Land And Water U.S.A.

Saturday, February 27, 2010

Original letter by Victor Viola:

Cherry-picking data on climate change

Fri Feb 26, 2010
Re: "Who doesn't trust science now?" Feb. 17 David Harsanyi column. Deniers of global warming and climate change frequently argue that the Earth has cooled over the past decade. This conclu... more...
Roni's Response:

Dear Denver Post,
As volunteer editor for Land And Water USA, I've had rare opportunity to peek into the inner workings of proponents (world-wide) of both pro-anthropogenic global warming (AGW), and nature makes climate change.
The shake out? AGW believers base their arguments on emotion and political science mixed with a heavy dose of faith.
Though I've tried mightily, they refuse to publicly defend their product.
They don't have to; they have Al Gore. He's convinced governments to mandate our purchase of it...sight unseen.
Though nothing but a farm girl homemaker, I'm beginning to think I'm a hell of a lot smarter than any government.
Why? Because I ask salesman questions like: What are its benefits? Will anyone be harmed by your product? Who test marketed it? Provide the results. How does it work? User friendly? Safe? Will its cost save time, money and grief (I.e. pay for itself?)? If so, over what time frame? Does it come with a warranty? Do you receive financing from any government (Includes monies from government financed non-profits.), or are you an independent producer?
Scientists whose findings illustrate climate change is nature made, openly share them, and continually request public discussion/debate.
Denver has a local opportunity for those such as Professor Vic Viola - "Cherry-picking data on climate change" - (DP 2/26/10) who claims, "global warming and climate change due to human activity is real and poses a serious threat to the future of our planet," to come debate Astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon, Delaware's chief Climatologist Dr. David Legates and retired physics Professor Dr. Howard Hayden; April 17th, 2010 at Casselman's Bar and Grill.
AGW believers are encouraged and welcome to come defend their product.
For details, go to click on Good Neighbor Forum.
Victor's response to Roni:

----- Original Message -----
From: Viola Jr, Victor E.
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 1:33 PM
Subject: Cherry-picking data on climate change

Thank you for your response. You may want to see the December 18 issue of Science magazine, a publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, as well as the two appended graphs. These are the undisputed data -- the only dispute is how to interpret them.
For the record, I am a nuclear scientist whose areas of expertise are nuclear astrophysics, nuclear fission and nuclear reaction mechanisms. I have never received any federal or state funding for climate-related research in my 50+ yearsas a scientist. However, I have followed this field closely for the past 40 years and am convinced the data I quoted have been carefully vetted. The first 22 years of my life were spent in Central Kansas, where we were taught to respect our environment and take a positive, conservative approach to solving problems.
Vic Viola
Roni's response to Victor
Dear Victor,
Thank you for responding so quickly.
Sure hope we see a practical resurgence of nuclear. Don't need to tell you how safe and economical it is.
BTW, do you know nuclear engineer Bob Wicina?
I agree with you regards "respect" our environment.
But no government - whether US or foreign - should ever mandate purchase of un-proven goods created by Mr. Gore - or anyone for that matter.
Where do I come from? Well, having observed those whose end game is to seize control of America's land and water, it's now easy to identify them. And believe me, they care more about self enrichment than the environment.
People quibble into paralysis over how to correctly name them...socialists, communists, Marxists, fascists, eco-activists...while I see them more simply as anti-America.
Come to the forum and visit with Dr. Soon, Dr. Legates or Dr. Hayden. I'm sure they would welcome robust discussions, that could result in government free solutions.
Thanks again Victor. Appreciate your attention.
cc: Dr.'s Soon, Legates, Hayden, and Denver Post
Dr. Soon's response to Roni and Victor
hi roni,

thanks for being kind and gentle with this poor victor ...
what is he exactly saying with the two graphs and the Science magazine article?
that they prove his point about the danger of rising atmospheric co2?
if so, then i would suggest that he best keep such note in his personal diary and never to be displayed in public like that ... it is embarassing and almost sad to see his "softy" reactions ...
wow, never been paid to study global warming and then want to impose his world view and personal belief and conviction on co2 on everyone else? 
if professor viola really has something to say, please do come to the forum and have a discussion with all of us ... let's see if the two graphs or however many papers from the corrupted AAAS science magazine  stand for anything scientific ... those publications are true embarassment to the word science ...
sorry professor viola, your answer is simply not good enough nor it has any serious substance ...

Wednesday, February 24, 2010


By Sue Krentz And Judy Keeler
Border Area Ranchers
Sunday, February 21, 2010
On Feb. 18, 2009, biologists, conducting a cougar and bear study in southern Arizona, were excited when Macho B, a jaguar repeatedly photographed over a 13-year period, was found in one of their traps.
One of the highest research priorities of the Arizona/New Mexico Jaguar Conservation Team was to capture and radio-collar a jaguar wandering into the United States from Mexico in order to get detailed information on the animal's habitat use and movement patterns.
Macho B, estimated to be about 15 years old, was fitted with a tracking collar and released back into the wild.
Biologists had to make the sad decision to euthanize the jaguar when, 10 days after his release, he began to show signs of weakening.
After his unfortunate demise, protests were staged, articles were written, and another lawsuit was filed by the Center for Biological Diversity.
Macho B's death was a disappointment to everyone, but to say, in some media reports, the Team failed to include all stakeholders, failed to make progress on many of its goals, and failed to improve conservation of jaguars is disingenuous.
In an effort to involve all affected stakeholders, the Jaguar Conservation Team organized in March 1997. It was a revolutionary concept, meant to involve all interest groups, including the New Mexico and Arizona game and fish and state land departments; the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service. It also included several counties and an assortment of conservation organizations and ranchers.
When the jaguar was listed as endangered in the United States, little was known about jaguar biology, population trends, distribution, abundance, demographics or genetics.
The conservation team's task was to develop a strategy to protect jaguars that might wander into the borderlands.
In October 1997, a voluntary Jaguar Scientific Advisory Group, consisting of wildlife biologists well known for their jaguar research, was enlisted to help provide the most current information and best available science.
After studying big cats for more than two decades, Alan Rabinowitz, a leading jaguar authority and an advisory group member, concluded there "was no area in the Southwestern United States that was critical for the survival of the jaguar ... since the more open, dry habitats of the southwest are marginal for the jaguar in terms of water, cover and prey density."
Most biologists agreed that, "if there had been a resident breeding population of jaguars in the U.S. in the recent past, it was probably a very small population, short-lived, and not viable."
The conservation team learned the nearest core population of jaguars was at the confluence of three rivers in Mexico, about 135 miles south of Douglas, Ariz. The biologists believed this population was in imminent danger and struggling to survive.
In an effort to protect jaguars wandering into New Mexico and Arizona, legislation was passed in both states to comply with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ruling that the primary threat to jaguars in the United States was illegal killing. This legislation was supported by the state wildlife agencies and the ranching community.
In 2008, in an effort to protect jaguar habitat in Mexico, Fish and Wildlife provided a matching grant of $147,334.25 to the Northern Jaguar Project to purchase a 35,000-acre ranch in Mexico.
Regardless of these local efforts, a few radical conservation organizations seemed to have another agenda. It appeared their goal was to force critical habitat in the United States.
With the recent determination by Fish and Wildlife that critical habitat for jaguars is now prudent, the agency has no choice but appoint a federal recovery team, map "critical habitat" and develop a formal recovery plan which will include a regulatory framework that will force compliance upon the people who live and work in these areas.
No more hidden agendas! The plan behind the lawsuits, protests and media coverage is the Wildlands Network, a system of wildlife reserves with corridors running between.
The center's lawsuits are not meant to protect jaguars, wolves, polar bears, bats or any other "endangered" species. These animals are just the surrogates to implement the "network." The Endangered Species Act is their tool and the citizen's lawsuit provision is the means by which radical "conservation" organizations will continue to hammer the economies of the small, rural communities that must live under their "rewilding" scheme.
The threats, extreme ultimatums and lawsuits do nothing to protect endangered species, or their habitat. The perpetual litigation benefits only a few radical organizations. It continues, however, to frustrate the small, rural communities that must live under their threats.
Sue Krentz and her husband Rob ranch in the Chiricahua Mountains in Southeast Arizona. Judy Keeler and her husband Murray ranch in the Peloncillo Mountains in Southwest New Mexico. Both were members of the Jaguar Conservation Team for 13 years.

Sunday, February 21, 2010

Eco-terrorists or Islamic Jihad?

The many costs of eco-vandalism. By Roni Bell
Notes left on fences by Islamic Jihadist's, who made over 300 cuts on barbed wire fences, along 60 miles of back roads in Wyoming - 12 years ago this June 2010.  To date, no one has been brought to justice...


Well Done ?

Q: How many solar panels and wind turbines would it take to replace the one coal plant that energizes Boulder?   
A: I can't easily find the figures for Boulder, but the population is about 100,000. You can figure on 1.3 kW per capita for year-round power  consumption  (for all home uses, street lights, commercial establishments, factories.), so that's about 130 MW.
You can get year-round average power of 5 kW per acre for GOOD wind farms, so it would require wind turbines spread out over 26,,000 acres (about 41 square miles). (The amount of acreage is independent of the size of the wind turbines.) Of course, if you did that without the REAL power on the grid, most of the time you'd get nothing or very low power, ant at times you'd get 400 MW (which you wouldn't be able to use, and you can't store it).
In principle, you could get that much energy from solar cells spread out---edge-to-edge---over something like 2.5 square miles.
All the research in the world cannot make the sun shine at night.
Q: My very un-educated, un-scientific brain kind of envisioned such.
Could we could do a visual showing all that lovely "green space" in the forward thinking intellectual community of the People's Republic of Boulder, packed with turbines, solar panels and all things that accompany...and use PRB as the poster child illustration of the amazing inability for the forward-thinking to think forward.
A: The land area of boulder is about 10 square miles. Where can the Boulderites find 41 square miles for their heissbeliebte wind turbines?
Q: What an excellent synopsis. Thank YOU!
The blond reminded me of oh-so-many fancy dancers I once had the misfortune of knowing...and now deliberately shy from.
A: The professor is bang on, and the businessman is best described as a parasite or opportunist. As a businessman, he sees profit but totally ignores that the profit comes at the expense of taxpayers.
Answers provided by:
Howard Hayden
The Energy Advocate
"People will do anything to save the world ... except take a course in science."   Howard Hayden


Blog Archive