Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


King of fish threatened

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 18 October 2007
THERE are few natural predators capable of catching a fully grown mature salmon. A dolphin is capable of hunting down the king of fish but would probably prefer easier prey; seals are a risk in confined areas where the salmon can be trapped, particularly during colder months. But this powerful creature, when fully grown, is superbly equipped to out-swim almost anything else in the sea.
Humans also pose only a limited threat: it is only "lightly fished" and while a few are caught in nets meant for the likes of mackerel and herring this is not thought to make a significant dent in their numbers.

So it may come as a surprise to some to learn that when salmon leave Scotland's rivers and travel to traditional feeding grounds in the Norwegian Sea and off Greenland, they are being slaughtered as never before.

Forty years ago, nearly half the smolts leaving freshwater for salt would return to breed. Now as few as 10 per cent of fish are succeeding in making the same journey.

And, according to a new study of returning fish, there is further bad news: those that do return are becoming thinner and thinner. This is alarming because salmon stop feeding and rely on fat reserves to make their epic trip back to the headwaters of their birth river to breed. The females also rely on stored fat to make eggs.

The reason for this alarming picture appears to be changes in the distribution of plankton populations - caused by climate change - which mean there is less food for the salmon while at sea.

Surveys of the numbers of salmon going out to sea and returning have been carried out on the North Esk since 1964 by Fisheries Research Services staff. Scientists have noted a "marked upward trend in marine mortality rate over the period in which monitoring was carried out" (see graph).

And the new study by Professor Chris Todd of thousands of grilse - young salmon which have spent a single winter at sea - found that over the last ten years, the average weight of the fish fell by 11 to 14 per cent.

Prof Todd, a marine ecologist at St Andrews University who was speaking at an Atlantic Salmon Trust conference on the fate of salmon at sea in Edinburgh yesterday, told The Scotsman: "Our analyses indicate that this is closely linked to ocean climate warming in the north-east Atlantic. Probably we are seeing the effects of a lack of feeding for salmon at sea, arising from temperature-driven shifts in the distribution of the plankton communities upon which salmon depend.

"It is likely that the salmon still are migrating to the correct part of the ocean, but when they get there the food simply is not available to them."

The worst affected are up to 30 per cent underweight and fat reserves have been found to be 80 per cent below those of a salmon in good condition.

"To ensure the future of wild salmon in an ever-changing environment we do need to especially encourage anglers to release as many females as possible to give them a chance of successfully spawning," Prof Todd said.

Some might think the decline of the salmon is being linked to climate change by those eager to convince the public of the need to cut carbon emissions. But Richard Shelton, research director at the trust, does not believe in "anthropogenic" global warming and is convinced the changing climate is the salmon's main problem. He cited seals, sea lice from fish farms and bycatch by fishing boats as factors, but said: "My own view - and I think it is the view of nearly all the marine scientists who have looked into it - is if there is any one reason, it is problems finding food relatively early in their lives driven by changes in the marine climate.

"There is no short-term answer to it even if you believe anthropogenic forces are the main reason behind climate change and I don't believe that."

A lack of food means the marine salmon are finding it increasingly difficult grow into the giant super-fish it is capable of becoming. A smaller, weaker, slower salmon is easier prey.

"Fish just don't die of old age at sea," Dr Shelton said. "They die of being predated one way or another or being caught by a fishery. The longer you are small, the greater the range of predators capable of catching you."

The Scotsman's manifesto to protect the seas

THE Scotsman has launched a campaign for urgent steps to be taken to protect our precious marine life.

We want:

• a network of marine reserves and protected areas to be created to safeguard properly sites such as St Kilda, one of just 30 marine World Heritage Sites, the Sound of Mull, an important area for whales and dolphins, and Loch Sween with its lagoons and tidal rapids;

• a system of marine planning, effectively zoning areas for appropriate use, to safeguard important fishing grounds from offshore wind farms and other developments and allow humans to exploit the seas in the most sustainable way;

• a single marine management organisation for Scottish waters to ensure this system operates as efficiently as possible;

• Scotland should also be given control of conservation to the 200-mile boundary with international waters. At present, the Scottish Government controls out to 12 miles, with the UK government responsible for the waters beyond that.

The full article contains 913 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 17 October 2007 10:38 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Save our Seas
 
1

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 18/10/2007 00:11:26

Hello All,

Richard Shelton had better watch out, the Doomsayers and the PC Crowd will have him either tarred and feathered and run out of town on a pole, OR stripped of his job, his reputation, and or bring suit against him in court;

All for saying he doesn't believe that humans are the primary cause of Global Warming.

The PC Crowd on GW, are acting more and more like a 21st Century bunch of Puritans, on a hunt for a Witch to Burn.

The PC's ALL carry matches you know-even though they don't partake of the evil 'weed'.

Cheers.

2

brian mcc,

the arctic 18/10/2007 00:45:15

The salmon is the king of fish, a small sliver is in the oven for dinner. Those that are returning are thinner...I am not a fish, although it is known they migrate with the food chain. The scent of the river that spawned them is engrained in biology, the need to eat essential. I prefer to imagine the 90% that have not returned are breaking the biological chain and have simply moved further north in order to survive.

3

nabodican,

Skye 18/10/2007 01:01:58

Well said Dr Dhelton, watch out though because #! is correct and don't look for any more funding.

4

Conan,

18/10/2007 01:09:52

Well, that's quite a manifesto, Scotman. So, we can rely on 'your vote' to get an INDEPENDENT SCOATLUND' to make all that happen? Right? Or, is it just talk? Or, is it something that only 'London' could make happen becase we're too retarded to do it ourselves?

5

49th State,

Waiting for Friday 18/10/2007 02:14:57

Alaska has sea lions and salmon sharks. But Illegal fishing by Asia abd Russia are going to decimate the schools here some day.

6

F.R.E.E. Mason,

Brisbane,Australia. 18/10/2007 03:00:52

Few natural preditors my buttocks! You should have seen my uncle Eric in his hay-day! Even with a bung eye an a dodgy shoulder he reel them in faster than a........spinny.....reely ...thing ..anyway you get the picture

7

Black Five,

edinburgh {cloud cuckooland) 18/10/2007 06:45:04

I`ve got a better one let`s get the f out of the E U .THe worst thing we ever did was join that gang.I voted against it in 1975 and have seen no reason to change my mind.

8

DavyLadd,

Scottish Highlands 18/10/2007 07:01:24

Oh dear, oh dear, when are the people who have leverage in the corridors of power actually going to listen to the people at the coal face? NATURE ABHORRS A VACCUM! Due to the blinkered, blinded vision of the angling fraternity over the years, the situation for these wild salmon has led them to the point of extinction! Legitimate commercial operations all around our coastline have been closed down. The most recent was Strathy Point Salmon Netting Station on the North coast of Scotland. This has been in that particular family for 80yrs. This year the Scottish Government refused to renew their lease. This was based on supposed expert information from so-called scientists. What everyone ( except those thousands who have been put out of work over the years ) knows perfectly well that if you remove a netting station from the coast it will be replaced by seals and poachers. I happen to know that recently with regard to the above closure that this was regarded by a senior river supirintendent of a certain north river to be a very bad thing and that station 'acted as a type of policeman' for the area. That information came to me from a well known MSP because this chap came to his surgery and complained about the closure. It was refreshing to hear because it came from the angling side! These netting stations have actually helped scientists track salmon and have shown on many occasions that the vast majority of them happily evade the bag nets and sweep nets which are strictly controlled by law. Personally I have never been able to understand why anyone would be willing to pay good money to thrash a section of river with a fly while the mouth of the river is awash with poachers nets and seals ( who incidentally dont get to be that size feeding on seaweed!). Listen up anglers! If you dont start working together with other commercial operations who have a legitimate right to what is after all, a natural birthright, there will be nothing left for anyone!

9

thinking,

Scotland 18/10/2007 07:35:18

I read somewhere that escaped farmed salmon causes genetic weakness when they breed with wild salmon. Could this be a cause?

10

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 18/10/2007 07:36:10

According to the Fisheries Research Services and various other reports, the plankton communities have increased around the shores of Scotland.

http://www.marlab.ac.uk/Delivery/standalone.aspx?contenti...

More studies, across the salmons entire ecological range, is required. And no, it's not because they are being fished to extinctions, much of the salmon we eat is farmed, most rivers operate a catch and release system and a few are poached. Most folks have respect for the King of Fish.

11

on _the_level,

18/10/2007 07:58:53

# 1 , your an @rse , regardless of the causes of global warming why would the ' PC crowd ' want anything more than to find the cause of the shortage.

12

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 18/10/2007 07:59:55

-- So if you're not a fish, what are you? Polar Bear maybe?

There is a polar bear living down the road not far from here. The swamplands of the Conon Delta also host numbers of brown bears.

I was encouraged by the books of Konrad Lorenz to venture boldy into this dangerous ethology - I tell you it is - to write a dissertation on Special Observation Of Bears:

http://pochapocha.com/cc/read.php?2,184,184#msg-184

Polar Bears often cover their vaguely human substrate with a big Arran sweater. I'd advise not to go near them. Career choices are the RM - for the arctic training - and formerly, skippering Icelandic trawlers. Today they have satellite TV to watch polar expeditions and Old Firm games.

13

carrottop,

Dumfries 18/10/2007 08:03:27

Maybe they have been worn down by the moaning faced gits who frequent the Scotsman site and gone elsewhere for some peace and quiet.

14

Flash67,

Edinburgh 18/10/2007 08:45:57

Given that a skeptic of GW caused by humans feels the research points to climate change as the cause of this crash, this is hugely worrying... is this the tip of the iceberg? (pardon the pun) Irrespective of your beliefs on the causes of global warming, it IS happening, and because of the relative stability of marine temperature compared to air temp., the base producers of this ecosystem are very vulnerable to any time temperature DOES change. We are getting used to the reports of almost complete failure in seabird breeding colonies, now this. Something fishy (!) is happening in the great briny. Although the vast majority of climate scientists (90% or so) feel that these changes are largely driven by CO2 increases in the atmosphere, Richard Shelton is entitled to his opinion. A vast amount of money and media attention is being given to the the ever decreasing minority view that "it's nowt to do wi' us". Almost daily, the red herrings set up by those who refuse to believe the evidence are knocked down, and the IPCC 4th report due out soon is expected to show depressing trends since the last one in 2001.
I believe history will show those 'doubters' in the same light as those who led a vociferous campaign against Darwin's theory on Evolution by Natural Selction, and still do. Sometimes, all the evidence in the world is not enough to convince some people. That is the difference between scientists and dogmatics.....

15

Tweedmouth,

18/10/2007 08:46:59

The article says:
"The reason for this alarming picture appears to be changes in the distribution of plankton populations - caused by climate change - which mean there is less food for the salmon while at sea."

Salmon don't eat plankton - they eat shrimp and other fish. Now it is 'possible' that all the plankton in the North Atlantic have disappeared - though I doubt that - but it's much more likely that we have simply OVERFISHED the prey species which the salmon eats - like sandeels. 'Occams Razor' predicts that the simplest hypothesis is often the correct one - so if the salmon are starving the truth is far more likely to be connected with human destruction of fish stocks than with the 'secondary hypothesis' of plankton disappearing.

Every salmon smolt that comes down a Scottish river has to run the gauntlet of the salmon cages which cluster in every loch, bay and river mouth.
All these millions of caged salmon are fed on dried sand-eels processed by the Danes. So, if you take all the wild salmon's food away, dont be surprised if they get thin! Also, the area around these salmon ghettos is a virtual cloud of parasitic sea lice - trillions of them. These attach to the salmon smolts and suck their blood - often killing them by disease infection. Before salmon farms existed, a salmon smolt would rarely have met a fish louse as it went to sea - now it meets millions in every sea loch as it goes to sea. Go figure. Salmon farms and overfishing will exterminate wild salmon within a decade. The wildlife lobby is in denial - you can't preserve the wild salmon by appeasing the multinational farmed salmon industry - they will eat you for breakfast. Actually, they already HAVE eaten you for breakfast.

16

Flash67,

Edinburgh 18/10/2007 09:15:33

#16 - ultimately, EVERY predator in the sea depends on plankton.
Not to say, though, that the salmon farming industry are not also a factor in this decline, as they can turn the local marine environment into an underwater 'desert' devoid of life. Although, the salmon farming industry hasn't undergone a great expansion in the last 10 years, so maybe not as great a contribution as you suggest.

You quote 'Ockhams Razor' which is absolutely true, but here, both hypotheses are saying the same thing - it's likely to be decrease in food resources. The cause of that decrease is, of course, up for debate.

17

Duncan in Edinburgh `,

18/10/2007 09:32:16

What are you crying about. There is plenty of Salmon, Salmon is rotten anyway, give me a nice bit of halibut anyday

18

Nellie,

Liverpool 18/10/2007 09:56:52

Oh dear! Even the (few) scientists who don't believe global warming is primarily caused by human actions still believe we have had some impact on it. So, even if they are right about the primary cause (umm... which is what?), there is STILL no logical reason for sitting back and not doing anything! However, small, or big, the effect of humans on global warming, we can have SOME effect on stopping it, or at least delaying its progress. If we don't the catastrophe we face will come sooner rather than later. But if you are happy for your children, in the future, to face food shortages and lose their homes to the sea, perhaps even in your own lifetime ...

19

Deighan,

18/10/2007 10:09:29

Well done again to the Scotsman. because we need joined up thinking to manage all aspects of our seas.
I'd like to add a couple of facts.
1 A large portion of smolts are dying at sea because of the lice infestations they catch as they migrate each spring - sea trout smolts can and do return to the rivers in a terrible state but salmon carry on and become easy prey.
2 There is a food chain problem and we know we can do something and fast about sandeels. Current change is more complex but the salmon will adapt and the timing of the run will alter (We are already seeing the main run 1 month late over just 5 years and we know historically the main run used to be in the sping)
3 The silence on these isues by our elected and paid politicians is deafening!!

20

Vlad Tepes,

Targoviste 18/10/2007 10:17:46

Spot on 19. This attitude of "yeah the ecosystems are failing - but it's not our fault, honest" is as silly as the heads in the sand crowd. Give me a problem that it is in our hands to mitigate every time.

21

SuzieC,

Hebrides 18/10/2007 11:19:04

Climate swings have occurred throughout the history of the world, from Ice Age to temperate and back to Ice Age etc, but the increase in average temperature over the last hundred years is unprecedented, as far as I've read. Since this coincides with the equally unprecedented industrialisation of the planet it seems almost certain that, even if we are in the throes of a natural warming, humans are responsible for exacerbating the situation.

As Nellie #19 says, the least we can do is our utmost to reduce our own impact on the changing climate. Then perhaps nature will have a small chance of adapting to the change before it is too late - Darwin, survival of the fittest and all that.

Meanwhile, I'm supporting the Scotsman's campaign. Even if it's 'Global Warming' that's causing the problems for marine creatures and sea birds, we can at least give them a chance by providing safe areas without commercial vessels that literally hoover every living creature from the seabed.

22

Ellie,

Edin.. 18/10/2007 11:20:36

I remember being on the jetty at Berwick on Tweed in the late 70-ies and watching a seal chasing a large salmon and it looked pretty predatory to me!

23

TimW1234,

Ottawa, Canada 18/10/2007 12:07:15

We are truly blessed in our glorious country of Canada because we have a choice of Atlantic or Pacific salmon from which to choose.

There is nothing like a grilled salmon with dill sauce or tartar sauce (homemade, of course) accompanied by cole slaw and homemade french fries. YUM, YUM.

#6 F.R.E.E. Mason in Australia

You and your uncle should have been ashamed because what you were doing was not "natural" but highly greedy and probably unnecessary UNLESS there were so many salmon around that your greed did not imperil the salmon stock.

I do hope you didn't reel in FEMALE salmon and upset the natural balance.

Were you two in the salmon trade or did you just sell them on the black market?

24

Kineton,

Warwickshire 18/10/2007 12:13:02

Thanks for sending this interesting article. I seldom see let alone read The Scotsman. Perhaps it would be interested to know that 121 salmon were taken on Gwent Anglers water this season-more than double the number of many previous years.The same applies to most beats on the Usk.Loads of fish were travelling up to spawn on the last day of the season yesterday.

25

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 18/10/2007 12:58:56

-- the increase in average temperature over the last hundred years is unprecedented

Not at all. There have been sustained significantly warmer periods in the past 1000s of years. As a new ice-age is far more likely from facts as are known, is some global warming, as far as is estimated (and this is very speculative science) the great worry?

We are looking at periodics in the entire solar system and further afield as galaxies precess. Are we seeing a trend, or a Gaian counter movement?

We don't know. Though not putting pollution into our surroundings that need the far more difficult job of clearing up is always a good idea.

26

monkfish,

Dundee 18/10/2007 13:01:45

There is some misinformation here:
- smolt return rates revealed by the North Esk research in the 1970's were closer to 4% than 40%. Anything over 4% and there'd a been a salmon ranching industry, not a salmon farming one. What the figure is now (1%, 0.1%) I would like to know (but do not expect to learn here).
- #16 makes good points about food chains. The comments about fish farms and sealice are plainly absurd. 95% of fish farms are on the west coast. 95% of salmon live in rivers on the east coast.

There's a story on the BBC today about "scientific illiteracy", and unfortunately this article and thread make a topical example.

27

struie,

highlands 18/10/2007 13:42:21

Re no 9 (DavyLadd). The "senior river superintendent" you mention actually operates a bag-netting station. He has a vested interest in netting and is hardly an objective commentator. The seals argument (remove the nets and the seals will move in to fill the vacuum) is a red herring. Bag nets act as a magnet for seals. The fish are sitting there in a trap - easy prey for the seals through the sides of the netting. If you go out with a netsman to empty a bag net, you will see the evidence - lots of partially eaten salmon hanging in the netting, which cannot be sold (a total waste). Mixed stocks coastal netting for salmon (ie taking fish destined for a number of differnt rivers)is universally acknowledged by all governments and conservation organisations to be poor management practice. If there is a croppable surplus of salmon in a particular river system, then from a management and stocks perspective there is no reason not to net within the mouth of the river itself. Coastal netting makes a mockery of attempts to manage fish populations on a river by river basis.

28

Deighan,

18/10/2007 13:47:35

# 27 Monkfish - this is not just a Scottish problem - so forget the East and West red herring. Current smolt returns vary system by system and year by year but you are right 40% would cause oxygen problems in rivers and 4% would give incredible runs.
Some of the enclosed Irish systems where fish are hatcheried and ranched would suggest a current return rate of around 1% (with big currently unforecastable variances.) Apart from natural predation there have also been recently recorderd incidents of smolts being caught in the high seas by foreign owned mackerel boats.
There isalso clear evidence that the smolt return rate is lower in systems beside salmon farms because of sea lice, even when SLICE is used.
Food chain issues are also undisputable - smolts are going to sea at around 4 oz and some are coming back 15 months later at only 1lb. In the old days the runts were 4lb and thre fat ones could put on 1lb per month!
The industry is worth millions to Scotland, and Ireland yet none of this is even on the political agenda.
Soon the only Salmon(d) left will be Alex!

29

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 18/10/2007 13:53:08

-- The comments about fish farms and sealice are plainly absurd. 95% of fish farms are on the west coast. 95% of salmon live in rivers on the east coast.

Where do you get the second figure? Salmon breed on gravel beds but are in the sea, not rivers for most of their lives. The very non-industrial Clyde is seeing a return of fish. The net propriators of the Tay once took a huge lift of salmon out of pure greed.

What are figures for the Conon?

Coastal netting was once well-regulated and productive and made no dent at all in smolt nos.

Then corporate business bought it out and closed it down in their deluded thinking that it'd get more well-heeled clients (criminals?) to their real estate beats.

30

Faye,

18/10/2007 14:48:44

Some of these scientists are putting their profession into disrepute. Or is it an industry now?

Afterall, most of them are being remunerated by some company wanting a message to be put out into the public arena backed up by science, or some nutty scientist to the supposedly ignorant public.

Climate change, every second word these days.

31

Faye,

18/10/2007 14:53:19

Greed and overfishing. Reducing habitats for all animals and plant life and their food sources for their young are being raided by humans.

Nothing too scientific needed to understand that.

Humans can be dumb.

We pollute and kill off more or less everything that sustains us.

32

Deighan,

18/10/2007 14:55:03

#30
Here are a few facts
Most salmon in Scotland smolt at 2 or 3 years (Living in their river) and come back as grilse i.e. 1 sea winter fish after between 14 and 19 months at sea. They spend a further in-river period of between 4 and eight months. Do the math - they nearly all (apart from 4 sea winter fish like the Ness fish last week) spend more time in their river than they do in the sea.
You are right that coastal netting never damaged the smolt run but in a time of salmon decline and when most anglers now practice catch and release it can not be justified apart from perhaps in one or two prolific systems. Just look at the resurgence of the spring runs in the North Esk since netting was delayed till June.

33

Westhighlander,

Lochaber 18/10/2007 15:37:51

Deighan is quite right. Our hatchery juves smolt mostly at 2 years, but the wild fish are prob more likely go out at three. We had grilse this year at under a pound and I know even the east coast rivers suffered similarly.

On top of this, many rivers, both east and west flowing, have suffered this year from the serious looking condition where a high proportion of grilse have been bleeding from the anal vent. I'm not aware of many multi-wintered fish showing this, but I took 3 in a row several weeks ago (all returned) all swollen and bleeding from the vent. I haven't seen anything definitive on this condition yet, though I've heard it said it has been caused by a hering worm.

No, the coastal netting never did damage smolts, but fish farming is doing that job very effectively now, thanks to our massive west coast sea lice population, all courtesy of marine harvest et al.

An even greater problem is that the massive Danish and Dutch dairy industries depend heavily on sandeels for fishmeal. Try some danish or dutch bacon - you can actually smell and taste the fish. What we should be doing is pursuing these people as hard as we can. If the Scotsman really wants to do something useful, rather than encouraging yet more bureaucracy by way of marine parks etc., it could begin by mounting a major investigation into the sandeel problem, since figs for both Danish & Dutch total catch have proved virtually impossible to get hold of. They just don't want to tell anyone, and in anycase, how much of the real total is actually declared?

Angling is worth £75 million to the Scottish economyand is a key element in maintaining the viability of many rural communities. We should be paying much more attention to renegades within the EU like Holland & Denmark - they are the real threat to our salmon, without a doubt.

34

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 18/10/2007 16:04:57

You know more about this than me. But when the fish returns, it is now a one-year old salmon?

Fish-farming is a proven ecological catastrophy to the west-coast of Scotland and when did you last see a sea trout there? The north rivers are fishing well (where there are no salmon cages).

More fish in a spring-run does not equate to greater subsequent smolts. There could be less fertilised eggs and greater consumption of offspring.

I've no interest in river fly fishing for salmon and regard torturing such as fish as people pay alot of money to do as a weird perversion.

Catch an release? Is this what you do in the street?

35

DavyLadd,

On a boat in the North Sea ( because no fish ) 18/10/2007 17:14:37

Re # 28 (klibreck)
How do you propose to deal with the massive increase in numbers of seals and poachers ( are you one by any chance? ) around our coast? I worked bag nets on the west coast for a number of years and the owner was careful to manage his rented slice to the point I only ever came across a seal in the bag once. I cant tell you how many times we lifted poachers lethal, indiscriminate, invisible nets. These multi-monofilament nets ( as you probably know ) frequently entangle and drown seals, otters, sea-birds, porpoises and take an inordinate unknown quantity of wild salmon. The legitimate bagnet however takes a tiny share of salmon in a perfect condition, unlike the poached ones which have net marks all over. The bagnet has a leader which is removed completely at the weekend, not that this matters anymore as they are almost extinct due to the meddling of governments who ALWAYS go for the easy option.

36

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 18/10/2007 18:02:06

Hello Nellie and Flash,

You two really need to start visiting some websites OTHER than those of the Rad Left Doomsaying GW'ers.

90% of the world's scientists are NOT in agreement concerning the causes of GW. It's about 50/50 on the causes, but about 70/30 on existence of Sustained Global Warming, with the 70% being in agreement that Sustained GW is verifiable.

The 30% point to the facts concerning Temporary GW, that is to say, at earlier times in the 20th century, were WARMER than today, despite those years being PRIOR to WWII (when the exponential development of modern industry occurred).

I happen to agree with the 70% that there is more substantial proofs supporting Sustained GW than Temporary GW, and also agree with the 50% of Scientist which state that Human Causation has not and cannot be proven at this point in time.

It is nice and dandy to politicize the GW issue, but such demigogery does NOTHING to actually provide us all with a rational, real world paradigm to help us face the warmer future.

Throwing money at issues only depletes treasuries, steals from taxpayers, and may actually do NOTHING to positively impact GW.

We need REASONED DEBATE and FACTS people, not political hyperbole.

Remember folks, our planet has NATURAL CYCLES, and goes through those cycles, whether we humans are around or not, and whether we pump toxins in the atmosphere or not.

Like I said in another thread, Mother Earth is FAR MORE NEGATIVELY IMPACTING GW than any human country; one need but look at the volcanic eruptions impacting our planet (and the sub-oceanic eruptions, of which we have so very little data), up to almost 70 each year of the last 3 years, to what is happening.

Each eruption pumps the equivalent of a WHOLE YEAR of EXHAUST FUMES OUTPUT, from EVERY CAR in the USA.

Last year we had 67 volcanic eruptions, above ground, across the globe.

Do the math people, then factor in the sub-oceanic eruptions

37

Danepiper,

USA 18/10/2007 18:37:50

#37
Absolutely Correct! Just remember though that the truth isn't nearly as glamorous as the Nobel prize and vote grabbing grandstanding.

What was the climate doing before the Little Ice Age? Warming up of course. Barring natural disasters the global environment is on a regular cycle of change. Humans have far too high an estimation of their power in the Universe!

38

Jock Scot,

East Lothian 18/10/2007 18:48:41

#24 TimW1234

Grilled Salmon and French Fries YUM, YUM!
You gastronomic philistine.

No mention of Orcas, who are versatile and opportunistic predators.
The difference in farmed and wild salmon contaminant concentrations is due to diet. While wild salmon eat a large variety of aquatic organisms such as krill, zooplankton, and small fish, farmed salmon consume a formulated high-fat feed primarily of other fish ground into fishmeal, antibiotic's and fish oil. As a result, farmed salmon consume and concentrate in their fat tissue, more of the contaminants than typically found in wild fish.

Farmed salmon in Scotland contain relatively high concentrations of dioxins and PCBs. The biggest problem long term, will be escaped farmed fish with significantly different genetic strains returning to spawn with wild stocks, altering the integrity of wild fish.

39

Graeme M,

OZ 19/10/2007 10:51:12

I though Prince Charles had caught them all at Dee-side?...


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.