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
http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/
Surprise!
May 17, 2007, 7:52 am
by Administrator
in General
Fish Yes–Birds No
May 16, 2007, 7:37 am
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
http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/
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
http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/
by Administrator
in General
The old Bait and Switch
May 15, 2007, 11:36 am
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
http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/
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
http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/
by Administrator
in General
Advocacy the Death of Democracy
May 14, 2007, 9:44 amOregroanian 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
http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/
by Administrator
in General
Making things fool proof
May 13, 2007, 9:07 am
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
http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/
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
http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/
by Administrator
in General
Personal Prejudice in High Places
May 12, 2007, 10:46 am
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
http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/
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
http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/
by Administrator
in General
Good Change – Bad Change
May 11, 2007, 8:04 am
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
http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/
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
http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/
by Administrator
in General
Going against the grain
May 10, 2007, 8:27 am
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
http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/
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
http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/
by Administrator
in General
Useless Arithmetic
May 9, 2007, 8:01 am
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
http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/
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
http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/
by Administrator
in General
I’ve got that sinking feeling
May 8, 2007, 1:06 pm
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
http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/
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
http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/
by Administrator
in General
Where has Scientific Objectivity Gone?
May 8, 2007, 9:11 am
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
http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/
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
http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/
by Administrator
in General
Good species -- bad species
May 7, 2007, 8:12 am
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
http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/
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
http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/
by Administrator
in General
Irresponsible Press
May 7, 2007, 8:01 am
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
http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/
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
http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/
by Administrator
in General
Laying off the Oregonian - Biofuels
May 6, 2007, 10:46 am
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
http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/
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
http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/
by Administrator
in General
The Problems with Critiquing the Oregonian
May 5, 2007, 10:58 am
We have become aware that we are repeating ourselves. We beg your pardon, we suddenly realized that is because we are critiquing the Oregronian, and they just repeat the same nonsense over and over. See below. In the future, we shall try to branch out a little.
Oregroanian May 5, 2007 page A1: An article titled –Chill out, world: we all can limit global warming – States “The united Nations Panel on Climate change, which until now has laid out doomsday global warming scenarios, had some good news Friday: Climate change can be limited and at a reasonable price.” This sounds like the old bait and switch. Now that we have gotten your attention just do as we say and nobody will get hurt.
Sorry United Nations Panel on Climate Change and My way or the highway Oregroanian we are not buying your advice. We cannot limit climate change at a reasonable price, especially if we do as they direct. The scientists on the panel are not doing science they are doing behavior modification and that is the realm of religion. Science by definition is supposed to be free of bias. The science behind the global warm theory is extremely closed-minded and ignores significant evidence that is contrary to their religious beliefs.
Anyone who thinks that “putting on a sweater, …buying a hybrid car, …hanging laundry out to dry” stress in the article, will solve this problem either is an idiot or thinks that global climate change is a vehicle to modify behavior. In truth, we do not know if the global temperature is rising, but we do know that the proposed solution will not affect the temperature of the globe.
If you like simple solutions, the problem is quite simply population, population, population. One hundred years ago there were 2 billion people on the planet, today the population is close to 7 billion. Increasing the population by a factor 3.5 will increase the energy use, industry, poverty, hunger and pollution by the same factor. The science behind this statement is overwhelming. Why is this solution being ignored? Could it be because it is not pleasant solution? Sometimes solving problems is not pleasant.
It should be obvious that planet cannot support an infinite number of humans. It is also obvious that there is an optimum number of humans the planet can support. Stopping growth is unfortunately not the answer. The population growth must be reversed. If you just want life, stop growth if you want a GOOD life growth has to be reversed.
By the Staff
http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/
Oregroanian May 5, 2007 page A1: An article titled –Chill out, world: we all can limit global warming – States “The united Nations Panel on Climate change, which until now has laid out doomsday global warming scenarios, had some good news Friday: Climate change can be limited and at a reasonable price.” This sounds like the old bait and switch. Now that we have gotten your attention just do as we say and nobody will get hurt.
Sorry United Nations Panel on Climate Change and My way or the highway Oregroanian we are not buying your advice. We cannot limit climate change at a reasonable price, especially if we do as they direct. The scientists on the panel are not doing science they are doing behavior modification and that is the realm of religion. Science by definition is supposed to be free of bias. The science behind the global warm theory is extremely closed-minded and ignores significant evidence that is contrary to their religious beliefs.
Anyone who thinks that “putting on a sweater, …buying a hybrid car, …hanging laundry out to dry” stress in the article, will solve this problem either is an idiot or thinks that global climate change is a vehicle to modify behavior. In truth, we do not know if the global temperature is rising, but we do know that the proposed solution will not affect the temperature of the globe.
If you like simple solutions, the problem is quite simply population, population, population. One hundred years ago there were 2 billion people on the planet, today the population is close to 7 billion. Increasing the population by a factor 3.5 will increase the energy use, industry, poverty, hunger and pollution by the same factor. The science behind this statement is overwhelming. Why is this solution being ignored? Could it be because it is not pleasant solution? Sometimes solving problems is not pleasant.
It should be obvious that planet cannot support an infinite number of humans. It is also obvious that there is an optimum number of humans the planet can support. Stopping growth is unfortunately not the answer. The population growth must be reversed. If you just want life, stop growth if you want a GOOD life growth has to be reversed.
By the Staff
http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/
by Administrator
in General
The Difference between Intelligence and Wisdom
May 4, 2007, 11:31 am
Oregroanian May 4, 2007 page A5: An article titled –Global climate panel agrees: “Do something Now” – States “International delegates reached an agreement early today on the best way to combat climate change.” Certainly, these people are intelligent individuals highly educated in the science of climatology. However it is one thing to say we think global temperature will rise in the next 30 years, and that it is due to green house gases. It’s another thing, to say the solution to this problem is to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions. This is an over simplification of a complex problem. History shows that the concept of “doing something now” leads overwhelmingly to failure and simply exchanges one problem for another.
“It’s all done, said Peter Lukey a member of the South Africa delegation. Everything we wanted to see was there and more. The message is we have to do something now.” Isn’t Peter pleased with himself. Does the word “something” mean anything to Peter? Hey, us wise and right thinking climatologist have found a problem. How many of these righteous environmentalists have doctorates in economics, physics, engineering and 25 other disciplines that are associated with solving this problem. For example, have any of these climate scientist, ever studied the effects of removing 300,000,000,000,000,000 BTU’s from the weather system, or do they just hold to the naive belief that solar and wind power is not important to the environment. That Mother Nature has an infinite supply and most of the surplus is just wasted. There is no such thing as clean energy in the staggering amounts that are being used presently on this planet.
That what they so flippantly demand as the solution to the problem will increase poverty and starvation on this planet and that poverty and starvation produce terrorism apparently does not concern them. In their tiny little minds as long as we set arbitrary quotas on carbon emissions, the world will be a happy place.
What is most disturbing is that these are the same people we are relying on to do the science that supports their thesis that the globe is warming. Simplistic solutions indicate a simplistic analysis, which has ignored among other things, the role of metabolism in the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
By D. J. Dodds
http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/
“It’s all done, said Peter Lukey a member of the South Africa delegation. Everything we wanted to see was there and more. The message is we have to do something now.” Isn’t Peter pleased with himself. Does the word “something” mean anything to Peter? Hey, us wise and right thinking climatologist have found a problem. How many of these righteous environmentalists have doctorates in economics, physics, engineering and 25 other disciplines that are associated with solving this problem. For example, have any of these climate scientist, ever studied the effects of removing 300,000,000,000,000,000 BTU’s from the weather system, or do they just hold to the naive belief that solar and wind power is not important to the environment. That Mother Nature has an infinite supply and most of the surplus is just wasted. There is no such thing as clean energy in the staggering amounts that are being used presently on this planet.
That what they so flippantly demand as the solution to the problem will increase poverty and starvation on this planet and that poverty and starvation produce terrorism apparently does not concern them. In their tiny little minds as long as we set arbitrary quotas on carbon emissions, the world will be a happy place.
What is most disturbing is that these are the same people we are relying on to do the science that supports their thesis that the globe is warming. Simplistic solutions indicate a simplistic analysis, which has ignored among other things, the role of metabolism in the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
By D. J. Dodds
http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/
by Administrator
in General
BIAS IN SCIENCE
April 30, 2007, 8:46 am
An editorial in the April 26, edition of Nature magazine page 950, states “Government agencies should act to ensure the neutrality of research contractors.” This statement opens and interesting door. It implies that certain research contractors have a bias and do not present the truth in their research. This bias is identified as private contractors, that do work for industry, the “dark side.” The editor puts forth the opinion that these contractors should not be allowed to do official research on environmental issues. He cites an example where one of these contractors hired to do research on the effects of bisphenol had also worked for a private client that produced bisphenol. Environmentalist, the “light side” cried foul and had the contract withdrawn.
This implies that only the light side research organization (those that agree with the precepts of the environmental religion) are free of bias and can do important research, thereby insuring that the public and the government gets only one side of the story. There is certainly more than one type of bias that effects research. Religious bias is also present in research. There is little doubt that what people believe effects their conclusions. For example, many scientists who are also fundamental Christians believe and have done research to prove than the world was created as described in Genesis. To believe that this same kind of close-minded thinking is not found within the environmental movement is naive. The environmental activist that called foul are not scientist. Their expertise lies in propaganda.
I have been reviewing research for years and have seen many articles on the negative environmental impact of clear cutting, however I have never seen an article on the advantages of a clear-cut environment. In nature, there is no absolute right and wrong. The champion of the old growth movement, the extinction of the spotted owl, is now being laid at the feet of a more adapted species the barred owl who is and has been for years out competing the spotted owl. That is how nature works and has worked for billions of years. The environmentalist are now attempting to artificially control, “kill,” this bird to save the spotted owl. This belief is based on that opinion biodiversity is more important that adaptability in nature. There is no proof of this belief and considerable evidence that it is unfounded. Many environmentalist, ignore the evidence against biodiversity and THAT IS NOT SCIENCE THAT IS RELIGION.
The closing paragraph states “…government officials who are fully aware of what their public-sector clients need and expect.” And what is that? During the last two elections only 2% of the population voted for the green party. What is it that the other 98% need and expect? Truth maybe? The editorial then ends with a plea, “more importantly, they can ensure that they are receiving the data they need to perform their missions.” What is implied is the data conforming to the environmental view.
You can tell the difference between science and religion in that science welcomes opposing views and religion suppress opposing views.
By D. J. Dodds
http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/
This implies that only the light side research organization (those that agree with the precepts of the environmental religion) are free of bias and can do important research, thereby insuring that the public and the government gets only one side of the story. There is certainly more than one type of bias that effects research. Religious bias is also present in research. There is little doubt that what people believe effects their conclusions. For example, many scientists who are also fundamental Christians believe and have done research to prove than the world was created as described in Genesis. To believe that this same kind of close-minded thinking is not found within the environmental movement is naive. The environmental activist that called foul are not scientist. Their expertise lies in propaganda.
I have been reviewing research for years and have seen many articles on the negative environmental impact of clear cutting, however I have never seen an article on the advantages of a clear-cut environment. In nature, there is no absolute right and wrong. The champion of the old growth movement, the extinction of the spotted owl, is now being laid at the feet of a more adapted species the barred owl who is and has been for years out competing the spotted owl. That is how nature works and has worked for billions of years. The environmentalist are now attempting to artificially control, “kill,” this bird to save the spotted owl. This belief is based on that opinion biodiversity is more important that adaptability in nature. There is no proof of this belief and considerable evidence that it is unfounded. Many environmentalist, ignore the evidence against biodiversity and THAT IS NOT SCIENCE THAT IS RELIGION.
The closing paragraph states “…government officials who are fully aware of what their public-sector clients need and expect.” And what is that? During the last two elections only 2% of the population voted for the green party. What is it that the other 98% need and expect? Truth maybe? The editorial then ends with a plea, “more importantly, they can ensure that they are receiving the data they need to perform their missions.” What is implied is the data conforming to the environmental view.
You can tell the difference between science and religion in that science welcomes opposing views and religion suppress opposing views.
By D. J. Dodds
http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/
by Administrator
in General
Of Mice and Men
April 28, 2007, 8:26 am
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 are also a living creatures, 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
http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/
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 are also a living creatures, 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
http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/
by Administrator
in General
Good Night Spotted Owl
April 27, 2007, 10:17 am
Oregroanian April 27, 2007 page B1: An article titled –Owl vs. Owl sets stage for intervention – States that “Northwest spotted owls, already beaten down by longtime logging of their old growth forest habit, now face and accelerating threat from invading barred owls that are driving them out of their house and home.” The statement assumes that the spotted owl was beaten down by “longtime logging.” Oh, if that’s so why didn’t the barred owl get beaten down by logging. Maybe the demise of the spotted owl was driven all along by the more fitted species the barred owl. Maybe the whole spotted owl - logging thing, was made up to stop logging. Not a chance, certainly the Environmental religious would not stoop to subterfuge to support their agenda.
Apparently, the solution is to shoot the more successful species. Does anyone see the ludicrous position in which the human species has placed itself? In order to save biodiversity the environmental religious movement is going to artificially alter the course of 4 billion years of evolution. The rule of the universe is no longer survival of the fittest. The new rule is going to be, survival of …what? Everything? What some bureaucrat or activist thinks best? The control of nature requires a certain omnipotence that humans lack.
How does this stack up to the sea lions and salmon issue? The inescapable fact is that the whole notion of environmental protection is flawed and the Environmental protection Act is causing more damage than aid to the environment. Whose idea was it any way that the US Government should guide the evolutionary process? They can even carry out an election properly.
Life on this planet is robust; it has been around for 3.5 billion years and will be here long after humans are gone. The most endangered species on this planet are humans. We have too many of them and most of them are not as smart as they think they are.
By A Bialystock
http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/
Apparently, the solution is to shoot the more successful species. Does anyone see the ludicrous position in which the human species has placed itself? In order to save biodiversity the environmental religious movement is going to artificially alter the course of 4 billion years of evolution. The rule of the universe is no longer survival of the fittest. The new rule is going to be, survival of …what? Everything? What some bureaucrat or activist thinks best? The control of nature requires a certain omnipotence that humans lack.
How does this stack up to the sea lions and salmon issue? The inescapable fact is that the whole notion of environmental protection is flawed and the Environmental protection Act is causing more damage than aid to the environment. Whose idea was it any way that the US Government should guide the evolutionary process? They can even carry out an election properly.
Life on this planet is robust; it has been around for 3.5 billion years and will be here long after humans are gone. The most endangered species on this planet are humans. We have too many of them and most of them are not as smart as they think they are.
By A Bialystock
http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/
by Administrator
in General
Commentary or Propaganda?
April 25, 2007, 8:09 am
Oregroanian April 25, 2007 page B1: An article titled –One fish, two fish, dead fish – Written by Andy Parker. Is a commentary on the sea lion issue, in which he states that, “And my bet is most people these days would rather see a sea lion than some old guy in bib overalls catch a salmon.” I am not an old guy in bib overalls and I don’t catch salmon, but I’ll take that bet Andy if you have the guts to put you money were your self righteous mouth is.
Then good ole Andy begins to quote facts from the Sierra club. Now there’s an organization that has no bias and will certainly speak the truth. If Andy would do any honest research into the question, he would find that most returning salmon are killed by predators. Fish and Game data shows sea lions and other Pinnipeds kill over 190 million adult salmon per year, and other predators kill another 230 million salmon. Every adult salmon kill made by a sea lion kills 5000 smolt in a single bite.
Andy quit peddling the company line and gather some data other than propaganda from the sierra club. For example, download the article on the archives page of the North Pacific Research site entitled “Predators and Salmon.” Get an original thought, state it. You may get fired, but then you might understand what being a man is all about even if he wears bib overalls.
By Carol Blume
http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/
Then good ole Andy begins to quote facts from the Sierra club. Now there’s an organization that has no bias and will certainly speak the truth. If Andy would do any honest research into the question, he would find that most returning salmon are killed by predators. Fish and Game data shows sea lions and other Pinnipeds kill over 190 million adult salmon per year, and other predators kill another 230 million salmon. Every adult salmon kill made by a sea lion kills 5000 smolt in a single bite.
Andy quit peddling the company line and gather some data other than propaganda from the sierra club. For example, download the article on the archives page of the North Pacific Research site entitled “Predators and Salmon.” Get an original thought, state it. You may get fired, but then you might understand what being a man is all about even if he wears bib overalls.
By Carol Blume
http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/
by Administrator
in General
Of Bikes and Buses
April 23, 2007, 9:03 am
Oregroanian April 22, 2007 page W41: An article titled –Bicycle culture hits potholes – has a picture accompanying the article which shows five bike riders and a Tri-Met bus crossing one of the Portland bridges. A comment attached to the picture states “Bicycle commuters, such as these early morning riders on the Hawthorne Bridge are a common sight in Portland. But some advocates worry the city isn’t doing enough to remain a bike friendly place.” It is interesting and maybe unintentional that the bicycles and bus are juxtaposition in this photo.
On the other hand, maybe in this CO2 global warmed world we may want to rethink the use of Bicycles. The common assumption is riding bicycles to work is better than riding the bus. The basis for this notion is primarily public intuition and neglects the fact that the bike riders are exhaling CO2. However, as is commonly the case public intuition is often wrong because the bike riders breath eight times more often and exhale twice as much CO2 with each breath as a sitting passenger. If we compare the CO2 emission from a 30-mile commute by bus and bike. The startling conclusion is that 40 biker riders produce 64 times more CO2 that 40 bus riders and the bus.
So, “all the holier than thou,” bike riders, and the “greener than thou” Portland city officials, need to rethink their opinions on encouraging the use of bicycles. If you really want to save the planet, maybe we should put a bounty on bike riders.
By C Blume
http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/
On the other hand, maybe in this CO2 global warmed world we may want to rethink the use of Bicycles. The common assumption is riding bicycles to work is better than riding the bus. The basis for this notion is primarily public intuition and neglects the fact that the bike riders are exhaling CO2. However, as is commonly the case public intuition is often wrong because the bike riders breath eight times more often and exhale twice as much CO2 with each breath as a sitting passenger. If we compare the CO2 emission from a 30-mile commute by bus and bike. The startling conclusion is that 40 biker riders produce 64 times more CO2 that 40 bus riders and the bus.
So, “all the holier than thou,” bike riders, and the “greener than thou” Portland city officials, need to rethink their opinions on encouraging the use of bicycles. If you really want to save the planet, maybe we should put a bounty on bike riders.
By C Blume
http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/
by Administrator
in General
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT PLANTS AND ANIMALS
April 22, 2007, 1:18 pm
Plants appeared on this planet about 3.5 billion years ago. Plants take sunlight, water, and carbon dioxide, manufacture glucose to get energy and discard six molecules of oxygen as waste. This process is called photosynthesis and requires six CO2 molecules + six H2O molecules and sunlight to produce one molecule of glucose C6H12O6 and releases six molecules of Oxygen. Over the next 3 billion years, the oceans and the atmosphere were polluted with Oxygen.
Then about 5 million years ago animal life appeared in the oceans on this planet and took advantage of the abundance of plant life and oxygen. Animals use the glucose stored in plant life combine it with oxygen to get energy and waste carbon dioxide and water. This completed the so-called carbon dioxide -- oxygen cycle, which is not completely true. A cycle infers that balance is maintained. Prior to plant life, the carbon dioxide content of the air was at least 35,000 times greater than it is today. The Oxygen content of the atmosphere was at least 70,000 times less than it is today, and peaked near the end of the carboniferous period around 300 million years ago at about twice what it is today.
These facts should imply first, the content of the atmosphere is never constant, and one creatures waste is another creatures food. Because of the high oxygen content of the atmosphere, animals were able to crawl out of the water and attack the abundance of plants. The success of animals eventually produced giant plant eating, oxygen sucking machines called dinosaurs. These animals were so successful they eventually overpopulated the world with dinosaurs. The result was that oxygen decreased and carbon dioxide increased. Because these animals were stupid, they did not realize that their success would eventually lead to their extinction. Eventually the Oxygen content of the atmosphere got so low, about 65 million years ago, and their inefficient lungs could no longer extract sufficient oxygen and they simply died of asphyxiation. This is the way the world ends; not with a bang but a whimper.
The more efficient lungs of the mammals, who developed around 35 million years before this extinction, were able to survive and fill the niches left by the mass extinction of the all powerful dinosaurs. Can humans learn from Dinosaurs? The only thing constant in the universe is change. It is impossible to stop change. The only way to survive change is to change also. All of the fuss over increased CO2 has neglected the decrease in O2.
The overwhelming source of energy on this planet is through the metabolism of glucose. Animal production of CO2 is far larger than industry production of CO2. Global Climate change cannot be controlled with out reducing animal metabolism.
D. J. Dodds
http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/
Then about 5 million years ago animal life appeared in the oceans on this planet and took advantage of the abundance of plant life and oxygen. Animals use the glucose stored in plant life combine it with oxygen to get energy and waste carbon dioxide and water. This completed the so-called carbon dioxide -- oxygen cycle, which is not completely true. A cycle infers that balance is maintained. Prior to plant life, the carbon dioxide content of the air was at least 35,000 times greater than it is today. The Oxygen content of the atmosphere was at least 70,000 times less than it is today, and peaked near the end of the carboniferous period around 300 million years ago at about twice what it is today.
These facts should imply first, the content of the atmosphere is never constant, and one creatures waste is another creatures food. Because of the high oxygen content of the atmosphere, animals were able to crawl out of the water and attack the abundance of plants. The success of animals eventually produced giant plant eating, oxygen sucking machines called dinosaurs. These animals were so successful they eventually overpopulated the world with dinosaurs. The result was that oxygen decreased and carbon dioxide increased. Because these animals were stupid, they did not realize that their success would eventually lead to their extinction. Eventually the Oxygen content of the atmosphere got so low, about 65 million years ago, and their inefficient lungs could no longer extract sufficient oxygen and they simply died of asphyxiation. This is the way the world ends; not with a bang but a whimper.
The more efficient lungs of the mammals, who developed around 35 million years before this extinction, were able to survive and fill the niches left by the mass extinction of the all powerful dinosaurs. Can humans learn from Dinosaurs? The only thing constant in the universe is change. It is impossible to stop change. The only way to survive change is to change also. All of the fuss over increased CO2 has neglected the decrease in O2.
The overwhelming source of energy on this planet is through the metabolism of glucose. Animal production of CO2 is far larger than industry production of CO2. Global Climate change cannot be controlled with out reducing animal metabolism.
D. J. Dodds
http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/
by Administrator
in General
Two Strikes for Saving Salmon
April 19, 2007, 8:03 am
Oregroanian April 19, 2007 page D2: An article titled –Suit argues to lift salmon protection – reports, “The federal government and conservation groups countered that the Endangered Species Act requires consideration of the best available science, which clearly INDICATES that depending on fish raised in hatcheries to boost salmon numbers will, over the long run, harm fish that spawn naturally in the rivers.”
Who gets to define the best available science? Certainly the sciences surrounding the salmon issue is flawed and one sided. Any science that doesn’t agree with their preconceived notion is flawed. The term indicates is not the same as it will definitely harm fish. This science was done years ago and no new studies support this idea. Is that what the EPA calls the best available science?
On Page D6, an Editorial titled –Stop Feeding salmon to the lions – states that 3000 to 4000 fish from the spring run are being killed by Sea Lions. Consider that each of those fish carries 5000 eggs, then the sea lions are essentially killing 15,000,000 to 20,000,000 million salmon fingerlings. Compare that number with the numbers of fingerlings killed by turbines.
I disagree with his statement that no one is arguing that sea lions are to blame for the demise of Columbia Salmon and Steelhead. He apparently has not read “Saving Salmon,” (see Archives) this article was written 7 years ago and clearly showed that salmon predators are one of the major causes for the demise of the salmon. The editorial ends with a plea to use common sense. Common sense is not a long suit of a hardcore environmentalist.
By E Geese
http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/
Who gets to define the best available science? Certainly the sciences surrounding the salmon issue is flawed and one sided. Any science that doesn’t agree with their preconceived notion is flawed. The term indicates is not the same as it will definitely harm fish. This science was done years ago and no new studies support this idea. Is that what the EPA calls the best available science?
On Page D6, an Editorial titled –Stop Feeding salmon to the lions – states that 3000 to 4000 fish from the spring run are being killed by Sea Lions. Consider that each of those fish carries 5000 eggs, then the sea lions are essentially killing 15,000,000 to 20,000,000 million salmon fingerlings. Compare that number with the numbers of fingerlings killed by turbines.
I disagree with his statement that no one is arguing that sea lions are to blame for the demise of Columbia Salmon and Steelhead. He apparently has not read “Saving Salmon,” (see Archives) this article was written 7 years ago and clearly showed that salmon predators are one of the major causes for the demise of the salmon. The editorial ends with a plea to use common sense. Common sense is not a long suit of a hardcore environmentalist.
By E Geese
http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/
by Administrator
in General
Times Change
April 19, 2007, 8:00 am
Oregroanian April 19, 2007 page A2: An article titled –Study: Poll Shows residents leery of Big Easy – reports, “A quarter of the people living in the New Orleans metropolitan area are planning to leave, according to a survey released Wednesday.” Are they crazy? Why abandon a city that is built below sea level just because of a few hurricanes and the threat that the sea level is going to rise? Where is their common sense, their sense of decency? Think of the jobs it will create rebuilding it every few years? It was a miracle that it with stood the Mississippi River as long as it did. The city should have never been built there in the first place.
If Louisiana needs a large seaport, let them find a more suitable site above the high water level of the Mississippi and any reasonable rise in sea level. Times change, and those that do not learn from history perish. If they need the river flowing through their city let them move the river, it would be cheaper and safer than rebuilding a failed city, in harms way.
By A Bialystock
http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/
If Louisiana needs a large seaport, let them find a more suitable site above the high water level of the Mississippi and any reasonable rise in sea level. Times change, and those that do not learn from history perish. If they need the river flowing through their city let them move the river, it would be cheaper and safer than rebuilding a failed city, in harms way.
By A Bialystock
http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/
by Administrator
in General
Haste makes Waste
April 18, 2007, 10:38 am
Oregroanian April 18, 2007 page A2: An article titled –Study: Ethanol may fuel more smog, deaths – reports, “switching from gasoline to ethanol touted as a green alternative at the pump may create dirtier air, causing slightly more smog related deaths, a new study says. …Each year, about 4,700 people according to the study's author die from respiratory problems from ozone, the unseen component of smog…”
The article also states that, “Jacobson’s (the author) study troubles some environmentalist, even those who work with him.” This statement is designed to cast suspicion on the writer, which seems to be the policy of the oregroanian towards any author that doesn’t subscribe to the papers beliefs. However, the same statement also illuminates that many environmentalist approach their work from a point not based on truth but on religious feelings toward what comprises proper environmental activity.
Why is it that environmentalist refuse to believe that many of their pet solutions to problems may make things worse? If there is one truth in nature, it is that everything changes the environment. Ethanol in small quantities has a small impact. In quantities large enough to make a dent in this country’s gasoline needs it will make a major negative impact. Nobody is studying the negative impacts on weather caused by extracting large amounts of energy using wind turbines. We just seem to toss off solutions without think or studying their impacts. Sort of like Edison and the light bulb, try everything until something works. There is a better way. At least Jacobson has taken off his rose colored glasses.
Whereas it is not yet clear whether ethanol will solve the climate problem, it is clear that it will increase, hunger and poverty, something that apparently doesn’t concern the environmentalist as long as we have old growth and salmon.
By A Bialystock
http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/
The article also states that, “Jacobson’s (the author) study troubles some environmentalist, even those who work with him.” This statement is designed to cast suspicion on the writer, which seems to be the policy of the oregroanian towards any author that doesn’t subscribe to the papers beliefs. However, the same statement also illuminates that many environmentalist approach their work from a point not based on truth but on religious feelings toward what comprises proper environmental activity.
Why is it that environmentalist refuse to believe that many of their pet solutions to problems may make things worse? If there is one truth in nature, it is that everything changes the environment. Ethanol in small quantities has a small impact. In quantities large enough to make a dent in this country’s gasoline needs it will make a major negative impact. Nobody is studying the negative impacts on weather caused by extracting large amounts of energy using wind turbines. We just seem to toss off solutions without think or studying their impacts. Sort of like Edison and the light bulb, try everything until something works. There is a better way. At least Jacobson has taken off his rose colored glasses.
Whereas it is not yet clear whether ethanol will solve the climate problem, it is clear that it will increase, hunger and poverty, something that apparently doesn’t concern the environmentalist as long as we have old growth and salmon.
By A Bialystock
http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/
by Administrator
in General
