Category:

A Kinder, Gentler Futurewise?

3/23/2014

Here's to the 1st Amendment

The headline at the Bellingham Herald reads, "Under new leadership in Whatcom, Futurewise to try cooperation". That might just work, following the last election, what with the county council now stacked with sympathetic syncophants. (No, not all, but WE think WE know who you are.) Given the massive amount of outside money spent on the ugly tactics of last fall's election, nobody should make the mistake of assuming the results were a genuine mandate from the electorate. The perspective of this council has become very narrow, in most ways deaf and blind to the self reliance of "county" people who don't share their Bellingham addresses. There's little knowledge, fondness, or respect for the rich diversity of county life outside Bellingham's city limits (in the small cities, small towns, for farmers and their rural residential neighbors).

Futurewise wants to be a "resource" for government, promoting their brand of environmentalism, "to prevent urban sprawl before legal action is needed". If that isn't a veiled threat, WE don't know what is. Very cooperative. Given that Futurewise has a constant and imposing presence at our county's department of Planning and Development, the word "co-opt" would be more accurate.

Sensible planning is one thing, but WE reject the premise that Futurewise, or any other person or group, should claim authority to direct and dictate where people live and whats best for the county. Not everyone wants to live in cities. Those who want to live in urban villages or pack & stack cubicles, fine; enjoy that lifestyle if it’s your desire.

But WE find vigilante public-private policymaking neither appropriate nor healthy for community planning. Why should the Growth Management Act – a state law - need this self-appointed enforcement arm? On what authority? Is the GMAFB not adequate? (oops, that should read GMHB) (Google it!)

WE have to ask, who runs this county? Bellingrad? A bunch of legal eagles from who-knows-where? Or is local government accountable to citizens from all across Whatcom County?

Under new leadership, instead of being an environmental watchdog, Futurewise says it wants to have "broader appeal". Really? The best way WE see that happening is to butt out, and allow the local community to develop with the control and consent of its people as it sees fit, without special interests and self-anointed authority figures trying to influence the lives and settlements of the citizens in a supposedly free country.

According to the report, Futurewise has now decided to focus its efforts on helping to "solve" the water rights dispute. The "dispute"? That's rich. Futurewise has been a central protagonist in the dust-up. And they claim to represent whom, exactly? By what process did the public request this "help"? WE will lay dollars to doughnuts that the rights of individual citizens won't be defended or championed in their efforts -- just a SWAG.

Meanwhile, Futurewise previous local chapter director has moved on to RE Sources for Sustainable Communities -- which could be another fine organization, if they'll just live and let live. WE don't think it's in their nature to do that, unfortunately.

3 Comments

CAPR Skagit Education Outreach: Their RULES or Your RIGHTS

3/23/2014

0 Comments

WE just wanted to give you a heads-up about a science and rights-based discussion series being presented by Citizens Alliance for Property Rights (CAPR) down in Skagit County:

Special guest Speaker:
Don Easterbrook, Ph.D., Professor (Emeritus) Geology, Western Washington University will present Impacts of Global Warming, Sea Level Rise, and Envision 2060 in Skagit County, April 4, 2014 FRIDAY 7:00 PM.

Panel:
Zach Barborinas, Mike Newman, John Roozen will discuss Skagit County Property Owners: Citizens or Subjects? Skagit Water Rights. People, the Law, the Rulings, May 9, 2014 FRIDAY 6:00 PM

Special guest Speaker:
Tim Ball, Ph.D. Professor (Ret) Geology, University of Winnipeg will present The Climate. Science Based on Evidence, May 30, 2014 FRIDAY 7:00 PM.

Meetings Open to All. FREE Admission, at SKAGIT PUD, AQUA ROOM 1415 Freeway Dr. Mt. Vernon.

Click here for more information.

0 Comments

Ironic: Global Warmists Trapped in Ice

12/31/2013

2 Comments

MV Akademik Shokalskiy stuck in ice

WE're not celebrating their misfortune, and we hope they all get out okay, but this is just too ironic not to bring it to your attention:

Michelle Malkin notes on her blog,

"Australian climate change professor Chris Turney, passengers and media hoping to get pictures penguins windsurfing where ice should be set out on an expedition to demonstrate the effects of global warming on Antarctica. The ship and all on board have now been trapped in ice for almost a week and counting".

Climate scientists are still trying to prove the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis, evidently after having missed the memo that the Earth hasn't warmed for some fifteen to seventeen years. Some climate scientists are even predicting a cooling trend. Nature seems to abhor an agenda even more than it abhors a vacuum.

Penguin not doing the backstroke

The Daily Mail Online reports,

"The Academic Shokalskiy set off from New Zealand on November 28 to recreate a 100-year-old Australasia expedition first sailed by Sir Douglas Mawson to see how the journey changes using new technology and equipment.

But on Wednesday morning, the boat hit a mass of thick ice sheets and today remains at a stand still.

Chris Turney, an Australian professor who helped organise the voyage on the Russian ship, yesterday posted a photograph on Twitter apparently showing the Chinese vessel, a speck on the horizon beyond an expanse of ice."

In the Antarctic summer of 1912, this same waterway was not encumbered by ice:

WE wonder if the Turney expedition got some bad information, or if the weather suddenly turned colder than expected for Antarctic summers in the 21st century. Although WE understand that weather and climate are not the same thing, the irony isn't lost on us either.

(Read the Michelle Malkin article...) (Read the Mail Online article... -- nice pictures!)

2 Comments

The 2013 IPCC Report: Facts vs. Fiction

10/18/2013

0 Comments

By Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D.

Mark Twain popularized the saying: “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.” After reading the recently released IPCC report, we can now add, “There are liars, damn liars, and IPCC.” When compared to the also [recently published 1000+-page volume of data on climate change [http://climatechangereconsidered.org/]] with thousands of peer-reviewed references, by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), the inescapable conclusion is that the IPCC report must be considered the grossest misrepresentation of data ever published.

As MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen stated, “The latest IPCC report has truly sunk to the level of hilarious incoherence—it is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going.”

From the IPCC 2013 Report:

After all these years, IPCC still doesn’t get it—we’ve been thawing out from the Little Ice Age for several hundred years but still are not yet back to pre-Little Ice Age temperatures that prevailed for 90% of the past 10,000 years. Warming and cooling has been going on for millions of years, long before human-caused CO2 could have had anything to do with it, so warming in itself certainly doesn’t prove that it was caused by CO2.

The IPCC’s misrepresentation of data is blatantly ridiculous. In Fig. 1, the IPCC report purports to show warming of 0.5°C (0.9°F) since 1980, yet surface temperature measurements indicate no warming over the past 17 years (Fig. 2) and satellite temperature data shows the August 13 temperature only 0.12°C (0.21°F) above the 1980 temperature (Spencer, 2013). IPCC shows a decadal warming of 0.6°C (1°F) since 1980, but the temperature over the past decade has actually cooled, not warmed.

Fig 1. IPCC graph of temperatures.

Fig. 2. Measured surface temperatures for the past decade (modified from Monckton, 2013)

From the IPCC Report:

There just isn’t any nice way to say this: that is an outright lie. A vast published literature exists showing that recent warming is not only not unusual, but more intense warming has occurred many times in the past centuries and millennia. As a reviewer of the IPCC report, I called this to their attention, so they cannot have been unaware of it. For example, more than 20 periods of warming in the past five centuries can be found in the Greenland GISP2 ice core (Fig. 3) (Easterbrook, 2011), the Medieval and Roman Warm Periods were warmer than recent warming (Fig. 4), and about 90% of the past 10,000 years were warmer than the present (Fig. 5).

Figure. 3. More than 20 periods of warming in the past 500 years (Greenland GISP2 ice core, Easterbrook, 2011)

Figure 4. Temperatures of the Medieval and Roman Warm Periods were higher than recent temperatures.

Figure 5. ~90% of temperatures during the past 10,000 years were significantly warmer than recent warming (Cuffy and Clow, 1997; Alley, 2000).

Not only was recent warming not unusual, there have been at least three periods of warming or cooling in the past 15,000 years that have been 20 times more intense, and at least 15 have been five times as intense (Easterbrook, 2011).

Figure 6. Intensity of warming and cooling in the past 15,000 years (Easterbrook, 2011)

From the 2013 IPCC Report:

As shown by the figures above from peer-reviewed, published literature, this statement is false. No one disputes that the climate has warmed since the Little Ice Age of approximately 1300-1915 AD—we are still thawing out from it. Virtually all of this warming occurred long before CO2 could possibly be a causal factor.

From the 2013 IPCC Report:

This is a gross misrepresentation of data. The Antarctic ice sheet has not been losing mass—the East Antarctic ice sheet, which contains about 90% of the world’s fresh water, is not melting—it’s growing! The same is true for Antarctic shelf ice. The only part of Antarctica that may be losing ice is the West Antarctic Peninsula, which contains less than 10% of the Antarctic ice. Temperature records at the South Pole show no warming since records began in 1957.

Some melting occurred in Greenland during the 1978-1998 warming, but that is not at all unusual. Temperatures in Greenland were warmer in the 1930s than during the recent warming, and Greenland seems to be following global warming and cooling periods.

Arctic sea ice declined during the 1978-1998 warm period, but it has waxed and waned in this way with every period of warming and cooling, so that is not in any way unusual. Arctic sea ice expanded by 60% in 2013. Antarctic sea ice has increased by about 1 million km2 (but IPCC makes no mention of this!). The total extent of global sea ice has not diminished in recent decades.

The statement that Northern Hemisphere snow cover has “continued to decrease in extent” is false (despite the IPCC claim of ‘high confidence’). Winter snow extent in the Northern Hemisphere shows no decline since 1967, and five of the six snowiest winters have occurred since 2003 (Fig. 7).

Figure 7. Snow extent in the Northern Hemisphere since 1967.

The IPCC used only spring snow, which includes March-April, while winter snow cover includes November-April. The IPCC used the spring snow cover data to contend that because of CO2-caused global warming, less snow is occurring on Earth.

The amount of snow cover at any time is always a contest between the amount of snow and rate of melting. Thus, winter snow cover is likely to be most affected by the amount of snow. Not many areas at low elevations get a lot of snow in March and April, so the spring snow cover is likely to be most affected by the rate of snow melt. (Yes, it does snow in March/April and it does melt in Nov-April, but, overall, the dominant processes controlling snow cover are somewhat different). We have all seen bitter winters with large snowfall followed by a warm spring—you can’t really judge how snowy the winter was by how much snow remains at the end of spring. The question is, if you want to judge whether or not snow is disappearing from the Earth, which would you choose, spring snow cover or winter snow cover? The IPCC looked only at the spring snow cover over a two month period and totally ignored the winter snow cover over its six month period. The spring snow cover is more a reflection of how warm the spring was whereas the winter snow cover is likely a better measure of how snowy the winter was. Keeping in mind that the question is whether or not snow is going to be a thing of the past (as contended by some CO2 advocates), including the winter snow cover is critical.

And you can’t fail to take into account that during the past 100+ years we have had two periods of global warming (~1915 to ~1945 and 1978-1998) and two periods of global cooling (~1890 to ~1915 and ~1945-1977), so we shouldn’t be surprised to see trends change with time. We only have satellite coverage for the past 3-4 decades, which happens to coincide with the most recent warm period so we shouldn’t be surprised to see a declining snow cover trend during that period. But what about the preceding cool period (1945-1977) and the warm period from 1915 to 1945? How reliable is the snow cover data from 1920 to 1980? Probably not anywhere near as good as during the satellite era.

The point here is that by using only the spring snow cover to contend that snow is declining does not tell the whole story.

From the 2013 IPCC Report:

Sea level rise over the past century has varied from 1 to 3 mm/yr, averaging 1.7 mm/yr from 1900-2000 (Fig.8.) Sea level rose at a fairly constant rate from 1993 to about 2005, but the rate of rise flattened out until 2009 (Fig. 9). What is obvious from these curves is that sea level is continuing to rise at a rate of about 7 inches per century, and there is no evidence of accelerating sea level rise. Nor is there any basis for blaming it on CO2, because sea level has been rising for 150 years, long before CO2 levels began to increase after 1945.

Figure 8. Past sea level rise.

Figure 9. Sea level rise, 1993-2013. Note the flattening of the curve between 2005 and 2009 and the drop in sea level in 2011-2012. (U. of Colorado)

These are only a few examples of the highly biased misrepresentations of material in the 2013 IPCC report. As seen by the examples above, it isn’t science at all—it’s dogmatic political propaganda.

Don J. Easterbrook is professor of geology at Western Washington University.

0 Comments

Nimbys, Bananas, and Greens (chin deep)

6/19/2013

22 Comments

Angry sign, recently seen.

Futurewise has been power-tripping the light fantastic, over the moon, since it won its rural element "water" case against Whatcom County at the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB) on June 7. Maybe you've seen or heard the hyperbole that's been flooding the press and radio airwaves about it.

Depite all the early whoop, on Tuesday night former county planning director and current Bellingham city county planning employee David Stalheim spat flames and venom at council in person, threatening to "play hardball" ("...it's going to be long and it's going to be expensive," and, "You dig holes, and you dig 'em deeper"). Dog-gonnit, this county had better knuckle under and restrict growth more that it does already, or else. Bullies do things like that.

By all accounts, the evidence given to the Growth Management Hearings Board in the latest water diatribe was cherry picked to make it appear that the county has done "absolutely nothing" in the last ten years to protect water, allowed pollution, and failed-failed-failed to protect fish (check out the decision's voluminous footnotes). And it seems that the all-appointee GMHB ate-up the mountain of vague reports and odd accounts of "science" presented by Futurewise's attorney and WWU prof, prior planning commissioner Jean Melious. Check out the Stalheim-Melious blog "Get Whatcom Planning." It's regularly loaded with bitter complaints, dramatic interpretations of law, and rather pathetic and phobic-sounding posts about germs and "poop" in an unfair world.

Melious pleaded to the GMHB that dire neglect and "lack of water" have created a crisis that requires strict "measures" despite the reality that this is, and will very likely remain, a rain capital on the Pacific Ocean. (Uh, step outside but better take your umbrella.)

With this "ruling" - Melious and Stalheim and their very tight band of city supporters fiercely intend to have their way in many respects: reductions of land use to 20% or lower, even stricter restrictions of "impervious surfaces," more plantings, etc. and so forth. There was even talk between Melious and the board about a "moratorium" on permits if need be, which is something citizens cringe to hear. The Lake Whatcom moratorium has lived on and on - well over 10 years.

Denying folks the use of water and land - the property they've dreamed to use, paid taxes on, and will continue to pay taxes on - was discussed glibly as a practical necessity for what? To retain "rural character." Would all these regulatory impositions and losses be compensated? Forget that. Color that precious rural character increasingly desperate and frustrated as the rural community itself is run not by residents but by regulation.

Mind you, Futurewise isn't the only party looking to win big in this legal battle that has waged on for years. The grossly ballooned conservation industry and tribes stand to do very well cashing in on restrictions and resources they've cobbled-up to the tune of "How dry I am". It's sad to think that few everyday folk can afford the outrageous cost of environmental "restoration" that never quite meets elusive and ever changing goals. Elaborate retrofitting for stormwater and other "solutions" can run into the tens of thousands, and some have little practical value most particularly in sparsely settled rural areas. (Remember, all this is supposedly saving rural areas - the "rural element" of the comprehensive plan.)

Other "solutions" waiting in the wings are crippling (like buying credits from the newly-created Lummi Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank, at $200,000 per credit or share), or from the Washington Water Bank which has been sniffing the environs. Some very cozy crony relationships have developed, including well paid-partnerships that - let's face it - have become routine patronage. Planning-buddy outfits like Farm Friends and ReSources are constantly on the dole - along with sole source relationship vendors like Dumas, Blake, and Peterson. Facilitators can work deals from agencies simultaneously for "outreach" while fishing and nudging grants along that rely on this crisis scenario. (Facilitators coordinated the recent "certainty" symposium at considerable cost).

The deepest price of all this is paid by the public in personal disappointment if permits are denied to those who can't afford expensive testing and other requirements. The ability to put a thrifty trailer or modest home on a rural lot is slipping out of reach. It skews rural life, which used to be practical. It may be no big deal for the rich. But even those who can afford kneel-and-deal permits may be forced to encumber their deeds forever to trusts or to forfeit extra buffers and open space, just to build or to get water. It's unsettling to think that rural property owners should be commandeered to agree to unspecified future demands to merely use their land, or to access water in this wet place. But that's what "measures" mean to Futurewise and friends. The planning bureaucrats have paved an impervious trail that led to this point. How did Stalheim put it when he challenged council? Something like, "We've built a case". Yes, he did - they did.

Finding a place for a home has become very tough for the young, the struggling, for retirees, and others who can barely get by in this county. Those with only lint in their pockets have avoided the high-tax, high-rent cities to live in rural areas. That demographic - that reality - is well known. Now, thanks to the strong-arm tactics of Futurewise and the growing mitigation industry, rural living will become even more unaffordable for the neediest.

Given this ugly trend, WE thought we'd share this excerpt from a Tom DeWeese, American Policy Center piece. It's depressing; sorry about that. But it hits close to home, here on the heels of yet another Futurewise-GMHB decision:

Excerpt from
NIMBYS, BANANAS AND GREENS
By Tom DeWeese

"The real political parties in America are the NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard) and the BANANAs (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything). These two political forces are driving the future of the nation by dictating the policy agendas of the Republicans and Democrats. Soon, the national bird will no longer be the noble eagle, but the ostrich.

Americans are becoming adolescent children who want towns to remain small, yet they themselves have children who must have schools, jobs and homes of their own. They want to build their homes in rural areas with beautiful vistas, yet complain when someone else wants to do the same thing. They argue that a neighbor’s new home has blocked their “view shed,” never considering that their home used to be someone else’s view shed or open space. Americans support programs to lock away land to keep wilderness pristine, free of human development, power lines and cell towers. Yet they want to use their cell phones and computers wherever they go. They want three car garages to house the family van, the daughter’s little bug and the husband’s sports car; but don’t blight the landscape with filling stations, refineries or power plants.

There’s no place in our pretty, clean, politically-correct, well-ordered world for industry to make the things we need, yet when all of our toys don’t work, Americans are outraged and they want heads to roll. Fix it!

Yes, what silly children Americans have become. But, one can hardly blame the results of three decades of implementing the radical agendas of special interests like the Sierra Club and The Nature Conservancy. These rich and powerful groups have spent billions of dollars to push their agenda of no growth (called Sustainable Development) through Congress and into our local communities. And they use the news media and corporate commercials to constantly barrage us with the “Go Green” message to indoctrinate the rest of us to feel guilty about our very existence. We’re sorry we need to use energy. We’re sorry that we have to grow food to eat. We’re sorry that we keep inventing creature comforts for ourselves.

The answer from a sorry society, while not giving up our toys, is to just ban the building of the things that make them work. It all sounds so noble."...

"...Our elected representatives play silly games. The Greens relentlessly push their anti-civilization agenda. And the indignant NIMBY’s and BANANA’s continue to sleep, satisfied that their world is well controlled. These are the cadre of self-serving brats who now are selling out America to their whims.

22 Comments

That Which Must Not be Named

4/2/2013

9 Comments

He Who Must Not be Named

Say the name, "Agenda 21" and a shocked pall falls over the room. Environmental collectivists glare menacingly, and cast a spell conjuring up incantations about tinfoil hats. Conservatives shrink in fear. Boo! Agenda 21? It doesn't exist! Stop talking about it, you... you foolish conspiracy theorists! What Agenda 21...? Oh - the 21st Century Agenda. Gotta stay current on the nomenclature.

Guess which sorcerer invoked "That Which Must Not be Named" by name yesterday? That's right, the headmaster of the Forbidden Forests, Ken Salazar apparated yesterday into Anacortes, which isn’t even in the San Juans (but no matter, those with federal powers conjured the illusion). With a magic wand, the presidential pen, these islands have been declared a national monument, an unusual new brand of territory with special magical places and waters that must be protected from Muggles, you know. Click here, if you dare! Just make sure you have practiced your defenses against the dark arts.

The Magic New Map (with all of Lummi Island)

The little people can thank "conservative" councilman Sam Crawford and Whatcom County Council for adding their blessings to this, back in 2011. WE can't imagine this was conjured-up to have no affect. What that will be, we shall see in time.

9 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

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

Tyrants Won, Citizens Zero

12/4/2012

1 Comment

This isn't a local story, but it has local object lessons -- and links all up and down the left coast.

Environmental zealots in the federal government have successfully put another productive family business out of business, as the Washington Post reports:

SAN FRANCISCO — An historic Northern California oyster farm along Point Reyes National Seashore will be shut down and the site converted to a wilderness area, U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced on Thursday.

Salazar said he will not renew the Drakes Bay Oyster Co. lease that expires Friday. The move will bring a close to a yearslong environmental battle over the site. (Continue reading...)

The Trojan Heron reported on the plight of this family run oyster bed in Marin County, CA in an article entitled Scientific and Governmental Misconduct:

Back in September, we covered the plight of a small oyster farm in Drakes Estero in Marin County, California. With respect to government bullying and scientific misconduct, that story sounds eerily like our own. To top it all off, the local band of environmental zealots down there (Environmental Action Committee of West Marin) is headed by none other than Amy Trainer, the former in-house attorney for the Friends. Small world.

The accusatory environmental narrative leveled at the oyster farm is essentially identical to the one put forward by the Friends against homeowners here. Funny how that is, don't you think?

Back in September, everyone was waiting for Interior Secretary Salazar to make his decision on whether to shut down the oyster farm or let it continue operating. His decision came down today: he is ordering the shut-down and removal of the oyster farm, which has been in the Estero for about 90 years. (Continue reading...)

But wait, there's more!

The Framing of an Oyster Farm - Drake's Bay Oyster Company from A Visual Record on Vimeo.

Meanwhile, last week in a left-hand/right-hand maneuver, lame duck Washington State Governor Christine Gregoire invoked an executive order commanding that the state use its powers to reduce ocean acidification to protect shellfish (and shellfish farming operations). Naturally, it all ties back to everyone's favorite bogeyman, anthropogenic carbon dioxide. Ignoring all benefits of carbon dioxide, which is necessary for life, the order exaggerates still hypothetical (and permanently non-falsifiable) risks. Once again our agencies are being pressed by politicians to increase regulations that will curb freedom without objective scientific justification.

All the talk of "blue ribbon" panels is nothing more than rubber stamps by the high priests of the environmental religion. And therefrom, real people lose their jobs, and national prosperity diminishes measurably at the hands of these first amendment violators. These infringements on our freedom are being implemented at all levels of government.

Rampant environmental hysteria is being stirred up by collectivists, and otherwise sensible people fall for it, with devastating results. Too few people remember what it was like, and what it means to live in a free country. We need to restore those principles back into our education and our media. The environment will be better for it too.

WE have raised alarm repeatedly that Salazar and the BLM are headed up the coast, our way, swinging a wrecking ball through the San Juans. Still think their programs present no risk?

1 Comment

<<Previous

A Kinder, Gentler Futurewise?

CAPR Skagit Education Outreach: Their RULES or Your RIGHTS

Ironic: Global Warmists Trapped in Ice

The 2013 IPCC Report: Facts vs. Fiction

Nimbys, Bananas, and Greens (chin deep)

That Which Must Not be Named

Local Scientist, Politician in AGW News

Chemistry Illiterates Drum Up Eco-Panic

Envision Skagit 2060 – RIP?

Tyrants Won, Citizens Zero

Categories

Archives