Blog Archives

In the wee small hours - In Olympia, such a deal

2/18/2014

Such a deal, for scams and sinners

In the dark of night, while most folks were sleeping - oblivious - a piece of legislation that only had its "first reading" in Olympia twelve days ago passed by a vote of 93-5. This little slip of a bill, a mere three pages, will kick the principles of justice and liberty as we know them closer to the proverbial cliff.

That sounds mighty dramatic, maybe over the top. What's this bill about?

Waal... HB 2454 is a bill that paves the way for "water quality trading" in Washington State. Painted as accommodating and innovative, and dressed-up as so many bills are nowadays in predictable, wolf in sheep's clothing buzzwords like "voluntary" and "market-based," the legislature is setting up tables in the temple of environmental justice for the sale of Get Out Of Jail Free cards. Instead of nabbing those who pollute, and correcting real problems appropriately, this bill says:

Trading programs allow facilities facing higher pollution control costs to meet their regulatory obligations by purchasing environmentally equivalent or superior pollution reductions from another source at a lower cost.

(and later...)

Specifically, the state conservation commission should examine watersheds in which total maximum daily loads have been produced, and assess whether there are potential buyers, or permit holders, and sellers of credit to support a water quality trading program consistent with the water quality trading framework developed by the department of ecology.

How convenient. Instead of confronting and solving water quality problems (and let's call a spade a spade here, bad water quality means POLLUTION, are WE right?) the Conservation Commission and Washington Ecology will be tasked with exploring ways to trade these sins away. HUH? Figure it out. Dense places that pollute the most can buy their way out of trouble by locking down large expanses of clean land, agriculture, or better still pay for trendy recreation and renovation projects whether they're useful or not. That would suit a lot of city obsessives, particularly the growth management lobby. The "restoration" industry will go for it, along with the land trusts, water trusts, and mitigation banks like this new one - all so anxious make sales. Lock-down land, grow bureaucracy, pick-up big contracts, and accommodate deep pocket polluters through perpetual extortion - what a deal!! Is that not what the EPA and 17 states have been selling? It looks good in booklets, but it is what it is - typically out of proportion and not solving much.

Whether we need it or not, "environmental protection" is one whale of a lucrative business around here. The potential for corruption and exaggerated "environmental needs assessment" is real; that's obvious. WE ask - how much does this kind of thing achieve in making Whatcom County or Washington State a better place? A cleaner place? More productive, healthier? And, how can greed be kept out of these institutionalized staff-driven goldmines? WA Commerce has been promoting regional TDR's (transfers of development rights) between counties to help grow cities that don't keep their own acts clean.

As things are already, good and decent stewards of healthy rural land find themselves thanklessly hobbled like lambs tied to stakes - cautioned not to turn a shovel of dirt, or farm without a plan. It's the devil being spied on and watched over, having to obtain say-so first from the lairds and keepers. Is there no end to the scope and scale of this state's "environmental" lock-downs and the institutional coveting of ever-more private property? Water quality - uh - pollution trades... What a load of hypocrisy.

WE have reported on quite a few stories just like this in the last couple of years, like the abysmally vague and scientifically vacant "natural resources marketplace," the greedy interests that underpinned and promoted the DNR reconveyance, and how local watershed planning has been hijacked by a greedy local monopoly and the Puget Sound Partnership. There's little question that the growing web spun by bureaucrats and bankers (and the barking left) have no intention of giving up. The road back has got to be guided by common sense.

5 Comments

Burden of Proof, Science and Libel

2/17/2014

3 Comments

Mann v. Steyn. Have you heard of it? It's a defamation lawsuit that some are calling the Trial of the Century. Given the classic wisdom, "The best defense against libel is the truth," who will prevail? This is a fascinating story on numerous levels.

Mark Steyn - Author, commentator; questions the quality of this science

Michael E Mann - Penn State prof, famous for "Hockey Stick"

Background:

According to Wikipedia, "In 1998 Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K. Hughes developed new statistical techniques to produce Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1998 (MBH98), the first eigenvector-based climate field reconstruction (CFR). This showed global patterns of annual surface temperature, and included a graph of average hemispheric temperatures back to 1400.[4] In Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1999 (MBH99) the methodology was extended back to 1000.[5][6] The term hockey stick was coined by the climatologist Jerry Mahlman, to describe the pattern this showed, envisaging a graph that is relatively flat to 1900 as forming an Ice hockey stick's "shaft", followed by a sharp increase corresponding to the "blade".[7][8] A version of this graph was featured prominently in the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), along with four other reconstructions supporting the same conclusion.[6]The graph was publicised, and became a focus of dispute for those opposed to the strengthening scientific consensus that late 20th century warmth was exceptional.[9]"

(WE should emphasize that to the best of our knowledge, Michael Mann is no relation to Whatcom County Councilman Ken Mann.)

This controversy has risen to the surface once again, because Michael Mann is suing Mark Steyn, opinion contributor for National Review along with the Competitive Enterprise Institute for questioning the veracity of Mann's claims. This is significant because throughout history, at least since the Age of Enlightenment, science has always been a process of discovery in which formulators and promoters of hypotheses have the burden of proof, and skeptics and critics are necessary to question any aspect of it. The proof involves the development of reproducible experiments which can be run by other scientists to either confirm or discredit the hypothesis. When the science has evidence of corruption, falsification of data, or any agenda apart from discovering nature's own truth, then it is the responsibility of all of us to question the purity and quality of the work.

Much has been made of the fact that the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming has been peer reviewed, and the consensus is that the hypothesis is valid and therefore, real. However, science doesn't work that way. The hypothesis must agree with nature, and not necessarily with other scientists. This can only be done through reliably repeatable experiments. (Note: computer models are not experiments!) Peer review can merely verify that the experiments were of a valid design, and conducted according to accepted procedures, and accounting for errors where they're detected. This can be a decades-long process. As technology improves, errors can be discovered that could completely invalidate a hypothesis, or render it incomplete. This happened in the late 1800s when Newton's laws of motion began showing discrepancies, and Einstein finally explained ca. 1905 what some of the problems were, with his special and general theories of relativity. Einstein's theories are still being refined and extended. In each case, ongoing skepticism, experiment and peer review gets us closer to nature's truth.

This process of critical review has been corrupted by politics in the climate sciences. There's too much money and power at stake, and honest scientists find it very difficult do honest research, at the risk of losing their government grants or their jobs researching politically correct theories at universities, should they start publishing unpopular results. And since climate scientists have shown evidence that they won't do their jobs honestly (cf., Climategate), a few (very few) editorial writers who are still watchdogs and not lapdogs, have written critical reviews on the subject. Some scientists don't like this. They feel it is libelous. They fear for their jobs, or their reputations. And they want to sue these critics for having the temerity to question the integrity of the process and the profession.

Robert Tracinski at Real Clear Politics opines,

The global warming hysteria is disastrous enough in its intended goal, which is to ban the use of our cheapest and most abundant fuels and force us to limp along on "alternative energy" sources that are insufficient to support an industrial civilization. But along the way, the global warming campaign is already wrecking our science and politics by seeking to establish a dogma that cannot legally be questioned.

The critical point in this campaign is a defamation lawsuit by global warming promoter Michael Mann against Mark Steyn, National Review, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

When the "Climategate" e-mails were leaked five years ago, a lot of us speculated that it could all end up in the courts, given the evidence that climate scientists were pocketing large sums of government money on the basis of a scientific consensus they were manipulating behind the scenes. But it's typical of our upside-down political and cultural environment that when this issue does reach the courts, it will be in the form of a lawsuit against the climate skeptics.

Tracinski continues,

Steyn and the others are being sued for criticizing Mann's scientific arguments. In the case of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, for example, they're being sued for Rand Simberg's complaint that Mann "has molested and tortured data." (See a summary of the case here.) Frankly, I'm not sure how I escaped this lawsuit myself. I shall have to review what I have written and see if my language was not sufficiently inflammatory. Perhaps I don't have pockets deep enough to be worth looting. Or perhaps I'm not a big enough target to be worth intimidating and bankrupting. Note the glee with which the left slavers at the prospect of taking out a prominent voice on the right, with one leftist gloating that "it's doubtful that National Review could survive" losing the case.

But wait! There's more!

Here is the point at which we need a little primer on libel laws, which hinge on the differentiation between facts and opinion. It is libel to maliciously fabricate facts about someone. (It is not libel to erroneously report a false fact, so long as you did so with good faith reason to believe that it was true, though you are required to issue a correction.) But you are free to give whatever evaluation of the facts you like, including a negative evaluation of another person's ideas, thinking method, and character. It is legal for me, for example, to say that Michael Mann is a liar, if I don't believe that his erroneous scientific conclusions are the product of honest error. It is also legal for me to say that he is a coward and a liar, for hiding behind libel laws in an attempt to suppress criticism.

(Continue reading Mann vs. Steyn: The Trial of the Century at Real Clear Politics...)

3 Comments

Is Legislative Authority Transferable Between Branches?

2/3/2014

6 Comments

We have a water controversy going on here in Whatcom County. It should be resolved through the local watershed Planning Unit, which allows concerned parties to thrash it out fairly and in the light of day. However, sensing power (or the possible loss of it), rogue government players have been scrambling for position outside of legally prescribed mechanisms to monopolize water resources.

WE're sure these planners would love to implement all those grand schemes they learned about in poli-sci planning school -- but for one important detail: a free society doesn't work that way. In America, government is empowered by the citizens, and not the reverse!

For example, listen to this. That's right, it's Jack Louws asserting at a State Auditor's Office (SAO) audit exit interview on Jan 30 that Whatcom County Council granted him "legislative authority" through an inter-local agreement, to "make decisions" and act without taking policy direction or being accountable to council. Wha... wha... what?! WE were always taught that such "powers" were not transferable between the branches of government. If they were, what would checks & balances and the separation of powers even mean? It trashes our bicameral home rule Charter.

WE have said this before: we have a runaway executive department. Is the council even aware of it? Are they okay with that? Do these people know what the powers of the government branches actually are?

The executive grudgingly acknowledged that his "legislative" actions must be open, but wants self-selected administrative "staff teams" to meet to plan on their own, as secretly as they'd like, beyond the constraints of the Open Public Meetings Act so only a few can manage water issues beyond public scrutiny. It’s chilling to see how far the five party* "Joint Administrative Board" junta (which claims to be operating under RCW 90.82) has strayed, contemptuously, away from the heart and purpose of the state Watershed Planning Act, which says,

90.82.005
Purpose.

The purpose of this chapter is to develop a more thorough and cooperative method of determining what the current water resource situation is in each water resource inventory area of the state and to provide local citizens with the maximum possible input concerning their goals and objectives for water resource management and development.

It is necessary for the legislature to establish processes and policies that will result in providing state agencies with more specific guidance to manage the water resources of the state consistent with current law and direction provided by local entities and citizens through the process established in accordance with this chapter.
[1997 c 442 § 101.]

90.82.010
Finding.

The legislature finds that the local development of watershed plans for managing water resources and for protecting existing water rights is vital to both state and local interests. The local development of these plans serves vital local interests by placing it in the hands of people: Who have the greatest knowledge of both the resources and the aspirations of those who live and work in the watershed; and who have the greatest stake in the proper, long-term management of the resources. The development of such plans serves the state's vital interests by ensuring that the state's water resources are used wisely, by protecting existing water rights, by protecting instream flows for fish, and by providing for the economic well-being of the state's citizenry and communities. Therefore, the legislature believes it necessary for units of local government throughout the state to engage in the orderly development of these watershed plans.
[1997 c 442 § 102.]

(emphasis ours)

Anybody listening to what executive Louws and his staff teams say can’t believe they hold any of these principles in any regard whatsoever. They appear to be operating under the principle that it's easier to get forgiveness than permission. That's certainly true if the citizens let them get away with it. Are we going to let them get away with it?!

*The five big dogs on the "joint administrative board" who claim to manage the whole watershed are Merle Jefferson (Lummi tribe), Bob Kelly (Nooksack tribe), Steve Jilk (PUD #1), Kelli Linville (City of Bellingham), and Jack Louws (county executive). Everybody else including council, outta the way.

Update: WE have added another audio clip from the same meeting with the reference to "legislative authority". Executive Louws very deliberately used this phrase twice, so WE believe it was no slip of the tongue. It was more likely very carefully chosen; scripted even. If his words were ill-chosen, then that needs to be corrected ostentatiously. Because the overreach implied by those words is quite a corruption of well established government principles.

6 Comments

In the wee small hours - In Olympia, such a deal

Burden of Proof, Science and Libel

Is Legislative Authority Transferable Between Branches?

Categories

Archives