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.
Scott Valley Protect Our Water – POW – in Siskiyou County, California
Mar 22, 2012
Dr. Paul R. Houser
* Scientist and whistleblower
* expert on ‘Scientific Integrity’
* highest level scientist in the Bureau of Reclamation
* only scientist in the D.C. office
FIRED for exposing scientific fraud by Interior
KBC NEWS 3/19/12 – Dr. Paul R. Houser, hydrometeorologist, and expert scientist on “Scientific Integrity,” was the highest level scientist in the Bureau of Reclamation, and the only scientist in the D.C. office. Houser, whistleblower, was fired for exposing the Secretary of Interior’s “intentional falsification,” “bias,” and “predetermined intention” to destroy the Klamath dams.
HERE for Dr. Houser’s biography
Here for Dr. Houser’s KBC webpage.
KBC News asked Dr. Houser his opinion of Interior’s peer review report also of the peer reviewers?”
HERE is Dr. Houser’s review.
Review of Interior’s Klamath Dam Removal
EIS/EIR Peer-Review and Peer-Reviewers
Dr. Paul R. Houser, hydrometeorologist, and expert scientist on “Scientific Integrity,” was the highest level scientist in the Bureau of Reclamation, and the only scientist in the D.C. office. Houser was fired for exposing “intentional falsification,” “bias,” and Interior’s “predetermined intention” to destroy the Klamath dams.
HERE for Dr. Houser’s biography
Here for Dr. Houser’s KBC webpage.
Following is Dr. Houser’s response:
“Here is my review of the review.
I note that comment 3-5: “The Summary and Findings section does not sufficiently express the uncertainties in the responses to restoration options” is generally consistent with my concerns over the September 21, 2011 “Summary of Key Conclusions” expressed in my September disclosure. Note that the summaries included in the draft EIS/EIR are more detailed than the Summary of Key Conclusions, but still have bias.
Also note Comment 4-2: “Make the process of evaluating the scientific information clearer (e.g., in Section 3) and ensure that the Secretary understands the scientific limitations of the advice provided by its expert panels.” For example, the expert panels conclude that most issues could be answered only qualitatively rather than quantitatively, as would be hoped for from scientific information. As put succinctly by the final Coho/Steelhead panel report: “… a decision to proceed with the [dam removal] projects should be understood as a decision to pursue a hypothesis of increased fish production, for which there is evidentiary support for qualitative responses, but whose quantitative outcome is largely unknown” (p. 71).
Further comments of note:
Comment 5a-1: “The Overview Report does not discuss the range of potential outcomes and associated unknowns to the degree expressed in the original technical reports”.
Comment 5b-1: “The KBRA includes discussions on fish restoration and several other key factors associated with dam removal. The document does, however, acknowledge that specific implementation processes have not been thoroughly developed. Because of this, some uncertainty exists about the overall effectiveness of implementation efforts”.
Comment 7a-1: “The risks and uncertainties of dam removal are not as clear, particularly in the Executive Summary, as they should be. Certain aspects of the system response to restoration are better defined (more certain) than others. Such distinctions are important. Recommendation: Edit the Overview Report to highlight the distinction between what is known with confidence and critical uncertainties”.
The reviews also point out inadequate discussion and accounting for the impact of reservoir sediment transport or contaminants. This is a critical omission that could have devastating effects on the current healthy downstream fisheries.
Finally, I am concerned about a peer-review with pre-determined questions. It is possible that the peer-reviewers may only address the questions they are presented, rather than looking at the broad credibility of the report. Peer reviews of scientific papers usually do not have such specific questions, so the reviewers are more broadly tasked with assessing the technical validity of the science presented. The peer reviewers are certainly impressive scientists. However, I note that they include a history professor, a power regulatory consultant, a senior scientist for the Nature Conservancy, a dam-removal engineer, and a salmon recovery professor. This appears to not be an impartial panel, and one with a number of obvious conflicts of interest.”
Best Regards, Paul
Mobile:301-613-3782 | Fax:410-970-6643 | email@example.com
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml