Re: Marty, this is not scientific


[Archive] | [Bulletin Board]


Posted by Stan P on 2011-11-19 23:02:14 in reply to Re: Marty, this is not scientific posted by Dave Sellers on 2011-11-19 19:07:53

Marty:
Strongly suspect---OK. What are the "suspicions" about water exports relative to striped bass predation and their effects on ES species? Define it. Help me understand why one solution is better or more effective than the other. That is what science is for. Osmosis explains the majority of factors relating to excessive water exports and the delta's decline. For instance records are kept about the amount sewerage dumped in the delta, estimations are accessible for selenium levels of water pumped back into the delta. Positive inflow/outflow balanced against just these two factors in the the delta will shed light on the reasons and solutions for delta decline and methods of restoration. I understand your study which drives reg change with respect to striped bass. How does that relate other options? One of the first tenets of scientific method is to distinguished between belief and bias. This requires equal weight be given to both your and my bias and hypothesis. I propose that the overwhelming factor affecting the delta "decline" is based on water availability and positive flow volumes to the sea. These factors are key to resolving ES decline from my perspective. Yours appears to be stripers eat all the endangered species. Fair enough. Your study arrived at after years of work and thought invests you personally financially and emotionally in your hypothesis. My personal desires and perspective invested me in mine. So much for the bias. Science dictates that both are valid until proven one way or the other. I find it incredible that studies have not been conducted to establish concentrations of human generated toxins and water flow volume through the delta relative to fish populations on a macro scale. All fish populations. It all boils down to the concentration of crap in the water. Less crap means less water is needed to run through the delta to keep concentrations of toxins at a sustainable level. More crap requires more water to keep concentrations at a tolerable level. My hypothesis is not simple minded or even outside of common sense. What is the carrying capacity of the delta in terms of fish populations? Where is it presently at relative to carrying capacity? How has this changed relative to water exports? These are valid questions and remain so regardless of species introduced or not. Yet there is no answer offered for these specific questions and how they relate to the issue at hand. When our best biologists move to create policy based on suspicions, science is mocked. At the very least any modicum of professionalism requires that you either disprove my hypothesis or acknowledge it merits. What is it? Am I full of s--t or is my hypothesis worthy of consideration and study before devastating fishery policy is handed down?


Follow ups: