Against intense local
opposition, the Obama administration wants to demolish three dams on the
Klamath River in Siskiyou County, California. Low-cost clean hydroelectricity
as well as water for irrigation would be lost if the dams were removed. Removal
of the dams would also cause chaos for ranchers, homeowners, and small business
who live and work in the downstream of the dams. Despite this, Interior
Secretary Ken Salazar has been trying
to force dam removal for the supposed benefit of some salmon and steelhead
spawning habitat.
Now, Prof. Paul R. Houser of George Mason University alleges that the administration's plan is all based on junk science. In his role as science advisor to the Bureau of Reclamation, he was closely involved in the project. He has filed a formal complaint (PDF) alleging "intentional falsification" and "intentional . . . compromise of scientific and scholarly integrity." In particular, he says that, under orders from Ken Salazar, the department produced a "summary" report that "intentionally distorts and generally presents a biased view of the Klamath River dam removal benefits." In particular, he alleges:
Now, Prof. Paul R. Houser of George Mason University alleges that the administration's plan is all based on junk science. In his role as science advisor to the Bureau of Reclamation, he was closely involved in the project. He has filed a formal complaint (PDF) alleging "intentional falsification" and "intentional . . . compromise of scientific and scholarly integrity." In particular, he says that, under orders from Ken Salazar, the department produced a "summary" report that "intentionally distorts and generally presents a biased view of the Klamath River dam removal benefits." In particular, he alleges:
·
The summary section on
Chinook Salmon recovery projects an 81.4 percent recovery, but says nothing
about the nine contingencies summarized in the June 13, 2011, Klamath River
Expert Panel Final Report: Scientific Assessment of Two Dam Removal
Alternatives on Chinook Salmon report that could completely negate this
projected recovery . . . .
·
The summary states that
"Coho salmon reclaim 68 miles of habitat", but says nothing about the
April 25, 2011 statement in the Klamath River Expert Panel Final Report:
Scientific Assessment of Two Dam Removal Alternatives on Coho Salmon and
Steelhead that "the difference between the Proposed Action and Current
Conditions is expected to be small, especially in the short term (0-10 years
after dam removal)." . . . .
·
The summary states that
dam removal will likely reduce salmon disease, but does not properly state its
uncertainty [which is] very high".
·
The summary also spins
an optimistic outlook for Steelhead trout, providing access to 420 miles of
historical habitat. However, the April 25, 2011 Klamath River Expert Panel
Final Report: Scientific Assessment of Two Dam Removal Alternatives on Coho
Salmon and Steelhead states that this success would be dependent on effective
implementation of the proposed and related actions [e.g.Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL)]; whereas ineffective implementation would result in no detectable
response.
The changes, Prof. Houser alleges, report only
the positive while distorting or falsifying the science.
You can read more about Prof. Houser's extensive qualifications here. Congress has not yet approved Salazar's plan. With luck, they will block it entirely.
UPDATE: Over a month, later, the MSM is catching up: the Daily Caller has a story on this scandal here.
Hat tip: Leonard
WELCOME to readers of Michael Savage, Gateway Pundit, Quite Normal, Talk Straight, Tunnel Wall, Impeach Obama Today, Daley Gator, Tea Party for California, Cornwall Alliance, Armstrong, The Town Crier, Support Rural America, The Persistent Patriots, and Dork Fish Express.
PREVIOUSLY on politicized science:
•Politicized Science, the delta smelt, and California farmers
•EPA uses phony peer review
•National Academy of Sciences warns EPA on junk science
•The failed science of environmentalism
•Federal Judge rejects Federal enviromental "science" as "arbititrary and capricious"
•The politicization of medical research funding
•2 more examples of politicized science: Gulf oiil spill and California's air regulations
•AIDS advocates distorted science
•Politicized science of crime statistics
•Politicization of medical science
•Bee colony collapse disorder: the cause is whatever your politics say it is
•Ozone hole and politics
You can read more about Prof. Houser's extensive qualifications here. Congress has not yet approved Salazar's plan. With luck, they will block it entirely.
UPDATE: Over a month, later, the MSM is catching up: the Daily Caller has a story on this scandal here.
Hat tip: Leonard
WELCOME to readers of Michael Savage, Gateway Pundit, Quite Normal, Talk Straight, Tunnel Wall, Impeach Obama Today, Daley Gator, Tea Party for California, Cornwall Alliance, Armstrong, The Town Crier, Support Rural America, The Persistent Patriots, and Dork Fish Express.
PREVIOUSLY on politicized science:
•Politicized Science, the delta smelt, and California farmers
•EPA uses phony peer review
•National Academy of Sciences warns EPA on junk science
•The failed science of environmentalism
•Federal Judge rejects Federal enviromental "science" as "arbititrary and capricious"
•The politicization of medical research funding
•2 more examples of politicized science: Gulf oiil spill and California's air regulations
•AIDS advocates distorted science
•Politicized science of crime statistics
•Politicization of medical science
•Bee colony collapse disorder: the cause is whatever your politics say it is
•Ozone hole and politics
Source: The City Square, Technology and Current
Events, Feb 28, 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment