Concensus ≠ justification

Consensus = opinion

Finish this one IQ: Scientific Consensus = ?

If you can't cay exactly what each no take zone is there to protect and exactly what you are protecting it from, then they are a sham and the whole argument for them falls in a heap.

Not really. What the scientific consensus effectively says is that marine parks are justified regardless of how you choose specific sites. In other words, site selection is fairly arbitrary. It is the combined properties of the entire network of NTZ's that matter, but there is an infinite number of ways to satisfy bthose requirements with various sites. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't put some thought into site selection, just that the scientific community cannot yet offer a lot of guidance. That's the point of my marine park article and the examples given. There are a lot of very reasonable ways to select no take zones that don't need scientific input, but which will satisfy the requirements of the scientific community.

The GBRMPA handed over site selection to scientists. Not because the scientists had sound reasons for choosing particular sites, but because the decision was too complex and the scientists had the tools to deal with the complexity and arbitrariness. Plus the bureaucrats had to keep the detailed decisions at arms length. What the scientists had to do was come up with reasonable measures on which to judge a network of marine parks (not individual NTZ's - it was how they combined that mattered), then put a few random 'first guesses' into a computer, let the computer manipulate it using the measures given to select the best outcomes. Then they handed a few different options (each one being a complete zoning scheme) to the bureaucrats and let them choose.

seeing as we are playing word games, how about this?

Scientific Consensus = informed opinion

Should we flip a coin instead?

How about heads I win, tails you lose?

IQ how is their reasoning circular? That would involve claiming that the parting of the sea somehow validates the Bible. I've never heard that argument.

Just because someone 'said' no matter how informed they are, does not necessarily make it so.

In this case, it does make it the best available advice. What else is there to go by?

I never said their reasoning was circular

Yes you did: "like the circular reasoning of bible scholars"

Sometimes the best available advice isn't really good enough to warrant the measures currently adopted

That doesn't make any sense. What do you mean by "the measures currently adopted"? The best available advice is that marine parks are justified. Not only is it the best available advice, it is based on a scientific consensus. There are few management decisions that are as easy as that one.

Your reasoning is circular as you justify your stance by always coming full circle back to the consensus.

No I don't. My stance goes way beyond what is covered by the consensus and I explain the reasoning for it here.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/fish/marine-parks-fisheries-management-tool.html

Furthermore basing a stance on a scientific consensus would only be circular reasoning if the consensus was based on your stance.

I am referring to the current process under taken

Oh. I thought when you said "the measures currently adopted" you were referring to the results, not the process. Obviously science is not going to justify the political process to make decisions that are arbitrary from a scientific perspective.

where there is no quantifiable threat

What would satisfy you as a quantifiable threat? Would you expect a head count of the number of fish or something? Fisheries management is characterised by the difficulty in quantifying threats, but you have to make do with the information you have. There's no point sticking your head in the sand and refusing to do anything until the outcomes are 100% certain. All that would give is 100% certainty of failure.