To send a copy of any BLOG to a friend, click on the BLOG Title, Then click on “mail this” button below BLOG.
Enter the information requested and any comments you wish and click send.

Send other comments to: Info@NorthPacificResearch.com

 

What happened to Truth and the Whole Truth?

Oregroanian Feb 28, 2007 page B8: An article on methane illustrates, a growing problem with research. This article emulates two basic precepts of the global warming position, which are detrimental to solving the problem. One is that CO2 is the primary culprit and that humans are the primary cause of everything wrong on the planet. The article is on Methane and a shows that 16% of the greenhouse gasses is composed of methane, and 74% is composed of CO2. The article also state, that methane is about 20 times more efficient at causing global warming than CO2. These two statements cannot both be true. For example, 74% is less than 5 times greater than 16%; therefore, methane’s contribution to global warming exceeds that of CO2 by a factor of15. Why does this article insist that CO2 is still the major culprit?

The article also shows a breakdown in methane sources showing that 66% of the methane comes from human activities and 44% comes from natural activities. A recent article the February 2007 issue of Scientific American contends that as much as 40% of the methane is produced by tropical forests a hither to major unrecognized source of methane. These recent results were not mentioned in the Oregroanian article. Adding the results of the Scientific American article completely changes the balance of methane production shown in the Oregroanian. The Scientific American article clearly shows that Humans produce only 40% of the methane and Nature produces 60%. The Scientific American article also shows that the overwhelming majority of this methane comes from tropical rainforests and wetlands. This strikes at the heart of the environmental religion, and raises the non-environmental friendly idea that the treasured rainforests and wetlands, that we have so laborious and expensively increased in size over the last 40 years, are a major part of the global climate change. Of course, if you add human stupidity into the equation, the source of global climate change swings back to the human activity once again.

Further, according to both articles more than 50% of the human produced methane comes from food production. In a world were millions of people starve every year, reduction of food production seems to be off the table until population decreases. That leaves Industry and energy production about 15%, vegetation burning about 10% and landfills 8%, forest and wetlands 60%. You pick, do you want to live in a world
a) without energy, or industry?
b) without food?
c) without forests and wetlands

By D. J. Dodds



Freedom of the Press

There is no doubt that the principle of Freedom of Speech is one of the things that makes this country great. Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press are buzz words that are often used synonymously. There are some subtle but real differences. The concept of a free press was spawned before the laws of economics produced major news networks.

Whereas we all have the right to say whatever we believe, only a few have the power to be heard. When the Founding Fathers established a free press, there existed thousands of independent sources. Presently there exist around 10. In the light of this reality, we have lost our freedom of speech and substituted for it the freedom to listen to the opinions of 10 Organizations headed by 10 people.

D.J. Dodds




Shooting from the Hip

Oregroanian Feb 18, 2007 page A6 According to this article 2 million old tires were unloaded off the beaches of Fort Lauderdale to form a reef that would attract a rich variety of marine creatures. Now 30 years later, this well-meaning action is called a blunder and a disaster in this article. ”…it just didn’t work that way,” says Ray McCallister a professor of Ocean Engineering. “They’re a constant coral killing machine,“ says William Nuckols coordinator for a federal group organizing a cleanup operation. “People who were behind the artificial tire reef were well-intentioned and thought they were doing the right thing. In hindsight, we now realize that we made a mistake.”

This mistake is not the only environmental and ecological disaster produced by the environmental activist in since the 1960’s. This and other mistakes were made because science had a half idea that it would be a good think and we need to act now to save the planet. Thirty years ago the cry was we are losing our barrier reefs, which galvanized thousands of environmentalists into action. What are we going to say 30 years from now about the decisions we are now rushing to make in order save the environment from global warming? Like then this decision is based, on a consensus of scientific opinion. Opinion is not fact. The environment is complex. Climate is complex. In a world were we cannot predict the weather accurately 2 weeks in advance, we are trying to alter the weather patterns thousands of years from now based solely on personal judgment. There are many scientists with good data that are being shouted down.

In the sixties there was a popular saying, ”Do something even if it is wrong.” Well we have followed that advice for 45 years and the world is in a bigger mess now than it was then. For example, the emotional upheaval that stopped the building of nuclear and hydro power plants was fed by half-truths and caused this country to burn billions of tons of coal and oil, which needlessly polluted the atmosphere and today we are again marching in the streets demanding that we fix that well meaning hip shot with another half true opinion.

A. Bialystock


What Price Kulongoski’s Vanity

Oregroanian Feb 11, 2007 page A1: “Kulongoski…says he wants “to do something that dramactically changes the way we are for the better” by making Oregon the leader in alternative, renewable energy.”

Is this an issue of legacies or one of common good? For example, Kulongoski wants to channel 5.2 million dollars into wave energy, Kulongoski envisions large fields of buoys the size of refrigerators bobbing happily up and down along our famous scenic coastline. Has anyone done an environmental impact statement for this idea? Come to Oregon and watch the buoys bob. This would certainly improve water safety, if you smacked into one of these babies you could simple crawl aboard the specially installed ladder and wait for Coast Guard rescue. In fact, he could install special quarters for waiting and telephones to call and let everyone know you are OK.

He also wants to spend millions of our tax dollars on tax incentives for business and force us to utilize more expensive, renewable resources. What a guy! Could the facts that he stuck his foot in it with Richard Taylor and the popularity of global warming have anything to do with his forcing the Oregroanian to yield a front-page spot for his plea?

Of course, Ted’s projects will not increase our personal tax load because we have an excess of state funds. He vows his top priorities, after his ego are schools and health care. What a guy! If we have a problem, throw money at it, especially if the money isn’t yours. I don’t expect Ted to understand this but money is more than paper, it represent wealth and wealth comes from our natural resources. By wasting money, we are in truth wasting natural resources. It makes little sense to waste natural resources to save the environment.

Ted would you settle for a nice pyramid (tastefully done of course) to celebrate your enormous ego. Global climate is not a simple problem and it cannot be solved by shooting from the hip.


Emmett Geese phd



Gagging the State Climatologist

Oregroanian Feb 10, 2007 page A4: ”The governor has staked his political legacy on developing Oregon as a center for climate research and development of renewable energy.” “…Kulongoski, who believes the science increasingly points to human activities as the most likely cause of global warming.”

Kulongoski can believe what he wants to, however when he tries to gag people with opposing views he has let his religious fervor for the environment cause take him over the edge. Is there something that this man may say that would prove our governor wrong? Does the state constitution require that only people with the same view as the governor may represent the state? Does that sound a little totalitarian? Will the governor next require only those state residents who agree with him to speak publicly? How about privately?

“In a meeting at the Capitol on Wednesday, the governor asked OSU President Edward Ray to see that Taylor’s title is changed.” Isn’t this called political pressure? “They also talked about establishing a Center for Climate Change at OSU to coordinate and initiate research on global warming.” Is this called bribery? Who do you suppose Ted wants to head that organization? Someone who opposes his view? I suggest Richard Taylor, even if he has gone over to the dark side.

Boy, you just never know a guy until you elect him governor.

There are many valid questions concerning the direction and the amount of temperature change in the future. Many of those questions concern the motives of the researchers doing the work and the organizations funding the research. Ulterior motives are not restricted to corporations. Activist groups also have ulterior motives and fund research.

Silencing the opposition is not the way to the truth.


Emmett Geese phd



Fasten Your Seatbelt Big Brother is Watching

Fasten Your Seatbelt Big Brother is Watching

 

Oregroanian Feb 9, 2007 page B4:  The unbelted 6 percent, however, accounted for 38 percent of the traffic fatalities in Oregon in 2005. 

 

Okay, that implies that 62 percent of the fatalities in Oregon in 2005 had their seat belts properly fastened.  Therefore fastening your seatbelt does not insure safety in an accident.  It is known that on many instances a person thrown from a car during the crash has lived.  Had the individual fastened his seatbelt as directed by Oregon law they would have been trapped in the car and died.  However, if a state forces its residence to fasten their belts does the requirement of forced compliance not also come with a liability?  For example, when a person dies who while wearing their state mandated seatbelt, the state is partly to blame for that death and should be legally responsible for the consequences.

 

Fastening your seatbelt may be a safe thing to do on many occasions, but not in all occasions.  As such, it should be encouraged but not be forced.  The seatbelt law for cognizant individuals is an infringement on individual rights.  Something this country has always protected.  Safety does not nullify the bill of rights nor the constitution. 


Who Needs Bottled Water Anyway

Oregroanian Feb 8, 2007 page A1:  “In 2005 Oregonians trashed 125 million recyclable water bottles.” 

 

Who drinks bottle water anyway?  In Oregon, it is the ultra green, bicycling, quasi intelligent, elitist conservatives that shout about global warming.  Yet, they also support a multibillion-dollar, energy-wasting product like bottled water.  Plastic bottles are made from hydrocarbons, which are in short supply in this world.  Energy is required to manufacture distribute collect and recycle these useless conveniences for the environmental elitists.  If Oregon were indeed a green state, it would outlaw bottled water and rely on the more efficient systems that are already providing good potable drinking water to its citizens throughout the state. 

 

Not only do neither the Oregroanian nor the legislation have the answer they don’t even have the right question.  Outlaw bottled water in the state!  If the green citizens of our state want a drink on the move, how about using a small reusable canteen.  This of course requires the user to fill the canteen from the tap which does require a certain dexterity, intelligence and foresight not commonly found in the environmental religious elite.  If you want to change the world change yourself.




Stay the Hell out of Evolution

Stay the Hell out of Evolution

 

Oregroanian Feb 4, 2007 page A3:  All 18 endangered young whooping cranes that were led south from Wisconsin last fall as part of a project to create a second migratory flock of birds were killed in the storms in Florida.  …Ultra-light aircraft were used to teach new groups of young cranes to fly south to their death.” 

 

In a world where hundreds of thousands of humans are dying of starvation, it sure makes a lot of sense to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to kill birds.  Somewhere in the environmental movement, we lost our perspective on cost and value.  In a world that is drowning in problems: biodiversity is a myth.  Humans, except for those who flew them south, are not causing the extinction of the whooping cranes, whooping cranes are.  For over 4 billion years on this planet, life has succeeded by adapting to change.  Change or die is a law of nature.  If the whooping cranes can’t make the cut, nature does not weep for them.  Neither should we. 


Page :  1 
 
To send a copy of any BLOG to a friend, click on the BLOG Title, Then click on “mail this” button below BLOG.
Enter the information requested and any comments you wish and click send.

Send other comments to Info@NorthPacificResearch.com