Oregroanian June28, 2007 page B4: An article titled —Dead Crow signals early start to West Nile Virus—. Reports that, “The arrival of the virus so soon in Portland this season reinforces predictions made earlier this year that West Nile could hit hard in Oregon's largest population center.”

The virus is spread from mosquito to victim, from victim back to mosquito. Mosquito’s flight range is in 1000’s of feet. However, if a bird is bitten by an infected Mosquito, it can fly 1000’s of miles and spread the virus like a wild fire. Articles in scientific journals have discussed the drop in bird population across the country, and related those deaths to the West Nile Virus.

The article ends by suggesting that, “homeowners should drain stopped-up gutters, cans, old tires, flower pots — anything that could collect water and provide mosquitoes a breeding area.” Anything that could provide a breeding area?? What about the thousands of wetlands that the environmental law required to be built over the last 30 years? These large tracts of stagnant water breed millions more mosquitoes than half a can of water. One hundred years ago, we filled in wetlands to stop mosquito borne decease. Obviously, Environmentalists do not read history, nor can they admit a mistake. The spread of this dangerous decease is not caused by cans and tires; it is caused by an environmental policy that believes that all things bad are caused by humans. In a way that is true because the human environmentalist caused this problem.



C Blume

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/

Oregroanian June26, 2007 page A1: An article titled —Child abuse, neglect at a 10-year high—. Reports that “…more than 12,000 children were victimized in 2006, a 7 percent increase from 2005 and a rate that is growing faster than the population.

There is no worse crime that child abuse. Five bills have been signed into law aimed at improving lives for children. The article goes on to say, “Officials attribute the continued rise to methamphetamine and other substance abuse.” Round up the usual suspects.

Has anyone ever stopped to think that maybe part of the problem is too many children? Is irresponsible procreation is a god given right? How many of those who abuse one child will have another and abuse that one as well? It is a requirement in this state to pass a test to drive a car, because driving a car can harm people. Irresponsible procreation harms innocent people.

How about a sixth law that says if you abuse a child, you lose your right to produce children. That would be one law that would go a long way to reduce child abuse.



A Bialystock

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/

Oregroanian June21, 2007 page C1: An article titled —Farmers will grow ‘oil’ for refinery—. This article praises the apparent progress of Oregon’s finest hour our head long foray into renewable energy. This article shows a graph that indicates the US production of bio-diesel has increase 300 percent in the last two years. All of this oil is “non-petroleum oil and therefore supposed to be good for the environment. That is a shortsighted view. This oil comes from the same source that petroleum oil comes from, i.e. biomass – plants and animal products. Some how, the idea that these plants and animals are not part of the environment we are trying to save seems to have slipped past the radar.

Taking grain, forest products and other biomass and reducing it to diesel oil to fuel cars is a good idea? One thing that the earth has in abundance is grain to feed its population, forests and other biomass that we no longer need, which we can use to fuel our cars. The trouble with the world is that the average human has average intelligence. I wouldn’t expect Kulongoski to understand, but I would hope that some of the 6.5 billion people on the planet would see thousands of acres of food producing land have been turned over to oil production as a bad idea. Do you think that bio-diesel will not reduce the food supply in the world? Do you think it will not increase the cost of food? Do you think it will reduce poverty, hunger and unrest on the planet? Do you really think this will make the environment better? Or are you just not thinking?



C Blume

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/

Oregroanian June21, 2007 page A1: An article titled —Teen dreamed of being doctor until her secret got in the way—. This article tells a heartwarming and compelling story about a young woman from an impoverish country that illegally entered the US because she and her parents were starving in their home country and her struggle to graduate from OSU after she was found to be an illegal alien. The story blames the immigration laws for this tragedy. Everybody is a victim. If that is true then the laws on murder and robbery should be relaxed using the same line of reasoning.

I’M SORRY, BUT THE IMMIGRATION LAWS OF THIS COUNTRY ARE NOT THE PROBLEM.

The problem is that the country of origin for this family could not provide food and opportunity for this family. Why is that? Because that country doesn’t care about its citizens? No. Because this country doesn’t care about other countries citizens? No again.

The immigration problem is not really a problem, it is a symptom of a world with two many people. If the home country could reduce population to a size that is sustainable then their citizens would not be starving, discontented and would not have to break laws to survive and be happy. According to the 2007 world almanac, only eight countries out of 194 produced more children than Mexico. Is that due to the US immigration laws? Or is it due to that countries Social and Religious practices?

Uncontrolled Human Population is the cause of most of the issues on the planet today. Why is nobody dealing with this problem?



C Blume

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/

Oregroanian June21, 2007 page A1: An article titled —Humans 1, salmon 0—. This article discusses a situation where the BPA sold some of its excess power and local demand exceeded supply. The oregronian wants to make this a clash between humans and salmon, but it is between global warming and salmon two environmental issues. Both of these issues have been thrust into the foreground by conflicting environmental religious doctrine. Poorly written laws have hobbled and tied the hands of the BPA. This allows the oregroanian and the people like Michael Milstein and Judge James Redden to whip them no matter which way they turn.

Good ole judge jimmy stated, “ Apparently BPA’s sales commitments to customers always trump its obligation to protect, (Endangered-Species Act)-listed species,” I wonder what he would have said had the BPA blackout his home and office? Later judge jimmy said “…the already ‘dangerously low rate of retuning adult fish’ makes each one that much more important.’’

If that is true, then why does jimmy allow sea lions, seals and other predators to consume millions of returning salmon? Or isn’t jimmy interested in saving salmon? Or is the Endangered-species act an unworkable law that conflicts with global warming? Or should judge jimmy, the ESA and bias reporting all be repealed?

You can’t have it both ways. We have been robbing Peter to pay Paul for 40 years and now Peter is at the door with a warrant for our arrest. Environmentalists have been making decisions for the last 40 years and those decisions have led Peter to our door.

One thing is sure and that is problems cannot be solved by close-minded ignorant people using half true science as the basis for decisions.



C Blume

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/

Science Magazine June 8, 2007 page 1413: An article titled —Pushing the scary side of Global warming—. An article is written by Richard Kerr states, “But no one understands just why the great ice sheets of Greenland and West Antarctica have accelerated their slide to the sea in recent years.” In this article, the author quotes Jonahtan Gregory a climate and sea level modeler from the university of Reading, U.K who coordinated the section on sea-level change of the IPCC report as saying, “Quantifying ice-sheet behavior does indeed have its limitations.”

It is worthwhile to note that the physical science of part of that report was written by 600 scientists, and drew 30,000 comments. Thirty thousand comments would indicate that many scientists had objections to what was being said in the report. This alone should raise a red flag. How were these comments handled? Was the report changed, were the comments ignored or withdrawn. So much for peer review.

The recent article on tropical cyclones and their effect on climate published in Science Magazine May 31, 2007 provides a process that has here to be ignored in these climate models that may very well explain the rapid retreat of the glaciers. Cyclone apparently force warm water down and poleward. Two things that happened in the last 10 years was an increase in cyclones and the melting of the glaciers. Hello. Does it take a genius to connect the dots. No, but it does take a climatologist with guts to go against Al Gore and the environmental religion.

In the mean time the world goes slips into chaos, poverty and unrest.



C Blume

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/

Oregroanian June 16, 2007 page B7: An article titled —The silence you hear is birds. . . disappearing—. This article is written by Michael Milstein of the Oregonian. It starts off with an apparent statement made by an article in the June 7 edition of Nature magazine “NATURE Many have declined by at least 50% since the 1960’s, due to development , pesticides and cats.” The actual article never makes that statement and nowhere does it discuss the relationship between development, pesticides or cats.

The article in nature does make the statement that “A continent-wide analysis suggests that West Nile virus has severely affected bird populations associated with human habitats in North America.” (Nature Magazine volume 447, June 7, 2007, page 652.)

The entire article in Nature magazine addresses the effects of the west Nile virus on bird population. The point of the article is really on the spread of the virus, which is killing humans, pets and other vertebrates beside birds. The connection is that birds travel between individual wetlands carrying the virus with them and thereby spreading it to uninfected mosquitoes which then bite more birds and the cycle continues.

The connection discussed in the article is the connection between wetlands, mosquitoes and birds. Both the number of birds and the number of wetlands has increased due to environmental pressure.

Those environmentalist, that pushed for increasing wetlands were apparently unaware that mosquito borne diseases was the reason that wetlands were reduced 100 years ago. One question is, was the environmental policy to build more wetlands a sound idea? But, the more basic question here, is can you trust what the Oregroanian, Portland’s only daily newspaper, prints as being the truth?



E Geese

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/

Oregroanian June 13, 2007 page B7: An article titled —Kilimanjaro’s shrinking snow not due to global warming—. This article discusses a document that indicates that the shrinking of the glaciers on Kilimanjaro is in reality due to the location of the glaciers in an environment above 19,340 feet. At this elevation in the tropics the temperature never gets below freezing and thus the glaciers are not disappearing due to melting due to increase in global temperature, but sublimation and the lack of snowfall. According to this article, Douglas Hardy, a paleoclimatologist at the University of Massachusetts stated,

“Even though the mountain presents an interesting scientific puzzle, its anomaly compared with what’s happening with other glaciers. The new article will be seized on by —global warming naysayers— and could give people the mistaken impression that it calls global warming into question. What value to society does that serve?”

What is wrong with naysayers? Is Hardy concerned that his truth may be shown to false and the naysayers true? After all polar glaciers are subjected to the same environment only a lower elevations. Does this mean that the shrinking glaciers in the Polar Regions are also due to lack of snowfall and sublimation? Should we find that out?

On the other hand the author of the paper Philip Mote, the Washington State Climatologist, stated, “He worried about the article being misused, but decided to go ahead.” The reason given was,

“Science is a process of getting to the truth.”

This highlights the problem with many scientists today. Hardy is not interested in truth but in social reform using science as a means of that reform. If the truth gets in the way of the greater good of society it must be suppress. Unfortunately, too many of the scientists in high places have this same attitude, and let that attitude get in the way of finding the truth. Thus we are making decision of great importance today by people who have no interest in truth only social change in the direction they believe is correct. Social change is the dominion of religion. Suppressing information because it may not serve society in the manner that an individual deems proper, is fascism. Scientist should only be concerned with finding the truth. Changing society should be left to others.

The world needs far more Motes and considerable less Hardys. The best science is not incomplete science.



D. J. Dodds

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/

This is a speech given by Al Bartlett, professor emeritus at the University of Colorado on Earth Day. The comments enclosed in brackets are mine. Dr. Bartlett referred to Disney's First Law and is quoted as saying, “That Disney first law is “Wishing will make it so.” It's a particularly appropriate idea for Sunday, Earth Day 2007, as we confront the increasingly stark realities of global warming.” Bartlett's imaginary law pokes fun at our tendency to want happily-ever-after fixes rather than make substantive changes in the way we do things. Dr. Bartlett is particularly not fond of developers' and environmentalists' mutual oxymoron: sustainable growth. Growth on a finite planet - or more particularly, the United States' growth - cannot be sustained.

"In 1994, science's creme de la creme, in a rare joint statement by the national academies of 58 nations, reminded leaders - or tried to - that science cannot endlessly pull rabbits out of hats to solve problems caused by growth. Society, not just science, must forge population answers. It is not prudent to pin hopes on scientific solutions that may not prove sufficiently speedy or effective. And, as John Burton of the World Land Trust said, "Reducing our individual consumption on its own will not make a shred of difference to the future of the planet, without also addressing population.” Dr Bartlett said “Our planet still gains a billion people every 15 years.

(Actual it only takes about 8 years to gain a billion and the interval is decreasing.)

More relevant, perhaps, is that half of all population growth before 2050 will happen in just eight nations: India, Pakistan, Nigeria, the United States, China, Bangladesh, Ethiopia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in that order.”

(Again this is not completely true, the united states growth rate, that is birthrate – death rate, is number 14 according to The 2007 world almanac. The US population is growing by immigration as well. Further according to the 2007 almanac the top eight nations that have increased their population by growth rate in order are India, China, South Africa, Nigeria, Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Brazil)

“Unless we in the United States wake up and realize the stark reality - to us and the world - of that shocking distinction. While we cannot dictate to other nations, we should lead by example.

That brings us to President Bush and his version of Disney's First Law: biofuels. After years of refusing to confront global warming, Bush, in his State of the Union address, set a production goal for 2017 of 35 billion gallons of grain-based ethanol and other alternative fuels - a mere token gesture against climate change. Nonetheless, 80 ethanol distilleries are under construction. But World Watch Institute's Lester Brown recently, if inconveniently for politicians, pointed out that "the world's breadbasket is fast becoming the U.S. fuel tank." Last year, 16 percent of U.S. grain went to the fledgling ethanol industry.

Food markets and energy markets are merging. We rob Peter to pay Paul. Put in harsher terms, globally, cars compete against the world's poor for food. Cars are also responsible for the clearing of forests in Indonesia, South America and Africa to free land for biofuel production - self-defeating from the standpoint of global warming, because forests store carbon.”

(The veracity of that statement is questionable because the forest also pollute the atmosphere with other green house gases.)

“The world's 2 billion poorest people must soon compete for grain with 800 million of the richest people and their automobiles. Does anyone doubt who will lose on a planet where 18,000 children die from hunger every day? It is bad enough that the United States is, along with China, the planet's carbon-emissions 800-pound gorilla. But with our high population - one of only three nations with more than 300 million residents and, thanks mostly to unfettered immigration, booming toward 1 billion late this century - it would seem we must return to a priority of the 1970s that has been lost somewhere along the way: stabilizing U.S. population.”

“While alternative fuels, especially nongrain-based ethanol, generated from trash, sewage or manure, could play a part in our energy future, only delusional belief in Disney's First Law would indicate we can fight global warming while facing a tripling of the population - and the number of cars driven - in the most energy-consumptive nation in the world.”

(I agree wholeheartedly agree with these conclusions, however, I would add that none of the solutions based on so called green forms of power will solve the problem without major changes to the global growth rate. The best way to reduce human impact to the planet is to reduce the number of humans on the planet.)



D. J. Dodds

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/

Geologic history shows that at no time since the earth was formed has the climate on earth been constant. To suddenly stop all climate change on earth and create a perfect environment is impossible. Just because humans air-conditioning their homes or work space does not mean that they have the power to air condition the entire earth. For humans to correctly control the temperature on the planet would require humans to know what the perfect temperature and humidity is for the Earth. If humans simply stop climate change that assumes that the present climatic conditions are perfect and that, our present level of understanding is such that we know where the evolutionary process is headed. It is one thing to be aware of change, quite another to assume we understand the global and evolutionary process sufficiently to correctly direct the process. It may be true that burning of fossil fuels has increased the global temperature, but then so do wild fires and volcanoes. If the environmental movement wants to limit human impact on the planet, they can do that best, and maybe only, by limiting the number of humans on the planet.

Two hundred years ago human population increase to one billion and starvation was seen as a threat to the species. Technology removed that threat and over the next 100 years the population increased to two billion and starvation was again seen as a threat, once again technology removed that threat and the population has now increased to almost 7 billion and not only is starvation threatening again but pollution and human impact is also becoming a threat. None of the solutions being discussed presently will stop the human impact on the planet if the number of humans continues to increase. There is no such thing as clean energy, i.e. energy without environmental impact. The only thing that will work is to reduce the number of humans to a sustainable population. All species have a sustainable population. The human species needs to realize that an infinite number of humans cannot exist on this planet. The best we can hope for is an optimum number. Defining that optimum number will not be easy. However, while we are trying to determine that it may be a good idea to limit the births on this planet to 1 per couple for a few generations. Those religions that prophesy an end to the world, mean the end of human existence on this world.


D. J. Dodds

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/

Nature Magazine May 31, 2007 page 577: A article headlined –Observational Evidence for an Ocean Heat Pump induced by tropical cyclones– Makes the statement, “Our results indicate that tropical cyclones are responsible for significant cooling and vertical mixing of the surface ocean in Tropical regions. Furthermore, our analyses show that the magnitude of this mixing is strongly related to sea surface temperature, indicating that future changes in tropical sea surface temperatures may have significant effects on ocean circulation and ocean heart transport that are not currently accounted for in climate models.” Yet, another find modeling mess Al Gore has gotten us into. This study shows that the global warming temperatures have been over estimated.

What is also interesting is this study also concludes “…thus all heat loss from the oceanic mixed layer is transported downward and ultimately poleward.” This result fits well with the recent increase in melting of polar glaciers on the edges where they are subjected to warmer than normal water, while at the same time the mass of ice is increasing inland. This changes the cause of ice loss, from global warming to the record number of tropical cyclones in recent years. Making rash decisions before all the data is in is a sure way of making costly mistakes. But, the mob is already stirred into a frenzy. The problem needs to be solved, but even the most drastic current proposed solutions are not going to solve the problem and will cause major political and economic problems.



A Bialystock

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/

Oregroanian June 2, 2007 page C1: An article titled —Regulators want Wyden in BPA Battle—. Regulators assert that residential and small farm customers of private utilities in Oregon could be on the hook to refund as much as $800,000,000. The AVERAGE amount is expected to be $700. This will affect about 60% of the power users in Oregon, which get a 15% reduction in power costs. The other 40%, Portland customers get a 50% reduction. Hmmm, that seems fair. The article stated that “ Wyden was unavailable for comment Friday… the senator has been fairly quiet on the question of the BPA benefits since it blew up with the court decision in early May.” Is Ron’s power base the Portland environmentalists who want the salmon protected, without reducing predators and the dams pulled down and who support high-cost, bird-killing wind turbines.

The costs of this insanity are coming home to roost but the hardcore environmentalist responsible for this mismanagement want someone else to pick up the tab. Oregon could again have both cheap non-polluting power and salmon by built more dams adding more turbines to the dams already in place and reducing the number natural salmon predators. At the same time, protect farms and reduce property damage, from flooding, and stop the mining of water for irrigation and a human consumption.

If the environmentalists want this stupid policy let them pay for it.



By E. Geese

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/

Nature Magazine May 24, 2007 page 358: A report headlined –Plans forge ahead for better weather monitoring – Makes the statement, “Meteorologists are planning a coordinated global drive to recalibrate space-based measurements of the weather.” Two thing should jump out at you from this lead statement. First, space based weather monitoring, began 40 years ago. Space based weather monitoring is the only hope of getting an accurate global temperature. This implies that none of the global temperature measurements before 40 years ago are really valid. Second in also implies that in order for these measurements to be accurate and consistent, they need to be recalibrated often and in a standardized way. This is good science. However, it may be good science to late, because all of the temperature data that supports the theory of global warming is from non-calibrated instruments. This data supports the temperature models that predict global warming. Garbage in garbage out!

The author goes on to say, “The initiative will ask national satellite agencies to take steps to ensure better comparability of satellite measurements made by different instruments and satellites, and to tie these measurements to absolute references.” This is a step in the right direction, but also implies that none of the data used to formulate the theory of global warming is defendable.

The concerns of these scientist are justified. They also make the point that such (space based) measurements are vital because reliable ground-based observations are available for only about a quarter of Earth’s surface.” All of these concerns are serious and were discussed in NPR’s paper on Global warming, “Global Climate Change”, which can be download from the Archives page. What was not said was that the ground base measurements need to be standardized and calibrated as well.

Final the article admits that the only satellite “…to measure temperature in the stratosphere before 1998 is thought to have transmitted grossly biased temperature measurements since 1979.” It is nice to see Nature and the World Meteorological Organization finally agreeing with NPR.



E. Geese

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/

Nature Magazine May 24, 2007 page 353: An editorial titled –Unwise Branding – Makes the statement, “Equating animal-rights activism with terrorism increases the penalties for offenders and will please many of their victims. But it is not in the interest of science.” I am sorry but I do not agree with that statement. So I and a few of my friends who believe the same way will show up next week at your office with a bomb. We will then see how calmly you speak. I sure your defense of my actions will please your widow.

The author states that the law somehow enshrines “…the idea that destructive activists are terrorists.” How unfair. The author then makes the Statement “But a terrorist is, in practice, a person who fights for a cause we do not believe in using methods that we do not approve of. Calling someone a terrorist is a value judgment.” The editors definition of a terrorist is not everybody’s definition of a terrorist. The inclusion of the phrase “…a cause we do not believe in,” is not necessary. The Crux of the definition is in the clause “…using methods that we do not approve of.”

Certainly calling someone a terrorist is NOT a judgment call. It is based on how that person acts. If you bomb, burn, and terrorize people, you are a terrorist.

Does this editor support activists in a conference who disagree with a presenter to shout him down, or burn that scientist’s notes. Terrorists are those who renounce objectivity and normally accepted means of disagreement. If an activist crosses that line they should be called terrorist. The author is afraid that by calling them terrorist that will prevent them form coming to the table for a friendly discussion of the problem. Why would anyone invite someone to table that does not have the common decency to behave according to socially acceptable practice. These people are not great thinkers. Why are they invited at all? The only difference between them and millions of other people on the planet who have an opinion on the issue is that they perform violent acts.

Why does this editor want to exclude people who perform violent acts from being criminals? Because he is an activist and believes in a cause, we do not believe in, like stopping all environmental change! Activist by definition have closed minds. Nothing the opposition says that challenges their beliefs can possibly be true. If by some chance, the activists did agree with an opinion different that theirs, their funding would disappear. The sixties ended 40 years ago, get over it. Marching in protest is mob rule. Mob rule is anarchy.

Science and society could do much better without activism or terrorism.


C. Blume

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/

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

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/

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

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/

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

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/

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

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/

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

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/

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

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/

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

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/

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

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/

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

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/

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

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/

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

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/