I'm sorry I'm not making myself clear.
You quoted,
By James Massola
July 12, 2020
But there has been a decline in ocean and inland fish catches, with a boom in aquaculture – fish farming – accounting for the growth in production. Even as the percentage of the world's oceans being fished has risen from 60 to 90 per cent, the actual catch has declined dramatically from 25 tonnes per 1000 kilometres travelled in the 1950s to 7 tonnes per 1000 kilometres, according to another study by the Sea Around Us.
That's not because fishing fleets or nations have become more ecologically conscious − it's because there are fewer fish to catch.
It's mostly the last part that obfuscates, but the quoted facts that catch sizes have declined since the 1950's, without any other context, is likely a misrepresentation of what is causing the decline.
I know there is no mention of cause, other than the last line, and you are just posting an article of fact. I'm not trying to impune you or your reputation or even discredit the fact. I'm just pointing out that without understanding the complete picture, in the context of a discussion about anthropogenic climate change, the stated fact sounds like it is meant to accuse over-fishing of the decline in commercial catches.
Just the fact that catch sizes have shrunk over the last 70 years isn't evidence of any cause. That's what I'm saying.
Obviously something is causing that decline, but for the author of this statement to make it, without further explanation, is misleading. It might be true that over-fished World fisheries are the cause of the reduced catches, I believe that is happening, but if I didn't, that statement is no arguement to sway me. I do know that fishing has declined since the 1950s and a world wide effort to regulate fishing to prevent over-fishing, has also been going on.
So, if those regulations have been successful at all, it stands to reason that the catch sizes have gone down, at least in part, because of the success of those regulations.
You see, if the world's governments were to impose a complete moratorium on commercial fishing, to preserve the world's fisheries, the author could truthfully point out that, 'currently, the world's commercial catch size has dropped so dramatically, that this year, no fish were caught.' It would be truth, but in the context in which it was presented, it is alarming, rather than hopeful.
I hope you, SamSam, don't think I am trying to call you a liar. I am not. I have radd a number of your posts and agm fully impressed. I'm merely pointing out, how a statement like the one you quoted, can be misleading. It might be true, but it is not a good logical syllogism.
-Will (Dragonfly)