Posted on 01/03/2002 10:25:56 PM PST by Pokey78
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:50:24 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Government scientists planted samples of lynx hairs in a third national forest, according to documents obtained by The Washington Times.
"A preliminary investigation by the U.S. Forest Service said planted samples were submitted from the Mount Baker/Snoqualmie National Forest in Washington state, but the report did not say how many additional samples were submitted from that region.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
From WACO to Ruby Ridge to clean air act, to U.N. reports.
Congress can be so easily led by these reportsM
Something like this would never be done in some other agenda-driven scientific field, like, say, evolution science, right?
These are not 'scientists,' they are only POLITICAL activists with an agenda. The whole notion of planting evidence or faking your data to support an agenda is anti-science.
Environmentalism started in 1972 and has just now come to its end.
Environmentalism -- R.I.P.
It's fraud is over now.
Stop all governement funding for environmentalism now!
This lynx fur deal is a real issue, and should be persued, but I'll repeat--so what? So what if all the scientists involved are found guilty, and get jail time? Then what? That's going to stop the land grabs? That's going to stop this juggernaut of federal ownership aned control?
Let's revisit klamath again, shall we? The "science" involved in the klamath situation is so fundamentally flawed as to be ridiculous, EVERYONE involved in it from bush and norton on down the pike to the local street sweeper knows it, and exactly what again has this REPUBLICAN administration done about it? Go ahead, list what they have done to 'fix" this situation. Go ahead, be my guest, show me how the farmers are all un-screwed now, let's see some URL's supporting that notion. How many examples can you find where the constitution and common sense and basic human dignity and 'rightness"is actually followed. I'd like to see them myself.
My bottom line is I merely switched my personal "activism"-which is as strong as it ever was- to what is right and wrong for the US, I don't push some hack political party lying partisan agenda. Let the gooners at DU do that, I ain't interested, and I wish more constitutionalists would follow that as well. I used to, push party politics, but finally had to admit to myself that supporting those lying paid off bribed and blackmailed pieces of crap and those bogus two party's was a no win situation for the nation. That isn't "giving up", that's being realistic and looking at events over decades. I will not support either the political party crips or the bloods, they are both gangs. There's a gang of them at 'the other sites" and there's sure a gang of them here, but at least at freepers there are a few constitutionalists left. I compare what those political gangsters say,and then what happens, it's always two completely different things. They mumble some differnces, but bottom reality is full speed ahead total federal control of the people and material wealth of this nation. I'm just not going to keep biting on their lies anymore, so in that sense, you are right, I "gave up" supporting any liars.
Have to fire the employees, their bosses, and anyone else who obstructs this investigation. Off to write my congressman, cheers:)
Plot to undermine global pollution controls revealed
19:00 02 January 02
Mick Hamer
A secret group of developed nations conspired to limit the effectiveness of the UN's first conference on the environment, held in Stockholm in 1972. The existence of this cabal, known as the Brussels group, is revealed in 30-year-old British government records that were kept secret until this week.
The Stockholm conference was set up in response to rising concern about damage to the environment. It ended with a ringing declaration of the need to protect the natural world, and the UN Environment Programme was set up as a result.
But the ambitious aims of the conference organisers, who included Maurice Strong, the first director-general of UNEP, were held in check by the activities of the Brussels group, which included Britain, the US, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and France.
The group was "an unofficial policy-making body to concert the views of the principal governments concerned", according to a note of one of the group's first meetings written by a civil servant in the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office. "It will have to remain informal and confidential." This meeting took place in July 1971, nearly a year before the Stockholm conference opened.
Familiar arguments
Many of the arguments the group employed would sound familiar to today's anti-globalisation protesters. The group was concerned that environmental regulations would restrict trade and also wanted to stop UNEP having a large budget to spend as it saw fit. Foreign Office papers say the group "made real progress on this difficult problem", though without specifying how this was done.
The group seemed unconcerned about what its stance would mean for poorer countries. Its chief aim in the diplomatic jockeying during the run-up to Stockholm was for developed countries to get what they wanted "and perhaps be less worried about making it a success for developing countries".
This unalloyed self-interest won it few friends, and the notes record that Strong had already been grumbling about the group's activities. "We may get some criticism from the Swedes and others [and] we must be careful when expanding the group not to include awkward bedfellows," the note adds.
Sonic booms
A more concrete idea of the group's aims can be gleaned from a note laying out Britain's position prior to a secret meeting in Geneva in December 1971, one of a number of such meetings in the run-up to Stockholm.
Written by an official in what was then the Department of the Environment, it says that Britain wanted to restrict the scope of the Stockholm conference and reduce the number of proposals for action. In an indirect reference to what would later become UNEP, the paper says a "new and expensive international organisation must be avoided, but a small effective central coordinating mechanism ... would not be welcome but is probably inevitable".
It then goes on to detail the subjects that Britain wanted left out of the Stockholm action plans. At the top of the list were controls on sonic booms from aircraft and pollution in the upper atmosphere. These measures would have seriously damaged the economics of the Anglo-French supersonic airliner, Concorde.
Moral pressure
At the time, Concorde was already in deep trouble, with only the British and French national airlines likely to buy it, and earlier in the year the British Cabinet had discussed axing the plane. Arguments raged about whether the noisy plane would be allowed to land in New York. Controls on sonic booms could have sounded its death knell.
The British government was also firmly opposed to any international standards regulating environmental quality or polluting emissions. It feared that any international agreement might force it to clean up its act.
"Universal guidelines ... could cause moral pressure for compliance with philosophies of doubtful validity or benefit," say the papers.
Despite the efforts of the Brussels group, the Stockholm conference is widely recognised to have been a watershed. Though the group's lobbying ensured the conference focused on only a limited number of subjects, such as transboundary pollution, UNEP later tackled a wider range of topics such as the problems of deforestation and urbanisation.
But, but, "conspiracy theories" are just delusions of lone nuts and wackos... You mean sometimes they really exist?!
lol.
Mark W.
Not to mention the lives of three firefighters lost because they could not draw water from the river to contain the fire.
Obviously, these "scientists" were simply testing the accuracy of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlfe. <*/SARCASM>
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.