Strike Three

I remember being especially impressed with Obama's inaugural address when he vowed to "restore science to its rightful place."  Hearing this was a breath of fresh air following an unprecedented eight years of manipulation, suppression and misrepresentation of science during the Bush era.

Unfortunately, I also recall Obama's vow falling by the wayside when his administration failed to make meaningful changes in its management of Columbia River Basin dams to ensure they did not jeopardize the continued existence of endangered and threatened Pacific salmon.

Lower Granite Dam

I take it as a given that our elected officials and high-level bureaucrats want cover when making difficult or controversial decisions.  Our leaders are paralyzed unless they feel protected by sufficient cover--whether in the form of an outspoken mass of voters, impending economic doom, or a judge forcing the issue.  As it turns out, our leaders too often would rather follow than take the lead. 

So, it was with great joy that I sat down this evening to read Judge Redden's opinion (PDF), issued yesterday, rebuking for the third time NOAA Fisheries' 2010 biological opinion for the Columbia River Basin salmon.  For those that don't have the time, the footnotes are where it's at:

FN2 - The history of the Federal Defendant's lack of, or at best, marginal compliance with the procedural and substantive requirements of the [Endangered Species Act] as to [Federal Columbia River Power System] operations has been laid out in prior Opinions and Orders in this case and is repeated here only where relevant.

Translation: Quit with this crap already; it's getting old.

FN3 - Because I find that the [biological opinion] impermissibly relies on mitigation measures that are not reasonably certain to occur, I need not address Plaintiffs' remaining arguments.  I continue to have serious concerns about the specific, numerical survival benefits NOAA Fisheries attributes to habitat mitigation.  Habitat improvement is a vital component of recovery and may lead to increased survival.  Nevertheless, the lack of scientific support for specific survival predictions is troubling.  Indeed, NOAA Fisheries acknowledges that the benefits associated with habitat improvement may not accrue for many years, if ever.  Although the court may be required to defer to NOAA Fisheries' technical and scientific "expertise" in predicting the benefits of habitat mitigation, the court is not required to defer to uncertain survival predictions that are based upon unidentified mitigation plans.

Translation: You're so full of shit I have to put quotes around "expertise."

So, hide behind Judge Redden if you must, Mr. Obama, but it's well past time to make the right decision.

More fun with Pebble

I didn't make it out to the fair this year, but seeing stuff like this in my inbox makes me wish I had:

You can click the picture to see a larger version in all its glory.  When combined with the more subtle sticker improvements I posted about a couple weeks ago, maybe Pebble will get the hint.

They had it coming

The Pebble Partnership, proponents of what might be the most obscene mine around, is about as slimy a corporation as it gets.  In their never-ending quest to down play the fact that the Pebble Mine would completely destroy one of the most productive fisheries in the state, they've been sponsoring every public event in Alaska, including the state fair (click to enlarge, and pay special attention to the eye):

It's not all fun and games around here

So far, this blog has taken a fairly light hearted approach to things. However, after reading Pa's comment to the Bottom Feeders post, I got to thinking about an irate email I received a while back from one of my employer's finer members. Our Fine Member found it unconscionable that a conservation organization would be concerned about global warming and sought to set me--and my organization's bogus science--straight.

After Our Fine Member opened with:

"here's what I sent my buddies here in denver yesterday. So far, noone has has the fortitude to write me back:"

And accused me of being:

"a supporter of the eco-lemming/global alarmist movement that supports policy and advertisement (propaganda) efforts of a very scary movement regarding anthropogenic global warming."

I decided to pick up the phone and give Our Fine Member a call. As it turns out, Our Fine Member actually is Dilbert:
As for the bitter and unsuccessful scientists, they produced this number which tells us the earth actually is cooling.

When talking on the phone with Our Fine Member, he strongly encouraged me to research where my information was coming from because, as he points out, certain alarmist organizations may profit from the global warming frenzy and use their resources to promote further scare tactics. Well, that may or may not be, but upon researching our bitter and unsuccessful scientists, all I seem to come up with is a bunch of hubbub on how second-hand smoke is great.