Kategoria:

Breakfast Downgraded From "Most Important" Per New Study

8/22/2014

From time to time WE shares interesting little tales from the mainstream meed-yah. Nags and nanny statists, take note that (drum roll)

Breakfast Downgraded From 'Most Important Meal of the Day' to 'Meal'

MSN News, Aug 22, 2014

"You didn't eat breakfast? Don't you know it's the most important meal of the day?"

In the bitterly divided world of breakfast habits, otherwise reasonable people become evangelists. Why is it acceptable to make people feel guilty about not eating breakfast, but it is not acceptable to slap those people?

This week health columnist Gretchen Reynolds at The New York Times did the slapping with science, reporting on two new nutrition studies. She concluded, "If you like breakfast, fine; but if not, don’t sweat it."

That's reasonable, sure, if apathetic. Nutrition science as a field has in recent years been bisected over the importance of breakfast. The research speaks with more nuance than the lay breakfast pusher. But the new studies land a weight of evidence thoroughly outside the realm of "most important meal."

In one study, 300 people ate or skipped breakfast and showed no subsequent difference in their weight gained or lost. Researcher Emily Dhurandhar said the findings suggest that breakfast "may be just another meal" and admitted to a history Breakfast-Police allegiance, conceding "I guess I won’t nag my husband to eat breakfast anymore."

Another small new study from the University of Bath found that resting metabolic rates, cholesterol levels, and blood-sugar profiles were the same after six weeks of eating or skipping breakfast. Breakfast-skippers ate less over the course of the day than did breakfast-eaters, though they also burned fewer calories.

“I almost never have breakfast,” James Betts, a senior lecturer at University of Bath, told Reynolds. “That was part of my motivation for conducting this research, as everybody was always telling me off and saying I should know better.”

One thing I've learned as a health writer is that a wealth of academic research is the product of personal vendettas, some healthier than others. The crux of the breakfast divide is a phenomenon known among nutrition scientists as "proposed effect of breakfast on obesity," or the PEBO. It's the idea people who don't eat breakfast actually end up eating more and/or worse things over the course of the day because their nightly fast was not properly broken.

Some studies have supported that idea, but a strong meta-analysis of all existing research last year by obesity researchers found that "the belief in the PEBO exceeds the strength of scientific evidence," citing poor research and bias in reporting.

Another study published last year researchers at Cornell had people go without breakfast for science, and those who skipped ended up eating less by the end of the day.

In a third study published last year, also in July—breakfast scientists might simply refer to as "the month"—a large study in the American Heart Association's journal Circulation found that eating breakfast was associated with significantly lower risk of heart disease. That remains the most persuasive pro-breakfast case to date.

"I refute the dogma that inevitably creeps into discussions of breakfast. Skipping breakfast can mean many different things," wrote David Katz, director of Yale University's Griffin Prevention Research Center, at the time. Katz introduced additional philosophical dilemmas: "Research about breakfast tends to divide the world into those who skip, and those who don't. But deferring and skipping are not the same. Skipping despite hunger, and deferring for want of it, are not the same. And clearly all breakfasts are not created equal."

For example, as Reynolds proposed, "Preparing a good breakfast can be as quick and easy as splashing some milk over cereal." You're definitely better off with no breakfast than with most cereals, which are primarily sugar, but another study from Harvard Medical School found that people who ate breakfasts of whole-grain cereals had lower rates of diabetes and heart disease compared to skippers.

If you ever visit the Internet's most-read site for health information, you'll see an articlepresumptuously titled "Why Breakfast Is the Most Important Meal of the Day," which mainly focuses on kids and the lore that they do better academically if they have eaten breakfast, but that's overblown and really not a clear conclusion. As Katz put it, "We have little information about adolescents, little information about the benefits of breakfast in well-nourished kids, and little information about how variation in the composition of breakfast figures into the mix."

But shades of grey do not satisfy my bitter-divide hypothesis. Let's still say there are two kinds of people in the world: Those who eat breakfast, and those who don't. If you're a breakfast deferrer who feels cowed by breakfast evangelists, a good way to stand up to them might be to echo Betts:

"More randomized experiments are needed before we can fully understand the impact of breakfast."

Or as a joke, "If you like breakfast so much, why don't you marry it?"

Or, with a very serious face, "Don't tell me how to live my life."

1 Comment

Bill Whittle is Coming to Mt. Baker Theatre

8/10/2014

0 Comments

In what might be described as a cross between a TED talk and a civics roundtable, the Northwest Business Club is presenting a speaker event so big it will be held at the Mt. Baker Theatre: "An Evening with Bill Whittle," August 29, 2014. Here's the blurb:

Whittle is a popular champion of what’s best about American liberty and its principles. With incisive wit and inescapable logic Bill examines the links between honest science and progress, and the importance of Common Sense Resistance to illiberal policies that cripple human advancement and creativity. Local notables from the Pacific Northwest will join Bill on-stage for a panel discussion of the major issues in our area.

Here's an example of Bill Whittle at the top of his form:

Yes, he's conservative; maybe even a little bit libertarian. Whittle appears regularly on the internet’s PJTV and BillWhittle.com in “Firewall,” “Afterburner,” and “Trifecta” episodes. His 11-part “Mr. Virtual President: Your Government” series, a collection of signature commentary and political parody, was released in March 2014. Whittle has a very large following from coast-to-coast and internationally with many thousands of subscribers following his work, which has received millions of hits on YouTube, PJTV and BillWhittle.com.

Local notables from the Pacific Northwest will join Bill on-stage for a panel discussion of the major issues in our area. Sort of like a Trifecta:

Visit the nwbclub.org site and BillWhittle.com to learn more. Tickets are on sale at Mt. Baker Theatre. Here’s a link to a full-color flyer that you can download, print and distribute in your neighborhood.

GET YOUR TICKETS ahead to save yourself time standing on line!

0 Comments

More EPA Spin on "Waters of the United States"

7/25/2014

0 Comments

The feds, the EPA - our eco-friendly overseers - they're here, they're there, they're everywhere. In a wet place like Whatcom County, each day presents a new opportunity to snoop and harass the public. Seems like any puddle may be enough to lord over.

Reposted from Pacific Legal Foundation's PLF Sentry
July 24, 2014 - "Troubled Waters"

When federal regulators at the EPA step out of line and assume power they don't lawfully possess, PLF hauls them into court to stop them - as we did in our unanimous 2012 victory at the Supreme Court in Sackett v. EPA.

Well, the EPA is at it again. Last March the agency proposed a new rule to redefine "navigable waters" under the Clean Water Act. The feds claim the new rule "clarifies" which waters are regulable without expanding the scope of the Act. But PLF Principal Attorney Reed Hopper stated in a recent blog post* that "this is utter nonsense, which only the uninformed believe."

Be assured that PLF is watching the EPA's new rule like a hawk, and we're prepared to challenge it in the courts, if necessary. Stay tuned.

*[Here's that recent blog post] by Reed Hopper, "More EPA Spin ..."

We have documented here and here how the EPA is misrepresenting its proposed rule to redifine “navigable waters” under the Clean Water Act. The Administration unabashedly claims the new rule is compelled by Supreme Court decisions interpreting the Act and that the rule will not expand the government’s jurisdiction. But this is utter nonsense, which only the uninformed believe. So we give kudos to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee for calling the EPA on its blatant misrepresentations.

Yesterday, the committee issued an interesting Fact Check showing how the actual language of the rule is contrary to the EPA’s claims about the rule, including such claims as;

The rule does not regulate new types of ditches;

The rule does not regulate activities on land;

The rule does not apply to groundwater;

The rule does not affect stock ponds;

The rule does not require permits for normal farming activities; and,

The rule does not regulate puddles.

The Fact Check is revealing. Check it out here.

0 Comments

Physicist Hayden on Policy that's Science-blind

5/10/2014

1 Comment

Bless 'em all: "People will do anything to save the world … except take a course in science”...

Despite the continuing performance failure of IPCC based university "ecology department" models and predictions, WA Governor Inslee keeps truckin' on with his big plan to change the world by dictum. See Executive Order 14-04 dated April 29. It's loaded with a case of frights that sells best the uninformed, with little understanding of how science works. Demagogues thrive on ignorance, acquiring "power and popularity by arousing the emotions of persons and prejudices of the people." The AGW crisis politic and its supporting eco-industry feed on true believers - who behave rather like cargo-cultists and the ouija board set - of which there are many in Whatcom County.

Tu Ne Cede Malis = do not yield to evil

Physicist Howard Hayden’s one-letter disproof of global warming claims

OCTOBER 29, 2009 by STEPHAN KINSELLA

Physicist Howard Hayden, a staunch advocate of sound energy policy, sent me a copy of his letter to the EPA about global warming. The text is also appended below, with permission.

As noted in my post Access to Energy, Hayden helped the late, great Petr Beckmann found the dissident physics journal Galilean Electrodynamics (brochures and further Beckmann info here; further dissident physics links). Hayden later began to publish his own pro-energy newsletter, The Energy Advocate, following in the footsteps of Beckmann’s own journal Access to Energy I love Hayden’s email sign-off, “People will do anything to save the world … except take a course in science.” Here’s the letter:

***

Howard C. Hayden
785 S. McCoy Drive
Pueblo West, CO 81007

October 27, 2009

The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460

Dear Administrator Jackson:

I write in regard to the Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, Proposed Rule, 74 Fed. Reg. 18,886 (Apr. 24, 2009), the so-called “Endangerment Finding.”

It has been often said that the “science is settled” on the issue of CO2 and climate. Let me put this claim to rest with a simple one-letter proof that it is false.

The letter is s, the one that changes model into models. If the science were settled, there would be precisely one model, and it would be in agreement with measurements.

Alternatively, one may ask which one of the twenty-some models settled the science so that all the rest could be discarded along with the research funds that have kept those models alive.

We can take this further. Not a single climate model predicted the current cooling phase. If the science were settled, the model (singular) would have predicted it.

Let me next address the horror story that we are approaching (or have passed) a “tipping point.” Anybody who has worked with amplifiers knows about tipping points. The output “goes to the rail.” Not only that, butit stays there. That’s the official worry coming from the likes of James Hansen (of NASAÂGISS) and Al Gore.

But therein lies the proof that we are nowhere near a tipping point. The earth, it seems, has seen times when the CO2 concentration was up to 8,000 ppm, and that did not lead to a tipping point. If it did, we would not be here talking about it. In fact, seen on the long scale, the CO2 concentration in the present cycle of glacials (ca. 200 ppm) and interglacials (ca. 300-400 ppm) is lower than it has been for the last 300 million years.

Global-warming alarmists tell us that the rising CO2 concentration is (A) anthropogenic and (B) leading to global warming.

(A) CO2 concentration has risen and fallen in the past with no help from mankind. The present rise began in the 1700s, long before humans could have made a meaningful contribution. Alarmists have failed to ask, let alone answer, what the CO2 level would be today if we had never burned any fuels. They simply assume that it would be the “pre-industrial” value.

§ The solubility of CO2 in water decreases as water warms, and increases as water cools. The warming of the earth since the Little Ice Age has thus caused the oceans to emit CO2 into the atmosphere.

(B) The first principle of causality is that the cause has to come before the effect. The historical record shows that climate changes precede CO2 changes. How, then, can one conclude that CO2 is responsible for the current warming?

Nobody doubts that CO2 has some greenhouse effect, and nobody doubts that CO2 concentration is increasing. But what would we have to fear if CO2 and temperature actually increased?

§ A warmer world is a better world. Look at weather-related death rates in winter and in summer, and the case is overwhelming that warmer is better.

§ The higher the CO2 levels, the more vibrant is the biosphere, as numerous experiments in greenhouses have shown. But a quick trip to the museum can make that case in spades. Those huge dinosaurs could not exist anywhere on the earth today because the land is not productive enough. CO2 is plant food, pure and simple.

§ CO2 is not pollution by any reasonable definition.

§ A warmer world begets more precipitation.

§ All computer models predict a smaller temperature gradient between the poles and the equator. Necessarily, this would mean fewer and less violent storms.

§ The melting point of ice is 0 ÂºC in Antarctica, just as it is everywhere else. The highest recorded temperature at the South Pole is -14 ÂºC, and the lowest is -117 ÂºC. How, pray, will a putative few degrees of warming melt all the ice and inundate Florida, as is claimed by the warming alarmists?

Consider the change in vocabulary that has occurred. The term global warming has given way to the term climate change, because the former is not supported by the data. The latter term, climate change, admits of all kinds of illogical attributions. If it warms up, that’s climate change. If it cools down, ditto. Any change whatsoever can be said by alarmists to be proof of climate change.

In a way, we have been here before. Lord Kelvin “proved” that the earth could not possibly be as old as the geologists said. He “proved” it using the conservation of energy. What he didn’t know was that nuclear energy, not gravitation, provides the internal heat of the sun and the earth.

Similarly, the global-warming alarmists have “proved” that CO2 causes global warming.

Except when it doesn’t.

To put it fairly but bluntly, the global-warming alarmists have relied on a pathetic version of science in which computer models take precedence over data, and numerical averages of computer outputs are believed to be able to predict the future climate. It would be a travesty if the EPA were to countenance such nonsense.

Best Regards,

Howard C. Hayden
Professor Emeritus of Physics, UConn

1 Comment

WE always lean to free, but also toward informed

4/28/2014

5 Comments

Without question, the Excavator consistently leans toward freedom first in all things: free speech, free markets, free thinking, free choice and above all, WE lean toward liberty (make that Liberty with a capital "L"). And if an adult wants to waste himself or herself on whatever, if the"whatever" doesn't intrude into others' lives okay fine. At the end of the day, a higher power will sort it out. WE don't need the Nanny State on patrol in the grocery store any more than in our bedrooms or dens (or even dens of iniquity), much less peering down on our homes and yards from airplanes and sending out snoop-squads to rat out landscape ordinance violators. [And that is what goes on here, with eco-nazis yanking Whatcom County's chain.]

WE were a little surprised to see this somewhat cautionary (if not critical) piece on the Babbage Science & Technology blog at The Economist which, with its European bent, is far from a "conservative" rag. WE laugh as much at Reefer Madness as everybody else, but found this pretty sobering.

Marijuana:
BAKED BRAINS
April 16, 2014 - The Economist

LATER this month, Washington will hold an unusual lottery: it will select 334 lucky winners of licences to sell recreational marijuana in the Pacific-Northwestern state. If all goes to plan, some of those pot shops will be serving stoners (who in Washington can already possess small recreational quantities of the drug) by early summer. Colorado permitted existing medical-marijuana outlets to start selling recreational pot on January 1st, although brand new recreational retailers will not open until October; so far the state has issued some 194 licences. And even though marijuana is still technically illegal nationwide under the Federal 1970 Controlled Substances Act, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder recently said he is monitoring Washington’s and Colorado’s experiences, and “would be glad to work with Congress” to re-categorise marijuana as less dangerous on the Controlled Substances List.

Hans Breiter, a professor of psychiatry and behavioural sciences at Chicago’s Northwestern University, worries that the rush to promote recreational use is reckless, and that not enough thought is being given to the balance between costs and benefits. In a study published today in the Journal of Neuroscience, Dr Breiter and a group of researchers from Northwestern, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School found that the size, shape and structure of parts of the brain are changed in teens and young adults who smoke weed as little as once a week. Earlier studies have focused only on tetrahydrocannabinol (THC, the main psychoactive component of pot) affects the brains of animals or intensive, dependent human users—and found evidence of impaired learning, memory, attention and decision-making. But those studies did not consider the effects of casual use.

Those effects appear to be significant. Dr Breiter and his team used high-resolution MRI scans to examine the brains of 20 young people aged 18 to 25 years old who smoked pot recreationally—but who were not, according to psychiatric testing, addicted to it. Twenty pot-free controls in the same age range were also studied, and all participants were closely matched in terms of age, sex (nine males and 11 females in each group), race and years of education. Each pot user was asked to estimate how much, and how often, they used the drug over a three-month period. And everyone was rated for cigarette and alcohol use—pot smokers drunk more—and the study controlled for these.

Although THC takes its toll on several parts of the brain, animal studies of prolonged exposure to the compound have shown that two regions—the amygdala and nucleus accumbens—are especially likely to be affected. The amygdala helps regulate and process emotions (such as craving) and emotional memories. The nucleus accumbens helps assess what is bad or good (such as a drug-induced “high”) in a person’s environment, and makes decisions based on that. Physiological changes to these regions could therefore mean that an individual’s ability to make pleasure-related decisions—such as deciding to stop smoking pot—may be impaired.

The researchers’ MRI scans showed a number of such physiological changes. It found structural abnormalities in the density of grey-matter (which constitutes most of the brain’s neuronal cell bodies), in both the amygdala and nucleus accumbens, along with changes in their volume and shape. In addition, their analysis of marijuana users showed reduced grey-matter density in other regions of the brain, including the prefrontal cortex. Numerous previous studies have shown that dysfunction in the prefrontal cortex is associated with decision-making abnormalities in addiction. And other functional-MRI and magnetic-resonance-spectroscopy studies have confirmed that marijuana use may affect how this region functions.

All this matters because both scientists and policymakers continue to distinguish between “heavy, addictive use” and “recreational use” among the 19m Americans who, according to the National Survey on Drug Use and Mental Health, report recent marijuana consumption. A similar distinction is made by other countries too. The new research suggests that this is at least a shaky line to draw, as even modest recreational pot-smoking seems to set the brain on a path to addiction—and perhaps to other types of cognitive impairment found in earlier studies. The same, of course, goes for alcohol and tobacco, but the risks there are widely advertised. Time, perhaps, for a similar marijuana-related educational campaign before more states go to pot.

by P.H. (at the Economist), Washington D.C.

About Babbage
Reports on the intersections between science, technology, culture and policy, in a blog named after Charles Babbage, a Victorian mathematician and engineer
______
Note: WE didn't ever quite take a position pro or con on the marijuana initiative, though we thought folks should question the big-government tax issues and the coming legal and bureaucratic bungle-battles that have played out pretty much as described.

5 Comments

US Fish & Wildlife - Friend or foe to life?

4/18/2014

0 Comments

What a crazy world it is when WE humans find ourselves feeling akin to endangered species, victims all of bad science and the constant contradictions brought on by clueless and unaccountable bureaucracies. This tale seems quite similar to what we've seen and suffered for years up here in Whatcom County where, like our little buddies fish and fowl, we find ourselves more endangered by ill conceived programs than what ordinary life throws at us. WE see crazymaking practices year in and year out, cast widely like abandoned river nets, and the slaughter of starlings, geese, beaver, and all manner of critters - by whom, and for what? Rural folks and farmers are being pinned down and put off their land, as a benefit to what? Only the out of touch could believe these agencies are worthy to wield such reckless power.

Gophers, artillery, and US Fish & Wildlife
by Glen Morgan
The Official Blog, Freedom Foundation
April 17, 2014

The Freedom Foundation has written extensively about the Thurston County Mazama Pocket gopher saga. This was another Endangered Species Act (ESA) story about a little rodent that through no fault of its own has become a symbol of the abuse of people by the US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and other government agencies and special interests. On April 9th, the USFWS officially listed the pocket gopher as an endangered species, and the residents of Thurston County, Wash., get to enjoy the restrictions and harm this listing will bring to them.

It could have been worse. The original habitat maps used inThurston County for the Western pocket gopher included about 150,000 acres covering thousands of farms, homes and businesses. The final habitat maps issued in the USFWS are much more limited, and the property restrictions issued by the Federal government appear far less onerous than the bizarre restrictions enthusiastically invented by the Thurston County Commissioners and their Central Planning department. Communities near the delta smelt, sage grouse, or spotted owl have paid a far higher price for ESA-induced regulation.

However, as an example of government incompetence, the disregard of science, squandering of tax dollars, and just plain silliness, the pocket gopher saga shows what is repeatedly occurring throughout the United States. Our tax dollars fund this abuse of the ESA, and the consequent harm to our society.

Let’s start with the little rodent at the center of this controversy. Until recently, the pocket gopher in Thurston County had only two tangible enemies. The first was the usual plethora of predators – weasels, coyotes, owls (when the burrowing rodents are above ground), and feral cats. The second was human. The pocket gopher, true to its nature, likes to feed on the roots of plants and trees – particularly newly planted fir trees in forests. The larger timber operations recognized that to improve their replanting efforts they would need to address the pesky rodent that was killing their trees. The US Forest Service (USFS) was happy to help, and for decades sponsored both trapping and poisoning efforts. It was determined that eradication was very difficult and that gophers are hardy creatures. An interesting point here is that Ken Berg, the current director of the local USFWS appears to have been employed by the USFS during the time it sponsored trapping and poisoning of gophers in Thurston County and elsewhere.

Times change. The Forest Service stopping poisoning and trapping the gopher in the early 1990s, and a movement began to instead list the gopher as a “threatened” species. The initial problem was that nobody really knew how many of the gophers were around or where they lived. Early in the survey process, it was discovered that the largest concentration of pocket gophers lived at the Army’s Fort Lewis. And the gopher didn’t live just anywhere on the base, it preferred the artillery impact range. Since World War I, this is probably the most churned, burned, and impacted piece of land in Washington State, yet the hardy pocket gopher thrived among the fires, explosions, and change. The second largest concentration of gophers was at the Olympia airport in Tumwater, Wash. – hardly an example of pristine wilderness.

Common sense would suggest, based on these findings, that the gophers were doing fine living alongside humans (not to mention artillery and a busy airport). Instead, the regulators decided to “save” pocket gophers from things like tractor tire vibrations, kids on bicycles, cats, dogs, and playground equipment. Inconvenient facts just never seem to bother the self-appointed defenders of nature as they scramble for grant dollars to fund their studies, not to mention their livelihoods. Everyone from the Thurston County Commissioners to the leadership of the local Thurston County Democrat Party were convinced that a burrowing rodent which thrived among exploding artillery shells was bound to go extinct if rural residents were permitted to install big toy play sets in their backyards or move dirt in their fields.

Responding to this nonsense, the Freedom Foundation worked with citizens to launch a local education effort called “Stop Taking Our Property (S.T.O.P.) Thurston County.” We engaged hundreds of people to show up and testify at multiple public hearings, confront elected officials, put up yard signs, and expose the truth. This effort delayed state and local efforts to use the gopher as a regulatory tool and likely prevented some of the most harmful restrictions from becoming law. However, the die was cast years earlier, and neither citizens nor science could dissuade the regulators from their power grab.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) biologists actually raised questions about both local and federal efforts to list the gophers as threatened or endangered. The state’s scientists pointed out the lack of DNA evidence to show that different gopher groups were really “sub species” in need of their own separate listings. These questions and doubts were suppressed, along with any other information that might fail to support a federal USFWS listing under the ESA.

The USFWS regularly rejects, ignores, or tries to avoid science. A recent example from Eastern Washington was the recent attempt to list the White Bluffs Bladderpod. In that case, USFWS squandered hundreds of thousands of dollars on unnecessary studies while pleading poverty to avoid conducting a DNA test. When a private agricultural group paid the $25,000 themselves, the DNA test confirmed there was nothing to distinguish this plant from others just like it spread all over the Western United States.

Most of the time, USFWS just lists the animal absent any serious science or technical review. It does this in collusion with organizations like the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) in a practice called “Sue and Settle.” The scam goes like this: First, CBD identifies or invents hundreds of critters that it claims are scarce. CBD then sues USFWS because these animals, bugs, or plants are not yet listed as endangered. USFWS initiates the listing process and negotiates in a kind of legal kabuki theatre to make it look like a real lawsuit and to run up CBD’s soon to be reimbursed legal costs. Then USFWS throws up its hands and "surrenders," listing the species as endangered regardless of science, truth, or harm to people. The bureaucrats get more power, the environmentalists get their way and taxpayers pay everybody’s legal bills.

Public pressure does sometimes make a difference, even with the USFWS. In public hearings the USFWS held last year about the pocket gopher listing, there were big, pretty signs claiming the USFWS “supported agriculture.” The actual USFWS proposal, however, was that no crops could be harvested, no fields tilled, no tractors driven anywhere near suspected gopher populations except between the months of November and February. Farmers and agricultural folk openly ridiculed the USFWS for proposing to only allow farming in the winter. It was loud, funny, and anyone with even elementary education about agriculture knew the farmers were obviously correct.

The ridicule and embarrassment was enough that even USFWS modified their final restrictions to exempt normal agricultural practices. This is great for the farmers who were boisterous and engaged, but if you happen to be a residential property owner or non-farm business in the affected locations, you will be burdened by the ESA gopher listing. No more sheds, barns, or outbuildings without federal approval (and additional fees, of course). Most landowners don’t even know this has happened to them, but they will learn soon enough.

Some have already experienced a similar process thanks to theThurston C ounty Commissioners’ gopher-based property restrictions (see Pocket Gopher Deed-2014 as a “deed” restriction called a “gopher deed”).

Of course, it isn’t about the gopher. It is about control and restricting the land use of rural residents. Most bureaucrats involved in the process know this. If any of these government agencies actually wanted the gopher to explode in population, they would pay farmers to raise the rodents and we would have gophers by the millions. Such an effort would direct both the money and the power away from government and to regular people, it would solve "the problem," and it would be successful. Of course, there is no goal to solve any of these "problems." Why? Like so many other things in life, finding the answer is as easy as following the money. And even with the ESA listing bringing federal involvement, it is unlikely Thurston County will back off since they gain both power and revenues from these regulations.

A lot of money has been passed around between government agencies and special interests over just this one kind of gopher. There are grants for the county, the state, and even some nonprofits to “study” the animal. There are tens of millions of dollars for “mitigation” and “habitat” purchases. There is money to be made for consultants, planners, and other courtiers. All this money is taken from the people and used to grind down the local citizenry in a process that is designed to punish regular people not on the grant money train.

If you don’t think this matters to you, you probably won’t have to wait long before you get to experience something similar. “You might not be interested in government, but government is interested in you,” as the saying goes. Unless you live in an urban core, there is most likely a critter, insect, or plant near you being considered for listing by the USFWS. If it isn’t the gopher, a butterfly, a bird, or a plant, it might be a slug. The USFWS is currently paying people to count slugs all over Western Washington. Inevitably some of them are in your yard. Of course, John Davis, former editor of Earth First! was famously quoted as saying “…Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs…” I’m sure the Center for Biological Diversity would agree with that statement. In fact, it appears that slugs, like pocket gophers may have far more value to these folk than people. We live in a relatively free country where they can believe this nonsense, however, we should not have to support it with tax payer dollars. Defunding and dissolving USFWS would be a good start towards stopping the insanity.

Until then, the pocket gophers will continue to thrive alongside exploding artillery, and the USFWS will continue to destroy people’s lives and communities, ignoring science and helping to pay off their special interest friends.

For those who want to see how local elected officials sell this type of scam to those who actually believe them, read their editorial in the local paper here.

If you want to listen to how a local Representative - Republican JT Wilcox thinks of this type of legislation, you can listen to my interview here.

0 Comments

Burden of Proof, Science and Libel

2/17/2014

3 Comments

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

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

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

Background:

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

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

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

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

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

Robert Tracinski at Real Clear Politics opines,

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

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

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

Tracinski continues,

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

But wait! There's more!

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

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

3 Comments

Is Legislative Authority Transferable Between Branches?

2/3/2014

6 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

90.82.005
Purpose.

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

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

90.82.010
Finding.

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

(emphasis ours)

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

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

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

6 Comments

The Puget Sound Partnership Scam, It Matters Here

1/12/2014

2 Comments

The Excavator has repeatedly raised alarm in the last three years about the Puget Sound Partnership's expanding and pushy presence here in Whatcom County, which is on the "Salish Sea" but far north of Puget Sound's central basin. Just last Thursday night, it (or they, whomever they really are) went so far as to submit a last-minute recommendation for 20-year population growth here in our county - both city and rural - having provided absolutely zero science that we know of that would justify or support that recommendation.

It was sheer coincidence that Freedom Foundation has just released a new report that exposes the Puget Sound Partnership's notorious history of nepotism, incompetence, and patronage. This synopsis will ring a bell if you've witnessed PSP's slick "facilitation" tactics here (like the WIT, glad-handing funds to county departments, and liberal palm-greasing to preferred vendors and grant recipients). How can we rid ourselves of their cronyism and bureaucratic fleas? (Ideas and comments welcome, below.)

(Click above for full report)

Why we must abolish the
Puget Sound Partnership Scam

Liberty Blog, Freedom Foundation
January 10, 2014

Unfortunately, it’s not very difficult to find evidence of incompetence and waste in most government agencies. But that alone isn’t why we are calling for abolishing this agency.

By Washington state standards, this is a small operation, consuming less than $20 million in state taxpayer funds this biennium. There are bigger financial problems in Washington state government.

We are calling for abolishing the Puget Sound Partnership because if ever an agency deserves to be dissolved, this is it. If our elected officials are unable to redirect our limited tax dollars away from such an obvious waste of resources, then we should question whether it is possible to do it under any circumstance.

We are calling for abolishing this agency because a message needs to be sent to all government agencies in our state that there are consequences for corruption and total incompetence at some point.

In addition to the attached report, it is worth reviewing some of the colorful history behind this agency. This is largely a tale of nepotism, incompetence and patronage, and is hardly unique in government history. What might be unique is how all this drama has produced a state agency that has accomplished so little for so much money squandered.

It is helpful to know this history when reading our report and considering our suggestions.

Founded in 2007 by then-Gov. Christine Gregoire, the Puget Sound Partnership was created to be a “community effort of citizens, governments, tribes, scientists and businesses working together to restore and protect Puget Sound.”

It was an opportune time for the Washington State Legislature to create a new agency dedicated to “restoring” the Puget Sound. State revenues were up and the prospect of a financial crisis did not appear likely.

The old agency dedicated to cleaning up the Sound, the “Puget Sound Action Team,” was looking increasingly more powerless to do anything productive and was set to be abolished by the state Legislature. Most auspiciously, Congressman Norm Dicks (D-6th) was serving as a ranking member of the U.S. House Appropriations Committee and was in-line to become its head in a Democrat-controlled Congress, putting the representative from Bremerton into one of the most powerful positions in the nation to funnel federal dollars.

While sitting on the committee in January 2007, Dicks secured a $50 million earmark for Puget Sound cleanup efforts. At the same time, David Dicks -- Rep. Dicks’ son -- applied to become executive director of the newly created Puget Sound Partnership, a position that paid $125,000 a year.

Dicks (the younger)

David Dicks, a 36-year-old attorney at a Seattle law firm with no administrative experience, seemed an unlikely choice to head up the new agency whose mission was to lead a “science-based, results-driven, publically embraced partnership.” Yet the junior Dicks was eager to pursue a career in the public eye like his father. During public hearings, he touted his ability to secure federal funds and was repeatedly praised for doing so.

Despite concerns about his actual administrative ability, the Partnership’s Leadership Council, headed by President Richard Nixon’s one-time EPA-chief -- and vocal Norm Dicks’ supporter -- Bill Ruckelshaus, sent David’s resume to the governor for approval.

In August 2007, Gov. Christine Gregoire appointed David Dicks executive director of the Partnership. After his son’s appointment, Norm Dicks authored a bill that doubled the amount of federal spending on Puget Sound restoration projects.

The elder Dicks also bragged about his role in funneling more money towards his son’s agency, “[before I was head of the committee] Puget Sound was receiving $500,000 from the EPA,” he said. “Since then, we've put in $93 million for Puget Sound cleanup in the federal legislation."

In addition to increasing the sheer amount of money his son’s agency receives, Norm Dicks also sought to increase the political clout of the Partnership. Bills passed by Dicks’ committee would also have clarified that “the Partnership is the sort of entity in Washington state charged with cleaning up Puget Sound,” according to his son David.

The father’s funneling of federal dollars to his son’s agency and the political appointment was obvious enough to generate interest by traditional media. National newspaper outlets like the Washington Post, and several Washington politicians sounded off on what clearly seemed to be a case of high-profile nepotism in government.

Ruckelshaus, still head of the steering Leadership Council, defended both his decision to hire David Dicks and his congressman father’s steering of federal dollars to the Partnership in a series of radio interviews and a letter to the editor. Ruckelshaus cited Dicks’ “long-time commitment to Puget Sound cleanup efforts and David’s qualifications as director.

Yet Ruckelshaus was certainly not in any position to defend them: Bill Ruckelshaus and his daughter Mary also worked together. When picking the top 15 finalists for the Partnership’s nine-slot Science Council, the Washington State Academy of Sciences rejected Mary Ruckelshaus’ application, yet three months later, David Dicks signed her up to be the Partnership’s chief scientist.

Apparently, Mary Ruckelshaus was not qualified for the less-important Science Council position but was “well-suited” to be senior chief-scientist.

The Partnership’s director of government affairs, John Dohrmann, said of Mary Ruckelshaus and nepotism at PSP: “…it has always been humorous when she's been in a position to testify or make a presentation in front of a board that her father is chairing.”

Clearly, the two most politically powerful families involved, Dicks and Ruckelshaus, had managed to ensconce themselves with good positions at the agency, despite their lack of qualifications and familial conflict of interest. Nepotism was only the first of many missteps at the agency, one that led directly to many more mistakes.

Fears about David Dicks’ incompetence as executive director of the Partnership quickly proved to be well-founded. Under his watch, the Partnership violated multiple state laws and ethical guidelines.

According to a two-year long probe of the agency, the state Auditor’s Office found that the Partnership repeatedly circumvented state contracting laws, exceeded its purchasing authority and made unallowable purchases with public funds.

The audit report alleged that the Partnership: “…filed a contract with the Office of Financial Management (OFM) for $19,999, one dollar below the $20,000 threshold for advertising or conducting a competitive procurement. We found no cost detail to show how the Partnership determined this amount.”

Then-state Auditor Brian Sonntag said of the contract amount in a Washington Post interview, “This contract was originally $19,999. Now come on — that shows intent.”

Sonntag continued, “That tells me they were looking for a way to direct that contract without opening it to competition.”

Even more revealing, the Partnership gave the contract to the law firm K&L Gates, one of Norm Dicks’ largest congressional campaign contributors. The contract eventually superseded the original contract, paying $51,498 in total, more than twice the original agreed amount.

No surprise, the contract was with Gerry Johnson, a personal friend and former co-worker of David Dicks. Even the contract itself -- for setting up a nonprofit foundation into which he could channel taxpayer funds (which would have been immune from public audits) -- was a violation of state law that requires all agencies to use the state Attorney General’s Office for all legal business.

While the Partnership’s illegal contract with K&L Gates was the most expensive violation of state law, it was far from the most inept.

Under Dicks’ directorship, the Partnership spent at least $120,000 on IT goods, exceeded their original budget for IT investments for the 2007-2009 biennium, and used to it purchase Apple Macintosh computers -- which were not compatible with statewide information systems and applications for financial reporting, payroll, or travel according to the Auditor’s report.

Wasteful spending was commonplace at the Partnership, including gems like:

·         $6,853 for 120 monogrammed fleece vests;
·         $5,044 for 30 monogrammed jackets;
·         $3,650 for 5,000 tubes of lip balm;
·         $687 for 20 personalized mahogany gift boxes containing sparkling apple cider for state officials; and,
·         $2,474 in catering for a private reception – which state agencies are prohibited from providing according to state law.

The OFM was also able to stop yet another attempt by the Partnership to break state law -- canceling an invoice for $4,900 worth of alcohol for a February event they held at the Convention and Trade Center.

The report also criticized the $10,000 purchase of a “membership” to the Cascade Land Conservancy – which, according to the auditor “the Partnership could not show the public received value commensurate with the amount of funding provided for the membership.”

Why would the agency spend the money in the first place? David’s brother, Ryan Dicks, was actually vice president of transactions and also served in a paid consulting role at the Conservancy at the time.

A series of high-profile investigations by John Ryan of local radio station KUOW highlighted further unethical activity at the Partnership.

The KUOW report revealed that it was not just K&L Gates and the Cascade Land Conservancy that had benefited from political connections with the Dicks’ family. Steve McBee and Tom Luce, a lobbyist and a consultant, respectively, who used to work for Norm Dicks, were able to secure contracts with the Puget Sound Partnership through David Dicks.

The relationship paid off big time, as McBee’s firm got nearly $400,000 for consulting work; Tom Luce was able to secure over $1 million from PSP for consulting work from “Enviro Issues,” a firm for which he was subcontracting.

KUOW also reported that David Dicks was one of only a handful of directors with his own state-assigned vehicle. Dicks said that he did not commute to work with the car, which would be a violation of state law. And technically, he doesn’t -- the car’s official station is actually in front of his Seattle home.

KUOW also reported that Dicks handed out most of the jobs on the management staff without advertising for them, hiring them on at salaries that paid $20,000 more a year on average than similar jobs at other natural resource agencies like Deparemend of Natural Resources or Department of Ecology.

According to an anonymous whistleblower at the agency, David Dicks also used his position to have his long-time friend, Jon Bridgman, taken on as graphic designer at the Partnership. Dicks would later have him design a poster for King County commissioner candidate Dow Constantine, without disclosing the in-kind donation to the Public Disclosure Commission.

Constantine himself had been appointed to the PSP’s ecosystem coordination board by Dicks only five months prior.

An investigation was ordered, but after state investigators prematurely tipped off the parties concerned, the probe was closed.

Dicks proceeded to have the tipster fired, an action in violation of state whistleblower-protection laws.Dicks then claimed not to have known that the worker he fired was the whistleblower, yet record requests of employee performance reviews turned up no previous complaints about her job performance, and her supervisor wrote a glowing letter of recommendation for her after she was fired.

Dicks had to shell out $40,000 in order to get her to sign an agreement agreeing not to sue the agency for firing her, according to an agreement obtained by journalists at radio station KUOW.

Record requests performed by the Freedom Foundation determined there was yet another anonymous whistleblower, likely from inside the agency. This whistleblower told state investigators that PSP had “back-dated” the hiring documents of a new employee, Christopher Townsend, effectively paying him three months before his actual starting date.

Not coincidentally, Townsend was another personal friend hired by David Dicks after he was appointed by the governor. Despite this incredible snafu, Townsend was able to remain at the Partnership and collect a nearly six-figure salary for another two years.

It is not clear at this time that state investigators have done anything about this complaint. Time and time again, the Puget Sound Partnership has been unwilling to follow the basic rules that govern how state agencies should spend taxpayer funds.

Even the Environmental Protection Agency (not known for great financial controls itself) found “a near total lack of certification” for PSP contracts and forced PSP to return $125,000 in federal grant funding already given to PSP.

The Puget Sound Partnership did not appeal or dispute the findings and returned the funding in 2011 (although the Washington State Legislature increased funding to PSP the next year anyway).

In the face of David Dicks’ incompetence as executive director of the Partnership, Gregoire’s demeanor towards him had changed considerably. Gregoire grilled Dicks on the lack of accountability at an otherwise friendly annual Public Accountability Forum for the directors of all the natural resource departments in October 2010.

Gregoire interrupted Dicks in mid-speech to note, “These slides are too general for me. I knew the story. I want data. I want to be able to see that we are accomplishing what we set out to do. ... I need to be able to show to the legislature, candidly, that we are doing our job.

“We have to have measures, goals," Gregoire said, "and we don't have that. We have to have (them) for the Puget Sound Partnership itself."

The governor added, "The next time we come here, I've got to be able to ... hold the Puget Sound Partnership accountable. Where's the part where the Puget Sound Partnership can say ...’Here’s our job, and here’s how we're doing our job?’”

In 2011, Gregoire interrogated Dicks over one of his most touted abilities as director. “David, where is the federal legislation that would allow us to have a continuing funding rather than having to ask the question every year?” she asked.

Unfortunately for the Dicks’ political dynasty, the congressional dynamic shifted dramatically in Washington, D.C., after the 2010 mid-terms elections. The Democrats’ historic loss at the polls wiped out Norm Dicks’ chance at becoming chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, which had seemed assured.

In the ensuing session of the 111th Congress, the “Puget Sound Recovery Act,”presented by Sen. Maria Cantwell and Sen. Patty Murray on Norm Dicks’ behalf, failed in committee.

Six days after the 2010 elections, David Dicks quietly resigned as executive director at the Partnership. Inside sources indicated this happened at Gregoire’s behind-the-scenes insistence. The nepotism, cronyism and waste that had plagued Dicks’ directorship were a point of embarrassment for the governor.

Seemingly, David’s only useful quality was his ability to secure additional federal funds for his agency from his father. But with the new political makeup of the 112th Congress, earmarks like this were not likely.

Unfortunately, Dicks did not totally abandon government work. He was given a three-day-a-week, $75,000-a-year job, ironically, teaching students how to manage “strategic partnerships” at a newly created post at the University of Washington.

Despite Dicks’ disappearance from power, the problem of politics at the Partnership does not seem to have disappeared. Before securing another executive director, PSP has seen three interim directors -- Gerry O’Keefe, Tony Wright, and Marc Daily. In the meantime, the chairman of the steering Leadership Committee, Bill Ruckelshaus, sent in his resignation to Gregoire.

Ruckelshaus’ replacement, Martha Kongsgaarrd, also happened to be one state’s largest campaign donors, shelling out more than $250,000 to various Democrat candidates and causes since 2000.

She has bestowed thousands of dollars to the campaigns of various powerful politicians in Washington state, including Inslee, Norm Dicks, Murray and Cantwell. Inslee is overseeing one of his largest campaign donors at the Partnership.

With Kongsgaarrd at the helm of the Leadership Committee, it seems like the Partnership has received a fresh dose of politics, moving it further in the wrong direction by pursuing political patronage at an agency that is supposed to be guided by hard science.

It is time to end the silly drama of the Puget Sound Partnership. The Legislature needs to stop funding this embarrassment. There are far more worthy recipients of tax dollars, and there can be no claim to fiscal responsibility in Olympia as long as this agency still exists.

2 Comments

Best Available Science | One Earth Year: Not Your Father's 365.25*

12/16/2013

0 Comments

Take a few minutes to learn about celestial mechanics and the eccentricity of Earth's orbit. The Earth's orientation to the Sun changes constantly. Orbital distance and the planet's tilt (celestial mechanics) drive weather, the seasons, and climate. Almost all of the eccentricity of Earth's orbit is related to the gravitational effect of other planets. This short video is eye candy, and brain food. (Read more below the video.) Turn your SOUND ON and enjoy the ride.

If the Earth were the only planet orbiting our Sun, the eccentricity of its orbit would not perceptibly vary even over a period of a million years. The Earth's eccentricity varies primarily due to interactions with the gravitational fields of Jupiter and Saturn. As the eccentricity of the orbit evolves, the semi-major axis of the orbital ellipse remains unchanged. From the perspective of the perturbation theory used in celestial mechanics to compute the evolution of the orbit, the semi-major axis is an adiabatic invariant. According to Kepler's third law the period of the orbit is determined by the semi-major axis. It follows that the Earth's orbital period, the length of a sidereal year, also remains unchanged as the orbit evolves. As the semi-minor axis is decreased with the eccentricity increase, the seasonal changes increase. But the mean solar irradiation for the planet changes only slightly for small eccentricity, due to Kepler's second law.

The Moon also exerts force that causes tides and other perturbations. All these factors change constantly, but long term cycles have been identified, and the relationship of celestial mechanics to life as we know it is important to understand.

Celestial mechanics affect the length of days, years, and seasons - these vary more than most folks are aware of:

The relative increase in solar irradiation at closest approach to the Sun (perihelion) compared to the irradiation at the furthest distance (aphelion) is slightly larger than four times the eccentricity. For the current orbital eccentricity this amounts to a variation in incoming solar radiation of about 6.8%, while the current difference between perihelion and aphelion is only 3.4% (5.1 million km). Perihelion presently occurs around January 3, while aphelion is around July 4. When the orbit is at its most elliptical, the amount of solar radiation at perihelion will be about 23% more than at aphelion.

More info on these terms: analemma, axial precession, sidereal year, tropical year, anomalistic year

Learn about Earth's movement through the heavens matter (what a ride!) and things like the "Milankovitch Cycle" (pros and cons) at NASA and Wikipedia and points beyond.

Is everything known about this topic, and does everyone agree? Heck no, that's the beauty part of science. It's a process, not an end in itself which is best because there are all sorts of undiscovered and unanticipated objects and phenomena out there in the great beyond. We keep refining instruments and research methods, and new discoveries are made by the boldest thinkers that improve on well developed and long tested theories. Inquiring minds can research and build on all this by "standing on the shoulders of giants" like Copernicus, Newton, Galileo, and Kepler.

_____
* FYI - the reference to "Your Father's 365.25" relates to the Julian calendar. Wiki says:

A year (Old English gēar, Gothic jēr, Runic Jēran) is the orbital period of the Earth moving around the Sun. For an observer on the Earth, this corresponds to the period it takes the Sun to complete one course throughout the zodiac along the ecliptic.

In astronomy, the Julian year is a unit of time, defined as 365.25 days of 86400 SI seconds each (no leap seconds).[1]

0 Comments

Breakfast Downgraded From "Most Important" Per New Study

Bill Whittle is Coming to Mt. Baker Theatre

More EPA Spin on "Waters of the United States"

Physicist Hayden on Policy that's Science-blind

WE always lean to free, but also toward informed

US Fish & Wildlife - Friend or foe to life?

Burden of Proof, Science and Libel

Is Legislative Authority Transferable Between Branches?

The Puget Sound Partnership Scam, It Matters Here

Best Available Science | One Earth Year: Not Your Father's 365.25*

Categories

Archives