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:



NASA administrator Michael Griffin, who heads an agency with a $16.5 billion budget, wondered whether global warming was an issue that needed to be grappled with at all. "To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change," Griffin said.

"First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown," he continued. "And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."

North Pacific Research review of the global climate science agrees whole-heartedly with Mr. Griffins statement. Reducing emissions will not solve the problem only create more problems because emissions are only the apparent cause. If any species is to survive, it must adapt to change. Humans do not have the intelligence or the power to stop change. The best way to reduce the effects of humans on the environment is to reduce the number of humans in the environment.

By D.J. Dodds

Aiding and Abetting

Oregroanian May30, 2007 page A1: An article titled —Iraq war toll reaches 113 so far in May—. The oregroanian and the media are still painting targets on the back of your sons and daughters in Iraq. The public's right to know is clashing with common decency. Splashing headlines of the number of Americans killed each day and month makes the killing of a single American soldier worth much more that killing 100 Iraqi terrorists. The Terrorists are not stupid. They know the only way for them to win the war is to kill American service men and women. They know that the US media will make the most of it. What is unclear is whether the media and the public is that stupid that they don’t realize these headlines are encouraging the killing of Americans. Or does the Media feel that killing a few of our youth is worth it to get the US out of the war?

Sixty-seven years ago, that was called aiding and abetting the enemy. Those who went through WWII still call it that. It is interesting that 10 soldiers perished on Memorial day, and on page B2 the oregroanian reports 10 Oregonians died in traffic accidents. Why is this buried on page B2? Again, the oregroanian doesn’t seem to care that people die, only how they die is important to the owner and editor of this propaganda sheet.

Why do we almost daily see statistic on those killed in Iraq and rarely see statistics on those murdered and killed by accidents? Regardless of how you feel about the war in Iraq, it is wrong to publish this information because it encourages the enemy and figuratively paints targets on the backs of American solders and marines.

By E. Geese

Biodiversity Fact or Myth

Today North Pacific Research posted a new essay on Biodiversity on the archive page. Biodiversity is a main stay of the environmental movement and is the concept that supports the Endangered Species Act. This scientific essay looks at the history of biodiversity over the last 500 million years. Unfortunately, there is no supporting evidence for the commonly accepted opinion that biodiversity is vitally important to the ecosystem. Geologic history however does show evidence that is contrary to that belief. Whereas there is little doubt that the environment is important to life on this planet, stopping change may not be environmentally sound or humanly possible.

Change has been the norm for over 4 billion years on this planet. Repositioning the human race to survive the change may be the wisest thing to do. Changing the course of evolution requires science to know were evolution is going. Humans do not have the level of understanding. There is no indication that we will gain that insight in the foreseeable future. Maybe we should concentrate on the first law of evolution, survival of your own species until we get that knowledge. Overestimating your intelligence is generally a precursor to failure. There is little doubt that life and the environment will survive global warming and our flawed environmental policies, the question is will humans survive.

By D J Dodds

Hello Ted the World is Calling

Oregroanian May 25, 2007 page D1: An article titled —Tech startup sends staff home—. A day after Ted’s Centerpiece Legislation is past an article on the business section states, “One of Oregon’s most promising startups has furloughed nearly half of its 53 employees after a prospective investor backed out of the financing deal at the 11th hour.” Something that Teddy said wouldn’t happen, happens the next day. What does a lame duck have to worry about, certainly not the economic ramifications of his legislation? That’s our problem now.

The owner of the company said, “…other companies are already pursuing (his) employees. Everybody in the world is trying to pick up our team right now, they’re all calling.” Oregon jobs going elsewhere—Not Ted’s Fault. He only cares about his legacy. The rest of us have to worry about loosing our jobs, higher power costs and is accompanying increase in the cost of living across the board. Oregon will be green again, and without people. We had green power at one time, that produced no CO2 and it was extremely inexpensive. It was called Hydropower. But that can’t be used anymore because Hydro kills fish. Ted seems to overlook the fact that predators kill millions more fish than hydropower, but predators are green according to Ted. If global warming needs to be stopped how about reducing the number of fish predators and returning to hydropower. Too Simple.

By E. Geese

Bad Science got Worse.

Scientific American June, 2007 page 126: An article titled –Restoring American Big, Wild Animals – illustrates just how bad science is becoming. This story is like a very bad B movie of the 1930’s. Apparently in the fall of 2004 a dozen conservation biologists gather on a ranch in New Mexico to ponder a idiotic plan to introduce large mammals back into North America. These mammals died out 13,000 years ago. Where are they going to get these large mammals? Africa. They want to bring in the lions, cheetahs and elephants and let them loose on the American continent. Any of these conservation biologist study what happened when rabbits were introduced into Australia?

They believe that this will be good because it will restore biodiversity (NPR has a paper in process on biodiversity) and important ecological processes, such as predation to the ecosystem. The state further that large animals exercise a disproportional effect on the environment. They certainly do. The elephants are destroy thousands of square miles of forest land. We have deer and bears in our back yards now. We are reintroducing and protecting wolves into areas were they are not needed. What we need is lions and tigers and bears?

The argument for this madness is that top predators are important to cull the herds of other species. Hello, what is the top predator on the planet? Man! If man was doing his job we wouldn’t have herds to cull. Why is the top predator not doing its job? Because other humans have artificially protected these species from predation through legal action.

How can lions be turned loose on the central plains of this continent? The Endangered Species Act. This piece of legislation is the worst legislation ever passed on this planet since the Romans legislated that π should be 3.00. It is written in such general terms that it can be interpreted in anyway those in power want. What is worse it is a regulatory law, which places the power in the hands of non elected regulators. The people of the country have no say in what is to be done, except to repeal that law.

By D J Dodds

Understanding to Late

Oregroanian May 24, 2007 page A1: An article titled –Arsonist gets 13 year sentence in terror acts—. The most interesting part of this article is the last few paragraphs on page A4. “While many eco saboteurs stick to their extremist views…Meyerhoff was not one of them.” In his statement before the court is said, “I was ignorant of history and economy and acted from a faulty and narrow Vision…”

He was once a young man full of enthusiasm and desire to make the world a better place. He is now a middle age man older and wiser facing a 13-year sentence for his mistakes. The sad part is that this is all too common of a fate for young people, full of enthusiasm and little knowledge. They are easily fooled and tricked into these situations by clever people who manipulate truth to get their dirty work done and they get away clean.

Some of these manipulators are employed by our colleges as professors who fill children’s heads with half-truths, rather than how to find truth. These professors are not doers, they are however the instigators, safely hidden inside their ivory towers. Are they to blame for what others do with the thoughts they gave them? Legally no, morally yes. Is the general-public partly to blame? Yes, because the public ignores the hiring practices of our universities and colleges. They hire primarily on academic competence, while ignoring issues like morals, ethics and good judgment.

Meyerhoff is not dead yet. I hope he does not become victim, but instead work to stop other children from making the same mistakes. He has 13 years to make a plan.

By C. Blume

Be Careful what you Wish For

Oregroanian May 24, 2007 page A1: An article titled –House delivers energy bill Kulongoski wanted—. The article states, “Kulongoski, a second term Democrat, had made the Senate Bill 838 the centerpiece of his energy agenda, touting it as a way to green up Oregon’s image and make the state a leader in clean-energy technologies, such as wind and solar power.” It is undoubtedly going to be Kulongoski centerpiece, and it will definitely place Oregon as a state to watch. But, it may be for reasons didn’t occur to Mr. Kulongoski.

In his headlong rush for fame, he ignored recent scientific evidence published in the journal Nature, stating that, “40,000 birds are killed each year in the US alone,” by whirling wind turbines. Some of these birds are on the endangered lists. The article went on and pointed out that, “the number of birds killed is likely to rise steeply because the number of wind farms, with more and larger turbines are increasing at a rapid rate.” Doubling the amount of wind power will more than double the birds killed. Is killing birds considered green? Isn’t it ironic that this state, closed down logging to save a few spotted owls and is now going to erect thousands of new wind turbines that will kill thousands of birds. Where is the logic and consistency in that?

The article also states, “that some worry about higher power bills.” Is the Oregon political world unaware that one of the major draws that brings industry to this area is inexpensive power. The cost of power affects the cost of products and manufactures bottom line, and Ted is wisely putting that on industry. Jonathan Williams is quoted in this article as stating “To think you can hamstring existing manufacturing and woo new manufacturing is a bit of a fool’s errand.” Understated Jonathan!

I am afraid that the positive results of this bill will be to show the rest of the world that wind power has some major environmental impacts and is considerable more dangerous to the environment than hydro power. It will also show the world that the word green in “green power” is really money. The Oregon depression caused by the lack of jobs and the increase in cost of living due to this legislation may not be the legacy that Ted is envisioning. But wait five years and reread this blog.

By E. Geese

The Dinosaurs and You

Today North Pacific Research posted an important revision to another essay on the archives page. This one is entitled “Problems on the K T boundary.” Why should you read this article? Because it concerns a new theory as to why the super successful species like the dinosaur went extinct. It begins with a look at the flaws in the media’s currently favored supposition, meteor impact, and presents another, theory as to the demise of the dinosaurs. But more importantly the basis for the dinosaurs extinction may be a common cause of extinction and has certain similarities to the current situation on the planet.

By D J Dodds

New on the Archive Page

Today North Pacific Research posted a new essay on the archives page, “What you should know about climate models,” and a revision of the essay “population and climate control.” The first essay examines the problems of predicting temperature using climate models. Predicting the temperature everywhere on the planet to the nearest 1/10 of a degree is considerably more difficult task, than predicting the temperature at a single point on the planet to the nearest 1 degree. Yet, the 1 to 7 day climate models are routinely off as much 52% and 12 degrees when predicting temperature. Is it unreasonable to believe that the long-term model predictions are correct?

Population and Climate essay was revised to include the following paragraph on the proposed solutions just released by the International Panel on Climate Control. “This shows the production curve is dependant on the population. That is as the population grows, so will the need for energy, cars and industry unless the quality of life is reduced. Population by 2050 is expected to be 15,972,000,000 that is an increase of 254%, on the other hand, the most extreme solution to cutting industrial emissions by 2050 is only 80%. That means that industrial CO2 emissions will only increase by 174% without population control. That is an increase in industrial pollution of 96% and ignores the CO2 emissions given off by respiration. Does this sound like a solution to you?”

By D J Dodds

Scientist and Engineers

Science Magazine May 11, 2007 page 8126: An article titled –IPPC Report lays out options for Taming Greenhouse Gases – Now that the demonstrations and spinning is over, realty is setting in. One of the plans to attempt to keep the carbon dioxide below 535 parts per million would come at and estimated cost of 3% of the world Gross Domestic Production. Consider were this is going to land. That would mean that the poverty level is lowered by 3%, which doesn’t sound like much, but bear in mind that by 2030, the world population will be 10,300,000,000 people. That is fine if you are a fat cat, and nowhere near the poverty line, but for the people who are already close to or over the line it is another kick in the face. This tiny change will push at least another 300 million people below the poverty line. This will increase, hunger, and unrest to say the least. Two things the earth doesn’t need anymore of are poverty and dissention. Scientists are good a finding problems, but are the wrong tool for fixing the problem. Scientist should be sent home now and the engineers called out. Engineers are trained to provide practical solutions, scientist are trained to find theorectical solutions. The scientists aren’t even working on the correct solution: population. Download “population and climate change” on the archive page.

The author of the article in Nature, also states, “But hidden within the text of the report are abundant references to uncertainties and caveats that have gone largely unmentioned. For one, many scientists are muttering, THE REPORT IS ONLY AS GOOD AS ITS MODELS.” That is abundantly clear to scientists, but not the public. The public tends to accept models as being truth incarnate. This is unrealistic. Monday, North Pacific Research, is finishing a month long study on the accuracies of climate modeling. It will be posted on the archives page of this site on Monday or Tuesday.

By D J Dodds

Stop your whining

Oregroanian May 18, 2007 page B4: An article titled –Report ties warming, wildfire costs – States that “Global warming is likely to greatly increase spending on fighting wildfires and greatly reduce salmon habitat in the Northwest…” You have been whining about saving the salmon for 15 years. Nothing has changed. If you want to save the salmon start reducing the number of salmon predators. Seals and sea lions would be a place that would show an immediate increase in salmon population. The problem is you want to solve the problem only in your way. It hasn’t worked, it wont every work you have tried for 15 years. Do you really want salmon or do you just want this issue so you can change human behavior to conform with your thinking? So either shut up do what is necessary.

By N Babalush


OregroanianMay 17, 2007 page A1: An article entitled –West Nile virus may bite hard this year– states that Oregon Health officials are bracing for what they fear could be a heavy West Nile virus season. … the arrival of West Nile in populous Multnomah County last year coupled with an explosion of cases in Malheur County, signals the possibility of a large-scale outbreak here…” “If we can knock down the number of mosquitoes we ought to be all right.” said Emillo DeBess an epidemiologist.

“Birds and mosquitoes, both play a role in spreading the disease. The birds are bitten and spread the disease for hundreds of miles before they die. The bird population has also been ravished by the spread of the virus, at least 20 species have been studied and all show a drop in population, some as much as 50 percent. The victims or this disease is not limited to birds and humans, and warm-blooded animal is a potential this includes all domestic and wild animals.

The hard truth of the matter is that it is also coupled to the environmentally correct practice of building wetlands. One hundred years ago, the nation was also threatened by mosquito borne diseases and reduced the number of wetlands to solve this problem. Forty years ago, that threat was essentially gone.

The environmental religion, touted wetlands because they help purify water and provided habitat to birds. Sounded like a good idea to them. The environmental movement has force the building of wetlands for over 30 years and we are now back to where we were 100 years ago. Those who do not pay attention to history are doomed to repeat their mistakes. Now we have thousands of new wetlands complete with the birds that spread the disease rapidly through out the country.

To solve this problem we are now applying large amounts of toxic chemicals to the same swamps we built to clean the water. So we are not getting clean water with our swamps, we are getting disease. The flower children of the sixties made some major mistakes and many of the environmental changes generated then are producing problems today. Unfortunately the hardest thing to do is admit error, even in the face of reality. But, the quicker the mistake is recognized the less damage caused by the mistake.

By Emmett Geese

Fish Yes–Birds No

Nature Magazine May 10, 2007 page 126: An article titled –Wind Farms’ deadly reputation hard to shift – points up an interesting inconsistency in the environmental policy. The article indicates that presently 40,000 birds are killed each year in the US alone by whirling wind turbines. Some of these birds are on the endangered lists. The number of birds killed is likely to rise steeply because the number of wind farms, with more and larger turbines are increasing at a rapid rate.

There is an interesting duplicity in this article. The author makes points supporting the continuing of building bird killing ‘green wind farms.’ Why is that OK even being encouraged and building of fish killing ‘green dams’ is not even on the table? Are fish more important than birds?

The president of a wind power company, states, “If you give the Fish and Wildlife Service control over the wind-power industry, there will be no more wind power.” Is our environmental policy partially to blame for global climate change? If global warming is so alarming, and it is going to be stopped, its not going to be by building wind farms and tidal power, or solar power and it is not going to occur without major impacts personal and environmental.

By D J Dodds

The old Bait and Switch

Nature Magazine May 10, 2007 page 121: An editorial titled –Climate panel offers grounds for optimism – opens this editorial with the statements “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), like its subject matter, can be unpredictable. In the last part of its mammoth fourth assessment report on climate change it has produced a surprisingly optimistic analysis of the possibility of mitigating climate change.” For the first three parts of the document, they spend scaring the hell out of the public with dire predictions of doom and gloom. Now in the last section, they say, ‘Oh never mind, as long as you do as we say nobody will get hurt.’ Hmmm! In the mean time, money rolls in to their pet projects.

These eminent scientist, who are above reproach then state that “…economic forces could drive global emissions in 2030 20% to 50% lower …” and “…the energy sector accounting for two-thirds of emission and world demand set to rise by 60% by 2030….” The 60% increase in energy is based on the population increasing by 60% in that same period. Lowering the emissions in 2030 by 50% would indicate that emissions would only rise by 30% under the best case and 48% percent under the worst case. Notice the emphasis is on reducing the rate of emissions not the emissions themselves. Increasing the emissions by only 48% doesn’t seem to be a solution to Armageddon.

The scientists solution for global warming is to throw money at it. They are confident that, if 5% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is spent to reduce carbon emissions, by 2050 the problem would be solved. It is also pointed out in the article that a 3% reduction in GDP would cause a global recession. A global recession is certainly what we need.

Problems are easy to find with a myopic view, but solutions are hundreds of times more difficult and require a broadminded understand of the entire problem. Maybe we are fixing the symptom and not the disease. Consider that a 60% increase in population will increase the demands for energy but it also increases the demand for products, which are produced by carbon emissions. A population increase will also require a 60% increase in food production, housing, travel, economy, etc pretty much everything across the board.

Suppose we stop focusing on carbon and began to focus on population. If population is driving the carbon emissions, a decrease in world population would also decrease the emissions, decrease the number of cars, decrease poverty, decrease hungry, and in general improve the lives of everything on the planet.

By D J Dodds

Advocacy the Death of Democracy

Oregroanian April 28, 2007 page c1: An article titled –All Gods Creatures – States that “Animal rights activists see all living creatures as equals—and all with the same rights. They imagine a world where animals live in freedom, without fear of being eaten, worn, exhibited in a zoo, used for research or owned by people who think of them as their children.” Wow! It’s about time we begin talking about this. I agree that animals should not live in fear of being eaten. Think of those poor salmon who live in constant fear of being eaten by sea lions.

Certainly, animals should have rights. Any sea lion violating the rights of the salmon should be punished. The sea lions should be arrested and tried for their crimes against life. Of course, we should read them their rights and supply them with a lawyer, give them a fair trial in front of a jury of their peers. After all ever living creature is equal and any animal that eats another animal should be incarcerated or executed.

But wait, animals are not the only living creatures on this earth. Plants live as well. Now just because they are not fuzzy, warm or do not have big brown eyes, is not a reason they should be mowed down, slice, diced and served for dinner. Just because you can’t hear a carrot scream when you rip it out of the ground, doesn’t mean it doesn’t feel pain. Just because mommy carrots do not have arms, does not mean that they do not feel the trauma when their child is wrenched from their bosom and then forced to watch it slowly being devoured inch by painful inch.

Now its true that bacteria is also a living creature, but that is carrying things to far. We need to be reasonable.

If anyone is interested, I have some excellent recipes for gravel stew and silt soufflé.

By N Babalush

Making things fool proof

Oregroanian May 13, 2007 page A1: A three page Article entitled –Deceptively dangerous: Why ATV’s keep killing– discusses the problem of the deaths caused by ATV accidents. The stories are all heart rendering and tragic. The article takes the usual stance that ATV’s are the problem. This story has four more parts. Monday: Struggles to make ATV’s less prone to rollover accidents; Tuesday: Why warning labels protect ATV companies, not riders; Wednesday: Backing away from tougher laws. This approach is consistent with the sixties concept that we are all victims, and focuses the responsibility for fixing the problem on others. Blaming others when you spill hot coffee on your lap is not the answer.

The article states that 1/3 of the accidents are children under 16 years old. Some as younger than 5. Does anyone of normal intelligence believe that a child less than five years old should be riding an ATV. As Forest Gump said stupid is as stupid does. Deaths of children below 12 must be the fault of stupid parents. Deaths between 12 and 16 are shared by stupid parents who cannot control their stupid children. Taking safety out of the hands of the individual and placing it on industry or the legislators has never worked. We have air bags and seatbelts in cars and require drivers to take a written and practical test to get a drivers license, but does that stop car accidents and deaths?

The tag line for this article is, “But Baron, a long time rider from Abbottsford, B.C., hasn’t touched her ATV since the day two years ago when her 13-year-old son, Drew Dickson, died at the dunes near Florence. An expert rider who had raced ATV’s and dirt bikes, Drew was closely supervised and wore a helmet and chest plate. But friends found him at the bottom of a sand dune, pinned under his adult size ATV, his neck broken. ‘Drew was wearing all the safety gear,’ his mother said. ‘it didn’t make any difference.”

How closely was he supervised if friends had to find him? The term expert should also include judgment. Safety equipment, laws and regulations are not a substitute for judgment. Apparently nether Drew or his mother exhibited good judgment. The problem isn’t warning labels, and it isn’t making the ATV foolproof. What is really needed is another article on Thursday about why the word fool is part of the word foolproof. How much of this problem is caused by stupid people doing stupid things? It easier to be a victim than it is to face the fact that you made a mistake.

By Carol Blume

Personal Prejudice in High Places

Science Magazine May 4, 2007 page 661: An editorial titled –Turning the Tables with Mary Jane – The editor in chief of the Science magazine, Donald Kennedy, starts of with the sentence, “Some of this is about–marijuana just so you’ll know, there’s nothing in here about what we were all doing back in the day …” I’m sorry your assumption that we were all using pot in the 1960’s is wrong, it is even possible that many of the ‘worst generation’ members didn’t follow the crowd. More importantly, this editorial is about a law called, the Data Quality Act, which requires access to all basic data surrounding a publication. Unfortunately, it is only applied to science surround food and drugs.

Mr. Kennedy states, “Many basic scientist would be uneasy if their primary data—not what’s in their publications, but what’s in the lab books—would be available for others to fiddle around with and then publish a different conclusion.”

Publish a different conclusion? What’s wrong with a different conclusion? Why is this so important to the editor of Science magazine? Is the editor afraid that these different conclusions might be different than those approved by him? This other wise commonplace article does however raise the question that maybe much of the basic science today is supported by ‘Junk Science.’

Maybe this law should be expanded to apply to all science. After all truth is what science is supposed to be about. Good science is supposed to look at alternative conclusion from their data. The bigger question here is why the basic scientists would be uneasy if their work was critically examined. Is the light side afraid it will loose control of the minds of the public?

By A Bialystock

Good Change – Bad Change

Oregroanian May 11, 2007 page A15: An article titled –Creator of lethal injection rejects ‘political correctness.’ – Could the Oregroaning be changing its policy, or did this one just slip through the sieve? This article supplied by the associated press reports, Dr. Ray Chapman as saying, “Everything is political correctness and everyone wants to be a victim today. All of a sudden, the person on death row is a victim. I reject that thinking, by and large, because these people made choices to do what they did.”

I hardily agree with that statement except for the all of a sudden phrase. Dr Chapman is 68 years old. It is interesting that anybody who is around 70 years old remembers, when Criminals were not treated as victims. They also remember, that there was less crime, violence, and nobody shooting 30 students, postal workers, people in malls because they felt like it.

Times change, but it has taken 70 years to put us in the ridiculous position that we have advocates arguing in court that, “the criminals are suffering excruciating pain without being able to cry out.” What about the victim of the crime? Didn’t they feel excruciating pain without being able to cry out?

I agree with Dr Chapman, all free people make choices, in their life. Those choices are what direct the course of their lives. Certainly, the people standing by freeway ramps begging look pitiful, but CONSIDER HOW MANY HUNDREDS OF WRONG CHOICES PUT THEM WHERE THEY ARE.

It is easier to hang out or shoot hoops with the gang than study or work. Why should we be concern if they are leading the life they chose? Maybe if the consequences of their early choices were not over looked they may have changed their course. I don’t know. But I do know we have being doing something wrong, terribly wrong and we must stop. I also know being a victim can be a way of life. It is an easy life, but one that is not very satisfying. Why encourage it?

The world of the 40’s was a much nicer place. Adults, teachers and the police were respected. Children could walk the streets without fear of being kidnapped and abused and go to school without fear of being shot or sold drugs. Is there anyone who doesn’t believe we live today in a chaotic world? How did we get here? Step by small step. Hundreds of small mistakes like parents and teachers who wanted to be ‘buddies’ to their children instead of parents and teachers. Doesn’t sound like a bad idea but many small changes add up to drastic change. Somehow, we have to turn around and restore order in the world again.

A good place to start may be to stop supporting victims. The earlier bad behavior is corrected less extreme the punishment needs to be.

By A Bialystock

Going against the grain

Nature Magazine May 3, 2007 page11: A report entitled –Missing gas saps plant theory, – discusses the controversy stirred up by research that showed that methane is produced by living plants in large amounts. This finding seriously damages the prevalent notion that industry is causing global warming. The author of the article states, “Depending on how the comparison is made methane’s greenhouse effect is between 25 and 70 times as great as that of carbon dioxide.”

I goes almost without saying that the results of the research has stirred up a hornets nest of protest, and several research projects have been launched to debunk the original findings. One of the author on this quest made the statement “…that if it (his study) joins Dueck’s in the peer-reviewed literature, the two together could kill off the theory.”

These remarks are more in tune with a vendetta than scientific research. The object is to find the truth not defend a belief. A statement by Ed Dlugokenchy of Earth System research Laboratory in Boulder, that “…even if the theory can be verified, it is likely to have little bearing on regulations of man-made greenhouse-gas emissions, which are known to be just over half of the global total.” What is astounding about that statement is that if man made greenhouse gas is only half of the problem, why are we ignoring the other half of the problem.

If global warming is going to cause a global disaster which in turn is going to cause worldwide extinctions, hunger, death and general destruction shouldn’t we be addressing the entire problem? It would seem that the consequences are so severe that any and all solutions should be pursued. Why are we focusing only on human behavior? What about all those wet lands that the environmental movement so laboriously had us construct and protect? Could it be that the environmental gods made a mistake?

If global warming is indeed the major disaster that the environmental scientific community has advocated for the last 10 years, none of the causes of this major disaster should be arbitrarily exempted from modification.

By D. J. Dodds

Useless Arithmetic

Nature Magazine May 3, 2007 page35: A Book Review entitled –When the numbers don’t add up, – discusses a book entitled Useless Arithmetic. The book tries to make the point that it is virtually impossible to use a quantitative modeling to predict the outcome of natural processes on the Earth’s surface.

Although the reviewer is predictably against the reasoning put forth in the book because it has some anti environmental rhetoric, he does seem to at least agree that the author has presented material that shows, that decisions made based on at least 12 of these models “…has gone awry leading to undesired societal and environmental outcomes.” On the other hand the reviewer bristle a little at the comment in the book that, “…leaders in global change studies tend to view as a primary task the maintenance of funding for the modeling juggernaut. Thirty years of personal experience in the research business, and the monitoring and reviewing science over the last 10 years, leads to heartily agreement with BOTH those statements.

I am not recommending that you go out and buy this book, but it is a step in the right direction, away from radical science and the author, the reviewer and I all agree that “…making big mistakes based on the misuse of quantitative models is far more common than it should be.” Science should be about truth not behavior modification.

By D. J. Dodds

I’ve got that sinking feeling

Science Magazine April 27, 2007 page 567: In an article titled – Revisiting Carbon Flux through the oceans twilight zone – by K Buesseler, et al. “The oceanic biological pump drives sequestration of carbon dioxide in the deep sea via sinking particles. Rapid biological consumption and remineralization of carbon in the “twilight zone” (depths between the euphotic zone and 1000 meters) reduce the efficiency of sequestration. …measured a transfer efficiency of sinking particulate organic carbon between 150 and 500 meters of 20 and 50% at two contrasting sites. This large variability in transfer efficiency is poorly represented in biogeochemical models. If applied globally, this is equivalent to a difference in carbon sequestrations of more than 3 petagrams of carbon per year.”

Now the amount of petagrams of carbon has probably little meaning to the average person. Fortunately the authors also include this statement in their section on implications and conclusions.

“For comparison global anthropogenic emissions of Carbon are 6 to 7 Pg (petagrams) Carbon per year. Certainly the entire ocean is not characterized by either single transfer efficiency, however, this calculation shows that, …transfer efficiency would have a large impact on the magnitude of ocean carbon sequestration and hence be a substantial feedback on the climate.” In this quote, several symbols for variables are replaced with their names for clarity. This convenience does not alter the importance of this finding.

Correction of the models would reduce the estimated carbon in atmosphere by as much as 50%. This would have a major impact on the temperature change estimated by these models. I would expect that these results will be attacked or ignored by those wishing to scare the public into modifying their behavior in a manner they believe is correct.

By A Bialystock

Where has Scientific Objectivity Gone?

Nature Magazine April 26, 2007 page1079: An article entitled –Resource use efficiency and plant invasion in low resource systems. – The authors Funk, J and Vitousek P, State, “Invasive species represent on of the most serious threats to bio diversity and ecosystem function worldwide, and understanding the mechanism by which invasive species outperforms native species is crucial to controlling their spread.” The first clause in this sentence was taken from a report written by the World Resources Institute.

Later in this same paper the authors make this statement. “Across all habitats, invasive species showed higher rates of carbon assimilation relative to native species. Higher assimilation rates for invaders corresponded with higher light use efficiency, instantaneous nitrogen-use efficiency and instantaneous energy-use efficiency in the light and nutrient limited systems. …Collectively, these species can outperform native species in low resource environments.”

Could it be that Funk and Vitousek are incapable of making the obvious connection that the invasive species is a better adapted species than the native species? If that is the case, why are we protecting the native species? Further, the species is more efficient than the native species at sequestering carbon dioxide. Is the ivory tower so isolated that they are unaware that the invasive species may help solve the global warming threat?

Their tests clearly show that the invasive species is better adapted to its environment. An object scientist would have to seriously consider that maybe their work indicates that biodiversity, a corner stone to the environmental movement, is not as important to a healthy environment as previously though regardless of what the World Resources Institute says.

Change is the only thing constant in the universe. Trying to stop change is counter to natural selection and the natural world. Artificially removing a more efficient species based on the concept that biodiversity is important to the environment ignores the fact that the most fruitful periods in the history of this planet have always followed major extinctions.

Common objectivity would have at least considered the alternative that biodiversity is counter productive to evolution of a better life form. Better, being defined as one that is more in tune with its environment.

By D. J. Dodds

Good species -- bad species

Nature Magazine April 26, 2007 page xiii: A summary of an article in the magazine entitled –New species for old? – States, “Native species might be expected to outperform invasive species on their home turf. This way of thinking has become a component of many strategies for the control of invasive species and the restoration of native ecosystems…”

This is another way of saying we (environmental scientists) assumed this to be right but were mistaken.

The piece goes on to say that, “But a study of the fates of 19 phylogenetically related pairs of invasive/native plant species shows that the invaders tend to be more efficient than native species at using limited resources.”

What were they suspecting that evolution is driven by survival of the least fittest? Or by what humans think should survive? For over 4 billion years the course of evolution has shown that a species that cannot deal with a changing environment will be replaced by one that can.

The summary goes on to say that, “this work calls into question any management strategy that relies on lowering resources availability…” Actually it calls into question more than that. It calls into question the very basis for the environmental policy that nothing should go extinct. Stopping a species from going extinct is at least as disruptive to nature as causing an extinction.

Shades of the Spotted Owl. What and who determines that a species is invasive? For some time that decision has been made by environmentalist based on rather arbitrary information. The best possible science is no replacement for omnipotence. Yet that is what is being used to determine which species is to live and which is to die. Human intervention based on the notion that what appeals to humans should survive is the greatest of all human impacts on the environment.

Has anyone notice that dinosaurs are not around anymore? Did humans cause their extinction? Is it possible that some species should be allowed to go extinct? If so which ones? Should environmental scientists be allowed to play god? Environmentalists have arbitrarily decided to artificially increase the number of seals and sea lions, which are now decimating the salmon species. Are these policies more harmful than helpful?

By D. J. Dodds

Irresponsible Press

Oregroanian May 7, 2007 page A1: An article titled –A medicine cabinet runs through it—and hits fish. The article discusses a recent study by the USGS of the bottom material found in some portions of some of the Portland area rivers and streams. In this study, they found traces of a wide variety of compounds commonly used by humans. Note the word traces. Left out of this article was the amount of this material found. The word traces could mean as little as a couple of ounces in 500 tons of bottom material. Why did the author leave out that important piece of information?

He links this study to another study that shows some of the local salmon are showing traces of an egg yolk protein normally found in adult salmon. That study assumed it was something in the water. Assumptions are not facts. The author juxtapositions these two studies such that the reader is lead to believe that they are connected. The chance that they are connected is as great as the chance they are not connected. This at best is irresponsible press, at worst propaganda.

The first article was on the chemical make up of the sediments deposited, on the stream bottom, the second article had to do with the water not the bottom material. The trace elements in the bottom have been deposited there over 100 years. That means that the concentrations of these compounds have built up slowly over those years. The young salmon are exposed to the liquid water for less than 1 year. Thus, the fish are exposed to less than 100th of the trace minerals.

The major thrust of this article is the authors concern for the fish and the usual, “…simple answer with drugs and cosmetic compounds is that they come from people.” Would the Oregroanian and the environmentalist be happy if people didn’t exist? Many streams in this state supply drinking water to humans. Is the Oregroainan more concerned about the health of salmon than humans?

By E. Geese

Laying off the Oregonian - Biofuels

Science Magazine April 27, 2007 page 515: An Editorial entitled –The biofuels Conundrum – States “Even if corn could yield 30% of the equivalent energy of gasoline (the goal set by the Secretary of Energy), that would create a whole array of collateral distortions.” It is interesting that the editor in chief choose the word distortions, rather than damage. He then goes on to list, environmental impact in the United States, Economic impact to the world markets, and disastrous effect on the hungry and poor of the world. All of these impacts are severe and ignored by environmentalists. The probability of those effects occurring is almost assured.

The sad part is that his bottom line is “…the sobering reality is that what the U.S. government spends on all of plant physiology is only one hundredth of the research budget of the National Institutes of Health. That is far to little for a venture this important.” Back to business as usual for the editor. We need more money for the readers of his magazine. Who cares about the poor and the hungry? Not many, but as their numbers grow, that will change, especially if you become one of the hungry. Do we have to go back to the depression in the 1930’s before reality sets in. Biofuels are one of the stupidest ideas to solve the energy crises. Changing food into fuel to drive cars is about as callous and shortsighted as the human brain can get.

At least a prominent scientist has spoken out about the absurdity of this idea. Hopefully, others will follow with the environmental and economic impacts of wind, wave and solar power as solutions to the energy crisis. The absolute truth is that nothing can be done that will not impact the environment. Wind, wave and solar power are only green to the slow witted.

If the energy crisis is going to be adverted nuclear power must play a major role. This is difficult to do because of the large number of intellectuals that spoke out against nuclear power 40 years ago. Eating crow is a repulsive thing to do. Consider that in this CO2 polluted world, we still have people trying to remove the dams from the Snake River. It is ironic that the fervor the environmental groups raised to solve one of their supposed problems is now preventing the solution to an actual and much bigger problem.

The probability that the country will solve the energy problem without dams and nuclear power is remote.

By D. J. Dodds

Page :  1 2 
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