - rcme 3y ago
        His consulting clients are either fishers or construction companies doing invasive environmental construction work. Which clients aren’t a massive conflict of interest? Is it surprising that he finds no issue with current fishing practices when many industry players are paying his bills? Isn’t there a saying, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it”?
    - brutusborn 3y ago
      You can’t trust it enough to rebut it? That doesn’t make sense. If his results are biased due to funding sources then it should be even easier to call bullshit on his science. Reminds me of people who don’t want public debates on controversial topics because “we don’t want to platform our opponents bad ideas.” Their point is weak so they refuse to engage. Same with Greenpeace: can’t argue the science? Just use an ad hominem!
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- brutusborn 3y ago
  If Greenpeace hates him, that’s a pretty good indication that he’s a reasonable scientist imo. Greenpeace is generally unreasonable politically and scientifically. Their efforts to stop nuclear development have likely caused a third of anthropogenic warming. Their campaigns make the public hate them. They are not a good org to trust for balanced science.
  - zamalek 3y ago
    Yep. Greenpeace is one of the major reasons we're in this mess to begin with, with their extremely successful anti-nuclear campaigns.
a2tech 3y ago
North Atlantic, Great Lakes, African great lakes, and northern Pacific. Lots of hand waving about improvements but the people who I know that work directly with it and have dedicated their lives to studying such things say the opposite.
- sacrosancty 3y ago
  [dead]
- kuhewa 3y ago
  > Lots of hand waving about improvements I imagine it doesn't seem ironic to you because people you trust gave a compelling narrative, but for the rest of us all you've given us is (second-hand) handwaving. All we mutually have to go off of is data, and anyone can go check what stocks are being taken off the overfished list [1] in a some of the areas you named. I'm not claiming all fish stocks are doing great. Some remain overfished, some are in bad shape or shifting out of their historical ranges due to climate, etc. But unconditional doomerism applies here at least as poorly as it does on average. [1] https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable-fisheries/status-stocks-2022 https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable-fisheries/status-...

by kuhewa 3y ago

a_bonobo 3y ago

While Ray Hilborn is one of the biggest (most publishing) voices in academic fisheries research, others absolutely hate him: Greenpeace calls him a 'overfishing denier' https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/research/overfishing-denier/ https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/research/overfishing-denier/ >As part of their investigation into our appeal, the journal also posted a correction noting that several authors of a paper defending the Marine Stewardship Council were actually employed by the MSC – and Ray Hilborn had received funding from certifiers employed by the MSC. Small victories, perhaps, but in an era where we need strong scientific advice more than ever, we cannot afford to have research clouded by undisclosed conflicts of interest.

kuhewa 3y ago
Ray never denied receiving industry funding, and is pretty transparent about it. It's pretty common in fisheries science. Greenpeace's big gotcha was rather feeble in my opinion. As you said he is prolific in the field. Yet the best Greenpeace could do was get a correction published on a minor paper to say he received industry funding in the five years prior — but that didn't support that particular research [1]. He also received funding from WWF in that period, so is he also a environmentalist shill along with a fishing industry shill? Note that Greenpeace can't manage to critique, nor find someone to critique, the actual science. [1] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0210843#pone.0210843.s001 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
- rcme 3y ago
  You can’t deny it’s a massive conflict of interest. You cannot trust science done in such an environment, sorry.
  - kuhewa 3y ago
    I'm curious, Please find the list of funding bodies appended to the PLOS one article and let me know which presented a 'massive conflict of interest' due to being in the five years preceding that article?
    - rcme 3y ago
      His consulting clients are either fishers or construction companies doing invasive environmental construction work. Which clients aren’t a massive conflict of interest? Is it surprising that he finds no issue with current fishing practices when many industry players are paying his bills? Isn’t there a saying, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it”?
  - brutusborn 3y ago
    You can’t trust it enough to rebut it? That doesn’t make sense. If his results are biased due to funding sources then it should be even easier to call bullshit on his science. Reminds me of people who don’t want public debates on controversial topics because “we don’t want to platform our opponents bad ideas.” Their point is weak so they refuse to engage. Same with Greenpeace: can’t argue the science? Just use an ad hominem!
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
brutusborn 3y ago
If Greenpeace hates him, that’s a pretty good indication that he’s a reasonable scientist imo. Greenpeace is generally unreasonable politically and scientifically. Their efforts to stop nuclear development have likely caused a third of anthropogenic warming. Their campaigns make the public hate them. They are not a good org to trust for balanced science.
- zamalek 3y ago
  Yep. Greenpeace is one of the major reasons we're in this mess to begin with, with their extremely successful anti-nuclear campaigns.

a2tech 3y ago

North Atlantic, Great Lakes, African great lakes, and northern Pacific. Lots of hand waving about improvements but the people who I know that work directly with it and have dedicated their lives to studying such things say the opposite.

sacrosancty 3y ago
[dead]
kuhewa 3y ago
> Lots of hand waving about improvements I imagine it doesn't seem ironic to you because people you trust gave a compelling narrative, but for the rest of us all you've given us is (second-hand) handwaving. All we mutually have to go off of is data, and anyone can go check what stocks are being taken off the overfished list [1] in a some of the areas you named. I'm not claiming all fish stocks are doing great. Some remain overfished, some are in bad shape or shifting out of their historical ranges due to climate, etc. But unconditional doomerism applies here at least as poorly as it does on average. [1] https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable-fisheries/status-stocks-2022 https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable-fisheries/status-...