senorbim
05-15-2003, 09:48 AM
Nature Magazine's cover story says "The world's oceans have lost over 90% of large predatory fish, with potentially severe consequences for the ecosystem."
Here is the original press release:
http://www.boston.com/dailynews/134/ascribe/_Cover_Study_of_Nature_Provide:.shtml
and a
Google News Search (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=cluster%3Aens-news.com%2Fens%2Fmay2003%2F2003-05-14-03.asp)
Apparently Boris Worm et al estimated the biomass of "pre-industrial" fisheries using something called "a meta-analytic approach". Which is probably a really fancy term for "guessing". I haven't read the article but the BS detector is ringing more than the alarm bells. Anyone get Nature?
Here is the original press release:
http://www.boston.com/dailynews/134/ascribe/_Cover_Study_of_Nature_Provide:.shtml
and a
Google News Search (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=cluster%3Aens-news.com%2Fens%2Fmay2003%2F2003-05-14-03.asp)
Apparently Boris Worm et al estimated the biomass of "pre-industrial" fisheries using something called "a meta-analytic approach". Which is probably a really fancy term for "guessing". I haven't read the article but the BS detector is ringing more than the alarm bells. Anyone get Nature?