The Whatcom Excavator
  • Home
    • About Us
    • Who's Planning Our Lives?
    • Diminishing Property Rights
    • NGO's & Public-Private Partners
    • Agenda 21
    • Buzzwords
    • Deep Thought
    • Best Available Science
    • Best Available Humor >
      • Humor Archive
  • The DREDGE
    • Gotta See This
    • How To Dredge
  • Bulldozed
    • Eco-Activism and County Policy
    • CELDF - "Democracy"
    • ALERT: Community Energy Challenge
  • Pig Trough
    • ReSources
    • Sustainable Connections
    • BALLE
    • ICLEI
    • Whatcom County Community Network
    • Big Wheels Award
  • Contact Us

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.)

Picture(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.

PictureDicks (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.


Picture
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. 


Picture
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.


Picture
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.

Picture
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).


Picture
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.


Picture
2 Comments

Ironic: Global Warmists Trapped in Ice

12/31/2013

2 Comments

 
PictureMV 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. 


PicturePenguin 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

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

12/16/2013

0 Comments

 
Picture
  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:
Picture
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.

Picture

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

Water, water every where - Nor any drop to drink

12/6/2013

1 Comment

 
Picture
WE suppose you know that northwest Washington is a rain forest. What you may not know is that some people are trying to gin up the idea that water is scarce around here; that we're on the brink of a water shortage (or something), and (wait for it) that water needs to be rationed by a cadre of self-appointed busybodies and shake-down artists. Radical curtailment of both access to water and land use are being actively discussed right here in Whatcom County.  Is there a target on private landowner's backs?  Yes, indeed there is.

WE suppose further that you know water isn't consumed; it's recycled. Every drop of water that has ever been drunk, polluted, used to generate electricity, irrigate crops, or anything else - is still present on planet Earth. We're drinking the same water that was swallowed and subsequently peed out by Jesus Christ, Sir Isaac Newton, Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin and millions of others.  Mother Nature is the greatest recycler of all.

Well (no pun intended), WE were alerted to this story (it's about Skagit County, but don't think Whatcom County is very far behind; it isn't):


Got WATER ? Maybe Not

Private water well owners' rights were just usurped by a WA Supreme Court case decision. For now, the Department of Ecology says they will not shut down anyone’s private well. What about in the future? If the State controls private water rights they control much, much more.

This petition may make it around to various lists, but sign it once and pass it on through email, Facebook, Twitter, etc.  A maximum number of signatures is needed to impress upon our state senators and representatives that corrective legislation is needed.  Our neighbors in rural Skagit County and throughout the state have a right to the water on their land. 

Please sign the petition in support of basic legal access to water for rural citizens in the Skagit Watershed. We support a balanced approach, but it must include water for tax-paying citizens!

Please send this to everyone (including organization membership lists) you know that are supportive of water for rural farmers and landowners across the state. While our problem here presents a unique set of past circumstances, it is a statewide issue. Let our legislators know we need a legislative solution now.
1 Comment

Letter to Editors - Some Cold Hard Truth About Our Local Glaciers

11/24/2013

18 Comments

 
Picture^ Click ^

WE Editors, science-types, are constantly amazed at the sheer volume of panicky and convoluted narrative about climate and water that passes for "news" in the local press. WE are not alone. For the cold, hard truth about our local climate and glaciers, read on.

Letter to Editors@WhatcomExcavator.org
November 24, 2013

     On Wednesday, Nov. 20, Michelle Koppes gave a talk to the Bellingham City Club, which was featured in the Bellingham Herald (“Bellingham audience told glaciers, oysters show climate change impacts”) and on the city’s TV program. Koppes claimed that

(1)    The climate is warming and “it’s not just happening here, it’s happening all over the world.”   Human emissions of CO2 are causing global warming and warming is “expected to get worse as average temperatures keep trend up in the decades ahead. And the uptrend is expected to accelerate in the 21st century.”
(2)    “here and almost everywhere else in the  world, the mountain snow accumulations that feed the glaciers are dwindling.”
(3)    “The amount of water stored in mountain snow is down 45 to 60 percent since 1950.”
(4)    “shrinkage of Cascade glaciers seems to be accelerating”….”glaciers on Mt. Baker…..have lost 20 percent of their volume since 1990.“

     Are these assertions by Koppes valid and supported by credible data? What supporting evidence did she present as proof of her contentions? Let’s look at each of her claims.

     (1)  What evidence did Koppes cite that the climate is warming here and all over the world?  The answer is simple—none at all.  She simply states that the climate is warming, despite indisputable data to the contrary.  But there is abundant data concerning this issue. As shown by temperature measurements from both land stations and satellites, NO global warming has occurred for the past 17 years! Figure 1 shows that global cooling has actually occurred during the last decade.
Picture
Figure 1. Global temperature for the past decade has cooled, not warmed.

Even the chairman of the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has publicly admitted that there has been no global warming for the past 17 years. So why did Koppes tell the City Club that the global climate and the climate here is warming at an accelerating rate? Can she really be unaware of the uncontested fact that data shows no global warming in the past 17 years when virtually all other scientists know about it.?

That’s the global situation—what about the U.S.? NOAA data shows that from 1998 to 2013, 46 of the 48 mainland states cooled at an average rate -14.7°F per century and winter temperatures have cooled at rates of 1-8.7°F per decade (Fig. 2), i.e, the climate isn’t warming, it’s cooling!
Picture
Figure 2. Winter temperatures in the north central have cooled by more than 8°F per decade and the rest of the US has cooled at rates of 1.3 to 5.8 °F.
     What about local temperature trends? NOAA data show that Washington winters have cooled at a rate of -13°F per century, spring temperatures have cooled at a rate of -7.8°F per century, and summers have cooled at a rate of 0.5°F per century.

What about local temperatures here? Figure 3 shows that average annual temperatures for the western Cascades over the past 15 years have cooled by more than a degree and a half!
Picture
Figure 3. Average annual temperatures for the western Cascades for the past 15 years show cooling of more than a degree and a half.
So where did Koppes get the idea that the climate is warming at an accelerating rate?  Apparently she is still quoting obsolete IPCC computer model temperatures that have been proven to be wrong (too warm) by a full degree F and are totally worthless.  Even the IPCC admits that their computer modeled temperatures were badly wrong. The bottom line here is that the ‘accelerated warming’ cited by Koppes is NOT happening and she ignores the actual measured temperature record that is accepted by even the IPCC!
Picture
Figure 4. Reality check—theoretical (computer modeled) temperature relative to actual, measured temperature (from UAH and RSS satellites). Computer models of the temperature in 2012 were wrong by one full degree (F), (which is as much as the total amount of warming during the past century), showing that the IPCC computer model temperatures are a hopeless failure.


     (2)  Koppes claims that “here and almost everywhere else in the world, the mountain snow accumulations that feed the glaciers are dwindling.” Data is available (Fig. 5) and it shows that five of the six snowiest years in the Northern Hemisphere have occurred since 2003 (NOAA).
Picture
Figure 5. Snow extent in the Northern Hemisphere.
     (3)  Koppes claims that “The amount of water stored in mountain snow is down 45 to 60 percent since 1950.” The snowpack in Washington goes up and down from year to year, but the snow-water equivalent in Washington in the past 25 years has been growing, not declining as claimed by Koppes (Fig. 6). How she could claim a 45 to 60 percent decrease in snow-water equivalent is amazing.
Picture
Figure 6. Mean snow water equivalent in the Cascades since 1975.
     (4)  “...shrinkage of Cascade glaciers seems to be accelerating”… Glaciers advance and retreat as climate warms and cools.  Koppes seems to be unaware of many published papers showing that Mt. Baker glaciers advanced almost to their Little Ice Age (1300 to 1915 AD) positions during the 1880 to 1915 cold period, then retreated strongly upvalley during the 1915 to 1945 warm period (WITHOUT ANY SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN CO2!). This is important because it shows that Mt. Baker glaciers retreated upvalley well before CO2 began to increase significantly from 1945 on, i.e., CO2 cannot be the cause of this glacier retreat.  The climate turned cooler again from 1945 to 1977 and the glaciers readvanced about twice as far downvalley as they had retreated during the 1915 to 1945 recession, all during the time of maximum CO2 emissions (after 1945)!  This is even more important, because it shows that for ~30 years (~1945-1977) during the sharpest increase in human CO2 emissions, glaciers on Mt. Baker advanced strongly, just the opposite of what they should have done if CO2 causes warming. In 1978, the climate warmed again and the glaciers have again retreated upvalley. Thus, Koppe’s contentions that Cascade glaciers are retreating at an accelerating rate totally ignores the strong glacier advance from 1945 to 1980 when CO2 was soaring. 

     Koppes claims that "glaciers on Mt. Baker…..have lost 20 percent of their volume since 1990."  This one is mind-boggling!  Fig. 7 shows the amount of retreat of the Coleman glacier terminus from 1993 to 2011 and the total length of the glacier. Keeping in mind that glaciers thicken rapidly upvalley from their terminus, the total amount of ice loss since 1990 can’t be more than a few percent. Other glaciers show the same relationship. How any competent glaciologist could come to such a conclusion is hard to imagine.
Picture
Figure 7. Diminished length of the Coleman glacier from 1993 to 2011(red enclosed area). Looking at Figure 7, it is hard to imagine how any competent glaciologists could conclude that.
CONCLUSIONS

Considering all of these easily confirmed facts that Koppes omitted, her conclusions are badly flawed (some are outright falsehoods) and her contentions are not scientifically defensible.


                                                           Dr. Don Easterbrook, PhD
18 Comments

National Geographic Rising Sea Level Prophecy - Cause for Concern or Absurd Fairy Tale?

10/20/2013

1 Comment

 
By Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D.

The September issue of National Geographic shows sea level midway up the Statue of Liberty, 214 feet above present sea level (Fig. 1) and contains dire images of impending catastrophic sea level rise. Anthony’s excellent responses (http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=national+geographic) and
(http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/28/freaking-out-about-nyc-sea-level-rise-is-easy-to-do-when-you-dont-pay-attention-to-history/) have demonstrated the utter absurdity of the National Geographic portrayal.   
Picture
Figure 1. Cover of October issue of National Geographic.
As Anthony points out, at the rate of sea level rise shown by tide gauge records since 1856 at The Battery 1.7 miles away, for sea level to reach that high up the Statue of Liberty would take 23,538 years!

But what about the other assertions in the National Geographic article, such as (1) many graphic images of what the future holds, (2) smaller, but still unreasonable sea level rise, (3) doomed cities (Miami and London gone), (4) flooded coastal areas (most of southern Florida submerged), (5) more frequent storm surge disasters due to sea level rise, and (6) various other catastrophic scenarios? Are any these cause for concern or are they also just unfounded, fear-mongering scenarios aimed at getting attention? Let’s look at some the contentions in the National Geographic scenarios.

  1. "By releasing carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere, we have warmed the Earth by more than a full degree Fahrenheit over the past century and raised sea level by about eight inches. Even if we stopped burning all fossil fuels tomorrow, the existing greenhouse gases would continue to warm the Earth for centuries. We have irreversibly committed future generations to a hotter world and rising seas."
  2. "…the big concern for the future is the giant ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica." "If the Thwaites Glacier breaks free from its rocky berth, that would liberate enough ice to raise sea level by three meters—nearly ten feet."
  3. "by the time we get to the end of the 21st century, we could see sea-level rise of as much as six feet globally instead of two to three feet. Last year an expert panel convened by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration adopted 6.6 feet (two meters) as its highest of four scenarios for 2100. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers recommends that planners consider a high scenario of five feet." "we’re already locked in to at least several feet of sea-level rise, and perhaps several dozens of feet"
  4. "Inexorably rising oceans will gradually inundate low-lying areas" "By the next century, if not sooner, large numbers of people will have to abandon coastal areas in Florida and other parts of the world." "With seas four feet higher than they are today—a distinct possibility by 2100—about two-thirds of southeastern Florida is inundated. The Florida Keys have almost vanished. Miami is an island."
  5. "A profoundly altered planet is what our fossil-fuel-driven civilization is creating, a planet where Sandy-scale flooding will become more common and more destructive for the world’s coastal cities." "…higher seas will extend the ruinous reach of storm surges. The threat will never go away; it will only worsen. By the end of the century a hundred-year storm surge like Sandy’s might occur every decade or less."
  6. "…carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will reach around a thousand parts per million by the end of the century," "According to the U.S. Geological Survey, sea level on an iceless Earth would be as much as 216 feet higher than it is today. It might take thousands of years and more than a thousand parts per million to create such a world—but if we burn all the fossil fuels, we will get there."
  7. "by 2070, 150 million people in the world’s large port cities will be at risk from coastal flooding, along with $35 trillion worth of property."

These 7 statements are not as obviously ridiculous as the depiction of a 216 foot sea level rise at the Statue of Liberty, but all carry ominous consequences if true. Are any of these contentions realistic? Let’s consider real-time scientific data for each of them.

 1.    Has carbon dioxide warmed the Earth by more 1º F over the past century?

Carbon dioxide is a trace gas that makes up only 0.039% of the atmosphere, accounts for only 3.6% of the greenhouse effect, and has increased by only 0.009% since 1950. By itself, it is incapable of warming the climate by more than a fraction of a degree. With no physical evidence that CO2 causes significant atmospheric warming, the IPCC rely solely on computer models, but because the effect of CO2 is so small, they introduce an increase in water vapor (which is responsible for 95% of greenhouse warming), claiming that as CO2 goes up so does water vapor. For models to be valid, a real-world atmospheric water vapor must go up, but just the opposite is true—water vapor has gone down since 1947 (Fig. 2). Thus, climate models have been an utter failure (Fig. 3).
Picture
Figure 2. Declining atmospheric water vapor since 1947.
Picture
Figure 3. Failure of climate models to match reality. Dark line is average temperature predictions of 44 models; red and blue lines are actual temperatures.
The National Geographic claims that CO2 has caused 1º F of warming this century. But CO2 didn’t begin to rise sharply until after 1945 so cannot have been a factor before then. Temperature data shows that 0.7° C of warming occurred from 1900 to 1945, before CO2 could have been the cause and while CO2 emissions soared from 1945 to 1977, global temperatures declined (just the opposite of what should have occurred if CO2 causes warming), and only 0.5°C warming from 1978 to present coincided with rising CO2 (and that is very likely coincidental). 
Picture
Figure. 4. Temperature changes during the past century.
Much additional data showing the CO2 is of little significance in global warming is summarized in the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change 2013 report “Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science.” This 1200 page report convincingly and systematically challenges IPCC claims that carbon dioxide is causing “dangerous” global warming and that IPCC computer models can be relied on for future climate forecasts.

Conclusions: National Geographic’s statement that CO2 caused 1º F of global warming this century is contrary to scientific evidence and is thus false.  

2.   “…the big concern for the future is the giant ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica.” “If the Thwaites Glacier breaks free from its rocky berth, that would liberate enough ice to raise sea level by three meters—nearly ten feet.”

That this is not going to happen is shown by (1) there is no evidence that this has ever happened in the past and several factors insure that it won’t happen any time soon, (2) Antarctic glaciers are frozen to their base and move by internal flowage of ice, not by basal sliding, (3) these ice sheets lie in basins, and (4) the Greenland ice sheet is behaving just as it has in the geologic past and there is nothing unusual happening to it now. 

Conclusion: The likelihood of ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctic sliding into the sea is essentially zero.

3.  “by the time we get to the end of the 21st century, we could see sea-level rise of as much as six feet globally instead of two to three feet. Last year an expert panel convened by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) adopted 6.6 feet (two meters) as its highest of four scenarios for 2100. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers recommends that planners consider a high scenario of five feet.” “we’re already locked in to at least several feet of sea-level rise, and perhaps several dozens of feet.”

How realistic are these predictions of sea level rise of six feet to several dozens of feet? To answer that, all we have to do is look at the sea level rise for the past century and compare it with the National Geographic projection. Sea level has risen 7 inches in the past century at a relatively constant rate of 1.7 mm/yr from 1900 to 2000 (Fig. 5) and has actually shown signs of decline in the past few years (Fig. 6).
Picture
Figure 5. Sea level rise of 1.7 mm/yr from 1900 to 2000.
Picture
Figure 6. Sea level rise since 1993.
Picture
Figure 7. Sea level rise over the past century (lower left), sea level rise projected at this rate (black line, lower part of graph), and IPCC predicted sea level rise (red).
 The difference between the sea level rise projected from actual rise over the past century and the catastrophic scenario of the National Geographic is 15 times the rate of sea level rise over the past century! Two questions immediately arise: (1) what is going to cause such accelerated sea level rise and (2) where is all the water going to come from? The accelerated rise is based on postulated accelerated warming but there has been no warming in the past 15 years (in fact, the climate has cooled during that time (Figure 8). So no climatic warming means no accelerated sea level rise as postulated by the National Geographic .
Picture
Figure 8. Cooling of -0.23°C per century over the past decade. (modified from Monckton, 2013)
In order to get the accelerated sea level rise postulated by National Geographic, much of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets would have to melt. However the Antarctic ice cap is growing, not melting, and the Greenland ice cap was about the same size as at present during the Holocene Climatic Optimum. Morner (2011) has pointed out that, even during warming 20 times more intense than recent warming, melting of the massive Pleistocene ice sheets that covered vast areas resulted in sea level rise no greater than one meter per century. Thus, now that these great ice sheets are gone, there is no source of water for sea level rise even approaching one meter, so any prediction of sea level greater than that cannot be considered credible. The National Geographic scenario of the rate of sea level rise of six feet would require a rate of sea level rise of 20 mm/yr. in contrast to the rate of 1.7 mm over the past century. 

Conclusion: These data demonstrate that the scenario painted by the National Geographic of very large rise of sea level by 2100 is contrary to all physical scientific data and therefore its credibility must be totally rejected.

4.  “Inexorably rising oceans will gradually inundate low-lying areas” “By the next century, if not sooner, large numbers of people will have to abandon coastal areas in Florida and other parts of the world.” “With seas four feet higher than they are today—a distinct possibility by 2100—about two-thirds of southeastern Florida is inundated. The Florida Keys have almost vanished. Miami is an island.”

How credible is submergence of two thirds of Florida by 2100, leaving Miami as an island? Figure 9 shows that sea level rose 7 inches at a constant rate (2.24 mm/yr) during the past century at Key West (which is representative of southern Florida sea level rise). Projection of that rate to 2100 (Fig. 9) would result in a sea level rise of 6 inches by then. Contrast this with the National Geographic projected sea level rise of 21 mm/yr. What could possibly cause such a huge, sudden change in the rate of sea level rise? The answer is that it is not even close to being credible because (1) with no global warming in the past 17 years there is no reason for such a change, (2) there is no source of water--the East Antarctica ice sheet is not melting and Greenland has been warmer for thousands of years in the past without melting its ice sheet, (3) Antarctic sea ice is increasing, setting records, and (4) even during the rapid, intense melting of huge ice sheet at the end of the last Ice Age, sea level didn’t rise this fast. Continuation of sea level at the constant rate of the past century would result only in a sea level rise of about 3-4 inches per generation.
Picture
Figure 9. Sea level rise at Key West, Florida from tidal gauge records (Blue curve); sea level rise projected to 2100 at the rate over the past century; sea level rise postulated by National Geographic (red line).
Conclusion: The National Geographic projection that two thirds of Florida will be submerge by 2100 is contrary to data and lacks any possible mechanism to increase sea levels more than a few inches. The National Geographic scenario is therefore totally without any credibility. 

5.  Are the National Geographic statements “…higher seas will extend the ruinous reach of storm surges.” and “By the end of the century a hundred-year storm surge like Sandy’s might occur every decade or less.” credible?

There is no scientific evidence that storm frequency or intensity has increased over the past century. Figure 10 shows no increase in hurricane power dissipation index since 1900 and the US has experienced the longest period with no hurricanes making landfall (the Sandy storm was not strong enough to be considered a hurricane).
Picture
Figure 10. Hurricane index for the US since 1900.
Conclusion: The National Geographic conclusion that higher sea levels“higher seas will extend the ruinous reach of storm surges” is not credible because (1) sea level rise is too small to significantly affect storm surges, and (2) the hurricane strength index is now lower than it was earlier in the century.

6.  “by 2070, 150 million people in the world’s large port cities will be at risk from coastal flooding, along with $35 trillion worth of property.

As shown in the data presented above, none of the National Geographic sea level projections are even remotely believable and sea level projections based on tide gauge records for the past century indicate that sea level will most likely rise 4-6 inches by 2070. 

Conclusion: The National Geographic contention that 150 million people and $35 trillion worth of property is nothing more than a fairy tale, totally contrary to data that indicates that sea level will rise only a few inches by 2070.

7.  “…carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will reach around a thousand parts per million by the end of the century,” “According to the U.S. Geological Survey, sea level on an iceless Earth would be as much as 216 feet higher than it is today. It might take thousands of years and more than a thousand parts per million to create such a world—but if we burn all the fossil fuels, we will get there.”

The National Geographic issue contains many elaborately constructed images under the header of “If all the ice melted,” depicting submergence of extensive coastal areas all over the world and contending that “if we burn all the fossil fuels, we will get there.” What’s wrong with this? For openers, it would require melting of the entire Antarctic ice sheet, the Greenland ice sheet, and all of the world’s ice caps and alpine glaciers. Is this possible? Considering the data presented above, it is, of course ridiculous with no trace of credibility. In addition, the Antarctic ice sheet has not melted in 15 million years, including during many interglacial periods when global temperatures were significantly higher than at present for thousands of years.

Summary of conclusions: From the evidence presented above, the obvious conclusion is that the National Geographic article is an absurd fairy tale, completely unsupported by any real scientific data and directly contrary to a mountain of contrary evidence.

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

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:
Picture
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.
Picture
Fig 1. IPCC graph of temperatures.
Picture
Fig. 2. Measured surface temperatures for the past decade (modified from Monckton, 2013)
From the IPCC Report:
Picture
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).
Picture
Figure. 3. More than 20 periods of warming in the past 500 years (Greenland GISP2 ice core, Easterbrook, 2011)
Picture
Figure 4. Temperatures of the Medieval and Roman Warm Periods were higher than recent temperatures.
Picture
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).
Picture
Figure 6. Intensity of warming and cooling in the past 15,000 years (Easterbrook, 2011)
From the 2013 IPCC Report:
Picture
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:
Picture
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).
Picture
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:
Picture
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.
Picture
Figure 8. Past sea level rise.
Picture
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

The Science is Never Settled!

7/14/2013

2 Comments

 
PictureTorquemada
The faithful followers of the Church of Global Human Caused Climate Chaos (CGHCCC) keep repeating the mantra, "the science is settled!" Of course they need to keep their dogma nailed down, and people who question it (deniers and heretics) must be isolated, persecuted and ridiculed. True science - the pursuit of knowledge and objective truth - is based on the opposite of dogma. It only works when healthy skepticism rules the day. This is anathematic to someone who prefers to promote an agenda. 

Watermelons (green on the outside and red on the inside) had glommed onto the climate chaos hypothesis as a tool to hammer home their collectivist, illiberal agenda on an unsuspecting public, and now they're mad because it seems to be unraveling. People are not buying it. CGHCCC high priest Al Gore continues to glurge, and Pope Obama has declared a war on skeptics.


PictureCurrents around the Scotia Sea
It is therefore with great satisfaction that WE present to you yet another triumph of truth and objectivity, and further evidence that no science is ever settled, as long as skeptical observation and new ideas are admitted freely into the record. 

The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change, Watts Up With That (WUWT) has published an article, New ideas on Antarctic ice sheet formation subtitled, "scientists cast doubt on theory of what triggered Antarctic glaciation". 


A team of U.S. and U.K. scientists has found geologic evidence that casts doubt on one of the conventional explanations for how Antarctica’s ice sheet began forming. Ian Dalziel, research professor at The University of Texas at Austin’s Institute for Geophysics and professor in the Jackson School of Geosciences, and his colleagues report the findings today in an online edition of the journal Geology.
WE find this relevant of course, because the CGHCCC dogma relies on theories about ice sheet formation (and recession) to prop up their increasingly shaky hypothesis about HCCC. The article continues,

The Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC), an ocean current flowing clockwise around the entire continent, insulates Antarctica from warmer ocean water to the north, helping maintain the ice sheet. For several decades, scientists have surmised that the onset of a complete ACC played a critical role in the initial glaciation of the continent about 34 million years ago.

Now, rock samples from the central Scotia Sea near Antarctica reveal the remnants of a now-submerged volcanic arc that formed sometime before 28 million years ago and might have blocked the formation of the ACC until less than 12 million years ago. Hence, the onset of the ACC may not be related to the initial glaciation of Antarctica, but rather to the subsequent well-documented descent of the planet into a much colder “icehouse” glacial state.
WE won't quote the entire article here, but you can continue reading if you dare. The NSA inquisitors might track it though (that's a joke, Riley).
2 Comments

PLF Wins Case Against Offsite Mitigation Extortion!

7/2/2013

1 Comment

 
PictureVictory!
    In January WE shared news that the Supreme Court accepted a case fought by Pacific Legal Foundation related to wetlands mitigation for land disturbance, "Koontz v. St. Johns River Management District."

We are happy to report that they won, and that nexus and proportionality really do matter.  There's a great video about the case here at YouTube, and additional information at the PLF site.

The opinion states:  "Our decisions in Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U. S. 825 (1987) , and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U. S. 374 (1994) , provide important protection against the misuse of the power of land-use regulation. In those cases, we held that a unit of government may not condition the approval of a land-use permit on the owner’s relinquishment of a portion of his property unless there is a “nexus” and “rough proportionality” between the government’s demand and the effects of the proposed land use. In this case, the St. Johns River Water Management District (District) believes that it circumvented Nollan and Dolan because of the way in which it structured its handling of a permit application submitted by Coy Koontz, Sr., whose estate is represented in this Court by Coy Koontz, Jr. 1 The District did not approve his application on the condition that he surrender an interest in his land. Instead, the District, after suggesting that he could obtain approval by signing over such an interest, denied his application because he refused to yield. The Florida Supreme Court blessed this maneuver and thus effectively interred those important decisions. Because we conclude that Nollan and Dolan cannot be evaded in this way, the Florida Supreme Court’s decision must be reversed."   [Complete case information is available at the bottom of this post]


Here's more from Justia.com:

In 1972 Koontz bought 14.9 undeveloped acres. Florida subsequently enacted the 1972 Water Resources Act, requiring a permit with conditions to ensure that construction will not be harm water resources and the 1984 Henderson Wetlands Protection Act, making it illegal to “dredge or fill in, on, or over surface waters” without a wetlands permit. The District with jurisdiction over the Koontz land requires that applicants wishing to build on wetlands offset environmental damage by creating, enhancing, or preserving wetlands elsewhere. Koontz decided to develop 3.7-acres. In 1994 he proposed to raise a section of his land to make it suitable for building and installing a stormwater pond. To mitigate environmental effects, Koontz offered to foreclose development of 11 acres by deeding to the District a conservation easement. The District rejected Koontz’s proposal and indicated that it would approve construction only if he reduced the size of his development and deeded a conservation easement on the larger remaining property or hired contractors to improve District wetlands miles away. Koontz sued under a state law that provides damages for agency action that constitutes a taking without just compensation. The trial court found the District’s actions unlawful under the requirements of Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard, that the government may not condition permit approval on the owner’s relinquishment of a portion of his property unless there is a nexus and rough proportionality between the demand and the effects of the proposed use. The court of appeal affirmed, but the Florida Supreme Court reversed.  (more)
Complete Supreme Court docket, Case 11-1447  here

Cornell University Law School (page)
  • Syllabus [HTML] [PDF]
  • Opinion, Alito [HTML] [PDF]
  • Dissent, Kagan [HTML] [PDF]
1 Comment

Nimbys, Bananas, and Greens (chin deep)

6/19/2013

22 Comments

 
PictureAngry 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
<<Previous
Forward>>
    WE Dredge!
    Picture
    Posting Rules:
    This forum is moderated.  Please make an effort to substantiate claims that support opinion.  Gratuitous profanity and ad-hominem attacks will not be accepted.  You can create a "nickname" if you'd like, and you don't have to reveal your e-mail address.   Feel free to share information and your honest thoughts.

    Categories

    All
    Agenda 21
    Best Available Science
    Big Government
    Eco Activism
    Ethics
    Freedom
    Planning
    Property Rights
    Science
    Small Business
    Social Engineering
    Taxes
    Welcome

    Archives

    January 2022
    September 2020
    August 2020
    April 2020
    November 2019
    August 2019
    September 2018
    July 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    September 2017
    July 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    June 2015
    March 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011


    Automatic Updates

    Do you want to be notified when new content is added to this newsfeed? Most browsers allow you to subscribe to our Really Simple Syndication (RSS) feed. Click on the RSS link below, and follow the instructions.

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.