One lesson from this: the secret weapon of American conservatives is the liberal media. Had American liberals known what was coming, they could have taken some steps to limit the damage. But they didn’t see it coming because the media they rely on lacks the insight and the instincts to recognize a major story in time.

--snip--

I really don’t know why American conservatives spend so much time denouncing the liberal media. In this instance as in a number of others, the cluelessness of the mainstream media allows conservatives to assemble their forces and seize the political high ground while liberals are comfortably sitting by the fireside, telling one another how stupid and out of touch conservatives are. Remember the swift boat controversy in which the major media ignored a series of attack ads against Senator John Kerry’s candidacy in 2004? By the time the media, and Kerry’s campaign, had noticed the damage these attacks were doing, it was too late to respond.

It’s happening all over again.

Walter, the truth will set you free.

it was turned into a political issues.

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?

It actually is a “religious issue” in the cosmic battle (Eph 6:12).

AGW is one of the weapons being used against mankind.

Look at their “solutions”:
More human suffering and reduced standards of living through energy use restrictions.
Subjecting humanity to the tyranny of a world government.
Worldwide population control.

Seriously, this stuff is infernally inspired.

Natural resource issues also have religious overtones. On the Klamath, there is the tribal aspect and the desire to impose Native American notions on resource management. Salmon have a role in their religion and the notion of world renewal. This is also the territory of Earth Firsters, tree sitters, etc. and there is the religious connection that the extreme left has with Deep Ecology. In many respects the Climate folk have the same roots.

Wikepedia describes Deep Ecology as:

“Deep ecology’s core principle is the claim that, like humanity, the living environment as a whole has the same right to live and flourish. Deep ecology describes itself as “deep” because it persists in asking deeper questions concerning “why” and “how” and thus is concerned with the fundamental philosophical questions about the impacts of human life as one part of the ecosphere, rather than with a narrow view of ecology as a branch of biological science, and aims to avoid merely anthropocentric environmentalism, which is concerned with conservation of the environment only for exploitation by and for humans purposes, which excludes the fundamental philosophy of deep ecology. Deep ecology seeks a more holistic view of the world we live in and seeks to apply to life the understanding that separate parts of the ecosystem (including humans) function as a whole.”