Blog Archives

Persecution of Whistleblowers Taint New, Jeer Review

3/31/2013

The expression "discrediting tactics" in politics refers to personal attacks against a public figure, intended to discourage people from believing in the figure or supporting their cause.

If there's one thing the public should join hands and reject, it's the injustice of blatant character assassination.

WWU Professor Emeritus, Dr. Don Easterbrook, a qualified and engaged local PhD (a lifelong scientist, not a dotty relic) has come under direct personal attack in the press and academia because his cause is only scientific truth. He dared to share information and raise questions about the adjustment of original data in testimony to a Washington State legislative panel last week. He urged legislators to make policy but with eyes wide open, not eyes wide shut. Now for his sins, it's open "shoot the messenger" season on Dr. Easterbrook. WE see that the press is loving every minute of it. You may have heard this saying in the press, "If it bleeds, it leads." The knives are out, and a truth-seeker is getting bloodied, and the sharks are in on the kill.

Western Washington University (WWU) has been reeling, with its Geology Department particularly incensed, that one of its own professors emeritus would dare speak openly to share raw information, answer questions, and earnestly encourage legislators to weigh some widely held beliefs. In what seems nothing short of retribution, WWU has launched not only an attack, but a series of them.

WWU's first staff quote in the press about Dr. Easterbrook's testimony was cited as coming from a WWU "geology faculty position statement" which the AP had in hand the very same day. Now folks, that was quicker than a Jack Rabbit on a date, as the old saying goes. WWU knew and cared enough to be that prepared? What possible beef would this august temple of science and learning have with anybody sharing data with legislators? This first "geology faculty position statement" wasn't linked to the AP Olympia release, but WE'll try to obtain it. Here's the AP text that was published nationwide:

Western Washington University's geology faculty said in a position statement that they concur with rigorous, peer-reviewed assessments by the National Academies of Science, the National Research Council and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that global climate has warmed significantly and that human activities — mainly greenhouse-gas emissions — account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s.

"I think it's unfortunate that someone who really isn't an active expert in their field is being chosen to discuss this important topic," said Bernie Housen, chairman of Western Washington University's geology department.

News Flash! In the wee small hours this morning (Easter, no less), the Bellingham Herald has joined in the feeding frenzy. Under the cover of "repeater" not "reporter" mode, it published another WWU Geology Faculty statement that bitterly discredits Dr. Easterbrook personally, under the cautious arms-length byline:

"By WWU GEOLOGY FACULTY — COURTESY TO THE BELLINGHAM HERALD"

This chest-beating "submission" is loaded with ad hominem* attack and politically charged spit, such as a claim that [Sen. Ericksen] “chose instead to, apparently, appeal to a narrow partisan element with his choice of speaker.” The faculty position rants a steady stream of derogatory characterizations of the scientist's work and integrity, while aggrandizing their own position and insisting their methods are so unimpeachable that the actual source data needn't be discussed. ("Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" ring any bells?) Then it ends with incensed guidance to legislators and the public that critics of establishment processes and the status quo harbor “conspiracy-based ideas.” (You'll find the scathing Herald item in its entirety here.)

Now - WE ask - who in their right mind would dare raise questions in such a hostile academic environment? A person with courage and integrity might. But the message from these academics is clearly, "Don't dare to question ~." Real peer-review could result in jeer review, of you.*

WE expect that Dr. Easterbrook would reel from the suggestion that he's a modern Galileo Galilei. He seems like a straightforward man who has simply questioned data and process. But WE have observed punishing intolerance and attacks of the person, and the fervor does warrant comparison to prior inquisitions. (Other highly-qualified experts have been battered in the Whatcom environs; Easterbrook's not entirely alone.) WE feel their pain.

The lesson and the warning is: When science is politicized, peer review flounders in a closed-minded loop. Reviewers are fearful of agreeing with “outliers,” or making a career-limiting statement. Fortunately, Dr. Easterbrook has retired from the crippling restraint of tenure, so he doesn't have to worry about that. (Could he have gone out on a a limb like this if he was still working at WWU?). There is a certain freedom in not being beholden to any politically motivated patron or employer.

A little tutorial on how critics are bloodied:

Character assassination is a deliberate and sustained process that aims to destroy the credibility and reputation of a person.

Agents of character assassinations employ a mix of open and covert methods to achieve their goals, such as raising false accusations, planting and fostering rumors, and manipulating information.

*An ad hominem attack (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), is short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument.

Ad hominem circumstantial points out that someone is in circumstances such that they are disposed to take a particular position. Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false.

The circumstantial fallacy applies only where the source taking a position is only making a logical argument from premises that are generally accepted. Where the source seeks to convince an audience of the truth of a premise by a claim of authority or by personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero.

In contrast, the wise know:

~End of lesson~ (Except WE'd add that those who resort to personal attacks like this reveal fear and closed-mindedness. Mean-spirited bullying is patently cruel and unfair, too.)

If this bashing bothers you, what can you do? Let the attackers (WWU, its Geology Faculty and the press) know exactly what you think of it. It's low, and what's really disturbing is the thought that the world will miss critically important truths when messengers get hammered to a bloody pulp.

Write to:
President WWU: Bruce Shepard
WWU: Stephanie Bowers
WWU: Jeff Wright
Editor: Bellingham Herald (Q - What's fair & balanced?)

16 Comments

Local Scientist, Politician in AGW News

3/28/2013

6 Comments

The Seattle Times posted this news item about Senator Doug Ericksen of Ferndale, and Professor Emeritus at Western, Don Easterbrook :

OLYMPIA — The Senate Energy, Environment and Telecommunications Committee hosted a global warming skeptic on Tuesday who testified for more than an hour that it’s a bunch of hooey.

Don Easterbrook, an emeritus geology professor from Western Washington University, told lawmakers that there is no global warming, that the Antarctic ice sheet is not melting, sea levels are not rising and severe storms are not increasing in frequency.

And one more: “CO2 cannot possibly cause global warming. The reason is because there is so little of it. It is a trace gas,” Easterbrook said. “If you double nothing you still have nothing.”

Rather than go by the overtly snarky Times report, maybe it would be better to view this video of Easterbrook's testimony, where he presents the raw data. WE strongly encourage you to take the time to watch this hearing. One of the most important quotes from his testimony is, the data shows, "CO2 is the result of global warming, not the cause of global warming."

The Times article continues,

Easterbrook was invited by the panel’s chairman, GOP Sen. Doug Ericksen, of Ferndale, who has said he has doubts about climate change himself.

Ericksen’s committee recently stripped language out of a bill, requested by Gov. Jay Inslee, that asserted the state was experiencing a series of problems because of climate change. Inslee has testifed that there’s no debate about the science and that Washington should become a leader in dealing with climate change.

Democrats on the committee questioned Easterbrook’s statements.

Sen. Ranker clearly found this line of dialog to be quite nettlesome, saying, "Ninety-five percent of the peer-reviewed data very clearly states climate change is real, it’s happening, it’s human caused. To have a bold discussion about the facts is ridiculous."

With all due respect, it would appear that Sen. Ranker clearly does not understand the role of peer review, nor the role of science in getting at the truth. WE would hate to think he would prefer not to let inconvenient facts get in the way of landmark public policy.

Sen. Ranker asked Dr. Easterbrook why the overwhelming body of peer reviewed articles support anthropogenic global warming. The reason, which Easterbrook chose not to provide, is that government grants, and career advancement in certain fields of research, only support the pursuit of "politically correct" results.

Peer review does not guarantee the truth. Done right, it can sometimes help. But it can also go horribly wrong. Scientists are just as prone to cling to dogmatic beliefs, and are just as prone to corruption as anybody else. Science goes to hell when it becomes politicized.

Anthropogenic climate change has become extremely politicized, and belief in the scientific research seems to fall along party lines. An abstract describing a research paper at The Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School describes an interesting behavior:

The conventional explanation for controversy over climate change emphasizes impediments to public understanding: limited popular knowledge of science, the inability of ordinary citizens to assess technical information, and the resulting widespread use of unreliable cognitive heuristics to assess risk. A large survey of U.S. adults (N = 1540) found little support for this account. On the whole, the most scientifically literate and numerate subjects were slightly less likely, not more, to see climate change as a serious threat than the least scientifically literate and numerate ones. More importantly, greater scientific literacy and numeracy were associated with greater cultural polarization: respondents predisposed by their values to dismiss climate change evidence became more dismissive, and those predisposed by their values to credit such evidence more concerned, as science literacy and numeracy increased.

The abstract continues,

We suggest that this evidence reflects a conflict between two levels of rationality: the individual level, which is characterized by citizens’ effective use of their knowledge and reasoning capacities to form risk perceptions that express their cultural commitments; and the collective level, which is characterized by citizens’ failure to converge on the best available scientific evidence on how to promote their common welfare. Dispelling this “tragedy of the risk-perception commons,” we argue, should be understood as the central aim of the science of science communication.

The full research paper can be downloaded here.

With that in mind, The Washington Policy Center renders this opinion:

A bipartisan majority passed the Governor's climate legislation today in the State House, sending it to Jay Inslee's desk for his signature. The bill enjoyed bipartisan support in the Senate as well.

The reason so many legislators crossed the aisle to support it, is that it included a measurement of environmental effectiveness. Previous climate legislation simply adopted the latest politically trendy option without an up-front assessment of potential effectiveness.

The Governor's climate bill, on the other hand, required an analysis of the various potential climate strategies including "the effectiveness in achieving...emission reduction objectives, including the cost per ton of emission reduction." This echoes a proposal we've offered in the past in our Environmental Priorities Act, which would "ensure the state spent its scarce resources on approaches that yield the greatest environmental benefit." It is an approach used in the past by the Natural Resources Defense Council to find the best ways to reduce carbon emissions.

The effort in this bill is to try to hold everyone accountable for proof, not conjecture when it comes to our tax dollars and burdensome government regulations.

6 Comments

Chemistry Illiterates Drum Up Eco-Panic

3/23/2013

29 Comments

It seems that every normal variation in the planet's parameters cause climate alarmists to drum up panic. According to environmental extremists, and either uninformed or enthusiastically complicit public officials, normal human activity is invariably responsible for the most frightening scenarios, calling on the precautionary principle to save us!

This particular panic relies on total ignorance about basic chemistry. Watch out, Whatcom. A big show is coming to town on March 28th to promulgate fear that's based on spin, misinformation and nothing less than tinfoil hat conspiracy theory. Those poor shellfish ... in danger! Not.

Is the ocean becoming acidic? No. The ocean is incredibly immense, and it's slightly alkaline ("base") at this time in history (at a pH of 8.14). And it will remain so - alkaline, base. It's only trending a miniscule degree towards neutral. No matter what, even if all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were deposited into the ocean in one moment, its pH would remain safely on the "base" end of the scale. There's not enough atmospheric CO2 to make the oceans "acidic" - and these folks suggest that acidic water will dissolve shells. Read this paper, "Acid Seas" which debunks the myth.

Of course, this slight trend, all within in the alkaline or "base" end of the pH scale, is being linked to anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide.

Why don't they say neutralization instead of acidification, when the oceans are still on the alkaline side of neutral? That question must be asked. "Neutral" is such a non-threatening word, whereas acid is corrosive, dangerous and very scary, like acid in a car battery. Ocean water's pH won't cross neutral line into acidity. Just for comparison, let's look at the pH of some well known household items, shall we? Let's shall!

1.0 - battery acid
1.8 - 2.0 - limes
2.2. - 2.4 lemon juice
2.2 Vinegar (acetic acid)
2.8 - 3.4 - fruit jellies
2.9 - 3.3 - apple juice, cola
3.0 - 3.5 - strawberries
3.7 - orange juice
4.0 - 4.5 - tomatoes
5.6 - unpolluted rain
5.8 - 6.4 - peas
6.0 - 6.5 - corn
6.1 - 6.4 - butter
6.4 - cow's milk
6.5 - 7.5 - human saliva
6.5 - 7.0 - maple syrup
7.0 - distilled water -- NEUTRAL
7.3 - 7.5 - human blood
7.6 - 8.0 - egg whites
8.14 ocean water
8.3 - baking soda
9.2 - borax
10.5 - milk of magnesia
11.0 - laundry ammonia
12.0 - lime water
13.0 - lye

What is pH, anyway? In chemistry pH is a measure of hydrogen ion concentration; but in laymen's terms, the number supplies useful information about the way a substance acts (and interacts) on a scale from strong acid to neutral to strong base (like oven cleaner). The pH scale goes from about zero to about 14 for most naturally occurring solutions (it can go below zero and above 14, but 0 ~ 14 is the normally encountered range). Notice that we put things in our mouths that range from 2.0 all the way up to 10.5. But not until we reach 11.0 (laundry ammonia on the alkaline side) or 1.0 (battery acid on the acidic side), do we get into burn territory. There's a huge range in the middle that is safe for humans and other living things. The difference between one pH number and the next is also big. The pH scale is logarithmic, expressing magnitude like the earthquake Richter scale, where the differences between each number become increasingly large:

Can relatively small pH changes have an effect on ecological systems? Of course they might. But life finds a way. Life operates within a wide range of "normal," and continuously adapts. The planet and its chemistry have never been static. The ocean has become a little less alkaline over time. Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14 (Wikipedia), a pH reduction of 0.11 in 243 years. This current prediction is for a long-term change of something like .01 - which is a very great deal less in proportion.

Is this good or bad? Is that a lot, or a little? (It's very little.) What causes it? That's hard to say. The current wave of "research" rests entirely on the hypothesis that it's all about CO2, when that's not only unlikely but virtually impossible (its a chemical reality) given the huge volume of water in the oceans and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Lower pH could be a tiny bit better for some life forms, and a tiny bit worse for others, but it's not proven that the minuscule change will fall outside "normal" range. Just as some flowers prefer acidic soil, and some alkaline, some species are virtually indifferent to big swings. Hydrangeas thrive and bloom in different colors depending on soil pH. (Here's some info on that, gardeners.)

What causes a shift in ocean alkalinity? It's easy for alarmists to jump to the conclusion that because the change coincided with human industrialization, we must have caused it. Even this article makes the unjustified jump to anthropogenic causes. But a core scientific principle is "correlation does not imply causation." Just because one thing happens while another thing happens, that doesn't prove the first thing caused the second thing to happen. Science is a method by which we find and test evidence. A person could also correlate dress hemlines to this over the same period of time. The point is, fear-generating "ocean acidification" statements are being made without relaying the reality about degree nor any real proof of causation. The entire assertion also flies in the face of the fundamentals of chemistry.

There is valid information about ocean chemistry that attributes most pH changes to natural organic upflows off our shores, but no matter... Blame it on the atmosphere and land use. Hypotheses of anthropogenic CO2 causing global environmental chaos are non-falsifiable, making them impossible to prove or disprove. They may be logical, and examples of good thinking even, but they are insufficient to convict. "If you’re going to announce your conclusions before you have the supporting data then you’re not engaging in science you’re engaging in politics."

Lacking objective truth, the knee-jerk reaction by environmental extremists invokes the precautionary principle, on the premise that we'd better be safe or we'll be sorry. It's a vacant and silly Chicken Little approach to change. And it completely ignores offsetting benefits of whatever it is we're supposed to be saved from, in addition to curtailing the beneficial aspects of whatever it is they allege is causing the supposedly undesirable effect. The public policy invoked to prevent the artifact could have an even worse impact on society and overall planetary well-being, but this is rarely considered.

From Governor Gregoire's executive order 12-07 - WASHINGTON’S RESPONSE TO OCEAN ACIDIFICATION, "Reduce nutrients and organic carbon in locations where these pollutants alone, or in combination with other pollutants, are causing or contributing to multiple water quality problems in our marine waters. This effort shall be coordinated with the Directors of the Department of Agriculture and Department of Health, and the Executive Director of the Conservation Commission. In implementing this directive, Ecology with its partners shall prioritize watersheds with the most significant water quality problems, regardless of the source(s) – urban storm water, septic tanks, large and small sewage treatment facilities, or rural runoff from agricultural lands. This effort shall be carried out in consultation with other agencies, affected local and tribal governments, federal agencies, landowners, and the environmental community. These efforts shall: ... " (Read the book...)

Note the absence of reference to CO2 in the water and the implication that land-use is an important part of the problem, when that has not been demonstrated. Even the supporters correctly point out that lower pH in marine waters here is primarily the result of upwelling of CO2-rich water from deeper parts of the ocean, but they then make the leap to atmospheric CO2 as a cause without adequate foundation in the data for doing so.

The legislature really cannot be held to the kind of dictatorial executive orders that have been issued here. What Gregoire was doing is just like Mayor Bloomberg banning big soft drinks in New York City – imposing will without consideration of truth or rights.

Many rent-seeking groups have learned that it is very lucrative to collect government grants to further this agenda, so in effect, our own tax dollars are being used against us. We pay to perpetuate this behavior.

It looks like this "free" seminar on March 28 will predict dire consequences based on conjecture and non-falsifiable hypotheses, to make the case for public policy that places even more restrictions on normal human rights and activities. It would be interesting to see how they respond to knowledgeable questions from well-informed skeptics.

WE hope a lot of people go, and ask tough questions.

29 Comments

From the Island Guardian, "Thy Neighbor"

3/22/2013

2 Comments

There are some who say that we need to "give up some of our rights" for a better world. Give up rights... That's an interesting concept. Which rights? The right to freedom of speech? The right to vote? Nobody wants someone else's religion forced on them, but can government deny the the practice of religious principles? Is there any such thing as a right to privacy? What about protection from unwarranted aerial surveillance and thermal scans? How about unreasonable search and seizure? Where should the line be drawn, and by whom? Assessors and building departments? Questions, pesky questions...

The Trojan Heron posted on this Orcas Island story, and the Island Guardian just reported on the courtroom proceedings Thursday March 21 with details,

"Google Maps, Permits, Search Warrants"

(UPDATED 02-21-13 10:20 A.M.) ~ An Orcas man is in court on a criminal charge, that stems from a civil charge, resulting from construction of a building without permits, that ended up being used for a residence.

Based on the court record it is hard to tell when Errol Speed’s trouble started, but it is clear that when Speed added his complaint in May of 2010 to the County about what he and others believed was land use violations by a commercial enterprise on Orcas, it resulted in the owner of that property making a similar charge against Speed. (more)

This post puts even more perspective on the story, asking the most important questions of all about what community is, and the humanity of the situation:

Thy Neighbor?
by Gordy Peterson - Island Guardian

The hard old oak chairs in the Courthouse have held the butts of generations of islanders. Judge Stuart Andrew peered over the huge dark paneled desk down upon the small audience in the oak chairs. Faded historical photos of island characters hang from the courtroom walls. These are the men who sat in judgment of their neighbors, men who handed down rulings according to the laws of the territory. I was here today out of an interest in justice. My neighbor and friend Errol Speed, is on trial, charged with serious crimes.

My butt is in an old oak chair. Errol ‘s butt is in a sling. That’s right, he is charged with the most heinous of crimes (at least in San Juan County), building code violations! OMG!

The district court judge sees a daily parade of substance abusers, domestic violence perpetrators, and people who commit violent crimes against others. Then along comes someone who is slammed up against the wall by jackbooted thugs for a difference of opinion over the size of his barn.

In this case a business competitor turned his butt in to the County Assessor, and the Planning Department for alleged offenses he found by looking at aerial photos of Errol’s farm on Google Earth. Errol was served with a search warrant and the authoritarian enforcers from the County swarmed his private property and busted him because he had no permit for his trailer or wood stove. He didn’t even know he needed one for his trailer. I’ve known Errol for more than 20 years. He is a father of six with ten grandchildren. I was the neighborhood grocer on Orcas where all his kids grew up. I saw Errol and his family in the store almost everyday. He’s a hard worker, a good father, a small business owner, and an organic farmer (why does SJC persecute organic farmers? This is the third one in a row! Charles Dalton, Nick Jones, now Errol Speed?).

Now here is the point of this article; seriously, is this the way we want to treat our neighbors? Have we come to the point in San Juan County where the correct application of the building code is the same as criminal assault? Where a landowner can face fines and jail time for using an unpermitted wood stove to keep warm? Why wouldn’t San Juan County exhaust civil remedies for non-compliance before violating the privacy of its’ citizens and storming the property with a search warrant? Is this the way we want to treat our neighbors?

This case brings some important issues to the forefront:

Can the County use information obtained from magnified aerial photographs as the basis to obtain a search warrant?
Does a private property owner who is doing no harm to his neighbors have a right to privacy?

Have regulations in San Juan County gone too far?

Regulations in this county have done an adequate job in protecting community values. Soon we will see the implementation of the most onerous and unnecessary regulations to ever come down the pike. These regulations are nothing more than tools to use to harass your neighbors for a vendetta of any kind. Is there someone you don’t like? You can stick it to them with the new CAO. If the County gets its’ way you can use aerial surveillance photos to turn in your neighbor. Have we crossed the line here into some kind of fascism? Does the “golden rule” have any meaning in the islands anymore? “Love thy neighbor” or put his butt in jail, that’s our choice. I hope for a better community. I don’t even recognize this one anymore.

2 Comments

Water Planning Hijacked, Needs Council Attention

3/16/2013

3 Comments

Yesterday, the county water district caucus of the WRIA 1 Planning Unit transmitted a letter to Whatcom County Council. That may sound boring, but WE think it's important and something everybody should see. Why?

The letter describes in clear terms how water laws affect everybody. It explains what's supposed to happen. Then it lays out how agencies and planners have basically run away with the process since 2009. A lot of people have been dumped - citizens with wells, private water associations, the county's public water districts, and even small cities in large part - even though the Watershed Planning Act (RCW 90.82.10) says:

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.

In spite of this very clear law, state and regional agencies and the county's departments have jumped the tracks. Not only has resource planning become remote, but both public and private water rights have been fought over behind closed doors without transparency, or open public meetings (check out the state law).

Next week, council will have the opportunity to do the right thing to start fixing the situation. It's pretty clear that only council is motivated to step-in.

This is a critical issue that affects everyone. Read this situation letter and attend the meetings listed below if you can. Get involved however you can, or brush-up on the words and music to "How Dry I Am."

MEETING ALERTS

A Whatcom County Council Surface Water Work Session is scheduled for next Tuesday, March 19 at 10:30 a.m. in Courthouse Room #513, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham. Be there! It's a biggie.

(A Puget Sound Partnership/WRIA 1 "WIT" meeting is also scheduled for Tuesday, from 2:30-4:30 p.m. at the 1000 N Forest Street, Bellingham. You may have missed this post.)

A special meeting of the WRIA 1 “Joint Consolidated Board” is scheduled for next Thursday March 21 at 1:30 p.m. also in Courthouse Room #513, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham.

3 Comments

Reconveyance -- Yes, 5 - 2

3/13/2013

24 Comments

Despite virtually every council member pointing out that the reconveyance would have little or no impact on the Lake Whatcom water quality, that straw man was dancing a jig all evening. He just wouldn't burn. Here's the vote:

Crawford: Yes. Disappointing, but predictable. WE don't know what his principles are.
Kremen: Yes. Certainly! It's his baby. He set the table as administrator, and ate the meal as councilman. A principled leader would recuse himself.
Brenner: No. Barbara has been opposed to this in principle for quite some time.
Kershner: Yes. Very disappointing. At least Solomon didn't actually cut the baby.
Mann: Yes. Arguably another case for recusal - nope.
Knutzen: No. Bill has been opposed to this in principle. He knew this was driven by environmental collectivists who resent logging and discovered the reconveyance loophole to end it.
Weimer: Yes. A park is love. You can't make this stuff up.

This play-by-play, self-promoted at the Bellingham Herald Political Blog by The Political Junkie might have been useful, but WE found it to be churlish and intolerant. The running mockery relayed no tolerance for different views; no sympathy for collateral damage. Attacking the sincere and innocent with the blood lust of bulldogs does nothing to improve the civility of the community.

One important point: Bill Knutzen introduced an amendment to the reconveyance resolution that would have guaranteed that Whatcom County would manage the land, and not sub-contract that responsibility to any third party entity, e.g., Whatcom Land Trust. Ken Mann would not support the amendment, but insisted he would "sign in blood" the promise that control would never go to a third party. Okay fine, but WE damn well expect these people to live up to statements like that.

Bill's motion failed 4 - 3 (Knutzen, Kershner and Brenner approved), despite lip service lauding the intent. The reason given to reject was that they feared that any change to the language might spook the legal eagles and derail the deal.

The reason this is important is that while DNR is a public trust, subject to transparency laws, auditing and information requests, private land trusts, though acting as agents of the state, have no such responsibility.

One big reason for opposition to the reconveyance, as one correspondent pointed out, involves concern about special interests, unmonitored and unrepresentative rent-seeking opportunists scheming to leverage government at the expense of the people. WE're not saying they are, although the usual suspects have been circling overhead since the inception. WE prefer something more accountable and transparent.

24 Comments

Reconveyance “Truth or Dare”

3/11/2013

6 Comments

Talk around town is that votes are in the bag for the reconveyance to pass tomorrow March 12, no matter what anyone says at the public hearing that starts at 6 pm at the courthouse.

Whatcom County’s Executive and the Parks Department have never bothered to fake objectivity. Git ‘er done, baby. Most of county council has been partnering and kabbitzing and slicing up the pie since last summer, aglow and intent on ending productive forestry on this 8,844 acres of land to create a massive park.

Is there any proof that DNR logging has done harm to the water in Lake Whatcom? Nope. Is there a commitment from Washington Ecology that "lake health" will change, or that its brief summer algae blooms will diminish if this land becomes "park"? Nope. But deliberate and panicky “save the water” claims sold a pack of true believers to think it will make a difference. Proponents have done everything in their power to stop DNR from harvesting timber - the public's "green" renewable resource. Despite common sense, snake oil salesmen have done very well.

The Parks Department's full-blown “vista version” park cost estimate was over $6 million for work that would drag out over twenty years. To make up for the sticker shock, Parks unveiled a revenue generation plan that (surprise!) would have government sell conservation easements by the acre or in big blocks in the lucrative mitigation marketplace. Hey - investors, check out Whatcom County, it's a gold mine! This growing ripoff financial industry likes to find environmentally healthy places to flip their paper - with middlemen getting rich by doing and producing absolutely nothing. Conservation easements can anchor "restoration" grant funds too, a rent-seeker sideline that keeps on giving.

At least four on council don't care that hard working people in cork boots and red suspenders will lose this great place to work, close to home. It's not their problem if logging families suffer, or the devastating affect it will have on struggling sawmills and the equipment, supply, and hardware trades.

While lawsuits pile up demanding that "rural character" must be preserved to keep land use just as it was when the Growth Management Act (GMA) passed, this aberration will be ignored despite its also saying, "Encourage the conservation of productive forest lands." This issue has been driven by anti-logger sentiment from the start.

Priorities? There are homeless people living under bridges and in cars, a serious lack of adequate mental health facilities, and inmates at the county jail sometimes sleep on the floors of overcrowded cells. But hey, the majority on this council likes parks, and they want to attract well-heeled hikers. Supposedly locals will put on their trekkers and hike between towns (the park will "connect communities" despite rain, snow and whatever). Yup, one line of bull followed another to establish "facts" that this huge park is essential to the community's health and quality of life. Yeah, right.

Truth or Dare - last blast.

"Backcountry preserve," what a joke. All this land is within spitting distance of the freeway, within 10 miles from I-5 and the mall. The hills are alive, with the sound of semi's...

Save the water? Not even qualified water-savvy conservationists believe it will make a difference. This footage is from the DNR's inter-trust transfer hearing on May 9, 2011

We need another 8,844 acres of park? This county has more parkland per capita than any other county. This would bring the total acreage to 16,000 acres, in a county where only 11% of all land is owned privately. The "need" for parkland was never what this was about. What was it about?

The council people voting for this know the genesis of the idea:

Oct 11, 2011 - proponent Lisa McShane wrote: “It was at the 2003 tour where Jeff May, DNR logger, said to several of us: "if the people don't want logging here why don't you just reconvey the lands?"

DNR is unwilling to provide recreation on the timberland? The Land Trust and the Parks Department have promulgated that Pinnochio-nose fib in official memos and reports. And they scowled through DNR’s recreation outreach offer on February 26th. The state officials explained that they could move quickly to make Whatcom County a high-priority recreation area, and they would accommodate active mountain biking, horseback riding, hunting and even off-road vehicles (ORV's) in separate zones and still keep the land productive. It could pay for itself, but oh no!

County parks would take better care of this land than the DNR? Another total con. Proponents wrote about breaking the DNR's Habitat Conservation Plan ("HCP") when the land was under their control (from public records):

Oct 13, 2011 - David Wallin, WWU Huxley (who provided supporting "return to nature" reports) wrote to Park Director McFarland and Conservation Northwest’s Mitch Friedman: “It seems that the reason this hasn't been done already on DNR lands is due to DNR's HCP. DNR has taken the position that they are unwilling to even consider wind power on any of their west-side lands. As I understand it, when the HCP was negotiated back in the 90s, they included lots of provisions to allow incidental environmental impacts from a variety of non-forestry related activities (gravel mining, cell phone towers, etc.) on DNR lands. Unfortunately, no one thought to include wind power generation as an allowable non-forestry related activity. DNR is concerned that if they try to re-open the HCP to modify it to now allow wind power, they could lose the entire HCP. However, as I understand it, after reconveyance, the HCP would no longer be an obstacle to considering wind power. Not sure if putting wind power on the land would compromise the reconveyance itself. Can we have wind power in a park? Apparently, we can have cell phone towers in a park so I don't see why we couldn't have wind power.”

Then Mitch Friedman from Conservation Northwest writes back in the same thread: “Very cool. Though we need to think through what it means to meet Hinkley's insistence that the HCP continue to apply to the reconveyed land. Maybe there's a way exempting the ridge tops?”

The hypocrisy about environmental rules is self evident. Local special interests are in lockstep with greedy rent-seeking consultants, WWU, WSU, and even environmental agencies. The whole bunch could milk this land for all it's worth once they have it. If the environment suffers, they can always sue and fine the county, huh? Write a study. Ask for a grant.

They don't care what harm it does to the timber and forestry people who have been the backbone of this county for a hundred years. One falsehood after another has been made to deny the human and economic impacts that parks and recreation can never make up for. This county will lose more of its diversity, skills and resilience. Thanks, council!

Local government is reaching a critical state of regulatory capture, and this action will make the situation worse. Small wonder special interests have been desperately leading the charge. With all their urgency we wonder, are a stack of grant applications and trail contracts already in the queue, waiting for the curtain to fall? Wait and see.

6 Comments

Action Needed -- Protect Your Inalienable Rights

3/9/2013

1 Comment

Breaking news from the Seattle Times, March 8, 2013

OLYMPIA — Gun-control advocates are launching a weekend lobbying blitz on seven members of the state House who may control the fate of a contentious bill to require background checks for all gun purchases.

State Rep. Jamie Pedersen, a Seattle Democrat organizing the push for universal background checks, said Friday that his bill now has 47 supporters — 46 Democrats and Lake Stevens Republican Mike Hope.

It needs 50 to pass. (Continue reading...)

While supporters of bills like this say it will make it harder for criminals to obtain weapons – let’s face it: criminals won’t comply. They won’t follow this new law any more than they obey the other gun control laws already on the books.

HB 1588 would make it extremely difficult for friends or relatives to sell or exchange a gun. Licensed dealers – persons who engage in gun sales as a business - must already conduct background checks.

Some may argue that this is just like reporting the sale of a vehicle. Does that equate? No, that's not "apples for apples." It's not illegal to sell a car to someone without running a background check on the buyer or driver. A person doesn't have to have a drivers license or know how to drive to buy a car. That kind of analogy is a distraction and false; don't buy it.

Of course, killing, committing crime, and creating havoc with arms are already illegal.

Should private citizens be commandeered to police one another when they sell their property? This bill says yes where it comes to arms, and failure to do so would make a person a felon.

This law means to complicate how people keep arms that they legally possess. There is no question that the bill means to burden and frustrate the exercise of a right.

We wouldn't tolerate frustrating or burdening the right to vote. Why should we tolerate frustrating or burdening another right (to keep and bear arms, that the Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed)? All rights are precious. Our government's job is to recognize rights and protect them, not to pick away at them in backhanded ways.

Action Item: Phone calls should be focused on Speaker of the House Frank Chopp, 360-786-7920, and the pro-1588 legislators mentioned in this article. Please act now.

Legislator web pages:

1 Comment

Envision Skagit 2060 – RIP?

3/8/2013

31 Comments

Submitted by a Skagit County contributor

On Monday morning, February 25, 2013, a notice was sent out from the Skagit County web server announcing a special ceremony the next day. The purpose was to celebrate Skagit County’s receipt of the Smart Communities Award from former Governor Gregoire and to recognize the outstanding contributions of over 60 local community leaders in a project that had taken over three years and cost in excess of 1.2 million, most of the amount in tax dollars, in the form of a grant from the EPA. The county was obligated for an additional third of that, but was able to satisfy the requirement by “in-kind” contributions utilizing paid staff as well as volunteers. After an intense process of goal setting, obtaining grant money, establishing committees, hiring inspiring speakers, obtaining studies from well paid consultants, conducting local meetings to obtain citizen involvement in predetermined outcomes and drafting a series of recommendations, the project was presented to the public and elevated to the Skagit Council of Governments (SCOG) in April 2012 for consideration and implementation. So, an awards ceremony recognizing the county for its progressive vision and complementing those who played a key role seemed appropriate after the completion of such a long and arduous task.

It is perhaps ironic then that on the previous Wednesday afternoon, February 20th, the SCOG narrowly defeated a resolution that was a watered downed version of only one of the recommendations that had been proposed by the project’s citizen advisory committee. The other recommendations, which were based on Envision Skagit’s nine major goals, had either been rejected outright or incrementally dropped from subsequent proposed resolutions in the face of persistent opposition from the public and lack of support from key members of the SCOG itself. It seemed like a rather ignominious ending for a project that was avidly promoted as Skagit County’s opportunity to secure a bright and happy future for the next 50 years.

Envision Skagit 2060’s lack of success resulted from a disconnect between its proponents, who included the county commissioners and county planning department staff desirous of grant money, their paid consultants and a specially chosen Citizen Committee, and the opposition, who were just interested residents of the county worried about what this project would mean for them and their heirs. The proponents were satisfied with essentially sentencing future generations of county residents to lives of reduced freedom as well as less material wealth and convenience in order to accomplish their visionary goals of abundant green infrastructure, open spaces and greenways. Their ideal was to crowd people into densely packed urban growth areas. Building up and not out was a catchphrase. Residences were typically to be clustered in multistoried buildings. Retail establishments would occupy the ground floors. Almost everything a person needed or did would be in walking distance. The goal was to limit people living in rural areas to only 10% of the population.

Getting around in the county was also supposed to change as an emphasis on mass transit apparently would displace the American preference for individual cars and trucks. The citizens committee proposed increasing rail traffic, more buses and vans, and even water transport.

A third-world "Collectivo" bus

Collectivos, a third world answer to transportation needs used in South America were suggested as a means of moving people back and forth along SR20. In addition, priority was to be given to bicycle lanes and walking paths. To prevent excessive travel, especially for those living in the eastern part of the county, broadband coverage at urban rates was suggested so people could work at home.

Concerns about an increase in flooding due to climate change led to a recommendation to remove residents from Hamilton and Cape Horn. Opponents of the project understandably sensed a threat to property rights with the emphasis on relocations, redesigning zoning laws to confine populations into specifically identified urban growth areas and widening non-use corridors along the Skagit and Samish rivers.

Envision Skagit 2060 only tepidly addressed the real need of Skagit County, now and in the future; economic vitality. What was addressed was mostly in vague terms. The most specific proposal was to set aside 1600 acres of land on Bayview Ridge for industrial purposes. Otherwise, there was only a recommendation to encourage sustainable businesses that enabled people to work without long commutes and which made sustainable use of sustainable resources. “Sustainable” was a word used frequently during the entire envisioning process.

The unfortunate truth is that healthy environments and high “livability” standards are found almost exclusively in wealthy societies. And prosperity requires an energized, mobile population in search of economic advantage. Mobility, except for the ability to travel short distances under pedal power, was actually discouraged under this plan by its very nature. The primary reason that people freely move to crowded enclaves, such as major and even medium sized cities, is economic opportunity. That transcends all other considerations. If the leaders of Skagit County wanted its demographic to include more than retirees, drug dealers and a few farmers, Envision Skagit 2060 wasn’t the program to look to for guidance. In fact, it was a blueprint for stagnation and blight.

The Citizen Committee stated that its most consequential recommendation was the creation of a “Skagit Alliance,” which was a supra-county decision making authority comprised of public and private sector leaders. Apparently, unaware or unconcerned that this was a real threat to representative democracy at the local level, the committee promoted this regional entity as a means to “implement a unified approach to growth, development and conservation over the next 50 years.”

Public meetings were held in April and May of 2012. An additional Envision Skagit 2060 related forum was held in June, which was an attempt to shore up climate change assertions that provided the basis for key elements of the program. At the meetings, many of the oral comments centered on property rights protection and questioned the necessity for the expense and effort of creating the envisioning scheme. One person mentioned that the program appeared to undermine the Growth Management Act. Some people pointed out the remarkable similarity in process and results of Envision Skagit to numerous other programs around the country. Another person wondered if the county hadn’t got shortchanged by this apparent cookie cutter approach. Although it elicited emphatic denials from presenters and synchronized eye rolls from attending cognoscenti, a few individuals suggested Envision Skagit 2060 had ties to Agenda 21, citing the proposed program’s social engineering goals in line with the UN program, as well as the county’s membership in ICLEI. Skagit County had joined ICLEI in 2009 at the beginning of the Envision Skagit creation process. ICLEI is a NGO, headquartered in Bonn, Germany, that was set up to help local governments implement Agenda 21. Reportedly, as of 2011, the county has let its membership lapse.

During the meetings in the spring, and subsequent SCOG meetings in the fall, those opposed to the project were clearly in the majority and the comments reflected that. The negativity with which Envision Skagit 2060 was greeted obviously did not go unnoticed by public officials and undoubtedly led to the program’s defeat.   It is not surprising then that there were hard feelings. According to the February 27th edition of the Skagit Valley Herald, in the midst of the celebratory affair, disparaging remarks were directed against Envision Skagit detractors by Citizens Committee spokesman, Tim Rosenhan. Opponents of the project were collectively labeled “tinfoil hat Taliban.”

One of the criticisms of those opposed to Envision Skagit 2060 is that they are against all planning. That’s a straw man argument. More than a few opponents stated publically in previous forums that they weren’t against planning, just this particular plan. In the end, Envision Skagit 2060 went down to defeat because its recommendations didn’t fit the current and future needs of Skagit County. And some of the recommendations were not simply unsuitable, but patently ridiculous. The question now is will some official, motivated by ideology or dreams of career advancement, attempt to resurrect a version of this discredited program in one form or another?

The complete Envision Skagit 2060 Citizen Committee Final Recommendations can be found here.

A more in depth critique of the committee’s recommendations is on the Skagit Republicans website.

31 Comments

What Happens When The Central Planners Fail?

3/5/2013

3 Comments

by Glen Morgan, Property Rights Director
Freedom Foundation
....because people want to be free

When I was in college, my peers and I would have our makeshift debates in the dorm hallways, arguing about the fundamental problems with Marx and other prophets of the left. We usually came to the conclusion that Marx just didn’t understand the nature of man. Columbia University still required all undergrad students to read a core curriculum of largely western thought at the time. So we studied Marx, John Stuart Mill, The Federalists Papers, Plato, Hobbs, etc. These debates were not unusual then (I hope they still happen today). The influence of the Socialist Utopian view of the world is still with us today, of course, under a variety of different titles and schemes, and they all share the same fatal flaw that dooms Marxism every time: that some “educated elite” or, to quote Plato, mythical “Philosopher Kings” could lead the masses to utopia. Like a chronic disease, we can’t seem to shake these failed concepts regardless of how many times they end in disaster.

The term “utopia” is usually used to reference communities or a society that has achieved perfect or at least optimal conditions. It was originally coined by Sir Thomas More in his 1516 book titled Utopia about an island society. The first utopian proposal can arguably be Plato’s Republic. The modern view of utopia is a perfect world where everything is in harmony, people are perfect, society is perfect, and the environment is in some type of perfect stasis and all is well. Frequently there is a religious fervor behind the vision of a utopian nirvana, and all who stand in the way are evil.

In modern times, the Central Planners who work in our counties and cities take the same basic failed philosophy and apply it to everything they do. Their efforts are just as doomed and unlikely to result in the mythical utopia. But Plato is rarely read today, and Marx is usually stuffed on the bookshelf, referenced by today’s “Progressives” only when they think they are out of the general public’s earshot. Given that reality, I’d like to translate their writings to the common experiences we have today.

The primary assumption which drives Central Planning today is that we, the people, are “stupid” (to quote Secretary of State Kerry) and must be protected from our inevitable mistakes. Since we lowly citizens are, from a Central Planner’s perspective, ignorant peasants who are barely able to think for ourselves, let alone function in society, the Central Planners must make all our decisions for us. Don’t get me wrong – they will “allow” us to vote every now and again for some politician who gives us happy talk (but also thinks we are stupid). However, outside of voting, abortions, gambling, smoking pot, marriage, birth control, movies, and clothing – they believe choices should be limited. Very limited indeed. Since they view themselves as the smartest people on the planet, they also feel entitled to tell everyone else what they can or cannot do. This is power, and Central Planners are always greedy for more.

When faced with our state’s Central Planning schemes, justified under the Growth Management Act or other legislation, the question that should naturally come to mind is “Who makes the decisions?” If people are stupid and prone to making mistakes, what makes the Central Planners so different? Obviously, they are as human as the rest of us peasants, and they are just as likely – if not more so - to make mistakes as anyone else.

There is one big difference between the mistakes made by average folk and the Central Planners. When you or I or the rest of us in the peasant class make a mistake, we might hurt ourselves and maybe people close to us. An individual might go bankrupt, have an accident, get arrested, get drunk, lose a job, etc. It isn’t fun to make these mistakes, and many of us learn from them, and we learn from the mistakes of others. Most of us do adjust our behavior so we don’t keep making these mistakes. When the Central Planners make mistakes, they hurt everyone, and all of those people are innocent. A Central Planner costs the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars as they make a bridge too short like the Columbia River Crossing project. A central planner destroys an effective ferry system by botching the ferry design. Sinking bridges, devastating businesses, destroying industries, causing chaos in communities, and other community-wide destruction is ONLY done by our fearless Central Planners. These mistakes are as common as rain in Washington State where state officials are inevitably moving forward with the Central-Planner mindset.

Just like an individual wants to hide his own mistakes from friends or family members, the central-planning and big government crew want to hide their community disasters from oversight or questioning. They claim they need more taxes, more power, and more time. They blame the stupid peasants because “the plan” is never at fault. They assure us that next time they will get it right. Utopia is just one more plan, ordinance, law, or tax away. Of course, it never comes, and it never will.

Central Planners have no concern about destroying your home, closing down your business, or wreaking havoc with your farm. Your family’s future is of no concern to them.  They know best and do everything for the “collective good.” Fortunately for them, a Central Planner can justify any individual harm and any sacrifice required from you and me by invoking the collective good. I have witnessed this in most counties and cities in Washington State. A Central Planner will sacrifice you and your family on the altar of the latest plan without a thought to the human tragedy or consequences of their actions. They destroy dreams for a living, and their individual dream is to keep doing their job over and over until they can collect their government-guaranteed pension.

Planning alone, of course, is not the problem. We all agree to plan our budget, our trips, our work, our education, our home projects, and so on. These plans are modified all the time. We adjust them based on changes in our income, family fortunes, setbacks, and opportunities. In a community, it makes sense to plan for growth, roads, power, playgrounds, and many other aspects of modern living. However, the difference between normal planning and central planning is that the latter aims for utopia.  They are picking winners and losers today in an attempt to influence human behavior and build their utopian scheme for tomorrow. The modern Central Planner is attempting to control, dictate, monitor, and manage nearly every aspect of human behavior. This ridiculous overreach only increases the size and certainty of the inevitable disaster. The people who suffer the most from their actions are us – the peasants, the citizens, the voters, the taxpayers who bear the brunt of the all-too-human Central Planner and their insatiable greed for power.

Our belief is that Marx’s fatal flaw only proves the wisdom of our Founding Fathers reflected by James Madison’s Federalist Paper 51:

“It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

As humans, we do make mistakes. Our Central Planners and political leaders are only human – subject to the same foibles and failings as those of us who pay their inflated salaries. Their effort to control every aspect of our lives, dictate where and how we can live, and how much of our hard-earned money they will squander guarantees disaster. Concentrating too much power in government only ensures that, when Central Planners make their mistakes, the swath of harm and destruction is wider, more impactful, and leaves behind more victims. We believe their power should be reduced to protect us from their mistakes.

Curtailing the power, scope, and reach of the modern government is really a critical function of freedom activists today. If we fail to check and shrink the Central Planner’s effort to expand their power, then the failure and collapse of our society is certain – and it will be epic. Their quest for utopia will result in a dysfunctional, disastrous society where power, resources, and opportunities are freely available to very few, but for the “greater good,” of course. This could all be avoided if we would recognize what is happening in our communities, and take active steps to stop it.  Do not assume someone else will do it for us. We must not assume it can’t happen here. Closing our eyes and hoping it all goes away by itself is not a solution. This is happening right now, and all of us need to become engaged to change the future. It doesn’t take an army to stop it, just dedicated individuals from our communities who are willing to stand up for freedom and who will not cower in silence. Please join us at the Freedom Foundation if you want to be counted with those who will stand up for our freedom today and tomorrow.

3 Comments

<<Previous

Categories

Archives