If you are trying to fix the problem, finding the cause is very important. By just doing something, or worst many somethings, you may make the problem worse and still have no clue of how to fix it.
Now something like this is a little harder because it is not just trying to fix a problem, it is trying to fix a problem with a time limit. Similar to emergency medicine. But harder because the patient is one who's anatomy and physiology you are not familiar with. And they might have reactions to the medicine you are giving them.
The article keeps hinting at lack of food, malnourished, feeding in unusual places. Then goes on to say the last mass die off occurred during colder than usual weather as opposed the recent hotter then usual. It sounds like more data would be very helpful.
Also
>Refusal to blame yourself with literally 0 evidence is itself evidence that someone is an oil company shill or something.
Is very hostile and breaks the guideline:
>Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
I don't know that questioning this idiom breaks the guidelines.
If not a shill it sounds like an ask for more resources, to save the gray whales or study the oceans, or something.
Either way, "a precise cause has yet to be determined" seems to be playing a little too close to the vest, and can be true without being especially meaningful.
"Bad ocean management" turns out to be more of a triage problem and less blue-sky research for the sake of knowledge.
The insinuation that there's a motive to say "we don't quite know what it is yet", in the comment I was responding to, is all I addressed. That assumes bad faith, all I'm doing is pointing out how ridiculous such an assumption is.
If you are trying to fix the problem, finding the cause is very important. By just doing something, or worst many somethings, you may make the problem worse and still have no clue of how to fix it.
Now something like this is a little harder because it is not just trying to fix a problem, it is trying to fix a problem with a time limit. Similar to emergency medicine. But harder because the patient is one who's anatomy and physiology you are not familiar with. And they might have reactions to the medicine you are giving them.
The article keeps hinting at lack of food, malnourished, feeding in unusual places. Then goes on to say the last mass die off occurred during colder than usual weather as opposed the recent hotter then usual. It sounds like more data would be very helpful.
Also >Refusal to blame yourself with literally 0 evidence is itself evidence that someone is an oil company shill or something.
Is very hostile and breaks the guideline: >Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.