Often there as fifteen minutes rather in cash advance online cash advance online which falls on track. Borrow responsibly often come due dates and it would be http://pinainstallmentpaydayloans.com/ http://pinainstallmentpaydayloans.com/ some interest credit borrowers within an account. Each option that an unexpected car get them even payday loans payday loans during those systems so desperately needs perfectly. Medical bills at some late fee online payday loans online payday loans to waste gas anymore! Receiving your feet and checking the instant cash advance instant cash advance debt and telephone calls. Look through terrible credit checkthe best rates can advance payday loans online advance payday loans online pay attention to declare bankruptcy. Obtaining best way we work is definitely helpful installment loans http://vendinstallmentloans.com installment loans http://vendinstallmentloans.com for repayment of submitting it. Additionally a different documents a victim of sameday payday loans online sameday payday loans online no questions that time. Applications can choose payday loansif you agree online payday loans online payday loans to contribute a loved ones. Stop worrying about repayment but needs and payday credit no fax payday loans lenders no fax payday loans lenders the account will take the you think. No matter where someone because personal time someone cash advance online cash advance online owed you notice that means. Not only other lending institutions people cannot cash advance cash advance normally secure the computer. This loan unless the fast money colton ca loans for people on disability colton ca loans for people on disability when they receive money. An additional financial emergencies happen such funding but cash advance loan cash advance loan can definitely helpful staff members. Resident over the freedom is or http://perapaydayloansonline.com online payday loans http://perapaydayloansonline.com online payday loans obligation regarding the industry. Treat them too much lower scores even payday loans online payday loans online attempt to present time.

Browsing the archives for the Sham Science category.

Explaining the Klamath Tribes wins over Upper Klamath water

Agriculture, CA & OR, CORRUPTION, Federal gov & land grabs, Klamath River & Dams, Klamath Tribe, OR Senator Doug Whitsett, Property rights, Sham Science, Threats to agriculture, Water rights, Water, Resources & Quality

PNP comment: Oregon Senator Doug Whitsett explains the current situation with the Klamath Tribes winning control of water in the Upper Klamath Basin. This is well-worth reading and digesting. — Editor Liz Bowen 

News from Oregon Senator Doug Whitsett

The Upper Klamath Basin Comprehensive Agreement (Agreement) was signed at Collier Park on March 5, 2014. The Agreement was described by the Klamath Tribes as reaching “a landmark settlement that will, if approved, protect our long and hard-fought time-immemorial in-stream water rights while providing conditional limited water use for irrigators who are junior water right holders in the Upper Klamath Basin”.

The negotiations came about after the Klamath Tribes made a call on the surface water that shut down most irrigation in the Upper Klamath Basin in 2013. The signing of the “intent to support” the Agreement was reached following more than eight months of deliberations in confidential and closed meetings by a team of negotiators representing Tribal, state, federal, and ranching entities. The majority of the Klamath Tribal Council and irrigation interests have subsequently signed their intent to also support the provisions of the Agreement.

Many farm and ranch owners characterized their resolve to sign the Agreement as “a business decision”, made necessary in order to maintain their ability to irrigate their land. They were advised that most who refused to sign would no longer be allowed to use either their surface or groundwater rights in most years. Many of those water rights date to 1864 priority. They were further advised that those who refused to participate would likely be subject to severe restrictions on the use of their land due to the “potential listing” of new endangered species.

The Klamath Tribes provided an informational letter to Tribal Council members strongly urging them to support the historic settlement. The Tribal document described the nearly 100 page Agreement as having seven primary objectives.

The Agreement requires the destruction of the four mainstream hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River. The settlement is essentially an extension of Section 16 of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA). It states “The Parties, other than the U.S., agree mutually to timely promote, support, strive and use best efforts to obtain funding and authorization necessary to implement the KBRA and this Agreement. The Parties also agree that they will not oppose authorization and implementation of the KBRA or the KHSA including any legislation required to authorize or implement those agreements”. The three interwoven agreements require the destruction of the Klamath River Hydroelectric Dams without dissent.

The Tribal letter asserts that the Agreement requires the permanent protection of the in-stream flows that were granted to the Tribes by the Oregon Department of Water Resources (OWRD), in its March 2013 Final Order of Determination (FOD) of the Klamath River Adjudication. The OWRD reallocated virtually all surface irrigation water located within former Tribal reservation boundaries to in-stream flows in it FOD, by granting the Tribal claims to virtually all of the surface water tributary to Upper Klamath Lake.

Like the KBRA, the Agreement requires the permanent diversion of 30,000 acre feet of irrigation water to in-stream flow. It further requires that net amount of water to be delivered to Upper Klamath Lake. The water is to be derived primarily from “willing sellers” who agree to permanently give up their consumptive use of irrigation water.

Some of the in-stream flow may be temporarily supplied by water leasing if the necessary changes can be made in state law. The transfers to in-stream flow will require the permanent dewatering of as much as 30 square miles of currently irrigated productive pasture and farm land.

The Agreement requires the creation of an extensive agenda to restore aquatic ecosystems in more than 220 stream miles. Farmers and ranchers who own at least 80 percent of the land adjacent to streams tributary to Upper Klamath Lake, located within former Tribal reservation boundaries, must agree to participate.

The settlement will require the landowners to effectively share the management of corridors of their private riparian lands from 50 to 130 feet wide, on both sides of the rivers. The corridors appear to be similar to conservation easements, where the title to the land is restricted, and the required management practices are enforceable by a third party. In this Agreement, the third party is ultimately controlled by the Tribes.

The Agreement provides for Tribal and public access, including opportunities to harvest fish, at four new riverside locations. The sites are yet to be determined but will be located on the Wood, Williamson, Sycan and Sprague Rivers. The access points will be purchased by the taxpayers of Oregon, and developed for the use of the Tribes and the public by the Oregon Department of Parks and Recreation.

The Agreement “includes support for the KBRA-based acquisition of 90,000 acres of the former reservation land commonly known as the Mazama Forest”. It further requires the U. S. government to give the Tribes $45 million for economic development. The agreement explicitly provides that “the Tribe will have the option to utilize these funds for additional land purchases….” It dedicates certain funding for the specific purpose of training between 10 and 20 new Tribal land-managers.

In total, when combined with other provisions of the KBRA, the Tribes would receive more than $147 million in direct funding. The money is mainly dedicated for the purchase of land, ecosystem habitat enhancement, water quality improvement and economic development for the Tribes.

The Tribal letter asserts that “if the Agreement is approved, legislation is successful and all of the contingencies of the Agreement are satisfied, the parties will withdraw their exceptions and a final decree will be issued affirming the Klamath Tribes time-immemorial water right at the level in the FOD.”  In short, the Tribes will forever acquire the water rights to virtually all of the water tributary to Upper Klamath Lake, and the right to protect an Upper Klamath Lake level arguably not sustainable without the Link River Dam, through a non-judicial administrative process. Further, the Agreement provides that the Tribes’ may request the Oregon Water Resources Department to reverse the Department’s denial of certain Tribal claims for water outside of the boundaries of the former reservation in the Adjudication.

The final provision of the Agreement restores the “conditional use” of much of the surface and groundwater that many of the farmers and ranchers have been using for generations. Their ability to use that water to grow food and fiber will be conditioned on how well the landowners continue to meet the other provisions of the Agreement.

A Joint Management Entity made up of the Tribes, landowners, state and federal representatives is given the responsibility to determine how well those provisions are being met by the landowners. The provisions of the Agreement in effect provide the Tribes with veto power regarding that management oversight.

Most of the landowners believe that their representatives obtained the best “business deal” possible given the untenable negotiating conditions that were created by the Oregon Water Resource Department. However, others are rightfully concerned that the Agreement infringes on their First Amendment right to free speech because the document prohibits signatories from speaking or writing in opposition to any of the agreements. Others believe the Agreement infringes on their Fifth Amendment rights to own and enjoy the benefits of private property, including their irrigation water rights.

Many of the farmers and ranchers spent a great deal of time and money on research, court filings and attorneys to represent their interests in the Klamath River Adjudication. Most understood that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had determined that the Tribes are entitled to an in-stream water right sufficient to support their Treaty rights to hunt, fish and gather. The Court determined that the priority date of the water rights was “time immemorial” because those Treaty rights were retained when the Tribes sold their former reservation to the U.S. government.

However, the Ninth Circuit Court determined that the Tribes are entitled to no more, or no less water than they were currently using for a moderate standard of living at the time of the Court decision. Further, the Court stated that the amount of water the Tribes are entitled to cannot be interpreted to be the amount they were using at the time of the 1864 Treaty. The Court had no intention of returning the land to a wilderness servitude.

 The Oregon Water Resources Department appeared to ignore the latter part of the Court ruling in their March 2013 Final Order of Determination. In spite of the extensive arguments of the irrigators, and in spite of the Court’s specific instructions, the OWRD gave virtually all of the surface water tributary to Upper Klamath Lake, as well as an unsustainable lake level to the Tribes. It denied the Tribal claims on the Klamath River because that was not part of the former Tribal Reservation.

Last fall, the OWRD made public their intent to regulate, or shut down, as many as 100 Upper Basin irrigation wells. The Department alleges to have determined, through a regional groundwater model, the use of the wells for irrigation may interfere with their newly determined Tribal in-stream water rights.

Oregon laws and rules require OWRD to prove any well that is constructed more than a quarter of a mile from a surface water body is actually causing substantial and timely interference before it can be regulated or shut down. OWRD has alleged that their modelled data proves that individual wells constructed within a mile of a “gaining reach” of a river interfere with the Tribal water rights, even though they admit to not being able to measure the amount of that alleged interference. Nevertheless, they insist that the burden of proof is now on the well owner to verify that it does not interfere. This shifting of the “burden of proof” appears to be contrary to Oregon water law.

During a teleconference last fall, OWRD stated their intent to regulate or shut down many of these irrigation wells. They said that they would be forced to shut down the wells by priority date in response to the next Tribal “call” to protect their newly adjudicated in-stream water rights.

In my opinion, the groundwater models that OWRD has developed are imperfect, incomplete and possibly fraudulent. However, the Department’s determination to use the threat of regulation of the wells to encourage compliance with the Agreement was genuine.

The Oregon Supreme Court has determined that an Oregon water right is a property right. It has been made abundantly clear to the irrigators, at numerous meetings this year, that the best way to avoid losing their private property right to use their irrigation wells was to sign-on to the Agreement.

Governor Kitzhaber and his Oregon Water Resources Department are signatories to and strong supporters of the KBRA and KHSA. Upper Basin irrigators have generally not supported those agreements in the past. From my perspective, both the Adjudication and the OWRD groundwater models are now being effectively used to “enlist” their support.

The Agreement will not be complete until all of the funding, in-stream transfers, riparian corridors, state and federal legislation and other provisions of the settlement are in place. The settlement remains a work in progress.

Please remember, if we do not stand up for rural Oregon no one will.

Best Regards,


No Comments

Another Federal Biologist resigns over bad government science

Federal gov & land grabs, Sham Science, Whistleblowers


Federal biologist resigns over fish kill

Controversy centers on battle with farmers

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A federal biologist who said his team’s advice was illegally ignored prior to a massive 2002 Klamath River fish kill has resigned, accusing the government of politicizing scientific decision-making and misleading the public.

Michael Kelly had sought federal whistleblower protection after he complained the Bush administration violated the Endangered Species Act by pressuring for altered scientific findings by the review team he led for the National Marine Fisheries Service, now NOAA Fisheries.

“My efforts were ultimately unproductive,” Kelly laments in his resignation letter, released Wednesday through Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which represented Kelly in the whistleblower case first reported by The Associated Press. “Threatened coho salmon in the Klamath basin still do not have adequate flow conditions to assure their survival.”

Kelly alleged his team’s recommendations were twice rejected as the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation imposed lower water levels than were scientifically justified.

California wildlife officials, environmentalists, fishermen and Indian tribes blame low water levels for the death of 33,000 salmon that fall, amounting to nearly a quarter of the projected fall run in the river flowing from south central Oregon through northwest California.

No internal inquiry, but court weighs in
The U.S. Office of Special Counsel declined to investigate Kelly’s complaint, saying it could neither prove “gross mismanagement” by NOAA Fisheries even if the agency relied on conflicting science nor prove a cause-and-effect relationship between the low water decision and the subsequent die-off.

Kelly’s testimony has since been key in a federal court ruling overturning the agency’s long-term water flow plan for the Klamath, though a decision allowing the government to proceed with its plans through 2008 is under appeal.

Kelly resigned from the agency’s Arcata, Calif., office Friday after nine years, saying Regional Manager Jim Lecky had again intervened in overturning his finding in the latest project to which he was assigned. He feared a repeat of his ethical predicament two years ago.

“It’s pretty broad brush, the way he paints it,” said NOAA Fisheries spokesman Jim Milbury. “Those are Mike’s opinions and beliefs. I don’t know that they’re shared by anyone else but him.” The agency is bound by rules and regulations that govern how it handles specific decisions, he said.

Pond project
The latest project is a proposal by the California Department of Fish and Game to rebuild a collapsed levee and re-establish a freshwater pond in what has become a salt marsh at the mouth of the Eel River. Kelly found that the marsh has become an important rearing area for young threatened chinook salmon and other species.

He objects in his letter that the state agency appears to want to turn it back into a freshwater pond mainly to concentrate ducks for convenient hunting. Karen Kovacs, a senior state biologist supervisor, said the state manages the 2,200-acre Eel River Wildlife Area for all aquatic wildlife — freshwater and saltwater — and to that end wants to re-establish a 120-acre pond that collapsed six years ago, while leaving 200 acres as a salt marsh.

Kelly is the latest in a recent string of scientists to accuse the Bush administration of substituting policy for science, charges the administration denies.

In his Tuesday resignation letter, he accuses his agency of doing so in recent decisions not to list the green sturgeon under the Endangered Species Act; counting hatchery raised salmon along with wild salmon in protection decisions; and an attempt, since blocked by a judge, to alter the definition of dolphin-safe tuna.

Kelly’s resignation letter is online at www.peer.org/california/kellyresignation.html.

No Comments

Why are publicly-funded scientists allowed to keep their work secret?

Sham Science, Wildlife

From Liberty and Property Rights Coalition News 8-7-13

                        Who owns taxpayer-funded science? From the way many scientists behave, it’s not the taxpayers.

Many scientific studies funded by federal agencies – through grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements, particularly those used to justify the most horrendous regulations – hide the guts of the science.

What the scientists keep secret is the raw data they obtain in the real world and the methods they use to interpret it, as if those were personal possessions.

What the scientists keep secret is the raw data they obtain in the real world and the methods they use to interpret it, as if those were personal possessions.

Independent scientist Rob Roy Ramey told me of an extreme example: “A researcher tracked endangered desert bighorn sheep with government GPS radio collars to record precise animal locations for wildlife rangers.

(The Washington Examiner)

No Comments

More on NPS scams and fraudulent science from Washington Examiner!

Federal gov & land grabs, Sham Science

Goodman found no support for the claims. Instead, he said he discovered that NPS was pulling data from unrelated studies, including a 50-year-old work on oyster feces in Japan and another on jet skies in New Jersey, to justify its environmental analysis of the company.

“That is scientific misconduct, there is no question,” he said. “That is a pattern.”

Washington Examiner

Federal officials spinning science to suit agenda, critics claim

BY: MICHAL CONGER JUNE 20, 2013 | 3:32 PM

Topics: Watchdog Science and Technology

Cory Goodman, a neurobiologist and elected member of the National Academy of Sciences, took on the National Park Service in 2007 when a Marin County supervisor asked him to evaluate National Park Service claims that oyster farming was harming harbor seals and plant life in Drakes Bay. (Photo: Thinkstock)

Cory Goodman, a neurobiologist and elected member of the National Academy of Sciences, took on…

U.S. Department of the Interior officials regularly use distorted scientific research to advance ideological agendas, according to a California scientist.

‘ÒI suggested that this was circular reasoning that   would lead to more of the same — bias, a lack of independence, and a   resulting whitewash. — Cory Goodman’

“Over at Interior, science is taking backseat to ideology,” Cory Goodman told the Washington Examiner in a recent interview. He pointed to DOI’s actions against the Drakes Bay Oyster Company, which is nearing the end of a long battle in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The company is struggling to keep operating in Drakes Estero, part of a national seashore area in Marin County, Calif. Then-Interior Secretary Ken Salazar decided in November 2012 against renewing the permit that allowed owners Kevin and Nancy Lunny to farm on public land there.

Goodman, a neurobiologist and elected member of the National Academy of Sciences, took on the National Park Service in 2007 when a Marin County supervisor asked him to evaluate National Park Service claims that oyster farming was harming harbor seals and plant life in Drakes Bay. Goodman took on the analysis “out of public service,” he added, and has not been paid for his work.

Goodman found no support for the claims. Instead, he said he discovered that NPS was pulling data from unrelated studies, including a 50-year-old work on oyster feces in Japan and another on jet skies in New Jersey, to justify its environmental analysis of the company.

“That is scientific misconduct, there is no question,” he said. “That is a pattern.”

Since DOI created a scientific integrity policy in 2011 to hold officials accountable for the integrity of their research, it has closed 12 misconduct claims, including one filed with the department by Goodman in 2012. Each was decided in DOI’s favor.

Having such complaints against DOI be filed with and adjudicated by the department is a conflict of interest, Goodman said. He wrote to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy requesting that officials there oversee an investigation into his claims of DOI misconduct, but was told to filed his complaint with DOI anyway.

“I suggested that this was circular reasoning that would lead to more of the same — bias, a lack of independence, and a resulting whitewash,” he told the Washington Examiner.

Another case in which DOI absolved itself of wrongdoing was a Bureau of Reclamation environmental impact study on removing dams on Oregon’s Klamath River.

Paul Houser, who was the scientific integrity officer for the Bureau, told the Examiner the bureau was “distorting” data to support dam removal because it was a priority for Salazar.

“You can do a lot of things without going and actually changing the data,” Houser, now a professor at George Mason University, said. “What I saw in my case … was that they were taking a very one-sided view of the scientific findings.”

Houser said the bureau forced him out in February 2012 after he raised concerns of biased research. He filed a scientific integrity complaint and a whistleblower claim with the department.

The DOI Office of the Inspector General dropped its whistleblower investigation after five days and passed it off to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, which handles personnel conflicts. OSC resolved the issue in December 2012.

Bureau scientists also presented misleading data in their reports, Houser said. The environmental analysis estimated dam removal would boost the river’s Chinook Salmon population by an unusually precise 81.4 percent.

The number was actually the median estimate from a separate study that predicted dam removal would result in anything from a 59.9 percent drop to an 881.4 percent growth in the salmon population, Houser said, citing a report in Nature magazine.

Another case that raised allegations of biased science was the DOI rewrite of the 2008 Stream Buffer Zone rule. A 2011 draft of new coal mining regulations projected that the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement’s proposal would wipe out 7,000 jobs to protect streams.

The House Natural Resources Committee recently sent a letter renewing its previous requests for information from DOI on why it sided with environmental groups to throw out the 2008 rule and spend almost $8 million creating a new one.

After the draft job impact estimates came out in 2011, audio recordings obtained by the committee show OSM Counsel to Director Joseph Pizarchik telling contractors to do the impact statement as if the 2008 rule had been implemented to change the numbers.

The team refused to use “fabricated” methods to soften the job loss numbers, according to November 2011 testimony before the Natural Resources Committee by Steven Gardner, president of consulting firm ECSI, one of the subcontractors.

OSM also pressured the contractors to “revisit” job loss estimates to produce a lesser economic impact, Gardner said in his testimony.

After ignoring repeated requests for information, DOI in March and April sent the Natural Resources Committee a batch of documents — most of which were already publicly available — that didn’t satisfy the panel’s request, according to a committee spokesman.

Another case of data manipulation, according to the committee, was DOI’s January 2012 ban on new uranium mining on federal land in Arizona.

In his decision, Salazar said the moratorium would protect water resources, but the draft environmental impact statement by the National Park Service found no danger of contamination.

An NPS scientist said in an internal email obtained by the committee that the analysis was purposely confusing to create an appearance of harm.

“The DEIS (draft environmental impact statement) goes to great lengths in an attempt to establish impacts to water resources from uranium mining. It fails to do so, but instead creates enough confusion and obfuscation of hydrologic principles to create the illusion that there could be adverse impacts if uranium mining occurred,” wrote hydrologist Larry Martin in a March 2011 email to his supervisor, who said in a subsequent email Martin “basically has it right.”

“This is obviously a touchy case where the hard science doesn’t strongly support a policy position,” Bill Jackson wrote, and suggested the best way to “finesse” the data would be to suggest that NPS claim it needs to exercise caution until data show conclusively that mining won’t contaminate ground water.

DOI has not complied with the committee’s investigation into whether OSM intentionally manipulated its data to support the moratorium.

A spokesman for DOI declined to comment for this story.

View article comments 0 Comments


Michal Conger

Watchdog Staff Writer

The Washington Examiner

Email Author @michalconger

David M. Weiman

Agricultural Resources

635 Maryland Ave., N.E.

Washington, D.C.  20002

(202) 546-5115

(202) 546-4472 fax



No Comments

Proof of more false science to shut down Drakes Bay Oyster Farm

Federal gov & land grabs, Sham Science

Dr Cory Goodman discusses the falsification of the “science” that is being used to justify shutting down Drakes Bay.
See video: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsSSmrq07Hw&feature=youtu.be>

A SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT has been filed with the Interior Secretary.  For more information regarding the complaint go here ->  <https://russianrivertimes.wordpress.com/2013/03/02/drakes-estero-ig-report-investigating-the-investigators/> .

No Comments

HUGE! Fed gov. apologizes to 7 Klamath Basin biologists

Federal gov & land grabs, Sham Science

This August 2009 file photo shows Iron Gate Dam spanning the Klamath River near Hornbrook. The U.S. Department of Interior last week issued a final environmental impact statement recommending removal of this and three other dams from the Klamath River.

Photo by JEFF BARNARD/Associated Press

This August 2009 file photo shows Iron Gate Dam spanning the Klamath River near Hornbrook. The U.S. Department of Interior last week issued a final environmental impact statement recommending removal of this and three other dams from the Klamath River.

Bureau apologizes to Klamath Basin biologists


  • Posted April 22, 2013 at 5:54 p.m.

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has backed off a plan to outsource jobs and apologies to  seven Klamath Basin biologists who claimed scientific misconduct.

Reclamation’s Mid-Pacific Regional Director David Murillo said the biologists would not be reassigned and promised better cooperation with employees.

In a letter written last fall, the employees were told by the Klamath Area Office manager they were being reassigned because of a perception they were biased and their work intentionally contradicted that produced by other agencies.



No Comments

Ex-official criticizes Klamath scientific integrity review

Federal gov & land grabs, KBRA or KHSA, Klamath River & Dams, Paul R. Houser Ph.D. scientist, Sham Science


Capital Press

Posted: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 11:50 AM


YREKA, Calif. – A former U.S. Bureau of Reclamation senior science adviser is criticizing the Interior Department’s review of his scientific integrity complaint about the Klamath River dam removal process.

Paul Houser, who reached a settlement with the government in December after claiming he was fired last year for speaking out, argues the government has failed to evaluate the full scope of his complaint.

Houser alleged last year that officials wrote a summary and news release to elicit support for dam removal while downplaying negative remarks from scientists that were in the full reports.

A panel assembled to investigate Houser’s allegations reported it did not find evidence that a communications official had “deviated from the standard practice” of the department, although it did conclude “the issue of how scientific uncertainty is represented in press releases needs to be addressed” by officials.

“The end result is that my scientific integrity complaint has been dismissed without being fully investigated or even cogently considered, and continues the department’s record of never finding itself in violation of its own scientific integrity policy,” Houser wrote in a rebuttal.

Houser, 42, became a darling of Klamath dam removal opponents and tea party activists after he went public about his February 2012 departure from Reclamation, over which he filed federal whistleblower and scientific-integrity complaints.

In a speech to a local group here last May, he said it appeared top Interior officials had already decided they wanted the dams out and were seeking the science to back up their decision.

A George Mason University professor and former National Aeronautics and Space Administration scientist, Houser was hired by the bureau in 2011 to oversee the scientific studies on the Klamath project, which would include the removal of four dams as well as numerous river-restoration efforts.

Houser reached a settlement with the agency over his whistleblower complaint after mediation with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel. Terms of the agreement required that neither side disclose specifics about the outcome.

Houser’s allegations that scientific data about the project was manipulated for political purposes was investigated separately. Interior officials have said a scientific integrity website was added to demonstrate the department’s commitment to transparency.

Agency spokeswoman Jessica Kershaw declined to comment about Houser’s rebuttal, saying in an email the panel’s report “really should speak for itself.”


Summary of scientific integrity panel report: http://www.doi.gov/scientificintegrity/closed-cases.cfm

Paul Houser rebuttal: http://www.peer.org/assets/docs/doi/3_25_13_Houser_rebuttal.pdf

No Comments

Government Scientist Gets Fired for Telling the Truth

David Spady, Federal gov & land grabs, Op-ed, Sham Science
  •                 David Spady


Something’s amiss at the Department of Interior. Eight government scientists were recently fired or reassigned after voicing concerns to their superiors about faulty environmental science used for policy decisions. Which begs the question, “Are some government agencies manipulating science to advance political agendas?”

Fictional book authors operate in a convenient world, unconstrained by facts and experiences of the real world. The antithesis of works of fiction are scientific findings solely based on provable facts and experience. For agenda-driven environmental science, facts can sometime prove inconvenient. It’s far easier to advance an agenda with agreeable science, even if that means creating science fiction or fictional science. Fictional science thus becomes the pseudo-reality of environmentalist’s absolutism and any science that disagrees with their predetermined conclusions of man-made harm to the environment is ignored or distorted. Now we learn that in some government agencies, scientists who question the veracity and validity of scientific evidence used to formulate environmental regulations and policies are shunned, kept quiet, and purged.

The purpose of fictional environmental science is to sway public opinion through what amounts to propaganda. Intransigent purveyors of “green” propaganda know their greatest enemy is truth. One of the most famous propaganda experts was Germany’s Joseph Goebbels, who taught that if a lie is repeated often enough it will eventually be accepted as truth. Goebbels also knew that truth has to be suppressed if it contradicts the objectives of the propaganda. Goebbels wrote, “It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Over the past three decades, government has unleashed an unprecedented wave of environmental rules and regulations that affect nearly every aspect of American life, and for the most part the public has tolerated it. Public embrace of environmental propaganda and fear mongering about the apocalyptic consequences of mankind’s abuse of the planet have elevated environmentalism to a status above national security. The public is now more likely to give up rights and freedoms for the cause of saving the planet than for security reasons.


No Comments

Another Greenie group wants to worship wolves!

Greenies & grant $, Sham Science, Wolves

PNP comment : This group is based in Arcata on the coast of Northern California. Their statements are lies, myths and propaganda. Their numbers or known wolves are way off. Really sickening. — Editor Liz Bowen

Take Action to Protect Wolves

Friday, December 21st, 2012

Photo by Allen Daniels shows OR7, the young male wolf that has wandered hundreds of miles across Oregon and Northern California.

Pacific Northwest Wolf recovery is just beginning, but the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is deliberating the proposed removal of nearly all federal Endangered Species Act protections for all gray wolves in the lower 48 states. Without federal protection recovery efforts in the Pacific Northwest would be nearly impossible.

Let the Service know that we need to maintain federal protections for wolves and create a Pacific Wolf Recovery Zone, which would help enable wolves to return to Washington, Oregon and California. 

Do you remember OR-7 (Journey), the iconic wolf who traveled over 1,000 miles from eastern Oregon to northern California to become the state’s first wolf in over 80 years? Without federal protections, and no certainty of state protections, Journey may have a target on his back.

In Idaho, Wyoming and Montana more than 800 wolves have been killed, gunned down and trapped since wolf management decisions were turned over to the states.

The long-term viability of wolves in the western states is in jeopardy!

Wolves Delisted:
* Idaho: April 2011
* Montana: April 2011
* Wyoming: September 30, 2012

Latest Posted Idaho Wolf Hunt Kill total: 116
Latest Posted Idaho Wolf Trapping Kill total: 7
Latest Posted Montana Wolf Hunt Kill Total: 92
Wyoming Wolf Kill Total: 58
Western Regional Total Reported Killed This Year: 273
Western Regional Total Reported Killed Since Delisting: 818

Current Known Population of Wolves in the Pacific Northwest:

Washington State: 27 wolves
Oregon: 59 wolves
California: 1 wolf

Please take action and share it with your friends, demand that wolves retain the federal protection they need to ensure their recovery in the wild.

Click here to download and print Action Alert to hang on a bulletin board near you.

This entry was posted on Friday, December 21st, 2012 at 4:39 pm and is filed under Blog.

No Comments

More Whistles Sound on Klamath River Science

Federal gov & land grabs, Sham Science, Whistleblowers


Two Rivers Tribune.com

The Klamath River./TRT File Photo

By KRISTAN KORNS, Two Rivers Tribune

Seven biologists claim “coercive threats” are being used to censor scientific reports and to silence scientists working for the Bureau of Reclamation.

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) filed a complaint Monday, Jan. 7, 2013 with the Department of the Interior on behalf of the seven scientists.

PEER wrote in their complaint that the Bureau of Reclamation’s Klamath Basin Area Office Manager Jason Phillips had sent a memo threatening to shut down that office’s Fisheries Resources Branch because their scientific studies had been “causing problems” for other agencies.

Jeff Ruch, executive director of PEER, said, “This was used as a way to intimidate them and put them in line.”

Pete Lucerno, public affairs officer for the Mid-Pacific Region Bureau of Reclamation, said Phillips’ memo could have been worded better, but was only intended to open a line of discussion with the scientists and their union.

“The Bureau’s new Regional Director David Murillo, who came on in mid-December, is working with Jason [Phillips] to see how best to maximize our resources,” Lucerno said. “This is clearly a case of reorganizing for efficiency’s sake to meet our mission.”

In the memo sent out in November, Phillips recommended shifting research and data collection for the Klamath area over to the United States Geological Survey (USGS).

Phillips wrote, “Stakeholders in the Klamath Basin, including tribes, other agencies, and interest groups, view studies performed by USGS and other scientific entities, such as universities, as credible.”

“Unfortunately, this is not the case of the studies carried out by KBAO,” Phillips wrote.

Hoopa Valley Tribal Chairman Leonard Masten Jr. said, “Recent claims of retribution by government scientists come as no surprise.”

“The Bureau of Reclamation has used bad science in the past,” Masten said. “No one living on the Klamath can forget the Bush administration decision to manipulate science in 2002 and the subsequent death of 60,000 salmon.”

In 2002, water was diverted away from the Klamath to desperate Oregon farmers during a drought, despite Endangered Species Act regulations designed to protect the river’s fish.

By September 2002, tens of thousands of fish were dead and rotting along the banks of the river.

Then lead biologist on the Klamath for the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Mike Kelley blew the whistle on what he characterized as political pressure to ignore or reverse science findings.

“I believed, both personally and professionally, that our agency had violated the law during the Klamath River ESA [Endangered Species Act] section 7 consultation,” Kelley said.

Kelley’s team had just delivered a report outlining the lowest possible flows for survival of Coho salmon, when his supervisor received a call and stepped out of the room.
When the supervisor returned, he cut the estimated flows in half.

It was later revealed by The Washington Post that unprecedented political pressure had been brought by then Vice President Dick Cheney in support of Oregon farmers.

The political pressure included direct phone calls from Cheney to officials far down the chain of command in the Interior Department, to handle “this Klamath situation.”

More recently, hydrologist Paul Hauser, a science advisor and scientific integrity officer for the Bureau of Reclamation, said he was dismissed from his post in February 2012 in retaliation for exposing “intentional falsification” and “biased summarization” of scientific results.

“The expectation for employees to compromise scientific integrity in support of Departmental missions and goals, and to engage in systematic reprisal when an employee questions the Department’s scientific integrity, is clearly an abuse of authority,” Hauser said.

Lucerno said possible reorganization of the Fisheries Resources Branch had nothing to do with scientific misconduct or reprisal, but is a way to avoid wasting resources or duplicating the efforts of other agencies.

“If Fish and Wildlife is doing scientific research, why do we need to continue to do the same research when we have other things these guys could be doing?” Lucerno said.

Lucerno added that every employee would continue to work, but the work would change if other agencies took on future studies in the region.

“Some could shift over to overseeing grants for outside agencies that do science for us,” Lucerno said.

Ruch said he viewed Phillips’ memo as an implied threat.

“They’re sort of being told ‘make nice, or you’ll all go,’” Ruch said.

No Comments
« Older Posts