.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great Home Reef Aquariums of the World <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

.
.

I love you all.

Peace, love and mung beans.

ruby said:

Peace, love and mung beans.

Found the vegan

I fucking hate fucking fish tanks!

kii said:

I fucking hate fucking fish tanks!

Me too! I’ll stick to fucking humans thanks!

kii said:

I fucking hate fucking fish tanks!

dv said:

kii said:

I fucking hate fucking fish tanks!

Me too! I’ll stick to fucking humans thanks!

Gawd…..*rolls eyes falls off chair *

“I’ll have the linguine with scallops please”
-“Wha … I thought you were a vegan.”
“I’m a bivalvegan.”
-”…Is that an actual thing?”
“Sure. Look it up.”
-“Fine. I’m a carnovegan.”

The_observer said:

kii said:

I fucking hate fucking fish tanks!

Discus fish!!!!???

Do you know how many died in the garage that night? Huh? Huh?

kii said:

I fucking hate fucking fish tanks!

Id hate it too if I saw that

dv said:

kii said:

I fucking hate fucking fish tanks!

Me too! I’ll stick to fucking humans thanks!

• Do you know how many died in the garage that night?

I remember it like it was yesterday…

See through fish are cool!

I must explain calmly….the father of my sons started a tropical fish hobby just after son#1 was born. At one point we, I mean…he, had 35 fish tanks through the house and the garage.

I was dragged into the insanity after my mothering instincts were guilt tripped into feeding the baby golden angel fish boiled egg yolk squeezed through steralised cheesecloth.

Obviously it was a difficult period in my life.

35 fish tanks

Did he ever get serious about the hobbie then?

The_observer said:

35 fish tanks

Did he ever get serious about the hobbie then?

Well, yes. I think the Night of the Dead Discus sort of was the downhill slide. He had raised them from little squidges to a decent size. I actually felt sorry for him.

I loved how my dad would peer into the tanks at the various aquatic creatures and say: Oo…this one’s nearly plate size!

The fish fanatic was a vego and was not impressed.

CrazyNeutrino said:

See through fish are cool!

See through humans would be cool too

Genetic Engineering would allow that

those octopuses um, Octopi, um Octopoda, um Octopodiformes, um octopods

anyway they have this ability to change their colour

we could use their genetic coding, merge it with ours and with a bit more tweaking we can become transparent

dv said:

kii said:

I fucking hate fucking fish tanks!

Me too! I’ll stick to fucking humans thanks!

You’ll do as you’re damn well told, young man!

kii said:

The_observer said:

35 fish tanks

Did he ever get serious about the hobbie then?

Well, yes. I think the Night of the Dead Discus sort of was the downhill slide. He had raised them from little squidges to a decent size. I actually felt sorry for him.

was an autopsy performed

The_observer said:

kii said:

The_observer said:

35 fish tanks

Did he ever get serious about the hobbie then?

Well, yes. I think the Night of the Dead Discus sort of was the downhill slide. He had raised them from little squidges to a decent size. I actually felt sorry for him.

was an autopsy performed

Their tank had a slow leak. No autopsy required.

kii said:

The_observer said:

kii said:

Well, yes. I think the Night of the Dead Discus sort of was the downhill slide. He had raised them from little squidges to a decent size. I actually felt sorry for him.

was an autopsy performed

Their tank had a slow leak. No autopsy required.

I could say – why not just top up, or move them to another one of the 35 tanks ?..

but, I won’t…

because it could cause outrage & this is a outrage free zone

The_observer said:

kii said:

The_observer said:

was an autopsy performed

Their tank had a slow leak. No autopsy required.

I could say – why not just top up, or move them to another one of the 35 tanks ?..

but, I won’t…

because it could cause outrage & this is a outrage free zone

The were dead…mostly. No water for a while. Drowned in the air. A little tail flip by one IIRC

kii said:

The_observer said:

kii said:

Their tank had a slow leak. No autopsy required.

I could say – why not just top up, or move them to another one of the 35 tanks ?..

but, I won’t…

because it could cause outrage & this is a outrage free zone

The were dead…mostly. No water for a while. Drowned in the air. A little tail flip by one IIRC

ok, so it must have been a fast slow leak that emptied the tank overnight?

Most of the tanks were in the garage where this one was. Apparently the leak started at some point in the afternoon or midday or 3pm or something. At late o’clock the empty tank with dead/dying fish was discovered.

They were very pretty fish, but not once they died.

kii said:

The_observer said:

kii said:

Their tank had a slow leak. No autopsy required.

I could say – why not just top up, or move them to another one of the 35 tanks ?..

but, I won’t…

because it could cause outrage & this is a outrage free zone

The were dead…mostly. No water for a while. Drowned in the air. A little tail flip by one IIRC

Warning: the following photo could cause outrage!

If outrage is felt, please, stay calm, stay silent & leave the thread.

kii said:

Most of the tanks were in the garage where this one was. Apparently the leak started at some point in the afternoon or midday or 3pm or something. At late o’clock the empty tank with dead/dying fish was discovered.

They were very pretty fish, but not once they died.

Tasty?

kii said:

Most of the tanks were in the garage where this one was. Apparently the leak started at some point in the afternoon or midday or 3pm or something. At late o’clock the empty tank with dead/dying fish was discovered.

They were very pretty fish, but not once they died.

yes, they certainly are

furious said:

WHAT THE F ???????

no lemon

Non outrage trivia question-

What do the two fish below have in common?

????????

The_observer said:

Non outrage trivia question-

What do the two fish below have in common?

????????

They are both vertebrates

dv said:

The_observer said:

Non outrage trivia question-

What do the two fish below have in common?

????????

They are both vertebrates

yes but no

The_observer said:

dv said:

The_observer said:

Non outrage trivia question-

What do the two fish below have in common?

????????

They are both vertebrates

yes but no

They are both pissing in the same pond?

bob(from black rock) said:

The_observer said:

dv said:

They are both vertebrates

yes but no

They are both pissing in the same pond?

no, but not close

The_observer said:

Non outrage trivia question-

What do the two fish below have in common?

????????

give up everybody ?

OK

I’ll tell you.

They are both South American Cichlids.

• no lemon

I purposely chose one without lemon…

The_observer said:

The_observer said:

Non outrage trivia question-

What do the two fish below have in common?

????????

give up everybody ?

OK

I’ll tell you.

They are both South American Cichlids.

Not to be confused with African Cichlids

furious said:

• no lemon

I purposely chose one without lemon…

(thinks to myself,,,calm down, calm down)

That reminds me, better cut the lemon for tonight’s fish dinner

Arts said:

That reminds me, better cut the lemon for tonight’s fish dinner

flathead?

The_observer said:

Arts said:

That reminds me, better cut the lemon for tonight’s fish dinner

flathead?

Salmon

The_observer said:

furious said:

WHAT THE F ???????

no lemon

Hahahahahahaha!

Michael V said:

The_observer said:

furious said:

WHAT THE F ???????

no lemon

Hahahahahahaha!

I like a fish curry with nan

bread that is

Arts said:

The_observer said:

Arts said:

That reminds me, better cut the lemon for tonight’s fish dinner

flathead?

Salmon

Yum, got room for one more ?

Correction, “I luvs yers awl”

Do You Know Where Your Aquarium Fish Come From?

Watching flamboyantly colored fish flit about a saltwater aquarium can be relaxing. Figuring out where they came from, and whether they were caught in a sustainable manner, can be an exercise in frustration.

The aquarium trade is a global industry with no centralized database to track what gets bought and sold, and with no central governing body to enforce regulations. Collectors and exporters in places as far-flung as the Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Florida pump tens of millions of marine animals—more than half of which end up in the U.S.—into the multimillion-dollar business each year, often with little or no oversight.

About 1,800 tropical fish species are involved in the international trade, says Andrew Rhyne of the New England Aquarium in Boston and Roger Williams University in Bristol, Rhode Island. Hundreds more species of invertebrates, including live corals, are also part of this pipeline.

Removing animals from the wild can have serious consequences-both for their survival as a species and for their habitat. But the effects vary from species to species. Green chromide fish, for instance, are quite plentiful in the wild, says Rhyne, and their “population is under no threat at all from collection.” On the other hand, species like the royal or regal blue tang—the fish that Dory from Disney/Pixar’s Finding Nemo was based on—have been overcollected and are in danger in the wild.

More:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/07/140718-aquarium-fish-source-sustainability-animals-ocean-science/

• Do You Know Where Your Aquarium Fish Come From?

There is always one…

furious said:

• Do You Know Where Your Aquarium Fish Come From?

There is always one…

For all our well being there is always a cost and mostly that is from the environment. Pity we can’t see past our greed.

when a daddy fish loves a mummy fish very much

• For all our well being there is always a cost and mostly that is from the environment. Pity we can’t see past our greed.

Well why don’t you start an outrage thread then?

furious said:

• For all our well being there is always a cost and mostly that is from the environment. Pity we can’t see past our greed.

Well why don’t you start an outrage thread then?

Thought everyone was outraged here about something or someone. Isn’t that what this is forum about?

PermeateFree said:

furious said:

• For all our well being there is always a cost and mostly that is from the environment. Pity we can’t see past our greed.

Well why don’t you start an outrage thread then?

Thought everyone was outraged here about something or someone. Isn’t that what this is forum about?

I’m more annoyed about the stupidity of the human race as a collective with its greed and short sightedness

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

furious said:

• For all our well being there is always a cost and mostly that is from the environment. Pity we can’t see past our greed.

Well why don’t you start an outrage thread then?

Thought everyone was outraged here about something or someone. Isn’t that what this is forum about?

I’m more annoyed about the stupidity of the human race as a collective with its greed and short sightedness

I stand corrected.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/844803208917464/844806212250497/?notif_t=group_activity

ruby said:

Peace, love and mung beans.

Sounds like my daily bread. :)

ChrispenEvan said:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/844803208917464/844806212250497/?notif_t=group_activity

Sorry, too long to read, what is it about?

PermeateFree said:

furious said:

• For all our well being there is always a cost and mostly that is from the environment. Pity we can’t see past our greed.

Well why don’t you start an outrage thread then?

Thought everyone was outraged here about something or someone. Isn’t that what this is forum about?

No. Not in my case at least.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

furious said:

• For all our well being there is always a cost and mostly that is from the environment. Pity we can’t see past our greed.

Well why don’t you start an outrage thread then?

Thought everyone was outraged here about something or someone. Isn’t that what this is forum about?

No. Not in my case at least.

There are some here who are outraged about you, didn’t you notice?

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

Thought everyone was outraged here about something or someone. Isn’t that what this is forum about?

No. Not in my case at least.

There are some here who are outraged about you, didn’t you notice?

For no good reason either

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

Thought everyone was outraged here about something or someone. Isn’t that what this is forum about?

No. Not in my case at least.

There are some here who are outraged about you, didn’t you notice?

I maintain my right to maintain their outrage.

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

No. Not in my case at least.

There are some here who are outraged about you, didn’t you notice?

For no good reason either

I heartily endorse that latter.

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

There are some here who are outraged about you, didn’t you notice?

For no good reason either

I heartily endorse that latter.

Maintain the rage rb.

Aquariums are brilliant. I can watch them for hours without a break, and that’s not true of any other part of RL.

The_observer said:

.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great Home Reef Aquariums of the World <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

.
.

How much would one of those reef-style aquariums set me back?

Bubblecar said:

How much would one of those reef-style aquariums set me back?

lots of money to buy

lots of money to maintain

and time

mollwollfumble said:

Aquariums are brilliant. I can watch them for hours without a break, and that’s not true of any other part of RL.

Any part of RealLife™ can do that for me but then, much of it is looking at a watch until it works properly.

Just get a big screen tv and get a DVD, screensaver, etc…

Bubblecar said:

How much would one of those reef-style aquariums set me back?

an ever wallet emptying experience.

furious said:

Just get a big screen tv and get a DVD, screensaver, etc…

smarter than you portray.

roughbarked said:

Bubblecar said:

How much would one of those reef-style aquariums set me back?

an ever wallet emptying experience.

get your kids into aquariums and they’ll never have enough money to buy drugs

Arts said:

roughbarked said:

Bubblecar said:

How much would one of those reef-style aquariums set me back?

an ever wallet emptying experience.

get your kids into aquariums and they’ll never have enough money to buy drugs

I should save all of these handy tips and publish a book on parenting.

Arts said:

roughbarked said:

Bubblecar said:

How much would one of those reef-style aquariums set me back?

an ever wallet emptying experience.

get your kids into aquariums and they’ll never have enough money to buy drugs

Who here, buys drugs?

roughbarked said:

Arts said:

roughbarked said:

an ever wallet emptying experience.

get your kids into aquariums and they’ll never have enough money to buy drugs

Who here, buys drugs?

me

Bubblecar said:

How much would one of those reef-style aquariums set me back?

How long is a piece of string?

You could set a nano coral reef aquarium, or a 1,000 lt tank.

Some coral cost $20, others cost thousands.

roughbarked said:

furious said:

Just get a big screen tv and get a DVD, screensaver, etc…

smarter than you portray.

harsh

wookiemeister said:

roughbarked said:

Arts said:

get your kids into aquariums and they’ll never have enough money to buy drugs

Who here, buys drugs?

me

Which drugs and why?

The_observer said:

Bubblecar said:

How much would one of those reef-style aquariums set me back?

How long is a piece of string?

You could set a nano coral reef aquarium, or a 1,000 lt tank.

Some coral cost $20, others cost thousands.

1000 litre tank

not particularly ambitious

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

roughbarked said:

Who here, buys drugs?

me

Which drugs and why?

paracetamol

alcohols

caffeine

The_observer said:

Bubblecar said:

How much would one of those reef-style aquariums set me back?

How long is a piece of string?

You could set a nano coral reef aquarium, or a 1,000 lt tank.

Some coral cost $20, others cost thousands.

and billions to put back.

wookiemeister said:

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

me

Which drugs and why?

paracetamol

alcohols

caffeine

Aspirin this end. Paracetamol does nothing for me.

Arts said:

roughbarked said:

furious said:

Just get a big screen tv and get a DVD, screensaver, etc…

smarter than you portray.

harsh

He’s harsh on me. ;)

wookiemeister said:

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

me

Which drugs and why?

paracetamol

alcohols

caffeine

Not all at the same time, I hope.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

Bubblecar said:

How much would one of those reef-style aquariums set me back?

How long is a piece of string?

You could set a nano coral reef aquarium, or a 1,000 lt tank.

Some coral cost $20, others cost thousands.

and billions to put back.

Soft corals, LPS, a many SPS corals are fraged in captivity, not removed from the ocean, & where they are taken from the reefs it is highly regulated.

Of course someone in the hobbie would know this, but the outraged just wobble their gums

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

How long is a piece of string?

You could set a nano coral reef aquarium, or a 1,000 lt tank.

Some coral cost $20, others cost thousands.

and billions to put back.

Soft corals, LPS, a many SPS corals are fraged in captivity, not removed from the ocean, & where they are taken from the reefs it is highly regulated.

Of course someone in the hobbie would know this, but the outraged just wobble their gums

You are still neglecting the fact that these corals would still better be used by putting them out to sea, so to speak.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

and billions to put back.

Soft corals, LPS, a many SPS corals are fraged in captivity, not removed from the ocean, & where they are taken from the reefs it is highly regulated.

Of course someone in the hobbie would know this, but the outraged just wobble their gums

You are still neglecting the fact that these corals would still better be used by putting them out to sea, so to speak.

Ok, good then. You take them there. Off you go then

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

Soft corals, LPS, a many SPS corals are fraged in captivity, not removed from the ocean, & where they are taken from the reefs it is highly regulated.

Of course someone in the hobbie would know this, but the outraged just wobble their gums

You are still neglecting the fact that these corals would still better be used by putting them out to sea, so to speak.

Ok, good then. You take them there. Off you go then

How did anyone get coral in the first place? or for that matter, a budgie?

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

You are still neglecting the fact that these corals would still better be used by putting them out to sea, so to speak.

Ok, good then. You take them there. Off you go then

How did anyone get coral in the first place? or for that matter, a budgie?

I do acknowledge that science is done by taking things out of their environment and fucking about with them. But how much of that science is learning how to put them back and have it work?

I do this with clocks .. every day but how much of science is spent on it?

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

Ok, good then. You take them there. Off you go then

How did anyone get coral in the first place? or for that matter, a budgie?

I do acknowledge that science is done by taking things out of their environment and fucking about with them. But how much of that science is learning how to put them back and have it work?

I do this with clocks .. every day but how much of science is spent on it?

You personally. By this I do mean you posting as The_observer. As if you are, THE observer. Which clearly is through a self imposed diffuser. Have descried environmentalists per se.

I’ve described myself as a watchmaker who also happens to apply the same principles to my studies of the actual environment in which I exist.

Therefore I am an environmentalist with time on my hands. A lot more observation has been done on the actual environment by my hand than yours. This is clear to not only me.

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

How did anyone get coral in the first place? or for that matter, a budgie?

I do acknowledge that science is done by taking things out of their environment and fucking about with them. But how much of that science is learning how to put them back and have it work?

I do this with clocks .. every day but how much of science is spent on it?

You personally. By this I do mean you posting as The_observer. As if you are, THE observer. Which clearly is through a self imposed diffuser. Have descried environmentalists per se.

I’ve described myself as a watchmaker who also happens to apply the same principles to my studies of the actual environment in which I exist.

Therefore I am an environmentalist with time on my hands. A lot more observation has been done on the actual environment by my hand than yours. This is clear to not only me.

Oh FFS.

jjjust moi said:

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

I do acknowledge that science is done by taking things out of their environment and fucking about with them. But how much of that science is learning how to put them back and have it work?

I do this with clocks .. every day but how much of science is spent on it?

You personally. By this I do mean you posting as The_observer. As if you are, THE observer. Which clearly is through a self imposed diffuser. Have descried environmentalists per se.

I’ve described myself as a watchmaker who also happens to apply the same principles to my studies of the actual environment in which I exist.

Therefore I am an environmentalist with time on my hands. A lot more observation has been done on the actual environment by my hand than yours. This is clear to not only me.

Oh FFS.

Sure.. but it had to be said. If only for his sake.

ChrispenEvan said:

!Waves

:)

Andy Murray pulls himself back from the brink.
Milos Raonic looked to have a play on the ball, but could not summon up the skill and guts to hit a winner.
————————————————

I’m following the tennis on the BBC live blog.
Now the pommie writer might live to regret that slight.

Uncalled for so I’ve put it in the outrage thread.

Peak Warming Man said:

Andy Murray pulls himself back from the brink.
Milos Raonic looked to have a play on the ball, but could not summon up the skill and guts to hit a winner.
————————————————

I’m following the tennis on the BBC live blog.
Now the pommie writer might live to regret that slight.

Uncalled for so I’ve put it in the outrage thread.

Raonic is a big improver. He’ll be the next “big thing”, you heard it here first,

Peak Warming Man said:

Andy Murray pulls himself back from the brink.
Milos Raonic looked to have a play on the ball, but could not summon up the skill and guts to hit a winner.
————————————————

I’m following the tennis on the BBC live blog.
Now the pommie writer might live to regret that slight.

Uncalled for so I’ve put it in the outrage thread.

Therefore I can say I’ve worked on two of these in the past week.

http://www.horologist.co.uk/rotherham.htm

“I did not, as a young bacchant in the ‘60s and ‘70s, absent myself from the garden of herbal and pharmacological delights — far from it — so I found myself in an odd position, that is, lecturing a parent about drugs.”

ChrispenEvan said:

“I did not, as a young bacchant in the ‘60s and ‘70s, absent myself from the garden of herbal and pharmacological delights — far from it — so I found myself in an odd position, that is, lecturing a parent about drugs.”

It takes one, to know one.

mollwollfumble said:

Aquariums are brilliant. I can watch them for hours without a break, and that’s not true of any other part of RL.

The_observer said:

.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great Home Reef Aquariums of the World <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

.
.

Yes Moll, they are brilliant, aquariums, & a wonderful hobbie to be involved in.

:)

The_observer said:

mollwollfumble said:

Aquariums are brilliant. I can watch them for hours without a break, and that’s not true of any other part of RL.

The_observer said:

.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great Home Reef Aquariums of the World <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

.
.

Yes Moll, they are brilliant, aquariums, & a wonderful hobbie to be involved in.

:)

All of life is fun to work with.

are those corals live? or painted dead ones?

ChrispenEvan said:

are those corals live? or painted dead ones?

The lord only knows.

ChrispenEvan said:

are those corals live? or painted dead ones?

Alive & most likely growing

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

are those corals live? or painted dead ones?

The lord only knows.

You wouldn’t have a clue, so why not try zipping it, just for something different

Good name for a band – the Painted Dead.

pretty good then. keeping tanks like that takes a fair amount of work. had a mate in darwin who worked at getting balanced tanks together. couldn’t have many fish and so to most people they looked boring.

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

are those corals live? or painted dead ones?

The lord only knows.

You wouldn’t have a clue, so why not try zipping it, just for something different

Clues are live samples. send them to me and then talk your shyte.

Bubblecar said:

Good name for a band – the Painted Dead.

They were grateful, weren’t they?

ChrispenEvan said:

pretty good then. keeping tanks like that takes a fair amount of work. had a mate in darwin who worked at getting balanced tanks together. couldn’t have many fish and so to most people they looked boring.

Yeah. It is a lot of work. To be sure.

ChrispenEvan said:

pretty good then. keeping tanks like that takes a fair amount of work. had a mate in darwin who worked at getting balanced tanks together. couldn’t have many fish and so to most people they looked boring.

Having fish in the tank make it more challenging to keep corals because more fish = more feeding = a higher nutrient load to export

The_observer said:

ChrispenEvan said:

pretty good then. keeping tanks like that takes a fair amount of work. had a mate in darwin who worked at getting balanced tanks together. couldn’t have many fish and so to most people they looked boring.

Having fish in the tank make it more challenging to keep corals because more fish = more feeding = a higher nutrient load to export

Solution: robot fish.

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

pretty good then. keeping tanks like that takes a fair amount of work. had a mate in darwin who worked at getting balanced tanks together. couldn’t have many fish and so to most people they looked boring.

Yeah. It is a lot of work. To be sure.

How the fuck would u know

The_observer said:

ChrispenEvan said:

pretty good then. keeping tanks like that takes a fair amount of work. had a mate in darwin who worked at getting balanced tanks together. couldn’t have many fish and so to most people they looked boring.

Having fish in the tank make it more challenging to keep corals because more fish = more feeding = a higher nutrient load to export

A fine balance indeed.

this was back in the late 70s so i dare say the tech has improved somewhat.

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

pretty good then. keeping tanks like that takes a fair amount of work. had a mate in darwin who worked at getting balanced tanks together. couldn’t have many fish and so to most people they looked boring.

Yeah. It is a lot of work. To be sure.

How the fuck would u know

If photobucket was working I could show you my work.

Bubblecar said:

The_observer said:

ChrispenEvan said:

pretty good then. keeping tanks like that takes a fair amount of work. had a mate in darwin who worked at getting balanced tanks together. couldn’t have many fish and so to most people they looked boring.

Having fish in the tank make it more challenging to keep corals because more fish = more feeding = a higher nutrient load to export

Solution: robot fish.

No, filtration, dont over stock or over feed

ChrispenEvan said:

this was back in the late 70s so i dare say the tech has improved somewhat.

Sure has

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

Yeah. It is a lot of work. To be sure.

How the fuck would u know

If photobucket was working I could show you my work.

Not interested

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

How the fuck would u know

If photobucket was working I could show you my work.

Not interested

Yeah well, you are THE observer, so no need to remind us.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

If photobucket was working I could show you my work.

Not interested

Yeah well, you are THE observer, so no need to remind us.

Yes, i’m very popular here at the resort.

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

Not interested

Yeah well, you are THE observer, so no need to remind us.

Yes, i’m very popular here at the resort.

PLeased to meet you. May I remind you that my bark is https://www.anbg.gov.au/cpbr/cd-keys/Euclid/sample/html/roughbark.htm

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

If photobucket was working I could show you my work.

Not interested

Yeah well, you are THE observer, so no need to remind us.

His observation skills equal the bodgie brothers

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

Yeah well, you are THE observer, so no need to remind us.

Yes, i’m very popular here at the resort.

PLeased to meet you. May I remind you that my bark is https://www.anbg.gov.au/cpbr/cd-keys/Euclid/sample/html/roughbark.htm

ill take a look at that next time i take a dump in the executive washroom

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

Yes, i’m very popular here at the resort.

PLeased to meet you. May I remind you that my bark is https://www.anbg.gov.au/cpbr/cd-keys/Euclid/sample/html/roughbark.htm

ill take a look at that next time i take a dump in the executive washroom

do bears shit in the woods?

Bubblecar said:

How much would one of those reef-style aquariums set me back?

The general rule of thumb for a reef setup is $1000 per foot. That’s tank length, not per square foot.

This gives you an idea of what’s required to run a good reef tank

Teleost said:

This gives you an idea of what’s required to run a good reef tank

Destructive fishing practices

Poison fishing commonly referred to as “cyanide fishing,” is a highly destructive fishing method used to capture live fish for the aquarium and food trades.

The use of poison to kill fish is very common, in both fresh and salt water, including many coral reefs systems worldwide. This method includes squirting cyanide or other poisons into reef crevices to stun fish, making them easy to catch.

The use of poison to catch fish kills all the organisms in the ecosystem, including the corals that help form the reef.

Sodium cyanide and bleach are the two most commonly used poisons. The impact of these poisons on the reef ranges from coral bleaching to death.

Cyanide fishing is used on the now-devastated reefs of the Philippines – where an estimated 65 tons of cyanide are poured into the sea each year.

The use of explosives for blast fishing is also on the rise globally. Explosions can produce very large craters, devastating between 10 and 20 square meters of the sea floor.

PermeateFree said:

Do You Know Where Your Aquarium Fish Come From?

From the above article -

Now a campaign to stop the collection of reef fish in Hawaii, spearheaded by the group Sea Shepherd, is bringing some of these issues to light.
The organization is hoping its Reef Defense campaign will help push through stricter state laws and regulations in Hawaii dictating the collection of reef organisms for the aquarium trade, says Michael Long, director of the campaign.

Eventually, he says, “we hope that the aquarium trade will be banned altogether.”

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

from
Sea Shepherd Launches Anti-Aquarium Trade Campaign in Hawaii
By Ret Talbot, CORAL Magazine Senior Editor
23 May, 2013

Today the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society launched Operation Reef Defense, a campaign spearheaded by Sea Shepherd Vice-President Robert Wintner to shut down marine aquarium fisheries. In the Jan/Feb 2011 issue of Coral Magazine, I wrote an article called “Postcards from Hawaii” in which I looked at the past, present and future of Hawaii’s marine aquarium fisheries. In researching the article, I sat down with a lot of people, including Wintner.

My interview with Wintner was enlightening. Through it, I came to realize that, when pushed, Wintner was not really interested in looking at the data and discussing the sustainability of the marine aquarium fishery in Hawaii because, quite simply, he refuses to view it as a fishery.

Here’s the way I summed up my exchange with Wintner in the article in Coral:

Wintner begins by telling me his own story; this campaign against the aquarium trade is, after all, deeply personal for him. Wintner’s argument is primarily rooted in his own experience diving the reefs of Maui. He tells me –

Wintner
“there was once an abundance of fish in Hawaii. Now the aquarium hunters have diminished that abundance. Aquarium hunters have oppressed Hawaii’s reefs for years. With no limit on catch or number of catchers. If it doesn’t stop, there will be no fish left. “Ninety-eight percent of Hawaii’s reefs can be emptied of every fish by the aquarium trade, and it’s legal.”

Talbot -
I proffer that this is an exaggeration not based in fact. For example, 35% of the reefs on the Big Island of Hawaii, which is where the aquarium trade is concentrated, are completely off-limits to livestock collectors. I suggest that this is hyperbole in the service of his ends, but Wintner remains firm.

Wintner “They can do whatever they want”

Talbot “What about the permitting and reporting system?

Wintner
“Anyone with Internet access and 50 bucks can get a permit…and there are huge discrepancies between reported catch and actual catch. The Division of Aquatic Resources has admitted that the report of catch of 1 to 2 million fish per year is off by a factor of two to five times.”

Talbot – DAR’s published numbers do not bear any resemblance to those Wintner attributes to them.
But still, I continue, “the fishery is managed by the state to be sustainable, right?”

Wintner “A state agency manages the trade as a ‘fishery,’ and calls the aquarium trade ‘sustainable,’ but it’s really nothing more than disposable wildlife pet trafficking for the money. By sustainable the DLNR means taking all but a few brood fish so the species won’t collapse.”

Talbot – I have reams of data from marine scientists in my notebook on the table between us that clearly refute Wintner’s claims.
While there are myriad ways to interpret the data, there is no scenario in which any one species has been overfished to the point where only a few brood fish remain.

What I’m really interested in knowing is whether or not Wintner thinks the fishery itself is unsustainable at present.
“Sustainability ignores the ethical issue,” Wintner responds. And that’s when I get it.

Debating whether or not the marine aquarium fishery is sustainable is not an option with Wintner because he doesn’t agree to use the accepted language of fisheries management when it comes to marine aquarium fishes. For him, this is not about sustainability—it is about morality. As our conversation continues, Wintner won’t even discuss the marine aquarium fishery as a fishery.

Wintner –
“We don’t use the ‘f word,” (referring to fishing). “This isn’t fishing. Fishing is about sustenance. This is wildlife trafficking for the pet trade, and people shouldn’t keep wild animals.

This is a crime against nature being committed in Hawaii. I am here because +I have a relationship with fish+…>>>> It’s a moral issue.” <<<<

Talbot –
Wintner’s arguments are about ethics and morality. They are about his own individual relationships with fishes. While he sometimes uses data—hard numbers—to support his position, when pushed he always comes back to his central premise: the marine aquarium trade is immoral.

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

Bazinga

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

Do You Know Where Your Aquarium Fish Come From?

From the above article -

Now a campaign to stop the collection of reef fish in Hawaii, spearheaded by the group Sea Shepherd, is bringing some of these issues to light.
The organization is hoping its Reef Defense campaign will help push through stricter state laws and regulations in Hawaii dictating the collection of reef organisms for the aquarium trade, says Michael Long, director of the campaign.

Eventually, he says, “we hope that the aquarium trade will be banned altogether.”

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

from
Sea Shepherd Launches Anti-Aquarium Trade Campaign in Hawaii
By Ret Talbot, CORAL Magazine Senior Editor
23 May, 2013

Today the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society launched Operation Reef Defense, a campaign spearheaded by Sea Shepherd Vice-President Robert Wintner to shut down marine aquarium fisheries. In the Jan/Feb 2011 issue of Coral Magazine, I wrote an article called “Postcards from Hawaii” in which I looked at the past, present and future of Hawaii’s marine aquarium fisheries. In researching the article, I sat down with a lot of people, including Wintner.

My interview with Wintner was enlightening. Through it, I came to realize that, when pushed, Wintner was not really interested in looking at the data and discussing the sustainability of the marine aquarium fishery in Hawaii because, quite simply, he refuses to view it as a fishery.

Here’s the way I summed up my exchange with Wintner in the article in Coral:

Wintner begins by telling me his own story; this campaign against the aquarium trade is, after all, deeply personal for him. Wintner’s argument is primarily rooted in his own experience diving the reefs of Maui. He tells me –

Wintner
“there was once an abundance of fish in Hawaii. Now the aquarium hunters have diminished that abundance. Aquarium hunters have oppressed Hawaii’s reefs for years. With no limit on catch or number of catchers. If it doesn’t stop, there will be no fish left. “Ninety-eight percent of Hawaii’s reefs can be emptied of every fish by the aquarium trade, and it’s legal.”

Talbot -
I proffer that this is an exaggeration not based in fact. For example, 35% of the reefs on the Big Island of Hawaii, which is where the aquarium trade is concentrated, are completely off-limits to livestock collectors. I suggest that this is hyperbole in the service of his ends, but Wintner remains firm.

Wintner “They can do whatever they want”

Talbot “What about the permitting and reporting system?

Wintner
“Anyone with Internet access and 50 bucks can get a permit…and there are huge discrepancies between reported catch and actual catch. The Division of Aquatic Resources has admitted that the report of catch of 1 to 2 million fish per year is off by a factor of two to five times.”

Talbot – DAR’s published numbers do not bear any resemblance to those Wintner attributes to them.
But still, I continue, “the fishery is managed by the state to be sustainable, right?”

Wintner “A state agency manages the trade as a ‘fishery,’ and calls the aquarium trade ‘sustainable,’ but it’s really nothing more than disposable wildlife pet trafficking for the money. By sustainable the DLNR means taking all but a few brood fish so the species won’t collapse.”

Talbot – I have reams of data from marine scientists in my notebook on the table between us that clearly refute Wintner’s claims.
While there are myriad ways to interpret the data, there is no scenario in which any one species has been overfished to the point where only a few brood fish remain.

What I’m really interested in knowing is whether or not Wintner thinks the fishery itself is unsustainable at present.
“Sustainability ignores the ethical issue,” Wintner responds. And that’s when I get it.

Debating whether or not the marine aquarium fishery is sustainable is not an option with Wintner because he doesn’t agree to use the accepted language of fisheries management when it comes to marine aquarium fishes. For him, this is not about sustainability—it is about morality. As our conversation continues, Wintner won’t even discuss the marine aquarium fishery as a fishery.

Wintner –
“We don’t use the ‘f word,” (referring to fishing). “This isn’t fishing. Fishing is about sustenance. This is wildlife trafficking for the pet trade, and people shouldn’t keep wild animals.

This is a crime against nature being committed in Hawaii. I am here because +I have a relationship with fish+…>>>> It’s a moral issue.” <<<<

Talbot –
Wintner’s arguments are about ethics and morality. They are about his own individual relationships with fishes. While he sometimes uses data—hard numbers—to support his position, when pushed he always comes back to his central premise: the marine aquarium trade is immoral.

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

Bazinga

So you use one persons opinion of what is happening or not in Hawaii, as the panacea of what is going on in the commercial trade in aquatic fish throughout the world. The use of cyanide and bleach is real, the damage they do to marine ecosystems is real, dynamiting of reefs is real, along with the unbelievable stupidity of people like you, which unfortunately are also real.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

Do You Know Where Your Aquarium Fish Come From?

From the above article -

Now a campaign to stop the collection of reef fish in Hawaii, spearheaded by the group Sea Shepherd, is bringing some of these issues to light.
The organization is hoping its Reef Defense campaign will help push through stricter state laws and regulations in Hawaii dictating the collection of reef organisms for the aquarium trade, says Michael Long, director of the campaign.

Eventually, he says, “we hope that the aquarium trade will be banned altogether.”

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

from
Sea Shepherd Launches Anti-Aquarium Trade Campaign in Hawaii
By Ret Talbot, CORAL Magazine Senior Editor
23 May, 2013

Today the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society launched Operation Reef Defense, a campaign spearheaded by Sea Shepherd Vice-President Robert Wintner to shut down marine aquarium fisheries. In the Jan/Feb 2011 issue of Coral Magazine, I wrote an article called “Postcards from Hawaii” in which I looked at the past, present and future of Hawaii’s marine aquarium fisheries. In researching the article, I sat down with a lot of people, including Wintner.

My interview with Wintner was enlightening. Through it, I came to realize that, when pushed, Wintner was not really interested in looking at the data and discussing the sustainability of the marine aquarium fishery in Hawaii because, quite simply, he refuses to view it as a fishery.

Here’s the way I summed up my exchange with Wintner in the article in Coral:

Wintner begins by telling me his own story; this campaign against the aquarium trade is, after all, deeply personal for him. Wintner’s argument is primarily rooted in his own experience diving the reefs of Maui. He tells me –

Wintner
“there was once an abundance of fish in Hawaii. Now the aquarium hunters have diminished that abundance. Aquarium hunters have oppressed Hawaii’s reefs for years. With no limit on catch or number of catchers. If it doesn’t stop, there will be no fish left. “Ninety-eight percent of Hawaii’s reefs can be emptied of every fish by the aquarium trade, and it’s legal.”

Talbot -
I proffer that this is an exaggeration not based in fact. For example, 35% of the reefs on the Big Island of Hawaii, which is where the aquarium trade is concentrated, are completely off-limits to livestock collectors. I suggest that this is hyperbole in the service of his ends, but Wintner remains firm.

Wintner “They can do whatever they want”

Talbot “What about the permitting and reporting system?

Wintner
“Anyone with Internet access and 50 bucks can get a permit…and there are huge discrepancies between reported catch and actual catch. The Division of Aquatic Resources has admitted that the report of catch of 1 to 2 million fish per year is off by a factor of two to five times.”

Talbot – DAR’s published numbers do not bear any resemblance to those Wintner attributes to them.
But still, I continue, “the fishery is managed by the state to be sustainable, right?”

Wintner “A state agency manages the trade as a ‘fishery,’ and calls the aquarium trade ‘sustainable,’ but it’s really nothing more than disposable wildlife pet trafficking for the money. By sustainable the DLNR means taking all but a few brood fish so the species won’t collapse.”

Talbot – I have reams of data from marine scientists in my notebook on the table between us that clearly refute Wintner’s claims.
While there are myriad ways to interpret the data, there is no scenario in which any one species has been overfished to the point where only a few brood fish remain.

What I’m really interested in knowing is whether or not Wintner thinks the fishery itself is unsustainable at present.
“Sustainability ignores the ethical issue,” Wintner responds. And that’s when I get it.

Debating whether or not the marine aquarium fishery is sustainable is not an option with Wintner because he doesn’t agree to use the accepted language of fisheries management when it comes to marine aquarium fishes. For him, this is not about sustainability—it is about morality. As our conversation continues, Wintner won’t even discuss the marine aquarium fishery as a fishery.

Wintner –
“We don’t use the ‘f word,” (referring to fishing). “This isn’t fishing. Fishing is about sustenance. This is wildlife trafficking for the pet trade, and people shouldn’t keep wild animals.

This is a crime against nature being committed in Hawaii. I am here because +I have a relationship with fish+…>>>> It’s a moral issue.” <<<<

Talbot –
Wintner’s arguments are about ethics and morality. They are about his own individual relationships with fishes. While he sometimes uses data—hard numbers—to support his position, when pushed he always comes back to his central premise: the marine aquarium trade is immoral.

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

Bazinga

So you use one persons opinion of what is happening or not in Hawaii, as the panacea of what is going on in the commercial trade in aquatic fish throughout the world. The use of cyanide and bleach is real, the damage they do to marine ecosystems is real, dynamiting of reefs is real, along with the unbelievable stupidity of people like you, which unfortunately are also real.

You’re an armchair activist who knows fuck all about what actually goes on in the real world, prefering to cut n paste selected opinions from extreme environmental groups who as demonstrated in the article don’t care about the facts, & instead push their idealogy onto everyone else, just like a religion

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

Do You Know Where Your Aquarium Fish Come From?

From the above article -

Now a campaign to stop the collection of reef fish in Hawaii, spearheaded by the group Sea Shepherd, is bringing some of these issues to light.
The organization is hoping its Reef Defense campaign will help push through stricter state laws and regulations in Hawaii dictating the collection of reef organisms for the aquarium trade, says Michael Long, director of the campaign.

Eventually, he says, “we hope that the aquarium trade will be banned altogether.”

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

from
Sea Shepherd Launches Anti-Aquarium Trade Campaign in Hawaii
By Ret Talbot, CORAL Magazine Senior Editor
23 May, 2013

Today the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society launched Operation Reef Defense, a campaign spearheaded by Sea Shepherd Vice-President Robert Wintner to shut down marine aquarium fisheries. In the Jan/Feb 2011 issue of Coral Magazine, I wrote an article called “Postcards from Hawaii” in which I looked at the past, present and future of Hawaii’s marine aquarium fisheries. In researching the article, I sat down with a lot of people, including Wintner.

My interview with Wintner was enlightening. Through it, I came to realize that, when pushed, Wintner was not really interested in looking at the data and discussing the sustainability of the marine aquarium fishery in Hawaii because, quite simply, he refuses to view it as a fishery.

Here’s the way I summed up my exchange with Wintner in the article in Coral:

Wintner begins by telling me his own story; this campaign against the aquarium trade is, after all, deeply personal for him. Wintner’s argument is primarily rooted in his own experience diving the reefs of Maui. He tells me –

Wintner
“there was once an abundance of fish in Hawaii. Now the aquarium hunters have diminished that abundance. Aquarium hunters have oppressed Hawaii’s reefs for years. With no limit on catch or number of catchers. If it doesn’t stop, there will be no fish left. “Ninety-eight percent of Hawaii’s reefs can be emptied of every fish by the aquarium trade, and it’s legal.”

Talbot -
I proffer that this is an exaggeration not based in fact. For example, 35% of the reefs on the Big Island of Hawaii, which is where the aquarium trade is concentrated, are completely off-limits to livestock collectors. I suggest that this is hyperbole in the service of his ends, but Wintner remains firm.

Wintner “They can do whatever they want”

Talbot “What about the permitting and reporting system?

Wintner
“Anyone with Internet access and 50 bucks can get a permit…and there are huge discrepancies between reported catch and actual catch. The Division of Aquatic Resources has admitted that the report of catch of 1 to 2 million fish per year is off by a factor of two to five times.”

Talbot – DAR’s published numbers do not bear any resemblance to those Wintner attributes to them.
But still, I continue, “the fishery is managed by the state to be sustainable, right?”

Wintner “A state agency manages the trade as a ‘fishery,’ and calls the aquarium trade ‘sustainable,’ but it’s really nothing more than disposable wildlife pet trafficking for the money. By sustainable the DLNR means taking all but a few brood fish so the species won’t collapse.”

Talbot – I have reams of data from marine scientists in my notebook on the table between us that clearly refute Wintner’s claims.
While there are myriad ways to interpret the data, there is no scenario in which any one species has been overfished to the point where only a few brood fish remain.

What I’m really interested in knowing is whether or not Wintner thinks the fishery itself is unsustainable at present.
“Sustainability ignores the ethical issue,” Wintner responds. And that’s when I get it.

Debating whether or not the marine aquarium fishery is sustainable is not an option with Wintner because he doesn’t agree to use the accepted language of fisheries management when it comes to marine aquarium fishes. For him, this is not about sustainability—it is about morality. As our conversation continues, Wintner won’t even discuss the marine aquarium fishery as a fishery.

Wintner –
“We don’t use the ‘f word,” (referring to fishing). “This isn’t fishing. Fishing is about sustenance. This is wildlife trafficking for the pet trade, and people shouldn’t keep wild animals.

This is a crime against nature being committed in Hawaii. I am here because +I have a relationship with fish+…>>>> It’s a moral issue.” <<<<

Talbot –
Wintner’s arguments are about ethics and morality. They are about his own individual relationships with fishes. While he sometimes uses data—hard numbers—to support his position, when pushed he always comes back to his central premise: the marine aquarium trade is immoral.

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

Bazinga

So you use one persons opinion of what is happening or not in Hawaii, as the panacea of what is going on in the commercial trade in aquatic fish throughout the world. The use of cyanide and bleach is real, the damage they do to marine ecosystems is real, dynamiting of reefs is real, along with the unbelievable stupidity of people like you, which unfortunately are also real.

So we should instead listen to your opinions, another one person, who has been badly wrong several times in the past.

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

From the above article -

Now a campaign to stop the collection of reef fish in Hawaii, spearheaded by the group Sea Shepherd, is bringing some of these issues to light.
The organization is hoping its Reef Defense campaign will help push through stricter state laws and regulations in Hawaii dictating the collection of reef organisms for the aquarium trade, says Michael Long, director of the campaign.

Eventually, he says, “we hope that the aquarium trade will be banned altogether.”

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

from
Sea Shepherd Launches Anti-Aquarium Trade Campaign in Hawaii
By Ret Talbot, CORAL Magazine Senior Editor
23 May, 2013

Today the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society launched Operation Reef Defense, a campaign spearheaded by Sea Shepherd Vice-President Robert Wintner to shut down marine aquarium fisheries. In the Jan/Feb 2011 issue of Coral Magazine, I wrote an article called “Postcards from Hawaii” in which I looked at the past, present and future of Hawaii’s marine aquarium fisheries. In researching the article, I sat down with a lot of people, including Wintner.

My interview with Wintner was enlightening. Through it, I came to realize that, when pushed, Wintner was not really interested in looking at the data and discussing the sustainability of the marine aquarium fishery in Hawaii because, quite simply, he refuses to view it as a fishery.

Here’s the way I summed up my exchange with Wintner in the article in Coral:

Wintner begins by telling me his own story; this campaign against the aquarium trade is, after all, deeply personal for him. Wintner’s argument is primarily rooted in his own experience diving the reefs of Maui. He tells me –

Wintner
“there was once an abundance of fish in Hawaii. Now the aquarium hunters have diminished that abundance. Aquarium hunters have oppressed Hawaii’s reefs for years. With no limit on catch or number of catchers. If it doesn’t stop, there will be no fish left. “Ninety-eight percent of Hawaii’s reefs can be emptied of every fish by the aquarium trade, and it’s legal.”

Talbot -
I proffer that this is an exaggeration not based in fact. For example, 35% of the reefs on the Big Island of Hawaii, which is where the aquarium trade is concentrated, are completely off-limits to livestock collectors. I suggest that this is hyperbole in the service of his ends, but Wintner remains firm.

Wintner “They can do whatever they want”

Talbot “What about the permitting and reporting system?

Wintner
“Anyone with Internet access and 50 bucks can get a permit…and there are huge discrepancies between reported catch and actual catch. The Division of Aquatic Resources has admitted that the report of catch of 1 to 2 million fish per year is off by a factor of two to five times.”

Talbot – DAR’s published numbers do not bear any resemblance to those Wintner attributes to them.
But still, I continue, “the fishery is managed by the state to be sustainable, right?”

Wintner “A state agency manages the trade as a ‘fishery,’ and calls the aquarium trade ‘sustainable,’ but it’s really nothing more than disposable wildlife pet trafficking for the money. By sustainable the DLNR means taking all but a few brood fish so the species won’t collapse.”

Talbot – I have reams of data from marine scientists in my notebook on the table between us that clearly refute Wintner’s claims.
While there are myriad ways to interpret the data, there is no scenario in which any one species has been overfished to the point where only a few brood fish remain.

What I’m really interested in knowing is whether or not Wintner thinks the fishery itself is unsustainable at present.
“Sustainability ignores the ethical issue,” Wintner responds. And that’s when I get it.

Debating whether or not the marine aquarium fishery is sustainable is not an option with Wintner because he doesn’t agree to use the accepted language of fisheries management when it comes to marine aquarium fishes. For him, this is not about sustainability—it is about morality. As our conversation continues, Wintner won’t even discuss the marine aquarium fishery as a fishery.

Wintner –
“We don’t use the ‘f word,” (referring to fishing). “This isn’t fishing. Fishing is about sustenance. This is wildlife trafficking for the pet trade, and people shouldn’t keep wild animals.

This is a crime against nature being committed in Hawaii. I am here because +I have a relationship with fish+…>>>> It’s a moral issue.” <<<<

Talbot –
Wintner’s arguments are about ethics and morality. They are about his own individual relationships with fishes. While he sometimes uses data—hard numbers—to support his position, when pushed he always comes back to his central premise: the marine aquarium trade is immoral.

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

Bazinga

So you use one persons opinion of what is happening or not in Hawaii, as the panacea of what is going on in the commercial trade in aquatic fish throughout the world. The use of cyanide and bleach is real, the damage they do to marine ecosystems is real, dynamiting of reefs is real, along with the unbelievable stupidity of people like you, which unfortunately are also real.

You’re an armchair activist who knows fuck all about what actually goes on in the real world, prefering to cut n paste selected opinions from extreme environmental groups who as demonstrated in the article don’t care about the facts, & instead push their idealogy onto everyone else, just like a religion

Observer, I cannot imagine how anyone can go through life today with all the electrical wizardry and not gain any understanding of what IS going on in the world. An old man living in a remote hunting shack in some southern state in America, sitting on the porch with a shotgun on his knee and chewing tobacco, would know a damn sight more than you about environmental matters.

And don,t bother searching the web for more tripe to back up your extreme view (about everything) perm, because the sea sheppard pres clearly made the point that they don’t care how sustainable the aquarium trade is, they want to close it down because they believe it is immoral to keep animals as pets

Well this is one little fishy’ & there are many who don’t care one iota what sea sheppards opinion is

,

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

From the above article -

Now a campaign to stop the collection of reef fish in Hawaii, spearheaded by the group Sea Shepherd, is bringing some of these issues to light.
The organization is hoping its Reef Defense campaign will help push through stricter state laws and regulations in Hawaii dictating the collection of reef organisms for the aquarium trade, says Michael Long, director of the campaign.

Eventually, he says, “we hope that the aquarium trade will be banned altogether.”

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

from
Sea Shepherd Launches Anti-Aquarium Trade Campaign in Hawaii
By Ret Talbot, CORAL Magazine Senior Editor
23 May, 2013

Today the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society launched Operation Reef Defense, a campaign spearheaded by Sea Shepherd Vice-President Robert Wintner to shut down marine aquarium fisheries. In the Jan/Feb 2011 issue of Coral Magazine, I wrote an article called “Postcards from Hawaii” in which I looked at the past, present and future of Hawaii’s marine aquarium fisheries. In researching the article, I sat down with a lot of people, including Wintner.

My interview with Wintner was enlightening. Through it, I came to realize that, when pushed, Wintner was not really interested in looking at the data and discussing the sustainability of the marine aquarium fishery in Hawaii because, quite simply, he refuses to view it as a fishery.

Here’s the way I summed up my exchange with Wintner in the article in Coral:

Wintner begins by telling me his own story; this campaign against the aquarium trade is, after all, deeply personal for him. Wintner’s argument is primarily rooted in his own experience diving the reefs of Maui. He tells me –

Wintner
“there was once an abundance of fish in Hawaii. Now the aquarium hunters have diminished that abundance. Aquarium hunters have oppressed Hawaii’s reefs for years. With no limit on catch or number of catchers. If it doesn’t stop, there will be no fish left. “Ninety-eight percent of Hawaii’s reefs can be emptied of every fish by the aquarium trade, and it’s legal.”

Talbot -
I proffer that this is an exaggeration not based in fact. For example, 35% of the reefs on the Big Island of Hawaii, which is where the aquarium trade is concentrated, are completely off-limits to livestock collectors. I suggest that this is hyperbole in the service of his ends, but Wintner remains firm.

Wintner “They can do whatever they want”

Talbot “What about the permitting and reporting system?

Wintner
“Anyone with Internet access and 50 bucks can get a permit…and there are huge discrepancies between reported catch and actual catch. The Division of Aquatic Resources has admitted that the report of catch of 1 to 2 million fish per year is off by a factor of two to five times.”

Talbot – DAR’s published numbers do not bear any resemblance to those Wintner attributes to them.
But still, I continue, “the fishery is managed by the state to be sustainable, right?”

Wintner “A state agency manages the trade as a ‘fishery,’ and calls the aquarium trade ‘sustainable,’ but it’s really nothing more than disposable wildlife pet trafficking for the money. By sustainable the DLNR means taking all but a few brood fish so the species won’t collapse.”

Talbot – I have reams of data from marine scientists in my notebook on the table between us that clearly refute Wintner’s claims.
While there are myriad ways to interpret the data, there is no scenario in which any one species has been overfished to the point where only a few brood fish remain.

What I’m really interested in knowing is whether or not Wintner thinks the fishery itself is unsustainable at present.
“Sustainability ignores the ethical issue,” Wintner responds. And that’s when I get it.

Debating whether or not the marine aquarium fishery is sustainable is not an option with Wintner because he doesn’t agree to use the accepted language of fisheries management when it comes to marine aquarium fishes. For him, this is not about sustainability—it is about morality. As our conversation continues, Wintner won’t even discuss the marine aquarium fishery as a fishery.

Wintner –
“We don’t use the ‘f word,” (referring to fishing). “This isn’t fishing. Fishing is about sustenance. This is wildlife trafficking for the pet trade, and people shouldn’t keep wild animals.

This is a crime against nature being committed in Hawaii. I am here because +I have a relationship with fish+…>>>> It’s a moral issue.” <<<<

Talbot –
Wintner’s arguments are about ethics and morality. They are about his own individual relationships with fishes. While he sometimes uses data—hard numbers—to support his position, when pushed he always comes back to his central premise: the marine aquarium trade is immoral.

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

Bazinga

So you use one persons opinion of what is happening or not in Hawaii, as the panacea of what is going on in the commercial trade in aquatic fish throughout the world. The use of cyanide and bleach is real, the damage they do to marine ecosystems is real, dynamiting of reefs is real, along with the unbelievable stupidity of people like you, which unfortunately are also real.

So we should instead listen to your opinions, another one person, who has been badly wrong several times in the past.

Here is the Observer’s sock puppet. Why don’t you just admit you two are actually one person, or are you too ashamed. And by the way, theose opinions are not MY opinions, but scientific fact, something you claim to know but obviously don’t.

PermeateFree said:

Observer, I cannot imagine how anyone can go through life today with all the electrical wizardry and not gain any understanding of what IS going on in the world. An old man living in a remote hunting shack in some southern state in America, sitting on the porch with a shotgun on his knee and chewing tobacco, would know a damn sight more than you about environmental matters.

That’s funny.
I tend to form mental images of people. Pretty close. Add in him shaking his fist at the neighbor.

The_observer said:

And don,t bother searching the web for more tripe to back up your extreme view (about everything) perm, because the sea sheppard pres clearly made the point that they don’t care how sustainable the aquarium trade is, they want to close it down because they believe it is immoral to keep animals as pets

Well this is one little fishy’ & there are many who don’t care one iota what sea sheppards opinion is

,

Here you are dummy, have a read of the following and learn something for a change. And if you want more, just google fishing with cyanide.

>>Cyanide fishing is a method of collecting live fish mainly for use in aquariums, which involves spraying a sodium cyanide mixture into the desired fish’s habitat in order to stun the fish. The practice hurts not only the target population, but also many other marine organisms, including coral and thus coral reefs.<<

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanide_fishing

And please note, Sea Shepard is not used in the reference section.

I was going to post up some selected quotes from this article earlier, but decided not to bother. But I think it’s worth reading.

Tropical depression: your salt water fish tank may be killing the ocean

PermeateFree said:

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

So you use one persons opinion of what is happening or not in Hawaii, as the panacea of what is going on in the commercial trade in aquatic fish throughout the world. The use of cyanide and bleach is real, the damage they do to marine ecosystems is real, dynamiting of reefs is real, along with the unbelievable stupidity of people like you, which unfortunately are also real.

So we should instead listen to your opinions, another one person, who has been badly wrong several times in the past.

Here is the Observer’s sock puppet. Why don’t you just admit you two are actually one person, or are you too ashamed. And by the way, theose opinions are not MY opinions, but scientific fact, something you claim to know but obviously don’t.

The fact is perm we noth know your an arsehole, simple

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

jjjust moi said:

So we should instead listen to your opinions, another one person, who has been badly wrong several times in the past.

Here is the Observer’s sock puppet. Why don’t you just admit you two are actually one person, or are you too ashamed. And by the way, theose opinions are not MY opinions, but scientific fact, something you claim to know but obviously don’t.

The fact is perm we noth know your an arsehole, simple

And I fart in your face!

ruby said:

PermeateFree said:

Observer, I cannot imagine how anyone can go through life today with all the electrical wizardry and not gain any understanding of what IS going on in the world. An old man living in a remote hunting shack in some southern state in America, sitting on the porch with a shotgun on his knee and chewing tobacco, would know a damn sight more than you about environmental matters.

That’s funny.
I tend to form mental images of people. Pretty close. Add in him shaking his fist at the neighbor.

Ruby you should give up posting, nothing of any value or originality ever comes from your effort, or lack of i

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

Here is the Observer’s sock puppet. Why don’t you just admit you two are actually one person, or are you too ashamed. And by the way, theose opinions are not MY opinions, but scientific fact, something you claim to know but obviously don’t.

The fact is perm we noth know your an arsehole, simple

And I fart in your face!

Fine your opinion means little around here

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

The fact is perm we noth know your an arsehole, simple

And I fart in your face!

Fine your opinion means little around here

True, but they also think you are an idiot.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

And I fart in your face!

Fine your opinion means little around here

True, but they also think you are an idiot.

Lol, ill think of you as i take pleasure immersing myself in my reef tanks ecosystem

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

Fine your opinion means little around here

True, but they also think you are an idiot.

Lol, ill think of you as i take pleasure immersing myself in my reef tanks ecosystem

blink blink
Goodness.

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

Fine your opinion means little around here

True, but they also think you are an idiot.

Lol, ill think of you as i take pleasure immersing myself in my reef tanks ecosystem

Well as you could not care less about anything or anyone, other than yourself, I am not at all surprised.

Reef keeping in particular is a hobbie people throughout the world enjoy. The pleasure one can take from watching their reef community is far more interesting than any tv serial one may watch, & just as addictive. Interestingly pleasure from both can invole viewing from an armchair, making it especially attractive to the elderly, the ill or incapacitated, the chair bound & outraged armchair activists with fuck all better to do than, well, be outraged

So, this thread is living up to its name….

The_observer said:

Reef keeping in particular is a hobbie people throughout the world enjoy. The pleasure one can take from watching their reef community is far more interesting than any tv serial one may watch, & just as addictive. Interestingly pleasure from both can invole viewing from an armchair, making it especially attractive to the elderly, the ill or incapacitated, the chair bound & outraged armchair activists with fuck all better to do than, well, be outraged

Try and think of other living creatures Observer rather than just satisfying your selfish self.

Arts said:

So, this thread is living up to its name….

Well I’m not outraged by it, I’ve been skipping all the posts from the usual suspects.

Arts said:

So, this thread is living up to its name….

Unfortunately their have been a couple of regulars ruined it, as i new would happen

The_observer said:

Arts said:

So, this thread is living up to its name….

Unfortunately their have been a couple of regulars ruined it, as i new would happen

Vandals

dv said:

The_observer said:

Arts said:

So, this thread is living up to its name….

Unfortunately their have been a couple of regulars ruined it, as i new would happen

Vandals

No, arseholes

I’ve been skipping all the posts from the usual suspects.

I see!!!

The_observer said:

dv said:

The_observer said:

Unfortunately their have been a couple of regulars ruined it, as i new would happen

Vandals

No, arseholes

Who willingly fart in your face.

ChrispenEvan said:

I’ve been skipping all the posts from the usual suspects.

I see!!!

Pretty sure that’s all of us.

Vandals

just need martha and we could have a musical interlube.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

dv said:

Vandals

No, arseholes

Who willingly fart in your face.

From your armchair?

Just cut n paste that fart & ill file it for later context

dv said:

ChrispenEvan said:

I’ve been skipping all the posts from the usual suspects.

I see!!!

Pretty sure that’s all of us.

There is nothing quite like the joy of ignorance, as you never know you have it.

dv said:

ChrispenEvan said:

I’ve been skipping all the posts from the usual suspects.

I see!!!

Pretty sure that’s all of us.

Well you wouldn’t be ignoring my posts dv, i know

I built an algae turf scrubber, waterfall type, illuminated by LEDs. The best ratio in regards to light colour is 660nm red & 450nm blue,,, at a ratio of 8 to 1 respectively,,, thats according to NASA

Red in the 630ish nm range though is apparently the light colour absorbed in th early morning & late afternoon

The_observer said:

I built an algae turf scrubber, waterfall type, illuminated by LEDs. The best ratio in regards to light colour is 660nm red & 450nm blue,,, at a ratio of 8 to 1 respectively,,, thats according to NASA

Red in the 630ish nm range though is apparently the light colour absorbed in th early morning & late afternoon

I’m sure you can be very resourceful in your way, but you don’t seem to be able to appreciate that other creature have a right to live without your interference.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

I built an algae turf scrubber, waterfall type, illuminated by LEDs. The best ratio in regards to light colour is 660nm red & 450nm blue,,, at a ratio of 8 to 1 respectively,,, thats according to NASA

Red in the 630ish nm range though is apparently the light colour absorbed in th early morning & late afternoon

I’m sure you can be very resourceful in your way, but you don’t seem to be able to appreciate that other creature have a right to live without your interference.

Perm, can you fuck off please

PermeateFree said:

I’m sure you can be very resourceful in your way, but you don’t seem to be able to appreciate that other creature have a right to live without your interference.

Is it true that other creatures have this right?

How can we test this assertion?

Perm dear, we’re all creatures, can you let people here exist without your interference?

Or do you like to play god

The_observer said:

dv said:

ChrispenEvan said:

I’ve been skipping all the posts from the usual suspects.

I see!!!

Pretty sure that’s all of us.

Well you wouldn’t be ignoring my posts dv, i know

I tend to operate on a quota system. I get to a point where I say “Ah well I think I’ve read enough of the_observer today”.

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

I built an algae turf scrubber, waterfall type, illuminated by LEDs. The best ratio in regards to light colour is 660nm red & 450nm blue,,, at a ratio of 8 to 1 respectively,,, thats according to NASA

Red in the 630ish nm range though is apparently the light colour absorbed in th early morning & late afternoon

I’m sure you can be very resourceful in your way, but you don’t seem to be able to appreciate that other creature have a right to live without your interference.

Perm, can you fuck off please

I feel obliged to counter your ill considered utterances. Unless ignorance is challenged, ignorance persists.

ChrispenEvan said:

Vandals

just need martha and we could have a musical interlube.

Okay, that went straight over.

dv said:

The_observer said:

dv said:

Pretty sure that’s all of us.

Well you wouldn’t be ignoring my posts dv, i know

I tend to operate on a quota system. I get to a point where I say “Ah well I think I’ve read enough of the_observer today”.

Hey, i know where your comin from brother

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

I’m sure you can be very resourceful in your way, but you don’t seem to be able to appreciate that other creature have a right to live without your interference.

Is it true that other creatures have this right?

How can we test this assertion?

Are you saying we should have the right to say what lives and what does not, and in what circumstance they exist.

martha and the vandellas, a group from a long time ago, and said quick sounds a little like vandals. and the other was a typo.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

I’m sure you can be very resourceful in your way, but you don’t seem to be able to appreciate that other creature have a right to live without your interference.

Perm, can you fuck off please

I feel obliged to counter your ill considered utterances. Unless ignorance is challenged, ignorance persists.

And i would challenge your arogance, but there’s not enough hours in the millenium

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

Perm, can you fuck off please

I feel obliged to counter your ill considered utterances. Unless ignorance is challenged, ignorance persists.

And i would challenge your arogance, but there’s not enough hours in the millenium

No it’s not arrogance, but an appreciation of science. You are confused Observer, it is you with all the opinions, I prefer to refer to people who have studied the subject and then report their findings. It may not be a foolproof system, but has proved to be far more reliable than what you have had to say.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

I’m sure you can be very resourceful in your way, but you don’t seem to be able to appreciate that other creature have a right to live without your interference.

Is it true that other creatures have this right?

How can we test this assertion?

Are you saying we should have the right to say what lives and what does not, and in what circumstance they exist.

No, I asking you two questions:

Is it true that other creatures have this right?

How can we test this assertion?

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Is it true that other creatures have this right?

How can we test this assertion?

Are you saying we should have the right to say what lives and what does not, and in what circumstance they exist.

No, I asking you two questions:

Is it true that other creatures have this right?

How can we test this assertion?

And I am questioning your arrogance of having the audacity to ask such a question. We are so divorced from life in the wild these days that we have little regard for other creatures that share this planet with us. We are not above nature, but part of it and it is a great pity many cannot appreciate that fact.

The_observer said:

You’re an armchair activist who knows fuck all about what actually goes on in the real world,

If the real world slapped you in the face, you still wouldn’t know what hit you.

The_observer said:

You’re an armchair activist who knows fuck all about what actually goes on in the real world,

The ‘real world’ is everyone in it. And there is the rub. You not only disregard the accepted concerns of the majority because of your inability to comprehend your own demise through your own hand, you then despise them for having a different opinion to yourself. The only opinion you genuinely have is that you hate everyone and will make them pay for it. Responsibility starts with yourself TO, not with telling everyone the information that informs their decisions is inferior and so are they.

The only one who subjects others to their outrage is you TO. This thread is just more of that. You have social issues that won’t just come out in the wash mate.

Postpocelipse said:

The only one who subjects others to their outrage is you TO. This thread is just more of that. You have social issues that won’t just come out in the wash mate.

Oh, now I see, me bad. This thread a good example.

I start a thread about aquarium keeping, whats more titled : The No Outrage Allowed Thread

then roughie, pf & now you come & say the aquarium hobbie should be banned.

Oh, yes, ok then

you three are completely right & I should just agree
.
.
.
go get fucked cunt

I have three of these fish tank

The_observer said:

I have three of these fish tank

Reminds me of a hot water bottle.

Bubblecar said:

The_observer said:

I have three of these fish tank

Reminds me of a hot water bottle.

interesting

I also have a yellow tang, from Hawaii

And a Vlamingi tang, he’d be about 8” long now

Goniopora’s

and corella morphs

green sinularia

yello tip cataphilia

Zoanthids

Duncan coral

Hammer coral

orange tree sponge

and purple star coral

attend an expo

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

The only one who subjects others to their outrage is you TO. This thread is just more of that. You have social issues that won’t just come out in the wash mate.

Oh, now I see, me bad. This thread a good example.

I start a thread about aquarium keeping, whats more titled : The No Outrage Allowed Thread

then roughie, pf & now you come & say the aquarium hobbie should be banned.

Oh, yes, ok then

you three are completely right & I should just agree
.
.
.
go get fucked cunt

When did I say it should be banned? Stop being a low quality human being. Read what is said and remeber properly who said it then stop calling people foul mouth names.

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

The only one who subjects others to their outrage is you TO. This thread is just more of that. You have social issues that won’t just come out in the wash mate.

Oh, now I see, me bad. This thread a good example.

I start a thread about aquarium keeping, whats more titled : The No Outrage Allowed Thread

then roughie, pf & now you come & say the aquarium hobbie should be banned.

Oh, yes, ok then

you three are completely right & I should just agree
.
.
.
go get fucked cunt

This forum doesn’t ban people if you haven’t noticed. Your title only illustrates your expectations of yourself and others. You shouldn’t hold it against others that they find you offensive when you deliberately attempt to offend in various manners.

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

The only one who subjects others to their outrage is you TO. This thread is just more of that. You have social issues that won’t just come out in the wash mate.

Oh, now I see, me bad. This thread a good example.

I start a thread about aquarium keeping, whats more titled : The No Outrage Allowed Thread

then roughie, pf & now you come & say the aquarium hobbie should be banned.

Oh, yes, ok then

you three are completely right & I should just agree
.
.
.
go get fucked cunt

This forum doesn’t ban people if you haven’t noticed. Your title only illustrates your expectations of yourself and others. You shouldn’t hold it against others that they find you offensive when you deliberately attempt to offend in various manners.

If you can read, your comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.

It seems some outrage has crept in here.

outrage is insidious.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

The only one who subjects others to their outrage is you TO. This thread is just more of that. You have social issues that won’t just come out in the wash mate.

Oh, now I see, me bad. This thread a good example.

I start a thread about aquarium keeping, whats more titled : The No Outrage Allowed Thread

then roughie, pf & now you come & say the aquarium hobbie should be banned.

Oh, yes, ok then

you three are completely right & I should just agree
.
.
.
go get fucked cunt

When did I say it should be banned? Stop being a low quality human being. Read what is said and remeber properly who said it then stop calling people foul mouth names.

You may have been bent, pissed or both, but you started lecturing me on how corals should be all left on the sea at post 838599.

I don’t like to be continuously lectured by the likes of you, pf, & post, & i say get… fucked you arrogant trio of cunts

dv said:

It seems some outrage has crept in here.

Moral crusading & lecturing by the high horsemen of the everyday apocalypse

The_observer said:

dv said:

It seems some outrage has crept in here.

Moral crusading & lecturing by the high horsemen of the everyday apocalypse

if turkey has a go shooting down a russian bomber , russia will shoot back i reckon or conduct a first strike

a good first strike target would be that big bridge across the waters at istanbul – that should do it – go big

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

Oh, now I see, me bad. This thread a good example.

I start a thread about aquarium keeping, whats more titled : The No Outrage Allowed Thread

then roughie, pf & now you come & say the aquarium hobbie should be banned.

Oh, yes, ok then

you three are completely right & I should just agree
.
.
.
go get fucked cunt

When did I say it should be banned? Stop being a low quality human being. Read what is said and remeber properly who said it then stop calling people foul mouth names.

You may have been bent, pissed or both, but you started lecturing me on how corals should be all left on the sea at post 838599.

I don’t like to be continuously lectured by the likes of you, pf, & post, & i say get… fucked you arrogant trio of cunts

Twist anything no your own brand of tripe. Doesn’t mean it has te be true or correct.

turkish tourism is probably hurting badly at the moment, another suicide bombing in instanbul should be enough to get things cooking

a car bomb outside the four seasons hotel perhaps, the tourist district might get closed to the turkish public

by rights the roman walls would provide an excellent barrier to keep the tourist district safe

>>if turkey has a go shooting down a russian bomber ,

Stop right there, Pilgrim.

They’ve already shot down a Russian bomber.

The Korellan Zucht Bio-vit system is an ultra low nutrient method of coral reef keeping becoming very popular worldwide

Peak Warming Man said:

>>if turkey has a go shooting down a russian bomber ,

Stop right there, Pilgrim.

They’ve already shot down a Russian bomber.

yeah, some lumbering old rig

both sides are after blood

turkiey has lost a heap of oil money from isis

russia has lost an aircraft to turkey protecting isis

when war breaks out the coalition might be training and providing support to isis to fight the russians – its funny how things work out

you could drive another ten million refugees straight into the heart of europe – that should shut them up as millions of little gremlins start lighting millions of fires in the belly of the opposition

the refugee thing has overwhelmed the defences

europe shall fall

I have a pet parrot (she is a member of an endangered species) who loves watching the fishies swim. She also likes licking the salt off the floor from around the aquarium.

The_observer said:

dv said:

It seems some outrage has crept in here.

Moral crusading & lecturing by the high horsemen of the everyday apocalypse

I thought we were musketeers? That would be very camp actually. If the horsemen of the apocalypse were musketeers.

The_observer said:

I have a pet parrot (she is a member of an endangered species) who loves watching the fishies swim. She also likes licking the salt off the floor from around the aquarium.

As long as they all keep you entertained Observer and not wandering around at night.

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

dv said:

It seems some outrage has crept in here.

Moral crusading & lecturing by the high horsemen of the everyday apocalypse

I thought we were musketeers? That would be very camp actually. If the horsemen of the apocalypse were musketeers.

how about little tyrants who fantasise that their feelings should trump other people’s freedom.

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

Moral crusading & lecturing by the high horsemen of the everyday apocalypse

I thought we were musketeers? That would be very camp actually. If the horsemen of the apocalypse were musketeers.

how about little tyrants who fantasise that their feelings should trump other people’s freedom.

You mean like the people who want same sex marriage illegal?

dv said:

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

I thought we were musketeers? That would be very camp actually. If the horsemen of the apocalypse were musketeers.

how about little tyrants who fantasise that their feelings should trump other people’s freedom.

You mean like the people who want same sex marriage illegal?

you’ll need to pick on someone who has stated that here dv, rather than attribute it illogically to someone you just don’t like

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

Moral crusading & lecturing by the high horsemen of the everyday apocalypse

I thought we were musketeers? That would be very camp actually. If the horsemen of the apocalypse were musketeers.

how about little tyrants who fantasise that their feelings should trump other people’s freedom.

It is your freedom and nobody else’s? For Tony Abbott’s sake, think about what you say..

Some village-Hampden, that with dauntless breast
The little tyrant of his fields withstood;
Some mute inglorious Milton here may rest,
Some Cromwell guiltless of his country’s blood.

Th’ applause of list’ning senates to command,
The threats of pain and ruin to despise,
To scatter plenty o’er a smiling land,
And read their hist’ry in a nation’s eyes,

The_observer said:

dv said:

The_observer said:

how about little tyrants who fantasise that their feelings should trump other people’s freedom.

You mean like the people who want same sex marriage illegal?

you’ll need to pick on someone who has stated that here dv, rather than attribute it illogically to someone you just don’t like

What do you mean? I was providing an example to support your argument.

like i said before, it thinks it is all about them.

:-)

dv said:

The_observer said:

dv said:

You mean like the people who want same sex marriage illegal?

you’ll need to pick on someone who has stated that here dv, rather than attribute it illogically to someone you just don’t like

What do you mean? I was providing an example to support your argument.

Oh, ok then

how about we look at it from both sides then

the quote – little tyrants who fantasise that their feelings should trump other people’s freedom.

that could mean – the little tyrants are those that are pro gay marriage and their feelings are hurt by those that oppose.

The other peoples freedom can be those whose religion or ethics see gay marriage as wrong & those people should be free to have those opinions

The_observer said:

dv said:

The_observer said:

you’ll need to pick on someone who has stated that here dv, rather than attribute it illogically to someone you just don’t like

What do you mean? I was providing an example to support your argument.

Oh, ok then

how about we look at it from both sides then

the quote – little tyrants who fantasise that their feelings should trump other people’s freedom.

that could mean – the little tyrants are those that are pro gay marriage and their feelings are hurt by those that oppose.

The other peoples freedom can be those whose religion or ethics see gay marriage as wrong & those people should be free to have those opinions

Yeah nah. Gays getting married does not at infringe on the rights of people who oppose gay marriage: they are still free to live their own lives as they see fit. There’s no symmetry there.

The_observer said:

Oh, ok then

how about we look at it from both sides then

the quote – little tyrants who fantasise that their feelings should trump other people’s freedom.

that could mean – the little tyrants are those that are pro gay marriage and their feelings are hurt by those that oppose.

The other peoples freedom can be those whose religion or ethics see gay marriage as wrong & those people should be free to have those opinions

Why?

dv said:

The_observer said:

dv said:

What do you mean? I was providing an example to support your argument.

Oh, ok then

how about we look at it from both sides then

the quote – little tyrants who fantasise that their feelings should trump other people’s freedom.

that could mean – the little tyrants are those that are pro gay marriage and their feelings are hurt by those that oppose.

The other peoples freedom can be those whose religion or ethics see gay marriage as wrong & those people should be free to have those opinions

Yeah nah. Gays getting married does not at infringe on the rights of people who oppose gay marriage: they are still free to live their own lives as they see fit. There’s no symmetry there.

If churches are bound to perform gay marriages, as would be the case if the law is changed, that most certainly will infringe on their religious freedoms.

little tyrants who fantasise that their feelings should trump other people’s freedom.

freedom to have an opinion?

every person who doesn’t agree with gay marriage is branded intolerant by pro gay marriage activists, ironically

The_observer said:

dv said:

The_observer said:

Oh, ok then

how about we look at it from both sides then

the quote – little tyrants who fantasise that their feelings should trump other people’s freedom.

that could mean – the little tyrants are those that are pro gay marriage and their feelings are hurt by those that oppose.

The other peoples freedom can be those whose religion or ethics see gay marriage as wrong & those people should be free to have those opinions

Yeah nah. Gays getting married does not at infringe on the rights of people who oppose gay marriage: they are still free to live their own lives as they see fit. There’s no symmetry there.

If churches are bound to perform gay marriages, as would be the case if the law is changed, that most certainly will infringe on their religious freedoms.

Churches won’t be bound to do anything. They never have been before because they opposed gays and believed the sacrament of marriage doesn’t apply.

Observer, you seem to be becoming outraged. And emotional.

Are you OK?

On the other hand, of course people have the right to disapprove of various marriages and to express this disapproval. Heck, plenty of people still disapprove of mixed race marriages or intercaste marriages, As Brandis says, “People have the right to be bigots, and I’m a grub.”

The_observer said:

little tyrants who fantasise that their feelings should trump other people’s freedom.

freedom to have an opinion?

every person who doesn’t agree with gay marriage is branded intolerant by pro gay marriage activists, ironically

Any intolerant person, brands themselves.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

dv said:

Yeah nah. Gays getting married does not at infringe on the rights of people who oppose gay marriage: they are still free to live their own lives as they see fit. There’s no symmetry there.

If churches are bound to perform gay marriages, as would be the case if the law is changed, that most certainly will infringe on their religious freedoms.

Churches won’t be bound to do anything. They never have been before because they opposed gays and believed the sacrament of marriage doesn’t apply.

I rather liked this comment from a random Internet search:

“Yes. They will be forced to perform SSM, the same way they are:
•Forced to teach science and evolution.
•Forced to perform inter-racial marriages.
•Forced to ordain female clergy.

OH shit! No. That’s not true.”

little tyrants who fantasise that their feelings should trump other people’s freedom.

my freedom to keep fish, for example, & my enjoyment of it will not be deminished by a minority of people with extreme views, views that they would have dominate everyone elses lives.

ruby said:

Observer, you seem to be becoming outraged. And emotional.

Are you OK?

for fuck sake ruby, if all you can ever do is post this shit to me don’t bother, because I have now decided never to read anything you post again

I must say, the “observer” is really outdoing himself today with the reverse irony with double somersault and back-flip.

When we talk about equality does it include someone who wants a continuation of a repressive tradition/practice. Some people want gay marriage thats asking for the equality others oppose it and isn’t that asking for inequality to continue

i think that is because it want so be so controversial that it doesn’t keep track of what it has said before and so the argument is all over the place. it wants to disagree with everyone and so ties itself in knots.

dv said:

On the other hand, of course people have the right to disapprove of various marriages and to express this disapproval. Heck, plenty of people still disapprove of mixed race marriages or intercaste marriages, As Brandis says, “People have the right to be bigots, and I’m a grub.”

You do realise dv that much of the oppoition to interacial marriage, in this country, comes from within minority communities.

Sri Lankans for example are quite adamant that their children stay within their own culture.

I have nothing against that.

The_observer said:

ruby said:

Observer, you seem to be becoming outraged. And emotional.

Are you OK?

for fuck sake ruby, if all you can ever do is post this shit to me don’t bother, because I have now decided never to read anything you post again

And I defend your freedom to do so, Observer.

I for one support T_O’s right to keep fish, even gay fish whose views on climate change are not mainstream.

The_observer said:

dv said:

On the other hand, of course people have the right to disapprove of various marriages and to express this disapproval. Heck, plenty of people still disapprove of mixed race marriages or intercaste marriages, As Brandis says, “People have the right to be bigots, and I’m a grub.”

You do realise dv that much of the oppoition to interacial marriage, in this country, comes from within minority communities.

Sri Lankans for example are quite adamant that their children stay within their own culture.

I have nothing against that.

Well (sips coffee) I certainly do. Fortunately the law is on my side on this one and Sri Lankans can marry whoever they want, regardless of their parents’ views.

The Rev Dodgson said:

I must say, the “observer” is really outdoing himself today with the reverse irony with double somersault and back-flip.

that’s what I have always disliked about you rev, the way you talk disparagingly about those you disagree with.

JudgeMental said:

i think that is because it want so be so controversial that it doesn’t keep track of what it has said before and so the argument is all over the place. it wants to disagree with everyone and so ties itself in knots.

Um, I didn’t even bring up the gay marriage thing, never have. It’s been used here to attack me,

which is ok, because I’m just here feeding the chickens

The_observer said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I must say, the “observer” is really outdoing himself today with the reverse irony with double somersault and back-flip.

that’s what I have always disliked about you rev, the way you talk disparagingly about those you disagree with.

Excellent example.

I’ll give that a 9, and Ruby must surely give it 10.

If humans weren’t meant to interbreed with people from any and all cultures then we’d just not be able to reproduce outside of our own specific race, but it doesn’t work that way so nature and evolution seems perfectly ok with it. In actual fact not diversifying the human race is detrimental as interbreeding causes genetic problems

dv said:

I for one support T_O’s right to keep fish, even gay fish whose views on climate change are not mainstream.

actually my views on CC are main stream as you can get. I see the hypothesis & compare that to the data, and see that they are not in agreement.

Maybe not environmentalist climate activist mainstream, but mainstream all the same

The Rev Dodgson said:

The_observer said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I must say, the “observer” is really outdoing himself today with the reverse irony with double somersault and back-flip.

that’s what I have always disliked about you rev, the way you talk disparagingly about those you disagree with.

Excellent example.

I’ll give that a 9, and Ruby must surely give it 10.

Oh yes. I do Rev. But my 10 only counts for an 8.5.

The_observer said:

actually my views on CC are main stream as you can get.

No, you’re in the 3%.

NTTAWWT, intrinsically. Where would we be without dissent and outliers?

who need a fridays funnies thread, eh?

:-)

dv said:

The_observer said:

actually my views on CC are main stream as you can get.

No, you’re in the 3%.

NTTAWWT, intrinsically. Where would we be without dissent and outliers?

A place without freedom, I think.

“From now on I’m thinking only of me.”
Major Danby replied indulgently with a superior smile: “But, Yossarian, suppose everyone felt that way.”
“Then,” said Yossarian, “I’d certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way, wouldn’t I?”

The Rev Dodgson said:

The_observer said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I must say, the “observer” is really outdoing himself today with the reverse irony with double somersault and back-flip.

that’s what I have always disliked about you rev, the way you talk disparagingly about those you disagree with.

Excellent example.

I’ll give that a 9, and Ruby must surely give it 10.

that’s the other thing I have also dislike abou rev, how you have completely ignored the belittling manner of ruby’s inconsequental posts to me.

Buy thats how you operate rev, talk to people you disagree with like shit & accuse them of being offensive while ignoring all the offensive posts they recieve

dv said:

The_observer said:

actually my views on CC are main stream as you can get.

No, you’re in the 3%.

NTTAWWT, intrinsically. Where would we be without dissent and outliers?

well, that your side has to consistently rely on an unscientific falsehood, that being the 97% shows how weak your argument is.

The_observer said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The_observer said:

that’s what I have always disliked about you rev, the way you talk disparagingly about those you disagree with.

Excellent example.

I’ll give that a 9, and Ruby must surely give it 10.

that’s the other thing I have also dislike abou rev, how you have completely ignored the belittling manner of ruby’s inconsequental posts to me.

Buy thats how you operate rev, talk to people you disagree with like shit & accuse them of being offensive while ignoring all the offensive posts they recieve

You are rude yourself you know, personal attacks and the like, I think most people are quite polite in replying to you. If you want rude comments on the internet you should read what people post in torrent comment sections, lots of stuff about people mummas

>>>You are rude yourself you know<<<

I certainly can be, to people who are rude to me.

But not to Ruby, for example, despite the fact that she never makes a comment to me or about me in an intelligent or adult manner,
or any comment that adds value to the conversation. Her post to & about me are always belittling.

And because Ruby is a woman, I believe, and I am a gentleman, I have chosen to ignore her posts from now on, rather than respond & be rude to her.

So, I’m not all bad

personal attacks and the like, I think most people are quite polite in replying to you.

The_observer said:

dv said:

The_observer said:

actually my views on CC are main stream as you can get.

No, you’re in the 3%.

NTTAWWT, intrinsically. Where would we be without dissent and outliers?

well, that your side has to consistently rely on an unscientific falsehood, that being the 97% shows how weak your argument is.

t_o, I realise that you don’t accept climate change. But to deny that such views are outside the mainstream is just delusional. AGW is about as controversial in the scientific world as evolution or special relativity.
Is it possible that you’re right and that there’s no significant anthropogenic climate change? Yeah, it’s possible. Heck, even the IPCC reports recognise that it is possible. But if you don’t know you’re in a small minority then you’re in a bubble.

The_observer said:

>>>You are rude yourself you know<<<

I certainly can be, to people who are rude to me.

But not to Ruby, for example, despite the fact that she never makes a comment to me or about me in an intelligent or adult manner,
or any comment that adds value to the conversation. Her post to & about me are always belittling.

And because Ruby is a woman, I believe, and I am a gentleman, I have chosen to ignore her posts from now on, rather than respond & be rude to her.

So, I’m not all bad

>>> personal attacks and the like, I think most people are quite polite in replying to you. <<

you should read more carefully, it would make for a more accurate conclusion.

Unless your standards differ to mine

dv said:

The_observer said:

dv said:

No, you’re in the 3%.

NTTAWWT, intrinsically. Where would we be without dissent and outliers?

well, that your side has to consistently rely on an unscientific falsehood, that being the 97% shows how weak your argument is.

t_o, I realise that you don’t accept climate change. But to deny that such views are outside the mainstream is just delusional. AGW is about as controversial in the scientific world as evolution or special relativity.
Is it possible that you’re right and that there’s no significant anthropogenic climate change? Yeah, it’s possible. Heck, even the IPCC reports recognise that it is possible. But if you don’t know you’re in a small minority then you’re in a bubble.

Isn’t the shift towards renewable energy generation more than just a reaction to global warming. Surely it also includes shifting away from a finite resources all of which cause some sort of pollution thats not easy to dispose of or store. It stops (maybe) a monopoly by those nations that own the resources (especially oil) and what others will do to acquire those resources often at a detriment to innocent people. Who wouldn’t like to be able to generate and store their own power without having to rely on anyone else once the infrastructure is installed at your house.

dv said:

The_observer said:

dv said:

No, you’re in the 3%.

NTTAWWT, intrinsically. Where would we be without dissent and outliers?

well, that your side has to consistently rely on an unscientific falsehood, that being the 97% shows how weak your argument is.

t_o, I realise that you don’t accept climate change. But to deny that such views are outside the mainstream is just delusional. AGW is about as controversial in the scientific world as evolution or special relativity.
Is it possible that you’re right and that there’s no significant anthropogenic climate change? Yeah, it’s possible. Heck, even the IPCC reports recognise that it is possible. But if you don’t know you’re in a small minority then you’re in a bubble.

sorry dv. the opinions of environmental lobby groups & scientific boards, don’t count.

What is it exactly you believe 97% of scientists believe?

That we’ve added co2 to the atmosphere.

That co2 is a greenhouse gas

That co2 can potentially cause the average global temperature to increase.

I agree with that.

It is the false brand of the 97% consensus that is pushed on the public that I argue with.

And that is that the warming will be great, be catastrophic, & in any case any warming we do get, insignificant or otherwise will be overwhelming detrimental.

dv said:

The_observer said:

dv said:

On the other hand, of course people have the right to disapprove of various marriages and to express this disapproval. Heck, plenty of people still disapprove of mixed race marriages or intercaste marriages, As Brandis says, “People have the right to be bigots, and I’m a grub.”

You do realise dv that much of the oppoition to interacial marriage, in this country, comes from within minority communities.

Sri Lankans for example are quite adamant that their children stay within their own culture.

I have nothing against that.

Well (sips coffee) I certainly do. Fortunately the law is on my side on this one and Sri Lankans can marry whoever they want, regardless of their parents’ views.

I know a gay Sri Lankan man. His family completely supports him. I very much look forward to his wedding, when same sex marriage becomes legal in Australia. I would be surprised if it weren’t in a church, as he is a strong Christian, as are most members of his family.

The_observer said:

dv said:

The_observer said:

well, that your side has to consistently rely on an unscientific falsehood, that being the 97% shows how weak your argument is.

t_o, I realise that you don’t accept climate change. But to deny that such views are outside the mainstream is just delusional. AGW is about as controversial in the scientific world as evolution or special relativity.
Is it possible that you’re right and that there’s no significant anthropogenic climate change? Yeah, it’s possible. Heck, even the IPCC reports recognise that it is possible. But if you don’t know you’re in a small minority then you’re in a bubble.

sorry dv. the opinions of environmental lobby groups & scientific boards, don’t count.

What is it exactly you believe 97% of scientists believe?

That we’ve added co2 to the atmosphere.

That co2 is a greenhouse gas

That co2 can potentially cause the average global temperature to increase.

I agree with that.

It is the false brand of the 97% consensus that is pushed on the public that I argue with.

And that is that the warming will be great, be catastrophic, & in any case any warming we do get, insignificant or otherwise will be overwhelming detrimental.

Isn’t it better to ere on the side of caution when its our planets ability to support human life at its optimium level at stake. It won’t wipe us out or probably kill lots of people but it may just cause oceans levels to rise enough that out coastal way of life becomes far more difficult.

Cymek said:

sorry dv. the opinions of environmental lobby groups & scientific boards, don’t count.

What is it exactly you believe 97% of scientists believe?

That we’ve added co2 to the atmosphere.

That co2 is a greenhouse gas

That co2 can potentially cause the average global temperature to increase.

I agree with that.

It is the false brand of the 97% consensus that is pushed on the public that I argue with.

And that is that the warming will be great, be catastrophic, & in any case any warming we do get, insignificant or otherwise will be overwhelming detrimental.

Isn’t it better to ere on the side of caution when its our planets ability to support human life at its optimium level at stake.

Here with all respect is another example of a false reason to deperately take action.

You believe for some unknown reason that we currently live in a ‘goldie locks’ climate.

That if it gets either colder or warmer ‘things’ will happen & those ‘things’ will be all bad.

in the coming ice age scare of the 1970’s all the bad thing that were going to happen are the same as whats expected now if it warms.

More droughts, more floods, more hurrucanes, less food.

Its history repeating itself & funding flows

The_observer said:

Cymek said:

sorry dv. the opinions of environmental lobby groups & scientific boards, don’t count.

What is it exactly you believe 97% of scientists believe?

That we’ve added co2 to the atmosphere.

That co2 is a greenhouse gas

That co2 can potentially cause the average global temperature to increase.

I agree with that.

It is the false brand of the 97% consensus that is pushed on the public that I argue with.

And that is that the warming will be great, be catastrophic, & in any case any warming we do get, insignificant or otherwise will be overwhelming detrimental.

Isn’t it better to ere on the side of caution when its our planets ability to support human life at its optimium level at stake.

Here with all respect is another example of a false reason to deperately take action.

You believe for some unknown reason that we currently live in a ‘goldie locks’ climate.

That if it gets either colder or warmer ‘things’ will happen & those ‘things’ will be all bad.

in the coming ice age scare of the 1970’s all the bad thing that were going to happen are the same as whats expected now if it warms.

More droughts, more floods, more hurrucanes, less food.

Its history repeating itself & funding flows

The_observer said:

dv said:

The_observer said:

well, that your side has to consistently rely on an unscientific falsehood, that being the 97% shows how weak your argument is.

t_o, I realise that you don’t accept climate change. But to deny that such views are outside the mainstream is just delusional. AGW is about as controversial in the scientific world as evolution or special relativity.
Is it possible that you’re right and that there’s no significant anthropogenic climate change? Yeah, it’s possible. Heck, even the IPCC reports recognise that it is possible. But if you don’t know you’re in a small minority then you’re in a bubble.

sorry dv. the opinions of environmental lobby groups & scientific boards, don’t count.

What is it exactly you believe 97% of scientists believe?

That we’ve added co2 to the atmosphere.

That co2 is a greenhouse gas

That co2 can potentially cause the average global temperature to increase.

I agree with that.

It is the false brand of the 97% consensus that is pushed on the public that I argue with.

And that is that the warming will be great, be catastrophic, & in any case any warming we do get, insignificant or otherwise will be overwhelming detrimental.

If that’s your beef then perhaps you should focus on posting information showing that most climatologists don’t think catastrophic climate change is likely under business as usual.

Instead you just copy and paste utter tripe from WUWT that anyone with half a grain of scientific nous can spot the flaws in. (Why would anyone prefer the results from a single cherry picked instrument rather than a modelled response from the full set of data?) You don’t do yourself any favours associating with such dingbats. The leading agencies with scores of relevant experts announce that the last two years have been, far and away, the warmest on record. Some blogger with a bee in his bonnet and no tertiary qualifications WattSoEver picks and chooses databases so that he can claim that 1998 was the warmest. Stand back, take a deep breath and a clean look: Which of these is most likely to be correct?

The_observer said:

The_observer said:

Cymek said:

sorry dv. the opinions of environmental lobby groups & scientific boards, don’t count.

What is it exactly you believe 97% of scientists believe?

That we’ve added co2 to the atmosphere.

That co2 is a greenhouse gas

That co2 can potentially cause the average global temperature to increase.

I agree with that.

It is the false brand of the 97% consensus that is pushed on the public that I argue with.

And that is that the warming will be great, be catastrophic, & in any case any warming we do get, insignificant or otherwise will be overwhelming detrimental.

Isn’t it better to ere on the side of caution when its our planets ability to support human life at its optimium level at stake.

Here with all respect is another example of a false reason to deperately take action.

You believe for some unknown reason that we currently live in a ‘goldie locks’ climate.

That if it gets either colder or warmer ‘things’ will happen & those ‘things’ will be all bad.

in the coming ice age scare of the 1970’s all the bad thing that were going to happen are the same as whats expected now if it warms.

More droughts, more floods, more hurrucanes, less food.

Its history repeating itself & funding flows

Apart from a few natural disasters humans have it pretty sweet on planet Earth, its ourselves that cause most of the misery and suffering in the world. I am not sure humans as a collective are mature enough to cope with an Earth whose climate changes even a little bit to make it harder for us to survive. We already fight over resources, land, etc when there is enough to go around, what happens if global warming changes this for the worse

dv said:

The_observer said:

dv said:

t_o, I realise that you don’t accept climate change. But to deny that such views are outside the mainstream is just delusional. AGW is about as controversial in the scientific world as evolution or special relativity.
Is it possible that you’re right and that there’s no significant anthropogenic climate change? Yeah, it’s possible. Heck, even the IPCC reports recognise that it is possible. But if you don’t know you’re in a small minority then you’re in a bubble.

sorry dv. the opinions of environmental lobby groups & scientific boards, don’t count.

What is it exactly you believe 97% of scientists believe?

That we’ve added co2 to the atmosphere.

That co2 is a greenhouse gas

That co2 can potentially cause the average global temperature to increase.

I agree with that.

It is the false brand of the 97% consensus that is pushed on the public that I argue with.

And that is that the warming will be great, be catastrophic, & in any case any warming we do get, insignificant or otherwise will be overwhelming detrimental.

If that’s your beef then perhaps you should focus on posting information showing that most climatologists don’t think catastrophic climate change is likely under business as usual.

Instead you just copy and paste utter tripe from WUWT that anyone with half a grain of scientific nous can spot the flaws in. (Why would anyone prefer the results from a single cherry picked instrument rather than a modelled response from the full set of data?) You don’t do yourself any favours associating with such dingbats. The leading agencies with scores of relevant experts announce that the last two years have been, far and away, the warmest on record. Some blogger with a bee in his bonnet and no tertiary qualifications WattSoEver picks and chooses databases so that he can claim that 1998 was the warmest. Stand back, take a deep breath and a clean look: Which of these is most likely to be correct?

that you have to infer that what I post is all from WUWT is tripe.

And the three satellite data sets say it wasn’t the hotest at all, despite the el nino.

why cherry pick government thermometer data sets, adjusted so as to be unrecognisable from the raw data, that use a newly adjusted SST data set that is an outlier from all the others, to reach their hottest year eva

The satellite data is the best we have. This accuracy was acknowledged 25 years ago by NASA, which said that “satellite analysis of the upper atmosphere is more accurate, and should be adopted as the standard way to monitor temperature change.”

The_observer said:

dv said:

The_observer said:

sorry dv. the opinions of environmental lobby groups & scientific boards, don’t count.

What is it exactly you believe 97% of scientists believe?

That we’ve added co2 to the atmosphere.

That co2 is a greenhouse gas

That co2 can potentially cause the average global temperature to increase.

I agree with that.

It is the false brand of the 97% consensus that is pushed on the public that I argue with.

And that is that the warming will be great, be catastrophic, & in any case any warming we do get, insignificant or otherwise will be overwhelming detrimental.

If that’s your beef then perhaps you should focus on posting information showing that most climatologists don’t think catastrophic climate change is likely under business as usual.

Instead you just copy and paste utter tripe from WUWT that anyone with half a grain of scientific nous can spot the flaws in. (Why would anyone prefer the results from a single cherry picked instrument rather than a modelled response from the full set of data?) You don’t do yourself any favours associating with such dingbats. The leading agencies with scores of relevant experts announce that the last two years have been, far and away, the warmest on record. Some blogger with a bee in his bonnet and no tertiary qualifications WattSoEver picks and chooses databases so that he can claim that 1998 was the warmest. Stand back, take a deep breath and a clean look: Which of these is most likely to be correct?

that you have to infer that what I post is all from WUWT is tripe.

And the three satellite data sets say it wasn’t the hotest at all, despite the el nino.

why cherry pick government thermometer data sets, adjusted so as to be unrecognisable from the raw data, that use a newly adjusted SST data set that is an outlier from all the others, to reach their hottest year eva

The satellite data is the best we have. This accuracy was acknowledged 25 years ago by NASA, which said that “satellite analysis of the upper atmosphere is more accurate, and should be adopted as the standard way to monitor temperature change.”

(sigh) No I know you got that quote from WUWT. Do you really think that one sound byte from an old paper trumps the whole of conventional climatology?

The_observer

The other thing that points to your influence by WUWT is your use of the University of Alabama satellite analysis rather than any of the others. Its output is quite different from the Remote Sensing System’s output and the NOAA output.

This article focuses on the reasons for UAT being such an outlier.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/mar/25/one-satellite-data-set-is-underestimating-global-warming

It is known that there is a problem because there are multiple groups that create satellite temperature records. For instance, NOAA, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), and the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH). The problem is, their results don’t agree with each other. In particular, the UAH team, led by Dr. John Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer (who have discounted the importance and occurrence of climate change for years) present results that differ quite a bit from the others. In fact, in the current paper, it is stated that “Despite using the same basic radiometer measurements, tropical TMT trend differences between these groups differ by a factor of three.”
—
So, how do the trends compare? Well the lowest trend, in degrees Celsius heating per decade are from UAH and they equal 0.029 for the 1979–2012 period for the mid-troposphere region between 20° South and 20° North. The new results are almost 4 times higher at 0.114°C per decade. The results using a diurnal correction from a climate model are in close agreement with the new findings (0.124°C per decade). As additional support, the NOAA and RSS values are also close to the corrected results. The simple fact is, UAH is an outlier.

They also discovered that the results from RSS, NOAA, and the new study all show tropical amplification and are in agreement with the expected amplification from climate models. They state, “There is no significant discrepancy between observations and models for lapse rate change between the surface and the full troposphere.”

To summarize the amplification factor, the new study obtains a value of 1.4. If the diurnal cycle is eliminated using climate models, the result is 1.49. According to NOAA and RSS, the values are 1.31 and 1.10, respectively. Again, UAH is the outlier with an amplification factor of 0.56.
—-

The_observer said:

little tyrants who fantasise that their feelings should trump other people’s freedom.

my freedom to keep fish, for example, & my enjoyment of it will not be deminished by a minority of people with extreme views, views that they would have dominate everyone elses lives.

I think it is here where when your mental problem begins to take hold. Nobody has said you should not keep your aquariums etc., but have only pointed out the destructive way many marine aquarium fish are caught, so absolutely no attempt was made to dominate your life. You seem to have a severe paranoid disability, perhaps you should see someone about it, as who knows you might even realise that global warming is not an attack on your rights, only an attempt to preserve the world we have.

I’d have a blue-ring octopus if I had the chance.

Postpocelipse said:

I’d have a blue-ring octopus if I had the chance.

You mean, sexually?

dv said:

Postpocelipse said:

I’d have a blue-ring octopus if I had the chance.

You mean, sexually?

Hands like an octopus

dv said:

Postpocelipse said:

I’d have a blue-ring octopus if I had the chance.

You mean, sexually?

Poker…..

Postpocelipse said:

I’d have a blue-ring octopus if I had the chance.

they aren’t hard to keep.

(just don’t do well with company)

stumpy_seahorse said:

Postpocelipse said:

I’d have a blue-ring octopus if I had the chance.

they aren’t hard to keep.

(just don’t do well with company)

So they are entertaining then?

Postpocelipse said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

Postpocelipse said:

I’d have a blue-ring octopus if I had the chance.

they aren’t hard to keep.

(just don’t do well with company)

So they are entertaining then?

not the most entertaining creatures, but interesting nonetheless

stumpy_seahorse said:

Postpocelipse said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

they aren’t hard to keep.

(just don’t do well with company)

So they are entertaining then?

not the most entertaining creatures, but interesting nonetheless

They are attractive when they flash blue rings but that’s when you should avoid them as well.

I suspect the bro would be quite dull until something provoked it.

roughbarked said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

Postpocelipse said:

So they are entertaining then?

not the most entertaining creatures, but interesting nonetheless

They are attractive when they flash blue rings but that’s when you should avoid them as well.

they only do that when threatened, so in a dedicated aquarium, there should never be a reason to cause them to do that.
Ours would occasionaly when I siphoned the crap out of their tank, if the syphon got too close

Arts said:

I suspect the bro would be quite dull until something provoked it.

That’s true.

stumpy_seahorse said:

roughbarked said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

not the most entertaining creatures, but interesting nonetheless

They are attractive when they flash blue rings but that’s when you should avoid them as well.

they only do that when threatened, so in a dedicated aquarium, there should never be a reason to cause them to do that.
Ours would occasionaly when I siphoned the crap out of their tank, if the syphon got too close

That’s true too.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

little tyrants who fantasise that their feelings should trump other people’s freedom.

my freedom to keep fish, for example, & my enjoyment of it will not be deminished by a minority of people with extreme views, views that they would have dominate everyone elses lives.

I think it is here where when your mental problem begins to take hold. Nobody has said you should not keep your aquariums etc., but have only pointed out the destructive way many marine aquarium fish are caught, so absolutely no attempt was made to dominate your life. You seem to have a severe paranoid disability, perhaps you should see someone about it, as who knows you might even realise that global warming is not an attack on your rights, only an attempt to preserve the world we have.

+1

stumpy_seahorse said:

Postpocelipse said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

they aren’t hard to keep.

(just don’t do well with company)

So they are entertaining then?

not the most entertaining creatures, but interesting nonetheless

They are not very active, mostly staying in their den during the day, but venturing out at night.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

little tyrants who fantasise that their feelings should trump other people’s freedom.

my freedom to keep fish, for example, & my enjoyment of it will not be deminished by a minority of people with extreme views, views that they would have dominate everyone elses lives.

I think it is here where when your mental problem begins to take hold. Nobody has said you should not keep your aquariums etc., but have only pointed out the destructive way many marine aquarium fish are caught, so absolutely no attempt was made to dominate your life. You seem to have a severe paranoid disability, perhaps you should see someone about it, as who knows you might even realise that global warming is not an attack on your rights, only an attempt to preserve the world we have.

+1

if you know of any Australian getting wild caught aquarium fish in the last 10 years, It’s best to enquire with your local authorities as there are very few licences for this practice and it is very closely policed.

Pretty much all aquarium fish you can buy in Australia is many generations down of captive bred fish

only ever seen one blue ring in the wild. on old man rock off darwin.

stumpy_seahorse said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

I think it is here where when your mental problem begins to take hold. Nobody has said you should not keep your aquariums etc., but have only pointed out the destructive way many marine aquarium fish are caught, so absolutely no attempt was made to dominate your life. You seem to have a severe paranoid disability, perhaps you should see someone about it, as who knows you might even realise that global warming is not an attack on your rights, only an attempt to preserve the world we have.

+1

if you know of any Australian getting wild caught aquarium fish in the last 10 years, It’s best to enquire with your local authorities as there are very few licences for this practice and it is very closely policed.

Pretty much all aquarium fish you can buy in Australia is many generations down of captive bred fish

They are mainly caught to our north, but it does still happen in Australian waters, although with cyanide, bleach or dynamite. But more importantly, the marine aquarium trade is worldwide and the destruction of habitat to service this trade is high.

PermeateFree said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

roughbarked said:

+1

if you know of any Australian getting wild caught aquarium fish in the last 10 years, It’s best to enquire with your local authorities as there are very few licences for this practice and it is very closely policed.

Pretty much all aquarium fish you can buy in Australia is many generations down of captive bred fish

They are mainly caught to our north, but it does still happen in Australian waters, although with cyanide, bleach or dynamite. But more importantly, the marine aquarium trade is worldwide and the destruction of habitat to service this trade is high.

Missed out the word ‘not’ re not in Australia.

stumpy_seahorse said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

I think it is here where when your mental problem begins to take hold. Nobody has said you should not keep your aquariums etc., but have only pointed out the destructive way many marine aquarium fish are caught, so absolutely no attempt was made to dominate your life. You seem to have a severe paranoid disability, perhaps you should see someone about it, as who knows you might even realise that global warming is not an attack on your rights, only an attempt to preserve the world we have.

+1

if you know of any Australian getting wild caught aquarium fish in the last 10 years, It’s best to enquire with your local authorities as there are very few licences for this practice and it is very closely policed.

Pretty much all aquarium fish you can buy in Australia is many generations down of captive bred fish

Wasn’t arguing that this wasn’t the case. My points were about the fact that this policing hasn’t always been the case and that these so called captives were at first captured. That in respect for the environment some of the breeding should be put back to assist the wild populations. That also being illegal and policed doesn’t and hasn’t stopped poaching.

PermeateFree said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

roughbarked said:

+1

if you know of any Australian getting wild caught aquarium fish in the last 10 years, It’s best to enquire with your local authorities as there are very few licences for this practice and it is very closely policed.

Pretty much all aquarium fish you can buy in Australia is many generations down of captive bred fish

They are mainly caught to our north, but it does still happen in Australian waters, although with cyanide, bleach or dynamite. But more importantly, the marine aquarium trade is worldwide and the destruction of habitat to service this trade is high.

As I said, if you know of that happening in Australia, report it. it is (and has been for about 10 years) illegal in Australian waters

roughbarked said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

roughbarked said:

+1

if you know of any Australian getting wild caught aquarium fish in the last 10 years, It’s best to enquire with your local authorities as there are very few licences for this practice and it is very closely policed.

Pretty much all aquarium fish you can buy in Australia is many generations down of captive bred fish

Wasn’t arguing that this wasn’t the case. My points were about the fact that this policing hasn’t always been the case and that these so called captives were at first captured. That in respect for the environment some of the breeding should be put back to assist the wild populations. That also being illegal and policed doesn’t and hasn’t stopped poaching.

fisheries will not allow captive bred fishes to be released into the wild, we went through many years of trying to bring in a release program for seahorses, fisheries won’t come to the party

stumpy_seahorse said:

roughbarked said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

if you know of any Australian getting wild caught aquarium fish in the last 10 years, It’s best to enquire with your local authorities as there are very few licences for this practice and it is very closely policed.

Pretty much all aquarium fish you can buy in Australia is many generations down of captive bred fish

Wasn’t arguing that this wasn’t the case. My points were about the fact that this policing hasn’t always been the case and that these so called captives were at first captured. That in respect for the environment some of the breeding should be put back to assist the wild populations. That also being illegal and policed doesn’t and hasn’t stopped poaching.

fisheries will not allow captive bred fishes to be released into the wild, we went through many years of trying to bring in a release program for seahorses, fisheries won’t come to the party

I can comprehend that. Doesn’t mean though that people who are keen to grow such organisms aren’t also engaged in attempting to assist the health of our reefs.

roughbarked said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

roughbarked said:

Wasn’t arguing that this wasn’t the case. My points were about the fact that this policing hasn’t always been the case and that these so called captives were at first captured. That in respect for the environment some of the breeding should be put back to assist the wild populations. That also being illegal and policed doesn’t and hasn’t stopped poaching.

fisheries will not allow captive bred fishes to be released into the wild, we went through many years of trying to bring in a release program for seahorses, fisheries won’t come to the party

I can comprehend that. Doesn’t mean though that people who are keen to grow such organisms aren’t also engaged in attempting to assist the health of our reefs.

the poachers aren’t going to break the law to put fish back and the law abiders aren’t going to break the law, so it’s fisheries that have to change if that is ever going to happen

stumpy_seahorse said:

PermeateFree said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

if you know of any Australian getting wild caught aquarium fish in the last 10 years, It’s best to enquire with your local authorities as there are very few licences for this practice and it is very closely policed.

Pretty much all aquarium fish you can buy in Australia is many generations down of captive bred fish

They are mainly caught to our north, but it does still happen in Australian waters, although with cyanide, bleach or dynamite. But more importantly, the marine aquarium trade is worldwide and the destruction of habitat to service this trade is high.

As I said, if you know of that happening in Australia, report it. it is (and has been for about 10 years) illegal in Australian waters

>>Operating since the 1970s, the MAFF supports 49 collection licences (in 2007) and occupies a vast
area along the east coast of Queensland within
the bounds of the Australian Fishing Zone (AFZ)
(Figure 1). It is a predominantly co
mmercial fishery, with most collect
ion occurring in coastal and reef
waters off Cairns and in South East Queensland. Th
e total annual number of fish and invertebrate
specimens collected in the MAFF was around 170
000 individuals in 2006 (Department of Primary
Industries and Fisheries 2008). Although this is no
t an insignificant amoun
t, the MAFF is small when
compared to the global aquarium
trade which ranges from 20 to
24 million individuals annually
(Wabnitz et al. 2003). While a diverse
assemblage of fish spec
ies are targeted for the
aquarium trade, much of the trade tends to be
centred on a limited number of individual
species (e.g. blue green chromis, humbugs). <<

More:
http://www.provisionreef.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/MAFF_Sustainability_Assessment_2008.pdf

PermeateFree said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

PermeateFree said:

They are mainly caught to our north, but it does still happen in Australian waters, although with cyanide, bleach or dynamite. But more importantly, the marine aquarium trade is worldwide and the destruction of habitat to service this trade is high.

As I said, if you know of that happening in Australia, report it. it is (and has been for about 10 years) illegal in Australian waters

>>Operating since the 1970s, the MAFF supports 49 collection licences (in 2007) and occupies a vast
area along the east coast of Queensland within
the bounds of the Australian Fishing Zone (AFZ)
(Figure 1). It is a predominantly co
mmercial fishery, with most collect
ion occurring in coastal and reef
waters off Cairns and in South East Queensland. Th
e total annual number of fish and invertebrate
specimens collected in the MAFF was around 170
000 individuals in 2006 (Department of Primary
Industries and Fisheries 2008). Although this is no
t an insignificant amoun
t, the MAFF is small when
compared to the global aquarium
trade which ranges from 20 to
24 million individuals annually
(Wabnitz et al. 2003). While a diverse
assemblage of fish spec
ies are targeted for the
aquarium trade, much of the trade tends to be
centred on a limited number of individual
species (e.g. blue green chromis, humbugs). <<

More:
http://www.provisionreef.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/MAFF_Sustainability_Assessment_2008.pdf

exactly.
(from your link)
The greatest threats posed to the aquarium fi
shery are destructive and unsustainable fishing
practices. The use of sodium cyanide and other ch
emicals to stun and catch fish for the aquarium
marine trade are still being used to some extent
within many undeveloped nations (Kolm & Berglund
2003). This type of harvest, which
is highly destructive and devastates vast areas of reef, is banned in
Queensland. The MAFF uses non-destructive methods
such as hand nets and barriers, which rarely
result in damage to fish, co
rals or reef structure.

PermeateFree said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

roughbarked said:

+1

if you know of any Australian getting wild caught aquarium fish in the last 10 years, It’s best to enquire with your local authorities as there are very few licences for this practice and it is very closely policed.

Pretty much all aquarium fish you can buy in Australia is many generations down of captive bred fish

They are mainly caught to our north, but it does still happen in Australian waters, although with cyanide, bleach or dynamite. But more importantly, the marine aquarium trade is worldwide and the destruction of habitat to service this trade is high.

Bollocks. The aquarium fish industry in Northern Australia does not use these practices. Wild caught fish in Australia are collected by hand by divers. Its one of the reasons they’re expensive. The care put into the husbandry of these fish is incredible. How do I know? Australia’s biggest suppliers of wild caught aquarium specimens is 10 minutes from my home and I’ve seen what they do first hand.

There is a growing recognition worldwide regarding destructive collection techniques and the majority of aquarists are happy to pay premium prices for sustainably collected species. Destructive collection still does happen, but you are unlikely to find specimens in Australia that have been collected using these techniques.

stumpy_seahorse said:

PermeateFree said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

As I said, if you know of that happening in Australia, report it. it is (and has been for about 10 years) illegal in Australian waters

>>Operating since the 1970s, the MAFF supports 49 collection licences (in 2007) and occupies a vast
area along the east coast of Queensland within
the bounds of the Australian Fishing Zone (AFZ)
(Figure 1). It is a predominantly co
mmercial fishery, with most collect
ion occurring in coastal and reef
waters off Cairns and in South East Queensland. Th
e total annual number of fish and invertebrate
specimens collected in the MAFF was around 170
000 individuals in 2006 (Department of Primary
Industries and Fisheries 2008). Although this is no
t an insignificant amoun
t, the MAFF is small when
compared to the global aquarium
trade which ranges from 20 to
24 million individuals annually
(Wabnitz et al. 2003). While a diverse
assemblage of fish spec
ies are targeted for the
aquarium trade, much of the trade tends to be
centred on a limited number of individual
species (e.g. blue green chromis, humbugs). <<

More:
http://www.provisionreef.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/MAFF_Sustainability_Assessment_2008.pdf

exactly.
(from your link)
The greatest threats posed to the aquarium fi
shery are destructive and unsustainable fishing
practices. The use of sodium cyanide and other ch
emicals to stun and catch fish for the aquarium
marine trade are still being used to some extent
within many undeveloped nations (Kolm & Berglund
2003). This type of harvest, which
is highly destructive and devastates vast areas of reef, is banned in
Queensland. The MAFF uses non-destructive methods
such as hand nets and barriers, which rarely
result in damage to fish, co
rals or reef structure.

Nice piece of side stepping there Stumpy, although not unexpected.

Every English kiddie has put sticklebacks in a jar to keep as pets and they always die.

Teleost said:

PermeateFree said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

if you know of any Australian getting wild caught aquarium fish in the last 10 years, It’s best to enquire with your local authorities as there are very few licences for this practice and it is very closely policed.

Pretty much all aquarium fish you can buy in Australia is many generations down of captive bred fish

They are mainly caught to our north, but it does still happen in Australian waters, although with cyanide, bleach or dynamite. But more importantly, the marine aquarium trade is worldwide and the destruction of habitat to service this trade is high.

Bollocks. The aquarium fish industry in Northern Australia does not use these practices. Wild caught fish in Australia are collected by hand by divers. Its one of the reasons they’re expensive. The care put into the husbandry of these fish is incredible. How do I know? Australia’s biggest suppliers of wild caught aquarium specimens is 10 minutes from my home and I’ve seen what they do first hand.

There is a growing recognition worldwide regarding destructive collection techniques and the majority of aquarists are happy to pay premium prices for sustainably collected species. Destructive collection still does happen, but you are unlikely to find specimens in Australia that have been collected using these techniques.

Bollocks to you too Teleost, why don’t you read the thread before shouting people down.

PermeateFree said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

PermeateFree said:

>>Operating since the 1970s, the MAFF supports 49 collection licences (in 2007) and occupies a vast
area along the east coast of Queensland within
the bounds of the Australian Fishing Zone (AFZ)
(Figure 1). It is a predominantly co
mmercial fishery, with most collect
ion occurring in coastal and reef
waters off Cairns and in South East Queensland. Th
e total annual number of fish and invertebrate
specimens collected in the MAFF was around 170
000 individuals in 2006 (Department of Primary
Industries and Fisheries 2008). Although this is no
t an insignificant amoun
t, the MAFF is small when
compared to the global aquarium
trade which ranges from 20 to
24 million individuals annually
(Wabnitz et al. 2003). While a diverse
assemblage of fish spec
ies are targeted for the
aquarium trade, much of the trade tends to be
centred on a limited number of individual
species (e.g. blue green chromis, humbugs). <<

More:
http://www.provisionreef.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/MAFF_Sustainability_Assessment_2008.pdf

exactly.
(from your link)
The greatest threats posed to the aquarium fi
shery are destructive and unsustainable fishing
practices. The use of sodium cyanide and other ch
emicals to stun and catch fish for the aquarium
marine trade are still being used to some extent
within many undeveloped nations (Kolm & Berglund
2003). This type of harvest, which
is highly destructive and devastates vast areas of reef, is banned in
Queensland. The MAFF uses non-destructive methods
such as hand nets and barriers, which rarely
result in damage to fish, co
rals or reef structure.

Nice piece of side stepping there Stumpy, although not unexpected.

side stepping?

IMO, if you know of it happening and don’t report it, you re just as bad.

You supplied the link, which confirms my statement of those practices being banned?
not sure what I’m supposed to be ‘side stepping’

stumpy_seahorse said:

PermeateFree said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

exactly.
(from your link)
The greatest threats posed to the aquarium fi
shery are destructive and unsustainable fishing
practices. The use of sodium cyanide and other ch
emicals to stun and catch fish for the aquarium
marine trade are still being used to some extent
within many undeveloped nations (Kolm & Berglund
2003). This type of harvest, which
is highly destructive and devastates vast areas of reef, is banned in
Queensland. The MAFF uses non-destructive methods
such as hand nets and barriers, which rarely
result in damage to fish, co
rals or reef structure.

Nice piece of side stepping there Stumpy, although not unexpected.

side stepping?

IMO, if you know of it happening and don’t report it, you re just as bad.

You supplied the link, which confirms my statement of those practices being banned?
not sure what I’m supposed to be ‘side stepping’

You sidestep because you always change what was actually said in the thread and when proved wrong you move the goal posts and start kicking in the opposite direction. Always a waste of time discussing anything with you Stumpy, if you were a snake you couldn’t tell your head from your tail.