Our County was recently asked to present at the Klamath Basin Science Conference. There has been a longstanding issue with the quality and politization of “science” used to support various policy agendas, such as dam removal. We have caught them is serious errors, omissions and manipulations. Our statement of top scientific needs were aimed at that problem.
Science needs to:
1) have the objectives of any monitoring effort clearly identified, as well as the Quality Assurance / Quality Control (QA/QC) methods used to collect the data. It does not support “fishing expeditions” with data collection to “prove something”.
2) have each research project clearly identify the hypothesis it is seeking to answer. The scientific method must not be short-changed to meet artificial deadlines or political expectations.
3) have sufficient funding for the County to have the scientific support to engage in full and collaborative involvement in Klamath Basin science discussions. It would like to have at least 1/10 of the technical and scientific staff that the Tribes enjoy with government grants, for example.
4) ensure that objective science, and not advocacy science, is the basis for helping to make natural resource management decisions that will have a long-lasting effect on Siskiyou County’s communities, economy and environment.
5) ensure accurate and objective data and analysis of its sub-basins’ natural conditions and processes, but also of the human conditions and processes. Without both sides of the equation, we cannot develop sound problem-solving methods that will be of mutual benefit. Without mutual benefit, the proposed solutions cannot be ecologically, economically, or politically sustainable.
I’m not sure which fight is more difficult. Your’s which appears to me almost entirely political about natural resources. The fight over the science of anthropogenic global warming seems more religious in nature. What’s the greenhouse, an atmosphere in open space?