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

 

Washington State is Right

Oregroanian July 18, 2007 page A1: An article titled —Two states, divided by salmon—. Rounds up the usual suspects about how dams “…kill many young salmon migrating past (them)”. It has been shown that predators kill hundreds of millions of more salmon that dams, yet our beloved Ted, allows that to continue. Oregon sites that “the federal plan departs little from the status quo and imperils …threatened and endangered species.”

Ted, maybe the status quo has changed. Thirty-five years ago, we were not facing global warming. We need green power. Dams are a much more green and efficient way to produce power than expensive wind and wave power, which are not that environmental friendly, for example, the few wind turbines already in operation kill hundreds of birds.

Maybe we should look to reducing the number of predator kills to solve the salmon problem. Problems change and therefore solutions change. A one sided, closed minded solution that sticks with a status quo and has been in place for 35 years and not succeeded in solving the problem maybe needs a fresh look.

Salmon will not recover until the predator problem is solved. If we increase the salmon, we increase the food supply of the predators and there numbers will increase in kind. Any one living on the coast can tell you that seals, and sea lions are more abundant today than ever.

What’s the point of saving the salmon but turn the world into an oven that threatens all life on the planet. Oregon’s wind turbines are a waste of money and will only increase the cost of power in Oregon and produce a recession in this state. Who needs food and jobs not Ted, he just wants adulation.



By C Blume

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/



Historic Ice Free Greenland

SCIENCE Magazine July 6, 2007 page 111: A article entitled –Ancient Biomolecules from Deep Ice Cores Reveal a Forested southern Greenland– makes the statement, “We show that high altitude southern Greenland, currently lying below more than s kilometers of ice, was inhabited by a diverse array of conifer trees, and insects within the pat million years. The results provide direct evidence in support of a forested Greenland…”

The evidence from this study shows that Greenland was covered by a diverse boreal forest consisting of pine spruce, alder and yew and inhabited by insects such as butterflies and moths. This is direct evidence that in the recent past the climate of Greenland was considerably warmer than it is today. Another icon of the global warming theory, i.e. “the planet has never been warmer than it is today” has been debunked. The idea that the climate of the earth is constant is historically false. In fact, the reverse is actually true. In the last ten thousand years, the climate has been unnaturally stable. Change is an inherent part of life. For the last 3 billion years the rule has been adapt to change or die.


Emmett Geese

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/



Problems with Global warming models

SCIENCE Magazine July 6, 2007 page 28: A article entitled –Another Global Warming Icon comes under Attack– by a group of mainstream atmospheric scientists is disputing a rising icon of global warming, and researchers are giving some ground. The article makes the statement, “The range is only half as large as they (the mainstream atmospheric scientist) would expect it to be, considering the large range of uncertainty in the factors driving climate change…. Somehow the three researchers say, modelers failed to draw on all the uncertainty inherent in aerosols so that the 29th century simulations look more certain than they should.” In that conclusion we agree, our studies show a definite bias in many past models, where data is manipulated to make the point of the researchers.

The article concludes with the statement, “I don’t want certain interests to clam that modelers are dishonest, says Kiehl.” I am not so sure. Many of the environmental researchers are opinions board on religious fanaticism. The public needs to face the fact that they are either dishonest or stupid and the scientific community needs to police its own much more vigilantly. There is a definite attitude that if research produces a view contrary to the environmentalist view that humans cause all the problems in the universe, that those researches must be ridiculed and denounced. Disagreement is the pathway to truth. It is also a fact on the other side of the model that none of the models took into consideration the dominant source of CO2 on the planet, which is metabolism, or respiration.


A Bialystock

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/



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