Skip to comments.Scientists planted hairs from lynx in 3rd forest
Posted on 01/03/2002 10:25:56 PM PST by Pokey78Edited on 07/12/2004 3:50:24 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Government scientists planted samples of lynx hairs in a third national forest, according to documents obtained by The Washington Times.
"A preliminary investigation by the U.S. Forest Service said planted samples were submitted from the Mount Baker/Snoqualmie National Forest in Washington state, but the report did not say how many additional samples were submitted from that region.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Please bump this to the usual suspects. I don't know the list.
The report said one state scientist has acknowledged sending an additional three samples of bobcat hair taken from a pelt and labeled as lynx, but the laboratory reported that five samples were submitted.
Whoa there, maybe the WA state scientists really were trying (sloppily) to check for false positives! The WA state people were the ones who gave their samples non-existent location numbers.
Sadly. And how pathetic is that? It's really very frustrating.
I wonder when the Justice Department will find time to prosecute this case of fraud and deception? Perhaps Bush will have to exercise his Presidential privilege because it truly is a problem of national security when government starts being this manipulative and underhanded.
I was researching the arsenic rules, last summer because our local paper was making a big deal of the Democrat claim that Bush was trying to poison the children by not lowering the arsenic percentage. I found this great website with all these studies that showed that arsenic and selenium were related, in that one cancelled out the other (it's more complicated than that). But when Bush passed the Clinton standard in October, I went back to the website and the finished report had deleted all the studies which showed that arsenic was not really poisonous as long as selenium was also present (it usually is because they are both found in areas of former volcanic activity). And to make matters worse, the author of the bogus study was put in charge of inacting the arsenic rules.
"They don't care about the lynx but about how much land they can tie up," the staffer said.
And they are doing it on your dime. Your tax dollars. How come these bums are not fired at a time when many other Americans are out of a job? Let these jokers try their luck in the real world. Talk about living a charmed life!
Probably why the whistle-blower reported it just the day before he retired.
Four should be enought to establish that there ARE said critters present. No more "hairs".
A tip for everyone - If you see material on the web that you think you might want to use again, bookmark it AND save it to your hard drive. Disk space is really cheap.
OK, I'll ask the obvious question...Considering this scheme and the global warming fiasco, How much more of what we think is "environmental science" is total bullsquat?
I'll also venture the first quess at slightly more than half.
A highly publicized trial is this case would go a long way toward neutering environmental whack-jobs and protecting land rights for the next decade. Let's find out whose side the Bush Admin is on...Constitution v. Communist Manifesto.
Poverty, mediscare, the homeless, racism, overcrowded classrooms, health insurance, etc.
Which happens a lot more and cost more taxpayers money than this little scheme.
Isn't that what most people say when they do something stoopid and embarrasing? "Just testing"
Jerks ought to be jailed for life. If this aiin't fraud, someone's gonna have to point out to me what is.
Yes, but how many here will actually write/call their rep/senators to ask that they pursue this to the fullest?
Where have all the commies gone?
Gone to the enviromentalist.
When will we ever learn?
When will we learn?
P78, THAT is what ALL of the "environmentalism" is about. CONTROL of property rights by godgov and environmental "non-governmental" organizations in their "Public Private Partnerships! Peace and love, George.
Here's another, even if 100% of all the lynx hairs were real, exactly what does that prove on whether or not to allow humans to use the forest, anyway? Like really, like what difference would it make? We're still having to deal with the fact that the feds make off-limits any national resource as soon as some "endangered species" is found there. That part is still rigorusly enforced at gunpoint by the feds. This lynx story is yet another partial red herring, it stops short of the fundamental rightness and wrongness of the feds involvment in these matters. Even if these perps got jail time, how is that going to stop the ESA and other unconstituional measures being "enforced" at gunpoint, and with stolen tax payer money, again, stolen at gunpoint? Ther suckerfish are real, they aren't phony, so the crime of federal gansterism continues, and it's fully inside both parties interests to continue these crimes. They are profiting from it in many ways, and both parties mouth the soothing words their sheep want to hear, and that's about it.
There's a much bigger beef here, and by the feds leading people by the nose to concentrate on smaller issues, play acting and pretending that they are 'doing something about cleaning up government", they continue with the really big and dangerous power plays, which is seizing all the land, even seizing private property, at gunpoint again, without paying for it. They are still being goons about this, and it ought to be sinking in to more people how fully entrenched this fascism-gangsterism is into the bureaucracy and in both major entrenched parties by now..
"Waco" investigation, jfk warren commission report investigation, gulf of tonkin and a decades long war, lies after lies after lies, and they always come up with some really minor issues to divert peoples attention from the much larger issue-which is, they are 100% completely fully out of fascist control, and have been for years, and will continue to do so as long as they are able to fake people out to keep supporting them.
From WACO to Ruby Ridge to clean air act, to U.N. reports.
Congress can be so easily led by these reportsM
Something like this would never be done in some other agenda-driven scientific field, like, say, evolution science, right?
These are not 'scientists,' they are only POLITICAL activists with an agenda. The whole notion of planting evidence or faking your data to support an agenda is anti-science.
Environmentalism started in 1972 and has just now come to its end.
Environmentalism -- R.I.P.
It's fraud is over now.
Stop all governement funding for environmentalism now!
This lynx fur deal is a real issue, and should be persued, but I'll repeat--so what? So what if all the scientists involved are found guilty, and get jail time? Then what? That's going to stop the land grabs? That's going to stop this juggernaut of federal ownership aned control?
Let's revisit klamath again, shall we? The "science" involved in the klamath situation is so fundamentally flawed as to be ridiculous, EVERYONE involved in it from bush and norton on down the pike to the local street sweeper knows it, and exactly what again has this REPUBLICAN administration done about it? Go ahead, list what they have done to 'fix" this situation. Go ahead, be my guest, show me how the farmers are all un-screwed now, let's see some URL's supporting that notion. How many examples can you find where the constitution and common sense and basic human dignity and 'rightness"is actually followed. I'd like to see them myself.
My bottom line is I merely switched my personal "activism"-which is as strong as it ever was- to what is right and wrong for the US, I don't push some hack political party lying partisan agenda. Let the gooners at DU do that, I ain't interested, and I wish more constitutionalists would follow that as well. I used to, push party politics, but finally had to admit to myself that supporting those lying paid off bribed and blackmailed pieces of crap and those bogus two party's was a no win situation for the nation. That isn't "giving up", that's being realistic and looking at events over decades. I will not support either the political party crips or the bloods, they are both gangs. There's a gang of them at 'the other sites" and there's sure a gang of them here, but at least at freepers there are a few constitutionalists left. I compare what those political gangsters say,and then what happens, it's always two completely different things. They mumble some differnces, but bottom reality is full speed ahead total federal control of the people and material wealth of this nation. I'm just not going to keep biting on their lies anymore, so in that sense, you are right, I "gave up" supporting any liars.
Have to fire the employees, their bosses, and anyone else who obstructs this investigation. Off to write my congressman, cheers:)
Plot to undermine global pollution controls revealed
19:00 02 January 02
A secret group of developed nations conspired to limit the effectiveness of the UN's first conference on the environment, held in Stockholm in 1972. The existence of this cabal, known as the Brussels group, is revealed in 30-year-old British government records that were kept secret until this week.
The Stockholm conference was set up in response to rising concern about damage to the environment. It ended with a ringing declaration of the need to protect the natural world, and the UN Environment Programme was set up as a result.
But the ambitious aims of the conference organisers, who included Maurice Strong, the first director-general of UNEP, were held in check by the activities of the Brussels group, which included Britain, the US, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and France.
The group was "an unofficial policy-making body to concert the views of the principal governments concerned", according to a note of one of the group's first meetings written by a civil servant in the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office. "It will have to remain informal and confidential." This meeting took place in July 1971, nearly a year before the Stockholm conference opened.
Many of the arguments the group employed would sound familiar to today's anti-globalisation protesters. The group was concerned that environmental regulations would restrict trade and also wanted to stop UNEP having a large budget to spend as it saw fit. Foreign Office papers say the group "made real progress on this difficult problem", though without specifying how this was done.
The group seemed unconcerned about what its stance would mean for poorer countries. Its chief aim in the diplomatic jockeying during the run-up to Stockholm was for developed countries to get what they wanted "and perhaps be less worried about making it a success for developing countries".
This unalloyed self-interest won it few friends, and the notes record that Strong had already been grumbling about the group's activities. "We may get some criticism from the Swedes and others [and] we must be careful when expanding the group not to include awkward bedfellows," the note adds.
A more concrete idea of the group's aims can be gleaned from a note laying out Britain's position prior to a secret meeting in Geneva in December 1971, one of a number of such meetings in the run-up to Stockholm.
Written by an official in what was then the Department of the Environment, it says that Britain wanted to restrict the scope of the Stockholm conference and reduce the number of proposals for action. In an indirect reference to what would later become UNEP, the paper says a "new and expensive international organisation must be avoided, but a small effective central coordinating mechanism ... would not be welcome but is probably inevitable".
It then goes on to detail the subjects that Britain wanted left out of the Stockholm action plans. At the top of the list were controls on sonic booms from aircraft and pollution in the upper atmosphere. These measures would have seriously damaged the economics of the Anglo-French supersonic airliner, Concorde.
At the time, Concorde was already in deep trouble, with only the British and French national airlines likely to buy it, and earlier in the year the British Cabinet had discussed axing the plane. Arguments raged about whether the noisy plane would be allowed to land in New York. Controls on sonic booms could have sounded its death knell.
The British government was also firmly opposed to any international standards regulating environmental quality or polluting emissions. It feared that any international agreement might force it to clean up its act.
"Universal guidelines ... could cause moral pressure for compliance with philosophies of doubtful validity or benefit," say the papers.
Despite the efforts of the Brussels group, the Stockholm conference is widely recognised to have been a watershed. Though the group's lobbying ensured the conference focused on only a limited number of subjects, such as transboundary pollution, UNEP later tackled a wider range of topics such as the problems of deforestation and urbanisation.
But, but, "conspiracy theories" are just delusions of lone nuts and wackos... You mean sometimes they really exist?!