Replies

I guess it would do nothing for your sense of skepticism to read the writings of deep ecologists justifying precisely such fraud in defense of the environment? They're all over the web.

Here's one example (the only one I read so far). I can see why deep ecology is an evil ideology. However, that just makes me skeptical of environmentalists in general terms. Are all biologists "deep ecologists"? Perhaps. Perhaps all Muslims are untrustworthy murderers. Perhaps all Christians are unthinking creationists...

But I just can't forget the original Wash. Times article, which got the whole story rolling of the biologists planting lynx hair on the scratching posts in the wild. It basically put that claim out, said the biologists were "counseled", and the rest of the article was just quotes by antienvironmentalists about how bad enviros are in general. Then other articles came out that seem to get their facts straigh out of the Wash. Times article.

But after reading the Seattle Times article, which says they actually put them into sample vials & (in at least one instance) labeled them in a way that they could never have gotten added to the overall statistics, the original Wash. Times story suddenly looks a lot like its own spin vehicle! Do you still believe they put the lynx hair on the scratching posts?

Again, I want to find out what the actual internal investigation (that several of these articles imply that they have seen) actually says.

A couple months ago, Pericles posted a WSJ article claiming that al-Qaeda had tested uranium in Hilat Koko, a small village in Turkish-held N. Cyprus. But after researching this claim, I & another freeper discovered the author of this widely-quoted WSJ article had misread the Kenyan Embassy bombing trial transcript! In fact there is no Cypriot village called "Hilat Koko". Hilat Koko is a neighborhood in Khartoum, Sudan, where al-Qaeda had a laboratory before they got kicked out of Sudan. They did get uranium from a black market dealer in Khartoum, and they apparently tested it in their lab in Hilat Koko, in Khartoum. Then in the next paragraph the questioning turned to al-Qaeda business interests in Cyprus. The WSJ reporter got her facts mixed up!

Now, in the process of researching this story, I learned about the story of the division of Cyprus for the first time, and as a result I do blame the Turks, which should make certain Greek freepers happy. But the claim that a dirty nuke bomb was tested in Turkish Cyprus is just plain flat out false.

Is the truth important, even if the false version would have made it easier to defend a wider truth? Of course it is.

Are all biologists "deep ecologists"?

No, not all biologists are deep ecologists, but increasing numbers of them are. It is a religion being infused into public schools as a matter of Department of Education policy originating at the UN. Most resource biology and environmental studies departments are now dominated by the philosophy. It is because most such departments are now nearly 50% social scientists (sometimes a majority), and many of them are avowed socialists spouting that very philosophy. Don't believe me, go look. In the not-too-distant future it won't be possible to earn an advanced degree without proper obeiscance to deep ecology. I have watched Bruce Babbit mouth such blather to a roomful of Stanford law students and the lap it up.

Not only does that philosophy dominate universities, it is ubiquitous at the UN and the IUCN. The Earth Charter echoes precisely the central tenets of the philosophy as originally articulated by Mssrs. Naess and Sessions. So, I don't think it quite fits the model of "paranoid theory" as neatly as you intimated. Didn't you?

Oh yes, you did: Perhaps all Muslims are untrustworthy murderers. Perhaps all Christians are unthinking creationists...

Give me a break. If you are going to argue that way, this is the last post I will address to you. You owe me an apology for that kind of crap.

I have personlly investigated false listings of endangered species. I have seen the faked data. I personally know the actors. I have the documentation from the original sources. I have published that documentation. The scientists who produced other papers, falsely cited in the decision to list, have endorsed my book and agreed that both the process and the data were fraudulent.

Is that good enough for you?

So, when I have seen AT LEAST a half-dozen similar fraudulent listings, it starts to develop into a pattern. Upon seeing this case and its flimsy claims to an unsubstantiated interest in scientific rigor, its obvious ideological and professional motives to commit such a fraud (a profit interest), the manner in which it fits the pattern of similar actions elsewhere, the lack of a professional alternative for these employees, and the prior record of the individuals involved and their associations, then the predisposition in the conclusion and the burden of proof starts to shift.

Now, consider how hard it is to get a story like this one publicized and that the USFS is both conducting its own investigation and resisting any oversight. Sorry, it's going to take one heck of an iron-clad case to get me to agree that our lynx biologists deserve anything less than a prompt termination (if nothing else for incompetence) and possibly prosecution under racketeering laws.

Finally, I want you to consider the massively destructive environmental impacts of such listings, the real reason I wrote my book. Fire conflagration, followed by massive weed infestations, destruction of animal habitat, and enormous secondary consequences to both, especially erosion. Note the export of environmental problems to unregulated countries elsewhere and the social consequences to the destruction of a way of life for people with few options. Consider also that the political and financial sponsors of such listings have both a profit interest and the desire to control every aspect of your life and have said as much in writing.

Perhaps jennyp is too willing to believe the Seattle Times.