Strange Days on Planet Earth w/ Edward Norton. Episode 2

[wacki]

I missed the first one, "the 1 degree factor" but the second one was really good. It was much better then I expected and amazingly I learned a lot.
Introduced in this thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=exchange&Number=1900192&Fo rum=f20&Words=strange&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Main=1 900192&Search=true&where=sub&Name=7066&daterange=1 &newerval=1&newertype=y&olderval=&oldertype=&bodyp rev=#Post1900192)

Episode 2 was about how the life on our planet is has been dying over the past few decades. Since 1960 90% of the large ocean fish have disappeared. Also, in Yellowstone not a single aspen tree has popped up since 1930. All of the aspen in Yellowstone is at least 70 years old.

The reason? The removal of predators. It was amazing, wolves were killed off in Yellowstone in 1930 and the herbivores went out of control, and the landscape became barren. It has remained that way for 70 years. Beavers, birds, and ducks have been absent from many parts of Yellowstone for decades. Many parts were like a desert. 4 years after the wolves were reintroduced beavers came back, ducks, came back, and the vegetation started growing again. The aerial photos from 1930, modern pre wolf reintroduction, and 4 years after wolf reintroduction were amazing. It was hard for even me to believe the difference.

The ocean is being over run with algae which kills the coral reefs and then everything ends up dead. This is because fisherman are catching all of the fish that eat the algae. Like I said before, the ocean has lost 90% of it's big fish since 1960.

I had no idea.....

Episode 3 is about our water supply.

[A_C_Slater]

Get a job hippie.

[peachy]

There is no way for them to accurately assess the # of large fish "missing" hahaha ur supposed to be a smart man...come on now

pre-that many yrs ago we didnt even have the technology to keep up with what was in the ocean...and even know we cant get a solid count on whats there and whats not there...the ocean is a bit big and deep last time i checked

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Get a job hippie.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have one, and a damn good one too. Also, 90% reduction in large fish directly effects you everytime you want to buy some seafood. Just think about it. It's common sense economics.

[peachy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Get a job hippie.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have one, and a damn good one too. Also, 90% reduction in large fish directly effects you evertime you want to buy some seafood. Just think about it. It's common sense economics.

[/ QUOTE ]

thank god i hate seafood then LOL

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
*** You are ignoring this user ***

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know why you are responding to me, I've had you on ignore for a very long time. You know that.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no way for them to accurately assess the # of large fish "missing" hahaha ur supposed to be a smart man...come on now

pre-that many yrs ago we didnt even have the technology to keep up with what was in the ocean...and even know we cant get a solid count on whats there and whats not there...the ocean is a bit big and deep last time i checked

[/ QUOTE ]


Errr, because of the importance of the matter I decided to unignore you for a few seconds. It amazes me you managed to pass undergraduate biology classes.

Now it's my time to prove you wrong again....

Some stuff (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0515_030515_fishdecline.html)

Some more stuff (http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20030414203530data_trunc_sys.shtml)

Some CNN stuff (http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/05/14/coolsc.disappearingfish/)

From NOAA:
http://www.noaa.gov/nmfs/problem.html

Fishing btw, is a business that is in the tens of billions of dollars.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no way for them to accurately assess the # of large fish "missing" hahaha ur supposed to be a smart man...come on now

pre-that many yrs ago we didnt even have the technology to keep up with what was in the ocean...and even know we cant get a solid count on whats there and whats not there...the ocean is a bit big and deep last time i checked

[/ QUOTE ]

It's called statistical sampling. Like the guy who runs the Nielsen ratings system said, if you don't believe in sampling, next time they take blood, tell them to take all of it.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
It's called statistical sampling. Like the guy who runs the Nielsen ratings system said, if you don't believe in sampling, next time they take blood, tell them to take all of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a pretty good quote. I'll have to remember that.

[theBruiser500]

this show sounds good, what cna i do now to see it is it too late!??!

[wacki]

http://www.pbs.org/strangedays/index_flash.html

At the top there is TV schedule. Click on that and it will tell you the times. It get's played all week (even in high def). You can also buy the DVD set. I'm sure there will be reruns of the first two episodes though.

[peachy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no way for them to accurately assess the # of large fish "missing" hahaha ur supposed to be a smart man...come on now

pre-that many yrs ago we didnt even have the technology to keep up with what was in the ocean...and even know we cant get a solid count on whats there and whats not there...the ocean is a bit big and deep last time i checked

[/ QUOTE ]

It's called statistical sampling. Like the guy who runs the Nielsen ratings system said, if you don't believe in sampling, next time they take blood, tell them to take all of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

im aware of sampling....im in the psychology field...thx My point WAS that a sample does not represent a fact - and they are bent and misrepresented to suit peoples purposes, hopefully most of u would know this

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It's called statistical sampling. Like the guy who runs the Nielsen ratings system said, if you don't believe in sampling, next time they take blood, tell them to take all of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

im aware of sampling....im in the psychology field...thx My point WAS that a sample does not represent a fact - and they are bent and misrepresented to suit peoples purposes, hopefully most of u would know this

[/ QUOTE ]

Holy cow peachy, what does it take to get you to actually read something before opening your mouth? Click on the first link and get back to us.

Bent on misrepresenting???? The data is reproducable, hence the reason it was published in a peer review journal. The data has been reproduced over and over again. Hell even the fishing companies....

Why am I wasting my time? You have to be trolling, there is no way you can be that stupid and get into grad school.

Back on ignore peachy.

Do a search in the Journal Nature by Ransom Myers.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v423/n6937/abs/nature01610_fs.html

http://fish.dal.ca/~myers/papers/Papers-recent/nature01610_r.pdf

[peachy]

hahaha just because something is published in a journal doesnt make it a renowned fact...please. I do studies, but there are factors that can affect those studies: insufficent #s, outside variables, etc etc - endless things. The findings r "correct" in terms of using signficance, but the reasons why arent...so dont feed me this BS. I dont care how many times this is tested....unless its years and years of data and teams dedicated to this and massive tagging of fish and then more studies done by other groups simultaneously and after the data is not relavent. U can think what u want...and if u wanna be shocked and insipired by overall incorrect statistics then be my guest. Bottom line, no stat that comes out right or wrong is going to change the majority of the world...and it wont affect us (in a massive way)...just those after us....

if u wanna believe all stats thats ur choice...but this is how i feel about them...so dont start some dumb "im right and ur wrong" arguement

and its funny how u SAY im on ignore but yet respond to me and then claim ur puttin me back on ignore....quite sad

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
hahaha just because something is published in a journal doesnt make it a renowned fact...please. I do studies, but there are factors that can affect those studies: insufficent #s, outside variables, etc etc - endless things. The findings r correct, but the reasons why arent...so dont feed me this BS. I dont care how many times this is tested....unless its years and years of data and teams dedicated to this and massive tagging of fish and then more studies done by other groups simultaneously and after the data is not relavent. U can think what u want...and if u wanna be shocked and insipired by overall incorrect statistics then be my guest. Bottom line, no stat that comes out right or wrong is going to change the majority of the world...and it wont affect us (in a massive way)...just those after us....

[/ QUOTE ]

Ransom, WHOI, NOAA, Pelagic longlines, and many more have already done all of that as described in the links I provided. They have decades of data. Man you are a raging fucktard.

Goodnight peachy, I need sleep.