Select to expand quoteRazzonater said..
The only thing I agree with on the link with is the actual timeline of events; the csiro bases statistics on global population levels, there is a billion people in china who dont surf dive etc. When you reference the actual victims of the attacks their personal chances have gone up a squillion percent. Take for instance a local who surfs south point...
I know exactly what you mean; if I don't go to the beach then the chances of dying from a bee sting being higher than being bitten by a shark are irrelevant to me. So what difference does the population of China make?!
In reality my being in the water more than the average person skews my chances dramatically. The report takes this into account. It is saying that there are both more people and more people doing water-based activities. And on top of that they are doing it more of the time.
You can't ignore the fact that there really are more surfers, scuba divers, SUPs , bodyboarders, kitesurfers etc. etc. in the water. The breaks are crowded. It onlyu stands to reason that there are simply more people having more contact with sharks than before.
Select to expand quoteThe CSIRO said...
Changes in the popularity of water-based activities over the past four decades was reflected in the activities of the victims. For example, there has been a 310% increase in attacks on surfers since 1999. There have also been substantial increases in the attacks on swimmers, SCUBA divers and sailboarders.
There are still more factors to consider, for example:
Select to expand quoteThe CSIRO said...
Historically (pre-1950s), human–shark interactions predominantly occurred in the summer months. In recent decades, swimmers, surfers and divers are continuing to pursue these activities outside of the traditional summer season because of improvements in wetsuit technology. This is reflected in the occurrence of shark attacks throughout the year since the 1950s; particularly for surfers, snorkelers and SCUBA divers who can enter the water at any time of the year and extend the time they spend in the water in areas that, in earlier decades, were likely to be too cold for recreational purposes. In the past 20 years, 49% of all shark-attack victims were wearing a wetsuit. These data support a similar account by Cliff (1991) regarding the effect of wetsuits on shark-attack increases in South Africa.
It's pretty thorough and I suggest you read it in its entirety. Don't just read the abstract and assume how they came to a conclusion.
Doing that is not dissimilar to projecting the behaviour of dogs onto sharks.
The problem I have with the report quoted EvlPanda is that nothing is scientific about the measurement of the elements the report states as causes for the increase in shark attacks.
The only factors that can be quantified are the population growth - 20% and the increase in the number of average attacks - 230% and the 310% increase since 1999. Plus the increase in shark numbers.
The rest is just conjecture. more people in the water - yes in surfing. Sailing, diving, windsurfing.....probably/definately less. But it cant be quantified. There is no measure of ocean users. I went to the Bureau of statistics and checked. Have the numbers of users increased 2-300%, no way.
Therefore, using this methodology, any person can suggest any other correlating factor and argue with equal validity that it is the cause of the increase in shark attacks.
Select to expand quoteJfunk said..
The problem I have with the report quoted EvlPanda is that nothing is scientific about the measurement of the elements the report states as causes for the increase in shark attacks.
The only factors that can be quantified are the population growth - 20% and the increase in the number of average attacks - 230% and the 310% increase since 1999. Plus the increase in shark numbers.
The rest is just conjecture. more people in the water - yes in surfing. Sailing, diving, windsurfing.....probably/definately less. But it cant be quantified. There is no measure of ocean users. I went to the Bureau of statistics and checked. Have the numbers of users increased 2-300%, no way.
Therefore, using this methodology, any person can suggest any other correlating factor and argue with equal validity that it is the cause of the increase in shark attacks.
But its as scientific as is humanly possible. Its not like they have physical numbers from every beach for every day of water users to compare. They can only at best estimate numbers and compare the increases to correlate against the increases in attacks.
We have as much chance of predicting shark attacks as we do in predicting lightening strikes 
Its not scientific. Its just a persons opinion which is tainted by their personal views.
The same as if you or I were to write a report like this - using this methodology, we would just highlight the factors that we felt supported our view, as this person has done. As was stated before in this thread and i alluded to in my post, correlation does not equal causation.
This report doesn't even have correlation. 20% increase in population, 300% increase in attacks.
Select to expand quoteJfunk said...
Its not scientific. Its just a persons opinion which is tainted by their personal views.
The same as if you or I were to write a report like this - using this methodology, we would just highlight the factors that we felt supported our view, as this person has done. As was stated before in this thread and i alluded to in my post, correlation does not equal causation.
This report doesn't even have correlation. 20% increase in population, 300% increase in attacks.
Jfunk on the money.......spot on
