Skip to comments.Scientist's Computer Model Forecasts Extinction
Posted on 04/10/2002 4:59:39 PM PDT by WhiteyAppleseed
Full Title:Scientists Computer Projections Fail to Reveal Tree Threatened by Fatal Disease, Extinction Likely (Opinion is Divided, though a Review is Unlikely)
Subtitled: Computer Model Revealing lack of alligators at North Pole is cause for Concern (Environmentalists Shout Save Allie!)
There are two bills in Congress,H.R. 2829 and H.R. 3705, to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973. If approved, the law would require empirical, field-tested data and peer-reviewed data for ESA action. Too much analytical modeling-theory is the trend, a method that has been shown to fail expensively with attempts to manufacture habitat for the Piping Plover in Nebraska.
On February 16, 2002, in Grand Island Nebraska, a farmer named Tom Schwarz testified during a House Resources Committee Field Hearing. Mr. Schwarz, representing the Nebraska Water Users, also known as NWU, told the committee, Our organization traces its roots to a federal court order issued 12 years ago this week. Early in the relicensing process for FERC Projects 1417 and 1835the hydroelectric projects of Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District and Nebraska Public Power District--environmental organizations, with the backing of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, attempted to require the districts to release water stored for irrigation, supposedly to benefit endangered species. Before the order was stayed 80,000 acre feet of water was dumped and to this day no benefits to the species were ever shown.
It is this kind of precautionary principle decisions, called for by the little barking environmental dogs and all, based on modeling theory, that the two bills before Congress are trying to address. This was the same kind of precautionary principle choices that left the Klamath Basin farmers high and dry, their grievances ignored.
The Nebraska farmer wasnt done there, however. While relating another story of mitigation that calls foradding sediment to the riverNot only was Nebraska being asked to provide 130,000 acre feet of water and 10,000 acres of habitat, now the ridiculous idea of adding thousands and thousands of tons of sand to the river each year had been introduced.
This hair-brained idea came about from the good scientists using modeling theory, bad science pushed to the forefront because the ESA as written and enforced permits it. Mr. Schwarz is one out of many Americans who see the ESA as a tool of control to gain power through control of water and land. The evidence is everywhere. Every spring 500,000 Sandhill cranes use the river and their numbers have increased since the 1960s. Yet of the 150 whooping cranes that migrate a few weeks later, and never more than a handful of them land on the Platte, we dont seem to have enough habitat. How can that be when the Service uses Sandhill habitat as a surrogate for the whoopers?
As Mr. Shwarz said and I think we all agree: The system we have now related to administering the ESA is broken.
I urge everyone to contact your representative in Congress. Ask him or her to support HR 2829 and HR 3705. Ask them to sign on as a co-sponsor of these bills.
The ESA is a reckless buzzsaw used to destroy the Tree of Libertys protective shade. The Act has hurt citizens. In 2001, the Act killed four fire fighters. Farmers in Oregon lost their livelihoods because of bad science and the ESA.
The Northern Spotted Owl snatched the life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness from thousands of hard-working countrymen. Recently, it was discovered that the Northern Spotted Owl breeds with the California Spotted Owl. Will that science be used to delist the bird and return Americans to work?
Federal and state scientists committed fraud in a lynx survey; they claimed they were testing the system. Mr. Hansen, of Utah, said: If this is true, it shows a fundamental mistrust that these scientists have for the very science they are using. Former Rep. Kelly used the same lame excuse when he was caught in Abscam. Their actions could have affected management decisions in fifteen states and fifty-seven national forests, my home state of Michigan among them.
The Endangered Species Act will be thirty next year. Enacted in 1973, the House passed the bill 390 to 12 and the Senate passed a similar measure on a 92 to 0 vote. President Nixon signed the new bill into public law. Congress has wrestled over reauthorizing the ESA for years. You have to wonder if it would ever see the light of day, if we knew then, 30 years ago, what we know today. The Act is holy writ to the environmental evangelists who never seem to unable to find a Chicken Little scientific model that is used to harm our countrymen.
On March 20, 2002, the House Committee on Resources heard testimony from a variety of people. Interestingly, among them was Peter Illyn, Executive Director for a ministry called Restoring Eden. His testimony speaks volumes about the future of the enforcement of the ESA. His testimony discussed the biblical and moral argument for good stewardship as it relates to the ESA. His testimony is evidence of what many have been saying for years, that environmentalists have made their case a religious cause, and the many examples where irresponsible science was used to forfeit private property shows an alarming trend that we can ill afford to ignore.
I believe it was Hayek who wrote: It is possible that a fanatical religious group will impose upon the rest restrictions which its members will be pleased to observe but which will be obstacles for others in the pursuit of important aims. In the case of the Endangered Species Act, Americans face an Inquisition the likes of which has never been seen.
One of the original patriots, Sam Adams, said: "If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." American lives have been harmed by this destructive Act and too often (as with the Klamath farmers) it has been a case of too little, too late, and their voice, raised in collective protest and redoubled by other concerned citizens, was ignored. I could easily pose a canny analogy to our nations early days, in which legitimate grievances were ignored and a crisis followed. Now is the time for us to stand among our fellow countrymen whose lives have been harmed by the ESA, a threat to the beauty of the Tree of Liberty, an endangered species.
In Ron Arnold's book, Undue Influence, on page 105 again:BTW, when I say activist lawyers, I mean environmentalists, as they have hijacked the entire environmental agenda.
Blurbs for Nature's Services say about the authrors: Their findings clearly demostrate that these services--providing clean wate, pollination, pest control, climate regulation, flood control, and fisheries, to mention only a few--are not only valuable, they are irreplaceable. While insufficient information was available to calculate the economic value of all--or even more--ecosystem services, those which could be quantified measured, at a minimum, many trillion dollars annually." You make the generic claim that Ron Arnold has a hidden agenda. That's funny. That's the same thing the foundation-fed enviro sharks are saying. He does seem to be positing one idea you share with him: the property owner must take the Moral High Ground of Environmentalism back from government and activist lawyers. NP, p. 373 Though Arnold suggests taking it from the environmentalists.
My view of Rons agenda is surely different than the enviro-sharks:
Ron left the environmental movement. He has seen the damage that they do. He doesnt like it. He did his homework and exposed these people as destructive crooks. He has taken a LOT of heat for it. He has a huge ego and doesnt take to being called an enemy of nature kindly. He personally hates these people. He wants revenge. He gets it by attacking their ideas as stupid and crooked.
Ron wants to sell books. He wants to sell them to those who feel threatened and makes his money sounding alarm. Thats all he does, sound alarm. The more noise, the more books, speaking engagements, radio shows, and hopefully legal action to bust these crooks. If you talk to him (as I have for several hours), you find out that he doesnt really want a solution, at least not so badly that he has a cogent idea what it would be. The best you can get out of him is some sort of Teddy Roosevelt fantasy; i.e., that things could go back to what they were. What he would do to change the system he doesnt really address. BTW, he may well have gotten that Moral High Ground phrase from me. I sent him an early draft of my book in 1999.
Gretchen Daily says Nature provides these services. She is correct in the aspect that the services are provided. She is also correct in that they are enormously valuable. The question is: who owns them? I say that the property owner owns them and provides those services by various degrees. She thinks Nature provides them as if it was some third party that could only be claimed by all. She effectively turns all nature into a commons and has NO IDEA how to calculate a just pricing system other than by gathering lots of smart people together and imposing one by the power of government. My system derives pricing organically and seeks optimal combinations by simply operating according to the laws of economics. It also uses those laws to try to reduce the cost of providing those services.
Ron immediately slams Daily as if her observation werent correct and doesnt see the opportunity in it. That is because he can see nothing more than a scam and a power grab in it and makes his money belittling these people. He is indeed so predisposed to the point that he has blinded himself.
From Natural Process I read that you are suggesting property owners begin the necessary data collection on their property to be able to fight back against the government, to be aware of the cost of events on their property that currently have no price on them, but have been collectively bagged into a commons. Judging by what the enviros say about Nature's Services the road to certifying those events on private property will he a tug-of-war between two opposing factions.Closer, but not quite there. Besides the discussions in Part III, Chapters 4 and 5, there are two critical sections in the last chapter: Own the Data and Its a Process that describe how a market in uses develops. My system starts on ones own property USING THE DATA TO DESCRIBE IT AS IF IT WERE A PROCESS REACTOR. It is by characterizing it in the time domain and how it interacts with other property owners, that networks can develop, capable of dealing with complex large scale impacts quantify those interactions dynamically. Investments are then made to recombine overlapping use contracts that may be regional or even global. Various Ph.D. types are quite taken by these sections because they show how what they want only happens with a motivational system and how it develops organically through the blessings of liberty. The property owner remains the key indivisible unit. The property consists as a right to use. How it is owned, managed, and traded changes completely.
So tell me if I'm closer in your opinion to having read the book.
I think he makes his point that foundations do have an unearthly amount of power to influence policy. And he did question why they didn't price what your thought-model on the volcano tried to price--nature's disservices.
But turning to the idea of instilling peer review, a better science, for ESA action: Arnold's book mentioned the global warming is-isn't debate, in particular, the manner in which then aspiring VP Albert Arnold reacted when the science he embraced was questioned by other scientists.
You probably recall how Gore's affiliation with Roger Revelle, Gore's teacher at Harvard, and Revelle's paper, authored with two others, Fred Singer and Chauncy Starr, became a stumbling block for Gore. The trio's article: What to do about Greenhouose Warming: Look Before you Leap concluded "We can sum up out conclusions in a simple message: The scientific base for greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify action at this time." Undue Influence page203.
Clearly, when it comes to the issue of global warming, the science could be questioned as to what is "the best available science" were that science to be used to enforce ESA action. Peer review, in that case, would provide a kind of checks and balances.
(You mentioned ownership of the oceans. I read in NP:The UN is claiming control of the world's oceans as commons. So how does Century 21 advertise ocean property?)
Exactly right. I own Mt. Shasta. Pretty, isn't it? I charge you to look at it. Sell photographic rights and use of the name. Conduct tours. Build an underground hotel in the caves for those who wish to commune witht the Lemurians. Sell crystals. I charge downwind farmers for soil replenisment and maybe run a geothermal power plant. Who knows? If I make enough doing all that I may be able to afford the damages when the thing blows. Then I sell the movie rights...
I would have to know a heck of a lot about volcanoes wouldn't I? I would have to figure out how much the worshippers of Lemurians would pay for a pristine mountain compared to the rest of its uses. I might have to build a sacrificial power plant that didn't look ugly and wasn't hard to mitigate when the thing blew. That might take some developments in materials technology. I would have to calculate the crystal deposition rate to know the future value of the next eruption. Heck, I might even find a Lemurian! Think of the interviews! Hold the presses! Where's Barbara Walters??
Fun isn't it? Downright enlivening too. Respectful of the resource, considering all the angles. Developing new technology and learning from it. Saving up the dough to help people when it all gets out of hand. Optimizing the value if the money in the mean time. It's so damned much fun that I can't understand limousine liberal socialists at all. They have no imagination. It comes with the risk aversion attendant to inherited wealth. Pthththtttt!!!
Boy that says alot in just a few words.....BRAVO!!
I brought up the ESA (and The Convention on Nature Protection (though I could not remember its name at the time as usual)) with a friend of mine this evening.
He prides himself on his knowledge of the constitution. He wanted to know why he should believe me when he had not heard of anyone (authority figures) ever bringing this up before.
So, as you might imagine, I had rough going until I went to a nearby computer and printed article VI of the constitution. I showed him how treaties become instantly superior to the constitution, subsuming it and — seemingly — our individual rights allegedly protected by the Bill of Rights.
So now that he sees that, he went to defend his next barricade against reality. He says he couldn’t believe that the Senate would pass any treaty that would bring harm to the country. (!!!) So that’s when I mentioned the ESA and the treaty whose name I couldn’t recall pushed through during WWII by Cordell Hull.
I told him I wouldn’t dare rely any further on my memory, as I didn’t want to give him a half-cocked accounting, and that I’d give him more info the next time we met.
I came home and found the passage in your book and then went and searched for it online; hence I’m here.
What I’d like to know is, in addition to the ESA, do you have a list of other treaties have been signed since 1942 and any new laws have been passed pursuant to the new treaty auspices?
This could be providential should I get sufficient and documented info to him. It’s not every day I can make an impression on someone who thinks he’s well-informed by in reality is not. You know how much emotion is invested in smart people’s ego and how hard it is to enlighten under such circumstances, don’t you?
Hmmmm, a brick just flew through my window. It has a note that says you looked everywhere. Characteristically, "everywhere" somehow (and habitually) didn't include my site, which just about figures. There you would have found:
That article refers to this one:
The first was built out of the second with new material added that is much better than the original at laying out the modern legal architecture. The latter (the original) has more examples of treaty power abuse. It is also considerably shorter.
Yet to understand the implications fully would require knowledge of the process of centralization of power over the last 140 years through examples that are pertinent today; i..e., who is funding it, how, and to what end. That is what is discussed in the first three links on that same articles page (the one to which you won't refer people directly). Of course, I'm sure you had that bookmarked so that you could pull it right up, but why bother when you could waste my time demanding that I supply it instead?
You haven't changed a bit because you still haven't repented.
Your cruel cynicism here is unwarranted. (I’m over 10 years older than you and am suffering from seemingly interminable distractions. I start to track things down, and then forget what I was looking for.)
About what you called a brick: So you have forgotten that altercation you had with another bright friend of mine at his site? That didn’t turn out well for any of us.
My current conversant isn’t that hair-triggered, but it could have been had I not had easy access to a computer and print out.
And I know about your Patrick Henry essay. Jeesh! Did you forget that I edited it for you? I thought you had something new (see below).
I google searched, and that led to this thread. I was hoping to find the online text from your Natural Process so I could provide it for my friend. Natural Process didn’t come up, but this thread did.
And then in my last comment above I forgot to mention to you that this text has evolved. In it you used the words “unconstitutional” treaties. Isn’t it true that in you current thinking, they actually aren’t unconstitutional because the poison pill allows them?
What I realize now is that you could call them “anti-constitutional” treaties. Isn’t that more accurate? It surely is their aims given the racketeering you’ve documented.
But I forgot to mention it — because I got distracted so easily.
What I was hoping you could provide was new material. In the most recent post (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2881830/posts?page=31#30) someone mentioned the “desertification treaty” and you said you “knew it well.” I thought it was something new. I see now you mentioned it in Treaty Law. I’m sorry, but I never retained memory of it. It was spelled out as much at the 1942 treaty.
Thanks for giving me your time despite your misgivings. I really needed the help. Dammit, I AM trying to help you knucklehead. Our concerns are much the same. Save your cynicism for the big fish racketeers and give the smaller fry a bit more latitude.
Correction: The desertification treaty was not spelled out as clearly (or it didn’t leave as strong an imprint) as was The Convention on Nature Protection treaty.
And you are right about my not accessing the http://www.wildergarten.com/wp_pages/articles.html page. I’d forgotten about it. It ties together very well what I’m looking for since you’ve nothing new (until LOST or the small arms get treated as if past). Mea culpa.
When my friend was protesting that the senate would not ratify such treaties, he was strongly implying that I was wasting his time telling him of the dangers from them. He then when went straight to ‘the EPA poses our greatest threat.’ You and I both know how the EPA is manned by the same forces that write the treaties. At the time though, I could not remember the name of the Vienna Convention on Treaties, so I backed off.
As I mentioned earlier, I dare not give him all of your material all at once. His ego had already bristled when I showed he had no recollection of Article VI. In order to forestall his cognitive dissonance from kicking in, I am going to try to give him much of your material gradually. He’s no dummy, he is conservative and not entirely establishmentarian (not RINO and definitely not SKUNC), but he is human. I saw his emotional response to being told that the constitution contained a poison pill, and backed off.
I need to show him how EPA policy is influenced by those treaties that have not be officially ratified. How The Vienna convention on the Law of Treaties wasn’t ratified, but its tenants are in place anyway. That’s will be tough to sell. He’s gonna ask how do they get away with it? The press being in the tank for one. Then they go around acting like that husband caught in the act “who are you gonna believe? Me or your lying eyes?”
Unless you can think of a reason not to, I am going to try get him to consider a couple of paragraphs in you NRDC racketeering essay. Since it’s the EPA he’s most concerned about, that could give him some insights as to how it seems to be unopposed in its outrages.
“The very idea of Federal government regulations is an outrage to the original intent of the Constitution (that the people and the courts have accepted it is even worse). There are two reasons: First, it effectively eliminated the natural law competition between State regulations that might restrain their behavior. Second (and more important), the Constitution invested ALL legislative power in Congress. Rules and regulations, while having the force of law, are not passed by the elected representatives of the people. Instead, it is the executive branch that drafts, enacts, enforces, and adjudicates regulations, which effectively eliminates the checks and balances that were the very purpose of the separation of powers, never mind representative government. Thus, creating a body of administrative law makes corrupting administrative government a matter of one-stop shopping; it is virtually undetectable.
How did they get away with it?
To get past those pesky enumerated and separated powers, the players have invoked a deliberate loophole in the original Constitution, meant to enact a body of clearly unconstitutional law to which our nation as a whole is expected to abide: international law and in particular treaties, now held at the United Nations. These treaties entail obligations requiring powers that exceed constitutional limits, in other words, the government that agreed to the terms did not have the legal power to do so (to learn more about the origins of this massive gambit, please see Treaty Law - The Constitution’s Original Trojan Horse). Treaty law (and not the Constitution) has since been used as authorization for any number of environmental laws, each of which thence spawned a host of regulations. “