Report says Klamath panel erred

Daniel B. Wheeler dwheeler at
Sun Nov 17 00:56:01 EST 2002

grow_brains at (Grow Some Brains) wrote in message news:<a51288aa.0211161040.1ddf2a23 at>...
> Klamath Basin water fight has highly organized interests attempting to
> assert domination over finite water supplies. The large number of
> organizations and the financial clout of these organizations calls
> into question any "scientific report" of only two researchers, who
> widely circulated their report to one side of the issue before
> publication. Bias and conflict of interest investigations are
> appropriate.
I think you are confusing reports issued by political action groups
and scientists. It is easy to tell which report is being controlled by
which biased reporting site. It also puts a lot of egg on supposed
"government" scientists which were acting, in actuality, as stooges
for the Bush administration.
> The "questions" raised by this report are insubstantial, interim
> mistakes likely to be caught before final decisions, such as
> misidentifying the name of a fish species.
No. The fish mentioned in the report does not exist in the Klamath
River drainage. This is not a mere scientific oversight, but a gross
opinion piece.
> Other reports, made at such
> grave risk to employment security as to invoke whistleblower
> protection, provide a contrary viewpoint, and lead to opposite
> conclusions. While issues reported in the press may be hastily
> published without thorough fact-checking, over time the underlying
> biosociopathy will be evident.
That well describes the government's viewpoint. I hadn't thought of
using the term "biosociopathy", but it _does_ seem to apply here.

Daniel B. Wheeler

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list