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

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

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

By C Blume

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/

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

Hello environmentalists, there is no free lunch.

By N Babalush

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/

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

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

By E. Geese

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/

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

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



By N Babalush

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/

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

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

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

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

By N Babalush

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/

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

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

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

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

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

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

By D J Dodds

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What’s to loose except pride.

By A. Bialystock

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/

Science, November 16, 2007 page 1054: An article titled –“Scientist Say Continued Warming Warrants Closer Look at Drastic Fixes—stated “…Last week a group of prominent researchers who gathered here (Cambridge) gave a qualified yes.” The question was should scientists study novel ways to alter Earth’s climate…

Of all the chilling conclusions that have been attached to global warming, this is by far the worst. We can deal with melting polar ice, drowned Polar bears, flooded cities, loss of habitat, but sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, having a bunch of radical, egotistical, academic research scientists, fregging around with the world’s weather is the most frightening consequence of global warming.

After over twenty years of studying the problem, none, zero, zip, nada of these brilliant scientist have ever connected the problem to the cause. The problem is not industrialization. Industry is directly proportional to population; the more population—the more industry. If there were less people to buy their products, industry would not waste money on making more of them. Duh!

It is not energy. If there were less people, we would need less energy, fewer cars, fewer freeways, and require less raw materials, which means less impact to the environment. Duh! Less population means less hunger, and less unrest, basically a healthy happier world.

Are these over educated scientists who think that it is necessary to fund radical “geoengineering experiments” on the planet, really concerned about the planet or are they concerned about Noble Prizes, fame, stature and the money these experiments would bring. It’s time to take the power and money away from the academics, and do something about population control. First, it is necessary to face the fact that zero population growth will not solve the problem. The world must have a negative population growth until we can reach a stable population level, then increase the population to zero growth level.

Reducing the population will be strongly opposed by powerful religious and political groups, who rely on the numbers of their supporters for their religious or political power. However, the people provide this power and they can take it away. Religious and political leaders must face the upcoming Armageddon that they are bringing down on the human race. If they do not drastically change their policy, humanity must rebel.

Men have fought the wars of the past, but this is a battle that women are better equipped to handle. The women of the world are the primary answer to this problem. Certainly at one time, having and raising healthy happy children is the most difficult task and if done correctly the most rewarding job on the planet, however times have changed. Humanity must stop measuring the value of women on the number of children they produce, and give them other and better ways of finding value in their lives. We must emphasis, that it is the quality; not the quantity of children that counts. A single child is all that is needed to see that your genes are immortal. A single child does not necessarily need siblings, to have a healthy life. A good kindred spirit will serve as well. Birth control has advanced considerably since the 1950’s and many options are available that will insure other options than conception and increased population.



Don Dodds

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/

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

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

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

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


Don Dodds

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/

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

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

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

The only answer is agenda.

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

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




By Emment Geese

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/

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

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

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



C Blume

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/

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

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

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

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


By Carol Blume

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/

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

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

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



by John Feeney

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

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

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

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

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


A Bialystock

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/

Oregroanian August 28, 2007 page 1A: An article titled —Crowd pounds Baird’s Iraq stance—. This article states “Hundreds at a raucous and hostile town hall Monday night let U.S. Rep, Brain Baird know that they disapproved of his support for the troop surge in Iraq. Many suggested the Vancouver Democrat is not representing the will of his district.” At least two things wrong with this opening paragraph, first the district must be pretty small if only “hundreds” represent the will of his district. The second thing is that this type of behavior is condoned and encouraged by the oregroanian.

What has happened to democracy in this country? What happened to listening to an opinion even if it different that your own? This is bigotry in the worst form.

Instead, “The audience interrupted Baird as he tried to calmly explain his decision to support a beefed up presence of U.S. Troops in the war-torn country.” Our form of government allows all people to be heard not just those who shout people down. That meeting was a lynch mob in action, ugly and controlled by hysterical emotion. If these are the type of people he truly represents in Washington, I suggest that Oregon install a fence along our northern boarder and keep these rude, selfish and loud bigots out of our State.


By Emmett Geese

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/

Oregroanian August 17, 2007 page 1A: An article titled —Peru’s quake makes local experts tremble—. This article states “The main difference: A northwest quake could be stronger and longer.” Sure, my aunt could have been my uncle if she would have been a man. The truth is that anything could happen. The words could, can and would were used 6 times in this article. These types of articles are used to scare people and get more money for research and are an example of irresponsible science and reporting.

These types of random events are controlled by complex systems that cannot be analysis specifically but they can be and are analyzed routinely by the science of statistics. Each of these events have what is called a return period. Responsible science should use both probability and the return period to illustrate the veracity of their claims.

The return period for a magnitude 9 earth quake off the Oregon coast is much longer than age of the state. Thirty years ago, we spent tons of money strengthening Portland’s Structures. That effort has successfully protected Portland from magnitude 9 earthquakes. In fact Portland has not felt an earthquake 1000 time less than a magnitude 9 quake. If we have an infinite supply of wealth and no other problems then we should consider these remote events. One hundred years ago, these events were called act’s of God. Today that same concept is summed up by the phrase, “XXXX happens!

Science and reporting that uses propaganda and other peoples tragedy to make a buck is despicable.


By Emmett Geese

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/

Oregroanian August 12, 2007 page E6: An article titled —ID microchips might be next assault on individual rights—. This article is about privacy and common good. These two abstract notions have been bantered about over a few centuries. The conflict is directly proportional to the population density. If you live alone on a desert island, you can do what you want when you want. If you add other humans, then individual freedom diminishes. Two hundred years ago, we had 1 billion people on this planet.

There was still room to find a spot to be alone. That’s why people became mountain men. They essentially traded convenience and companionship for individual rights. Today we have 6.6 billion people on the planet, there is no longer room to be an individual. If we want to return to a planet, where people have more individual freedom; we must reduce the number of people on the planet.

We can do that two ways, by continuing business as usual and major violence and mayhem will reduce the population. Or, we can reduce the number of births. The choice is everybody’s.


By C Blume

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/

Science, July 27, 2007 page 438: An article titled –Aspens Return to Yellowstone, with Help from some wolves – This article discusses the unquestionable value of the top predator in a ecosystem. “Their (aspen) recovery, the researchers say, is not simply because the wolves are hunting the aspens’ archenemy, the elk; it’s also because the wolves have reintroduced the fear factor, making the elk too nervous to linger in an aspen grove and eat.” There is little doubt that this statement above is true. It is playing out in many of our own back yards by deer and geese. The article also states, that “By examining tree rings, Ripple and Larsen found that the park’s aspens had stopped regenerating soon after the 1920s—almost exactly the same date that the US Government eliminated the gray wolf from Yellowstone.”

However, there is a major flaw in this science. The wolf is not the top predator. There is no doubt that the top predator on the planet is man. The grand environmental scheme since the twenties was to limit mans ability to fill that necessary niche in nature by setting up areas where game like the elk were safe from all predators and man. How good is this research, when such an important fact is ignored. The wolves were eliminated from Yellowstone to protect humans and the other prey in the park.

If the truly top predator, man, was reintroduced into Yellowstone, the result for the aspens would be the same, and there would be no threat to the visitors to the park. It is easy for these researchers to see the damage that protecting the elk has now caused, but what kind of damage would occur if the wolves are protected in a similar manner? Stupid is as Stupid does.


A Bialystock

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/

Oregroanian August 11, 2007 page A1: An article titled —Smith backs cheney, farmers in fish-kill debate—. States Sen. Gordon Smith argues there is no evidence a massive fish kill on the Klamath River in 2002 was caused by water diversions to farmers. I am not a farmer or a politician, but I am a research scientist and have been one for 40 years. Seven years ago I finished a 3 year independent unfunded study on the science behind the salmon issue. That study look at hundreds of papers and reports preformed by environmental scientist, the conclusion from that study was that much of the science behind the salmon issue is flawed and biased. The most common mistake was to ignore alternative interpretations of the data and concentrate on only those interpretations that fit their religious views about environmental science. For example, the undeniable increase in salmon predator population is being ignored.

According to this Article, “a study cited low river flows and warmer water as a factor in the die-off. Questions, were there other factors? What were the other factors? Is there a critical river flow, which triggers these die offs? Has the river ever been below that level before? Did die offs occur every time it reached that level? With out these answers and others this study is not science but environmental propaganda.

Propaganda is bad enough, but to label it sciences is unforgivable.


By D Dodds

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/

Oregroanian Aug 5, 2007 page E1: An Editorial titled —See the forests through the owl—. Written by Les AuCoin, acknowledges “…that the aggressive barred owl, an invasive species reported to be spreading throughout Northwest forests, is a contributing source of the spotted owl’s continued decline.” But he can’t quite admit that he and the rest of the environmentalist were wrong. He goes on to say, “But these lines of argument miss the bigger picture. Thanks to the spotted owl, (propaganda), much of its habitat the—last remaining …have been protected for current and future generations. …these ancient stands provide a legacy of special places which Oregonians hike, camp, fish, enjoy family and friends, or savor the simple pleasure of family unmatched solitude.”

Talk about missing the bigger picture. Did you forget that you pushed through legislation that severely reduces the access to those sites of unmatched solitude? Did you ever visit Yellowstone 70 years ago? Have you visited one of the nations special places recently? I am sorry Less but it is impossible to savor unmatched solitude because the savoring of it destroys it. Never occurred to you?

Les then goes on to say “There’s a word for this: greed. Irresponsible, indefensible, perfidious greed. Benefiting the few, mainly the timber industry, at the expense of almost everyone else.” There is a major flaw in this reasoning. No one cuts down trees for the fun of it. There is a basic law of economics called supply and demand. Ever hear of it Les? If there were no demand, nobody would cut down trees. Hello! Why is there a demand? People need places to live, they need houses. Hello again! Your close-minded opinions on what is right did not affect the major timber companies but it did drive to extinction the unique genre called Gypo-Loggers and small locally own mills. Good job Les, you reduced the competition for the large corporate loggers, and now you are trying to justify your stupidity.

Since you did nothing to change the demand for lumber, all your zeal to save the environment, simply pushed the logging industry into third world countries and increased the rate that the tropical and remote forests, i.e. the Amazon, of the world are being cleared, doing untold damage to the world’s ecosystem. Oregon is saved, who cares about the rest of the world. Go thinking Les.

Talk about missing the big picture 70 years ago there was about 2 billion people on the planet. Today there is 6.5 billion. In case you can’t do the math, that is 3.25 times more people on the planet today that there was 70 years ago. Each of those people need a place to live, often made from timber. Each of those people need a car to drive, clothes, food etc that is all produced by industry. Industry requires energy. Am I going to fast? Do you suppose there is a connection between the number of people on the planet and the destruction of the environment? Do you suppose that the problem could be that there is 300 % more people on the planet, that the planet can comfortable sustain?

The problem isn’t the environment it is population.



By D.J. Dodds

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/

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

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

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

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

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



By C Blume

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/

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

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


Emmett Geese

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/

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

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


A Bialystock

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/

Over the last forty years we have listen to tens of thousands of scientist say the words, due to “human activities.” These are indeed very smart people in their particular area. For example in just one periodical over the last 4 months the following five articles where printed blaming human activities for what is wrong with the world.

Corinne Le Quéré, et al, Saturation of the Southern Ocean CO2 Sink Due to Recent Climate Change, Science 22 June 2007 316: 1735-1738;
“...observed increase in Southern Ocean winds resulting from human activities, which is projected to continue in the future. Consequences.....”

Jeremy T. Kerr, et al, The Macroecological Contribution to Global Change Solutions,
“By contrast, human activities now affect most terrestrial areas, which are…”

Manuel Lerdau, A Positive Feedback with Negative Consequences, Science 13 April 2007 316: 212-213
“... As more and more regions become influenced by human activities, the number of communities that suffer in this feedback loop will increase.”

Big Fish, Little Fish, Shellfish, Science 30 March 2007 315: 1764
“The loss of large predators from ecosystems, often caused by human activities, can have effects that cascade through the rest of the food chain. Myers et al. (p. 1846 )”

Keith P. Shine and William T. Sturges, CO2 Is Not the Only Gas, Science 30 March 2007 315: 1804-1805
“...wetlands, soils, and the ocean; methane concentrations have increased dramatically in the 20th century as a result of human activities,...”

If all these scientists are right, why haven’t they considered the obvious, that the problem is not the activities, but the number of humans doing them.

The obvious problem here is that there are just 4 billion too many of them. If we had the technology of today with the population of 100 years ago, the world would be a far better place. It is impossible to reduce the carbon footprint sufficiently to save humankind without drastically reducing the number of feet.

Staff

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/

Oregroanian June29, 2007 page A1: An article titled —Supreme Court Limits race role—. Reports that, “…a bitterly divided Supreme Court declared Thursday that public school systems cannot seek to achieve or maintain integration through measures that take explicit account of a student’s race.”

Just as sure as, race discrimination is wrong, reverse discrimination is also wrong. Two wrongs do not make a right. These kinds of laws do much more harm than good. The original law didn’t stop mistreatment and unfair practices; it merely changed the victims race. Unfairness and mistreatment angers all individuals. Revenge while sweet is not the answer.

Emphasizing differences between individuals builds walls and fosters disharmony and resentment of those outside the walls. Emphasizing similarity builds bridges and pulls people together. We are all human. We all laugh, cry, if you cut us we all bleed, we all have needs and fears. We need to emphasize the sameness and minimize the difference. We do not need African Americans, Native Americans any more than we need Irish Americans or Italian Americans. We just need Americans. Better yet Earthicans.

The whole world needs more bridges.



Don Dodds

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/