We were too early in 2009, when I was reviewing the papers that I could find on the topic, but to back up, you asked another question about what my conclusions were at the time.
On the question of whether sea lice from salmon farms were causing the decline of pink salmon populations, I did conclude that the jury was out on that, and that people did not agree on that. As Bill Pennell has pointed out, they did not agree, and they did so in a pretty strenuous way. There were rebuttals and chains of counter-rebuttals on papers. Again, I hadn't really seen very much in the scientific literature before. The scientists seemed to be emotionally invested in this debate.
On climate change, there has been research going on for a lot longer than probably most people realize. I was just reading Carl Sagan's last book. He was a great scientist and also a great writer about science. This book was written just before he died in the mid-1990s. He has a long chapter in there on climate change. Even then, within the scientific community, there was pretty much a consensus.
So no, we hadn't reached that point in 2009 with sea lice. But I think what we had reached was a point where I had absolutely no difficulty believing that sea lice from salmon farms were infecting wild pink salmon—absolutely—but there did seem to be some effects of management in reducing the sea lice that could get out of salmon farms and that were amplified in the salmon farms.
Probably one thing nobody has mentioned here that I think is quite important is that we can't just say that we seem to have found a way to reduce the numbers of sea lice and it's “problem solved”. If it's being reduced by management that includes the use of a pesticide, we have to make sure that is not having any detrimental effects, or at least effects that society will not accept.
Climate change--