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:


Result of Protected Areas

Science Magazine July 48, 2008: Page 123, An article titled –Accelerated Human Population Growth at Protected area edges–States. “—These protected areas long been criticized as creations of and for the elite few, where associated costs but few benefits are borne—highlight a looming threat to PA (protected Areas) effectiveness and biodiversity”. This article shows an example of the shortsighted and narrow-minded view of many religious environmentalists. These areas in poor rural areas like Africa and South America draw the poor population to their boundaries where better jobs are available. The influx of both the work force and the elite few dramatically increase the impact on the pristine areas. Duh! Is this do to their tiny minds or the lack of broad education?

It does highlight the absurdity of saving these places. Pristine areas are no longer pristine when humans flock to view them before they disappear. Yellowstone and Yosemite National parks are good examples. They are certainly beautiful and endangered spaces, but what is the value of beauty if it cannot be appreciated? A problem that seemingly is unanswerable. Maybe that is because we do not understand the problem.

The problem is human population. If we reduce the human population by 3.5 billion these parks would flourish, nature would flourish, poverty and hunger would diminish and human existence would be considerable more pleasant.

By C Blume

Hooray for the Europeans

The Oregroanian July 8, 2008: Page C-1, An article titled –Europeans backpedal on switch to biofuels–States. “—European officials propose scaling back dramatically their goal of increasing Europe’s use of biofuels, a major about-face on a central environmental and energy issue.” “—the allure has dimmed amid growing evidence that targets proposed by the European Union may be contribution to deforestation, which speeds climate change and helping force up food prices.” Duh! It always amazes me how little the great environmental scientist of this world think ahead. Where did they think that these biofuels would come from, a distant planet? Existing croplands are producing food for a hungry world, there is no surplus of cropland. It ether has to come from existing croplands or new croplands have to be made. In the first case, we starve people. In the second case, we cut down forests and fill in wetlands.

Hello environmentalists, there is no free lunch.

By N Babalush

Climate Scientist Wrong Again

Science Magazine June 13, 2008: Page 1409, An article titled –Have Desert Researchers Discovered A Hidden Loop in the Carbon Cycle?–States, “A CO2 gulping desert in a remote corner of China may not be an isolated phenomenon. Halfway around the world, researchers have found that Nevada’s Mojave Desert, square meter for square meter, absorbs about the same amount of CO2 as some temperate forests.” It turns out that all the climate models that have been used to predict temperature change due to atmospheric CO2 total neglect this sump. Further the sump is huge. “About 35% of the Earths land surface or 5.2 billion hectares, is desert and semiarid ecosystems—roughly half the amount emitted globally by burning fossil fuels— ”

Many traditional environmentalist climate scientists find this hard to believe. Probably, because it flies in the face of there preconceived notion that human industrial sins are at the root of this problem. Scientists are not supposed to have preconceived notions. Could all of this controversy and fuss be a produce of those scientists greed for research money and fame? Or is it due to their religious beliefs that nature is God and humans are evil? Your call! It wouldn't be the first time or the last that preconceived notions have lead science astray. Can we get the Noble prize back from Al?

By E. Geese

The Aristocracy Lives

The Oregroanian June 19, 2008: Page C-1, An article titled –CEOs Win even when Firms Lose–Discusses the salaries of CEOs across the country. The top ten salaries range from 83.1 million to 34.2 million per year. I thought we fought a war to rid this country of the Aristocracy. I can understand that s foreman should make more than a laborer because they have more responsibility and high skills. The foreman often makes about 30 percent more money than the people they supervise, because they are worth more to the company. Now there are generally about 10 levels of responsibility in any organization. If each level the salaries increase by 30 percent then the president of Merrill Lynch should be making $2.5 million instead of $83.1 million

Whereas it is true that 83.1 million is stamp money to Merrill Lynch, that does not alter the fact that this person is treated differently that the rest of the organization. Segregating people by other than their value, is distinction by class. No level of skill will get you their. Its who you know and who you parents were.

By N Babalush

Oil Shock

The Oregroanian July 1, 2008: An article titled –Market’s Oil Shocks Sap Investors Optimism – Discusses the disaster that this country’s oil policy has caused in the financial markets and our economy. It does not discuss the cause or the full extent of this calamity.

Problems of this magnitude don’t just happen, they have to be planned and executed by multiple mistakes. Forty years ago the US stopped building dams and nuclear power plants. Instead we decided to build the safe and environmentally friendly oil and coal fired plants. Neither dams nor nuclear power plants produce carbon dioxide. Because of that choice we have produce almost 4 times the annual production of carbon dioxide for the last 40 years. Smart Choice.

Second, we decided not to develop our own oil reserves in Alaska and off shore in the Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Because of this choice we have saved hundreds of sea gulls, and maybe 50 caribou, etc., financed three wars by our enemies, increased the cost of living for our citizens 200 percent. But what the heck the seagulls and caribou are happy while children in the good only USA are brought up in poverty.

Maybe it is time to admit that this democracy made a mistake and get on with solving the problem. Change environmental law, drill our oil fields, build nuclear plants, add more turbines to the dams and construct new dams to stop flooding and generate power. Concerns about fish can be handled by reduction in fish predators. That will buy time to tackle the root cause of the problem—world population.

By N Babalush

Melting Arctic Ice & Global Warming—Opps!

Fox News Wednesday, July 02,2008: An article titled –Huge Volcanoes May be Erupting under Arctic Ice – States that, “New evidence deep beneath the Arctic ice suggests a series of underwater volcanoes have erupted in violent explosions in the past decade.”

“Robert Reeves-Sohn of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute in Massachusetts and his colleagues discover jagged, glassy fragments of rock scattered around the volcanoes, suggesting explosive eruptions occurred between 1999 and 2001.” Many climatologists had trouble with the rapid melting and the fact that the ice was melting under the glaciers not on the surface, where one would expect the ice to melt from an increase in atmospheric temperature.

Some scientists don’t see any significant connection. This is troubling, because many scientists tend to believe what they want to believe despite the data what the data shows. Reeves-Sohn, also stated that, “they didn’t believe the volcanoes had much effect on the overlying ice, but they seem to have a major impact on the overlying water column.”

Okay, what’s that mean? It means that the temperature of the overlying column of water was increased significantly. Warm water flowing past ice, hmm! Would that mean? Maybe, the ice would melt more rapidly? Seems like the long way around the barn.

Most scientist today are thoroughly indoctrinated with environmental religious principles, that nature is god and the humans way of life is the cause of all the worlds problems. Well they are partly right. Humans today do cause the environmental problems. However, it is not human industry its human procreation. Without industry the impact of 6.7 billion humans on the planet would be hundreds of times greater. Consider what impact would be if we were all hunter gathers. The world would be a wasteland; all the animals, birds, edible vegetation would be eaten. Human waste products would be everywhere. Every stick of wood would be burned to cook our food or heat our huts. China knows that first hand, and they have been industrializing as fast as they can to save their citizens and environment.

The only sure way out of this mess is to stop procreation and reduce our population to the point were human impact can be tolerated by the environment. I suspect that is somewhere around 3 billion people.

By D J Dodds

It’s About Dam Time

About 40 years ago, environmentalist decided that dams were bad for the environment, and forced the government and the public to stop building them. The recent floods in along the Mississippi and the repeated floods of the Trask and Wilson Rivers in Oregon should indicate that maybe it is time to re-examine that policy. This years floods in Iowa killed 30 people. Now if that had been 30 Plovers or Spotted Owls, the rage of the environmentalist would be uncontrollable. The floods also cost over 3 billion dollars. Again not a problem; the value of the environment cannot be measured, and therefore cost is not an issue. Small minds cannot understand complex matters. They miss the concept that all wealth comes from the environment. Farming, logging, fishing, mining are only some of the basis from which wealth springs. All of these operations impact the environment. Make the connection. Wasting money is wasting the environment. If you have no concern about human life at least consider your precious environment.

Forty years ago the environmentalist stopped the building of Nuclear plants forced country into building coal fire plants. Those same coal fired plants that are now causing global warming. Duh! For forty years many countries have been building Nuclear plants with no accidents. Chernobyl was built over 50 years ago using 10-year-old technology. Dams are the most efficient form of power generation with the least impact to the environment. Beside, they reduce flooding, save lives, providing water for irrigation and drinking. The notion that letting all of that precious fresh water run off to the ocean while we mine ground water for human use, is as stupid as burning coal to generate power.

It has been correctly pointed out that, “95 percent of Iowa State’s wetlands have been drained or filled and about 75 percent of its forests have been cleared and more than 99 percent of its prairies have fallen to the plow.” All true! But what they failed to point out was that all of that change was not done for fun. It was done to feed and provide the basic needs for humans not only in this country but also around world. The US has been the breadbasket for the world for 100’s of years. Because the environmentalists stomachs are full who cares about the rest of the world. They can get their food elsewhere? Where is elsewhere? Crops do grow in the desert. Throughout 15 thousand years humans have lived on flood plains and use those efficient systems to produce abundant food to reduce starvation and the misery of the human society.

The part of the problem that these religious environmentalist wish to ignore is that there are 4 billion people to many on this planet. The less people the smaller the environmental impact. I sorry but moving everybody to New York City and forcing them to live off of roof top gardens is rather impractical, unfortunately, no more impractical than moving humans off of flood plains.

The second major point the environmentalists ignore or don’t understand is that there are other ways of controlling flooding many of which have been taken off the table by those that hold the environment more precious than human life. They fail to realize that dikes and levees are not a flood control system. They are a high water control system. For his edification, high water and floods are different events. High water is a long-term slow rise of water to a very low level. Floods are a short-term rise of water to a very high level. What they fail to see that there are other ways of delaying floodwaters, spreading out the length of the wave while reducing the height of the wave to keep it below the top of the levees.

Their belief that, there is another alternative to wetlands initiative, is based on the assumption that natural hydrology can be restored. First of all what is natural hydrology—The hydrology 150 years ago or the Hydrology 20,000 or 20 million years ago? The hydrology of the Mississippi River has never been constant. So to pick a period when the hydrology was “natural” is impossible. To arbitrarily assume that 150 years ago nature was perfect is shortsighted. True, 150 years ago nature was different, but nature is always changing and never perfect. Perfect is a human term. To stop nature form changing is not only impossible, fruitless it is down right dangerous. Humans in general and Environmentalist in particular do not have the understanding to correctly alter the course of nature.

There is only one way to reduce the human impact on the environment—Reduce the number of humans on the planet. In the mean time use what tools, like dams, that are available to stop the flooding. A couple of dams on the Trask and Wilson rivers in Oregon would sure save a lot of money, agriculture and peoples lives besides reducing the carbon foot print.

What’s to loose except pride.

By A. Bialystock

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