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

 

Capability and Understanding

Nature, September 13, 2007 page 198: An article titled –Coupling of surface temperature and atmospheric temperature CO2 concentrations during the Paleozoic era – This article states, “Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations seem to have been several times modern levels during much of the Paleozoic era (543-248 million years ago),…” Several times higher is an understatement. The article points out that the CO2 levels were 12 to 17 times higher, which is not several times higher, it is an order of magnitude higher.

The authors maybe a politely telling the scientific community that, it obviously does not know as much as it thinks it knows about global temperature. How many times have we heard over the past few years that today’s global temperature is higher than it has ever been in the past? This discrepancy about past global temperature has been pointed out several times on this web site. The article goes on to say, “…that the magnitude of temperature variability throughout this period was small, suggesting that global climate may be independent of variations in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.” Blasphemy! The scientists who let their environmental religion effect their conclusions are going to be quite upset.

The bottom line is that humans have increased their knowledge but not their understanding. Lincoln once said, “A person who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool, shun him.” Humans must understand that the earth has been changing for billions years. That is the way the universe works. Change is necessary; humans cannot stop change from occurring. We do not know enough about how the world works to mess with the machinery. We have the capability of impacting the world but not the understanding necessary to predict the outcome of our impact. The best we can do is to position ourselves to survive the change.

The problem the planet is facing today is not industrialization but population. There are 3 times more humans on the planet than the planet can support. Consider what would happen to pollution if 2/3 of the cars were off the road, 2/3 fewer products were made, 2/3 fewer mouths to feed, and 2/3 fewer homes being built. Nobody harvests timber for the fun of it. It is done because somebody needs the lumber to build a place to live.


Don Dodds

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/



Democracy at Work

Oregroanian Sep 14, 2007 page 1A: An article titled —Doe! State riles folks by taking deer—. This article states, “Hundreds call to complain about Oregon officials removal of a Molalla family’s two animals.” In a democracy, anyone has an equal right to express their opinions. This is good. Did we hear from any Oregonians that agreed with the states position? Is that one side press?

However, what is not good, is that the management of the Oregroanian has the sole RIGHT to put whatever it chooses on the front page or anywhere it its paper. This is good for the Oregroanian but not for the citizens of Oregon. We see only what the Oregroanian wants us to see and then with a slant that fits their agenda. The opinion of hundreds of people in a state that contains 3.6 million people is of little consequence to make the front page of any newspaper. The question is why did it make the front page. Because it sells papers? Because it is important to world peace? Is it about the law? The owner of the deer said he doesn’t care about the law. Is the owner of the deer above the law? Why do we have law? Is the Oregroanian out to control the law? Is the Oregroanian out to establish anarchy?

Again, on page C1 is a story showing 16 people demonstrating to give sanctuary for those who are in the US Illegally. Does everybody with a cause that can gather 16 people get a full-page picture and article on the front page of a section in the Oregroanian? The same questions as above need to be answered. Why are these issues being singled out for publication and giving attention over the concerns of the other 3.6 millions people living in this state?

The only answer is agenda.

The Oregroanian only prints what wants you to know about. Is that why we believe in freedom of the press? Is the press really free? When freedom of the press was added to the laws of this country, there existed 10 of thousands of newspaper owners, in a country that had less citizens than Oregon has today. Presently, there are less than 100 newspaper owners in the country. This is not what our founding fathers fought for nor is it FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.

How many other papers does the owner of the Oregroanian also own and control? Is that too much power in one unelected official’s hands?




By Emment Geese

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/



Science Learns about Economics

Science, August 31, 2007 page 1145: An editorial by Donald Kennedy –Mix Grill – states, “Something interesting has happened that I didn’t quite realize when last visiting this subject (Science, 27 April 2007, p. 515). A major economic shift has arisen through the fusion of the agriculture and energy sectors by the biofuels craze.” Interesting? Catastrophic would be a better term. Somehow, the giant brains of Science that promoted this option could not visualize, that biofuels would raise the world prices of corn and other food products. The result of this economic pressure would cause a reduction in food production in a world were starvation is already rampant, and an increase in deforestation to provide land on which to grow the biofuels. Duh!

All for a fuel that will do very little to effect climate change. The idea generated in the 70’s, “do something even if it’s wrong” has never worked. These are the people we are following into scientific driven climate changing Armageddon.

Scientist who by definition know a lot about very little should stay out areas, which require broader understanding that their specialty. Practical scientists, sometimes called Engineers, who by definition know a little about many things, should be entrusted to solve problems. Both should have the intelligence to know where their talent exists. Unfortunately, these same scientists are pushing the world into using wind and solar power similarly expensive and ineffectual sources of power.



C Blume

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/



Fish or Fry

OregroanianSep 7, 2007 page 1D: An article titled —Feds reel out third salmon Plan—. This article states, “The Judge, U.S. District Judge James Redden, threw out the last two federal blueprints for operating the dams because they did not fulfill federal obligations to protect salmon.” With the earth apparently facing global warming Armageddon from pollution caused by energy generation, does it make any sense to shut down the most efficient and clean source of power in the world because we need to protect a single species? If this world goes ballistic because of global warming the salmon will go too.

Is this a case of a stupid judge, a stupid law or both? For Gods sake, what is the environmental law going to protect if the carbon dioxide is not curbed?

The article continues by dragging out the Indians and fish advocates. “But tribes and fish advocates, including some who originally took the government to court said the government still is not offering much new help for salmon and still overlooks the serious toll dams take on the fish.” Advocates are a group of people who make their living on controversy and believe that the only solution to any problem is their solution. There is considerable data that shows that dams also save fish. What should be looked at is the net impact that dams have on fish. But the advocates and Indians ignore that data because of their selfish interests.

Do we continue to listen to the Indians and the fish advocates? It is time to speak out against this closed minded approach to solving problems. It our choice. So do we fish or fry?


By Carol Blume

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/



When Environmental Writers are Part of the Problem

Something's missing in today's environmental discussion. When talking about causes and proposed solutions for our ecological plight, few environmental writers are telling us more than half the story. Al Bartlett, physics professor emeritus at the University of Colorado and long time sustainability activist calls it “The silent lie.” It's the near universal tendency to focus on the importance of cutting fossil fuel use while staying mum on the topic of population growth.

John Holdren, last year's president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, told us the whole story over a decade ago in an article titled, Population and the Energy Problem. In it, he observed that the total energy consumption for a country or the world, is the product of population size multiplied by the average per capita energy use. Today, the developers of the "ecological footprint" measure, William Rees and Mathis Wackernagle, echo Holdren when they explained, "[The ecological footprint] for the world as a whole is the product of population times per capita consumption, and reflects both the level of consumption and the efficiency with which resources are turned into consumption products."

That the size and growth of the global population is a root cause of ecological degradation, including climate change, is in fact well known to scientists. Yet, statements to that effect get little traction in the mainstream media. We hear all about the need to save energy by switching to florescent light bulbs. We read about the ethanol debate and carbon trading schemes. We urge our representatives to establish tougher fuel economy standards. But in all the talk of ways of reducing per person consumption, how often does anyone mention the need to address the other factor in the equation? In today's environmentalwriting, population growth is the elephant in the room



by John Feeney



Saving Borneo’s Rainforests

Science, August 34, 2007 page10328: A letter titled –Another threat to Borneo’s Rainforests? – This letter like the article in referred too are shamefully missing the point. The author states, “This is timely and hopefully will lead toward improved conservation efforts and more sustainable land use in this beleaguered biodiversity hotspot.” What is truly amazing about this approach is the complete inability to face reality. Biodiversity is a myth and Conservation was a policy developed over 100 years ago to deal with a planet containing 2 billion people. Wake up, today we have over three times that many people on the planet.

Biodiversity is a corner stone of the environmental movement, however, there is no proof that biodiversity is important to the environment. Something without basis in scientific fact is called a Myth. The 4.5 billion years of Geologic history proves that biodiversity is unimportant. Life developed about 3.5 a billion years ago. For the next 3 billion years, the only life on the planet was microbial. Multiple celled life, did not develop until about 500 million years later. Thus for the first 3.5 billion years bio diversity was zero. The planet somehow survived 87.5% of its existence, without biodiversity.

Somewhere around 500 million years ago life began to diversify and multiple celled species appeared. Because these species were partially composed of sold material they left better geologic records, and the number of species and genera could be cataloged and counted. By any definition, the number of genera on the planet is an indication of the biodiversity of the planet. A plot of the number of genera on the planet over the last 550 million years is given on page 376 of the “Earth through Time.” a text written by Harold L Levin.

This plot shows presently that biodiversity on this planet is ten times greater than it was 500 million years ago. It also shows that at least ten times during the earths history biodiversity fell rapidly; none of these extreme reductions in biodiversity were caused by humans. Around 250 million years ago the number of genera was reduce 85 percent from about 1200 to around 200, by any definition a significant reduction in biodiversity. The plot also shows that after every extinction, a steep and rapid increase of biodiversity. Why is that? Do you suppose it had anything to do with the number of environmental niches available for exploitation? If you do, you are right. Extinctions are necessary for creation.

Presently biodiversity is at an all time high and has far exceeded even the 2500 genera level. If 4 billion years of history tells us anything, it is that biodiversity is not that important to life on the planet and we are over due for another major extinction. Conservation cannot help solve this problem. In fact the conservation policies of this country in the last 50 years has forced the exploitation of natural resources out of our country and into the third world countries because 6.6 billion humans required those resources to exist. If human life is to remain on this planet, we must face facts and control our population, other wise we will join the dinosaurs.


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