Since 1982, politicians have been claiming need for scientific evidence of fish depletion before any action can be taken, so surely consequences and solutions are matters for science.
Rhosty is onto it.
There is need to develop viable bio reactors to transform nutrients into algae and then bio fuel. But first politicians must see there never will be scientific evidence of fish depletion, because no scientists counted fish in the beginning and no one can count fish that remain.

There is empirical evidence.
Fresh local flathead at 50 dollars for one kilo, plus 70 percent of fish in Australia being imported annually, plus malnutrition among seafood dependent island people, plus sea animals dying due to starvation, etc, should be enough evidence to engage real science.

Green-chlorophyll micro algae is almost everywhere, plus algae blooms, plus algae on seagrass leaf shutting down photosynthesis and killing seagrass food web nurseries.

Real science must speak up louder than pseudo 'science'.

Farm and stormwater runoff only occurs when it rains, whereas sewage nutrient matter is dumped daily. The overload would not be occurring every day if real science was applied to bioreactor infrastructure development.
People would support scientific management of ocean ecosystem rehabilitation to feed animals and islanders and pro and amateur fishing industries.

Real science could generate prosperity and a healthy sustainable environment, and respect.

The concept and control of the word 'science' comes no more clearly into play as within creation/evolution debates. It's especially here where the legislators of correct thinking are beholden to keep the definition on their side of the court. It's very important that Darwin be categorised and portrayed as having great 'scientific' insight rather than merely being a great philosopher or thinker.

So it's made clear that when examining fossil evidence, anyone seeing descent from a common ancestor is having 'scientific' thoughts. Whereas anyone seeing the same evidence but disputing descent from a common ancestor is having 'religious' thoughts.

Finding evidence of design within living structures is deemed scientific anathema, while pointing out poor design, lack of design, or explaining away the appearance of design is commended as scientifically progressive. It's playing with a two headed coin.

Did life arise by purely undirected processes, or did it arise by some kind of intelligent guidance or design? The question is not one that a 'science' student is allowed to ask.

The editors of "accredited scientific journals", the signals of scientific progress, guard well the evolutionary paradigm. They've declared what is correct. If your view isn’t published in their journals, your view must not be scientific. And since your view is not scientific, it won’t be published in their journals. It's like a series of boxing matches continually won on a technicality, with never a knock-out punch. But the victory is hollow. In the public’s perception there is no greater scientific theory championed more by academics while appearing more doubtful to everyone else.

Leo, the reason I can be certain that global warming is caused by human activity is that credible scientists said so. I am a skeptical person and don't believe everything anyone tells me. But I am not an expert in every possible field and so have to trust to the judgment of other people. If I need medical advice I consult a qualified doctor, if I need my car fixed I consult a qualified mechanic, and if I want to know what is happening with the climate I ask a scientist.

There is a risk that the scientists are wrong, in which case we will have wasted a small amount of resources making the atmosphere less polluted that was needed, which is not so bad a result. But if they are right then we are wasting time arguing while things get worse, or to quote Star Trek: "...only a fool fights in a burning house".

Tomw, you can refer to science which shows a measurable effect of human emissions, if such science exists, otherwise your reply is nonsense.
Huge amounts have been expended, in efforts to produce such science.
All that has been ascertained is that the human effect on climate is trivial, and of no consequence. It is not measurable, so is not scientifically noticed. This is the reason for the nonsense statements of the IPCC, that it is “94% certain”. There is no science to back this, so it is a fraudulent statement. Your reply can only be based on ignorance or dishonesty, tomw.

Empirical evidence of substance indicates human induced change to climate is occurring.
The evidence indicates photosynthesis-linked warmth in algae plant matter in areas of oceans and lakes is for example causing increase in precipitation and increase in cloud resulting in change to climate in some regions.

Focus of 'science' has been on emissions and emissions trading.
Empirical evidence indicates that yes, the climate is changing, but no, the cause is not due to CO2.

Ocean controls weather above. How could CO2 be warming just some areas of ocean?

I think it's not what has been expended on the emissions angle to date, it's that the real likely cause of unprecedented ocean and lake algae is continuing and worsening and is not being properly or at all addressed.

The humans on watch at this time in History are changing the life support ecosystem on this planet.
The damage to property and economic impact and loss of life from increasingly severe weather is just the beginning if real science does not speak out.

Here is an on the spot example of 'science' in action.
http://www.3aw.com.au/news/stinking-seaweed-piling-up-at-altona-st-kilda-brighton-and-other-melbourne-beaches-20150316-1m0qzc.html

Seaweed is the colloquial term for algae.
This is macro algae being washed up and in unprecedented amount and there is no scientific evidence such amount is natural.

Also, there is no scientific evidence of "no cause for alarm".
Indeed there should be real concern, and solutions.
Algae is waters of Victoria is linked to mass mortality of the regions fairy penguins and mutton birds, plus Melbourne people eating imported fish instead of local fish.

Money is increasingly draining out of Australia to now import fish.

Loss of seagrass from Western Port Bay is known.
A study to find how many pro and amateur tourism fishing industry people have lost their livelihood would indicate more reason for concern.