New York Times: "Fish seek cooler waters"

[reason162]

When the people most affected by climate change deny the science, what more is there to say? If you don't like the data, it's flawed. The nytimes is skewed. Scientists have agendas, just like oil/gas conglomerates have agendas.

This country is screwed.

[Dino]

Id chime in but you lost me at new york times :d:d

[bulletbob]

Originally Posted by reason162

When the people most affected by climate change deny the science, what more is there to say? If you don't like the data, it's flawed. The nytimes is skewed. Scientists have agendas, just like oil/gas conglomerates have agendas.

This country is screwed.

Water temp has been fairly consistent for years.. Within a degree or two month by month, depending on the severity of the winter.. If you REALLY think global warming is hurting the fishing, and that its the main problem on the planet, then I agree, we ARE screwed.. bob

[Blind Squirrel]

Originally Posted by bulletbob

Water temp has been fairly consistent for years.. Within a degree or two month by month, depending on the severity of the winter.. If you REALLY think global warming is hurting the fishing, and that its the main problem on the planet, then I agree, we ARE screwed.. bob

As the NYT article pointed out, the question is no longer whether global climate change is affecting the fish populations of any given area, and is now centered on what to do about it from a regulatory standpoint. US Senators Blumenthal and Murphy of Connecticut, in a letter to the acting IG of the Commerce Department, stated that fishermen in CT are experiencing “extreme financial hardship [because the regulations are outdated]." They went on to "request that your office investigate how the current system impacts the region’s fishermen and whether the structure should be reformed to bring quota allocations in line with current data on actual fish population distribution,” and concluded “As species of fish move north, the allocation levels should migrate with them.”
Addressing a problem using all of the available information looks like simple common sense to me.

[bulletbob]

Originally Posted by Blind Squirrel

As the NYT article pointed out, the question is no longer whether global climate change is affecting the fish populations of any given area, and is now centered on what to do about it from a regulatory standpoint. US Senators Blumenthal and Murphy of Connecticut, in a letter to the acting IG of the Commerce Department, stated that fishermen in CT are experiencing “extreme financial hardship [because the regulations are outdated]." They went on to "request that your office investigate how the current system impacts the region’s fishermen and whether the structure should be reformed to bring quota allocations in line with current data on actual fish population distribution,” and concluded “As species of fish move north, the allocation levels should migrate with them.”
Addressing a problem using all of the available information looks like simple common sense to me.

Murphy is a liberal, Blumenthal is a radical leftist, and the NY Times has ZERO credibility, with any rational, functioning person, unless you are a fan of the radical left...
Water temp has nothing to do with it... The problem is simply too many people are catching and eating too many fish.. The "climate change" myth has nothing to do with it...

[AndyS]

The Mackerel are gone due to the Russian trawlers that wiped out the East Coast run, nothing to do with climate. This started the 200 mile limit, remember.

[AndyS]

The commercial fishermen wiped out all the Cod, Haddock and Pollock off the Georges Banks, then cried to the government that they needed money because all the fish were gone. Just another case of over fishing, nothing more.

[Blind Squirrel]

Originally Posted by bulletbob

Murphy is a liberal, Blumenthal is a radical leftist, and the NY Times has ZERO credibility, with any rational, functioning person, unless you are a fan of the radical left...
Water temp has nothing to do with it... The problem is simply too many people are catching and eating too many fish.. The "climate change" myth has nothing to do with it...

There's this approach to dealing with the reality of anthropogenic global climate change:
http://time.com/3725994/inhofe-snowball-climate/ [see video of the chairman of our U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee demonstrating his remarkable knowledge of current weather in DC]
and there's the acknowledgment-of-scientific-consensus approach taken by Senators Murphy and Blumenthal, the NYT journalists, and other rational and informed people who address the facts instead of simply labeling their adversaries. As the NYT article in the OP points out, fish species aren't simply vanishing; they're relocating to their customary habitat, and "too many people...catching and eating too many fish" does not explain these significant non-cyclical migrations of fish populations from one location to another, nor is it the only basis for sensible and effective regulatory policy.

[reason162]

Lol why even bother. Any source that admits the reality of climate change is leftist/liberal. Mind you, to deny climate change is now a minority position, but ofc the fallback is "well but it's not man-made."

Sure, fine, whatever. Time will tell, and it'll be with no joy when rational, thinking people say "told you so."

Originally Posted by Blind Squirrel

There's this approach to dealing with the reality of anthropogenic global climate change:
http://time.com/3725994/inhofe-snowball-climate/ [see video of the chairman of our U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee demonstrating his remarkable knowledge of current weather in DC]
and there's the acknowledgment-of-scientific-consensus approach taken by Senators Murphy and Blumenthal, the NYT journalists, and other rational and informed people who address the facts instead of simply labeling their adversaries. As the NYT article in the OP points out, fish species aren't simply vanishing; they're relocating to their customary habitat, and "too many people...catching and eating too many fish" does not explain these significant non-cyclical migrations of fish populations from one location to another, nor is it the only basis for sensible and effective regulatory policy.

[fishguy]

So, decades of established science means nothing to you guys? What other scientific facts do you disagree with in order to fit your world view?