November 20, 2019

Hide the Decline Has Become Create an Incline

*Note* – A regular reader of this website sent me all the links and information to compile this report. I am thankful for his help. (TKR)

The other day we discovered that “researchers” had published text in the journal Nature stating what they claimed showed that ocean temperatures were warmer than first estimated until a critic and mathematician questioned the margin of error published as part of their findings.

The authors subsequently began to walk back their findings but still claimed that the ocean temperature was still much warmer than original predictions indicated.

To understand this, one has to understand the fraudulent scientism and outcome-based, corrupted “scientific process” these criminal scammers are using. The authors of the fudged article claim: “Much of the data on ocean temperatures currently relies on the Argo array, robotic devices that float at different depths. The program, which started in 2000, has gaps in coverage.

By comparison, Keeling and Laure Resplandy, a researcher at Princeton University’s Environmental Institute who co-authored the report, calculated heat based on the amount of oxygen and carbon dioxide rising off the ocean, filling round glass flasks with air collected at research stations around the globe.”

In case you failed to understand what this is saying, let me see if I can help. No longer are these clowns actually measuring the temperature of the ocean water or the air for that matter. Instead, they are collecting oxygen and carbon dioxide and then calculating what they want the temperature of the water/air to be to fit their fraudulent theory. If you accept this false premise and scientific fraud, it means that you are a promoter and a “True Believer” of the false claim that carbon dioxide causes warming.

Don’t lose your thoughts on this process as I continue.

It also seems that this same kind of deceit and misrepresentation is being used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) in publishing claims about warming air temperatures globally.

According to Realclimatescience.com, NOAA collects air temperature data from over 1,200 locations globally. What we are learning is that when it comes time to report data, sometimes more than one half the stations don’t bother. No problem! NOAA simply makes up the data, claiming they “make adjustments” as they receive the data. Problem is they don’t always get any data, and it appears they don’t really care.

An NOAA graph showing actual measured temperatures, versus “adjusted” air temperatures, looks like this:

It is important to recognize that if you were to migrate the two colored lines closer and closer to approaching being on top of each other, we see that the paths of the graphs are identical. In other words, the “adjustments” were crafted to make it appear that from the beginning of the measuring process until the more recent time period, warming is becoming greater. How convenient.

Recall what I wrote earlier about “researchers” no longer actually measuring air temperatures, but instead collecting and measuring oxygen and carbon dioxide? Oddly enough, it just so happens that adjustments that NOAA makes to their temperature data coincide exactly with the amount of carbon dioxide they claim to have collected.

Powerline Blog’s John Hinderaker gives readers a look at how NOAA fudged their data (adjustments) for Auburn, Maine to show one location where such manipulation makes it appear as though in the past 15 years or so, global warming has really accelerated.

In a graph that looks eerily like the one shown above, we can see that the green line is what NOAA says is the average yearly temperature. The black line is “measured” air temperature and the blue line is what the new graph looks like after “adjustments,” i.e. fabricated data. Once again, take notice that if you move the blue line up the chart it almost magically looks just like the black line – only early on in the history of measuring, the blue line indicates it was much colder than the actual measured or yearly average temperatures indicate.

Fraud! It’s a scam! It’s a criminal enterprise when you consider the billions of dollars being earned promoting this nonsense. Why are these people not locked up in jail? Oh, wait. I know. They are all part of the rigged system. It’s for the very same reason that we get drawn into what is presented as crimes by politicians, yet never any prosecutions. RIGGED.

According to this guy, politicians who were very outspoken and supportive of “Climate Change” got voted out of the election process. Nothing is presented to substantiate his claim of such other than names and how they stood on climate changer. Maybe, maybe not.

I do know that this writer is far more optimistic as to why voters voted the way they did. He writes, “There is no evidence humans are on the verge of suffering from catastrophic man-caused climate change. Voters know it, and that’s why they sent a clear message to Democrats and Republicans in the midterms: Stop putting the interests of left-wing environmental radicals before those of working families — and if you do, do so at your own peril.”

I’m simply not convinced that there are that many voters that understand the real, honest-to-goodness scientific process that can produce real honest results. I wish there were.

Perhaps the only hope is that with more and more people presenting more and more evidence of FRAUD that is costing them financially and in the loss of freedom, more people will begin to “get it.”

Yes, Climate Change is a scam. Scientifically, it is impossible to happen unless it is being done deliberately by men, i.e. our own government. The purpose of the promotion of Climate Change in this context is to rob us of more of our money. What happens when the Government and the Global Power mongers have taken all our money?

They will come for us and kill us in so many ways we can’t comprehend.

Share

Global Warming Cheaters and Their Hoax

They were duped – and so were we. That was the conclusion of last week’s damning revelation that world leaders signed the Paris Agreement on climate change under the sway of unverified and questionable data.

A landmark scientific paper –the one that caused a sensation by claiming there has been NO slowdown in global warming since 2000 – was critically flawed. And thanks to the bravery of a whistleblower, we now know that for a fact.

The response has been extraordinary, with The Mail on Sunday’s disclosures reverberating around the world. There have been nearly 150,000 Facebook ‘shares’ since last Sunday, an astonishing number for a technically detailed piece, and extensive coverage in media at home and abroad.

It has even triggered an inquiry by Congress.<<<Read More>>>

Share

NOAA Claims Record Heat, Even Without Thermometers

NOAA claimed record heat in numerous locations is September, like these ones in Africa and the Middle East.

This is a remarkable feat, given that they don’t have any actual thermometers in those regions. In fact, NOAA doesn’t have any thermometers on about half of the land surface.<<<Read More>>>

Share

Mind-Blowing Temperature Fraud At NOAA

The biggest component of this fraud is making up data. Almost half of all reported US temperature data is now fake. They fill in missing rural data with urban data to create the appearance of non-existent US warming.

Source: Mind-Blowing Temperature Fraud At NOAA | Real Science

Share

Geologist Debunks NOAA’s Claims of Record Rapidly Changing Climate

From the Climate Depot:

“Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook, professor emeritus of geology at Western Washington University and author of 150 scientific journal articles and 10 books, including “Evidence Based Climate Science,” issued a point-by-point rebuttal to the new NOAA climate report and the media articles surrounding it.

Live Science: ‘Climate Records Shattered in 2013’ – By Becky Oskin, Senior Writer | LiveScience.com – July 18, 2014 – “The climate is changing more rapidly in today’s world than at any time in modern civilization,” said Thomas Karl, director of NOAA. (NOAA State Of The Climate In 2013: ‘Our Planet Is Becoming A Warmer Place’)”<<<Read More>>>

Share

It’s Time NOAA Got Out of the Hurricane Forecasting Business

*Editor’s Note* – I live in a hurricane prone zone. I can say, without reservation, that the overwhelming majority of people, also living in this region, mostly disregard what NOAA or the local weatherman has to say about hurricanes and their lack of ability in predicting them. When brought up in discussions, most people snicker and make some comment about the foolishness of paying any attention as “they are never right” in making hurricane predictions. This remains true, not only in long term predictions, but in the short term as well. There were past hurricanes in Florida where people took the advice of government people controllers and ordered or suggested evacuations only to find out in the end the people evacuated right into the direct path of the hurricane. Planned or unplanned?

Yes, these storms are unpredictable in the paths they will take and when you combine that with the failure (or seeming failure) of NOAA to accurately predict storms, this leaves or creates a situation where people actually become more vulnerable to the pending disasters of storms when and if they do make landfall. Because of this, there could very easily be more loss of life by not being properly prepared and/or not taking the necessary steps to avoid being dumped on by a hurricane or other strong storms.

Some, as in the below post, chalk this epic failure on the inability to, not only predict but to come clean on a proper assessment of events pasts. Perhaps then, we should begin to more seriously consider that the actions of NOAA and other governmental agencies, is, in fact, designed to cause people to disregard warnings and such as part of a greater scheme to reduce populations.

Whether major storms, i.e. hurricanes, tornadoes, winter storms, rain events, etc., are natural or man made, or a combination of both, a designed population of ill prepared people could result in serious death toll numbers. Please consider.

Agency Consistently Shows It Possesses Neither Foresight Nor Hindsight

2013 Hurricane Season Might be the Weakest EVER, With 2 Hurricanes, None Major

Yet NOAA Predicted 7-11 Hurricanes, 3-6 Major

Washington, DC – The following is the statement of National Center for Public Policy Research President David A. Ridenour on the conclusion of 2013 Atlantic hurricane season:

Saturday marked the official end of the 2013 Atlantic Hurricane Season and once again, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration proved itself utterly incapable of accurately forecasting hurricanes.

It’s time NOAA stop issuing hurricane forecasts.

In May, the agency predicted an “active or extremely active” hurricane season, forecasting that there would be 7-11 hurricanes, 3-6 major hurricanes, and 13-20 named storms.

The year’s final tally: 2 hurricanes, no major hurricanes, and 13 named storms… not even “close enough for government work.”

This marked the 7th time in the past ten years that NOAA’s hurricane forecast has been wrong and its epic failure this year rivals even its disastrous forecast in 2005, when it predicted there would be 7-9 hurricanes and there ended up being 15.

NOAA’s forecasts were only accurate in 2008, 2010 and 2011. In 2010 and 2011, the actual number of hurricanes just barely fell within NOAA’s forecast range, despite being uncharacteristically large.

Perhaps NOAA could be forgiven, somewhat, if it at least got the post-season analysis right. But it can’t even do that.

In its November 25 mea culpa, sans the culpa (NOAA never mentions its forecast nor its spectacular failure), NOAA asserts that the season ranks as “the sixth-least-active Atlantic hurricane season since 1950, in terms of the collective strength and duration of named storms and hurricanes.”

This is a bit misleading, to say the least. Most Americans would see this statement and conclude that there were five other years since 1950 with less storm activity.

But that’s not what it means.

What NOAA it means is that if you only count the storms that our government noticed, then it is the sixth least active since 1950.

That’s akin to a Keystone Kop facing once direction with all sorts of criminal activity behind his back saying, “No crime around here.”

NOAA is attempting to suggest a degree of precision that it simply does not possess.

It wasn’t until 1966, with the launch of ESSA-1 and ESSA-2, that we had a weather satellite system in place.

Prior to this system, the odds were pretty good that storms – in particular those outside of shipping and travel lanes – would be missed entirely.

Since the start of the satellite age, our capabilities have improved dramatically and this makes it appear as though the number of tropical storms and hurricanes have increased, even when they haven’t.

In terms of the number and intensity of hurricanes, the 2013 hurricane season might be the weakest… EVER.

This year, there were just two weak category 1 hurricanes. The 1982, 1930, 1919, 1917 and 1890 seasons also had two or fewer hurricanes, but at least one in each year was a major hurricane.

Dating back to 1850, there were just a handful of years – 1925 (one), 1914 (zero), 1907 (zero), and 1905 (one) – in which fewer hurricanes were recorded than this year. But because these seasons occurred prior to the advent of satellites, the odds are good that there were more hurricanes in some, if not all, of these years that went undetected.

Being wrong so frequently poses a more significant risk to NOAA than just a little embarrassment. It threatens to undermine the agency’s credibility, undermine the public’s faith in even its short-range forecasts, and ultimately place lives at risk.

And NOAA isn’t alone in undermining it credibility by suggesting a greater level of certainty than it possesses.

For years now, we’ve been told that there is a scientific consensus that our burning of fossil fuels is creating dangerous warming of the planet.

Now the public has learned that we’re in the midst of a 17-year “pause” in global warming that not one of the 73 climate models used by the U.N. Intergovernmental Climate on Climate Change in its Fifth Assessment Report predicted.

In 2002, commenting on the possibility that Iraq had supplied or might supply Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) to terrorists, Donald Rumsfeld, then Secretary of Defense, famously said: “…there are known knowns… There are known unknowns… But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don’t know.”

NOAA, the IPCC and other voices of science should be as candid and honest.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share

Halfwits In Charge of Weather

There is no end to ignorance, coupled with politics, and hatred of mankind. Now the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has announced it may furlough employees due to “sequestration” and as a result of this announcement, other idiots in the media are saying that people won’t get weather warnings and they will all die!

Yessiree, Billy Bob! People can no longer look up from their goddamn cellphones and IPads long enough to look at the sky to see if it is raining. Think about it for a minute. Your and my tax dollars pay these buffoons to report that it’s going to be sunny outside, while it’s raining.

This is just another scare tactic to force people to give up more of their hard-earned money to pay someone’s government job and retirement benefits. Go ahead. Just give government all your money NOW! They won’t be happy until they get it all.

Bring it on. Whether they do or don’t, it won’t change my life one iota! How’s that?

Share

Obama Administration’s Attempt to Define “Significant Portion of it’s Range”

Let me say right off the top in order that some may not want to waste their time seeking truth, that I believe very strongly that the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA)(Act) is unconstitutional. It is such because it does not stand up against the authority of the Constitution in which a statute cannot, in and of itself, be a violation of the Constitution. It also does not mean that I oppose species protection. The majority of people in this country don’t care nor are they free to undertake independent thought to learn about the truth. Most every, if not all, laws on our books are nothing more than tools to extract power from the people and put it into the hands of government. I pray for your epiphany for truth.

However, simply because I believe the Act is criminal, doesn’t dismiss me from exposing the further fraud behind the ESA and now the attempts by Congress and the Obama Administration to “fix” it.

As I have written about recently, the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources has begun a series of hearings to examine the Endangered Species Act, (ESA) in hopes of determining: “How litigation is costing jobs and impeding true recovery efforts.” With the Committee using that description of the intent of their hearings, should we hold out any hope that any efforts will be directed at amending or, as some are asking, repealing of the ESA? Not likely.

But this has not stopped the Obama Administration of getting into the ESA fray. After all, we do have an election coming up and doing and saying anything to steal a vote is chichi these days in Washington. The “Services”, collectively the Department of Interior, the Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Commerce and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, have gone all out to help Americans define the simple phrase, “significant portion of its range”.

That phrase is used extremely sparingly in the ESA and it pertains, at least in my mind and after reading Obama’s proposal I question if the “Services” have any mind, to criteria used to determine when and if a species might be considered for federal protection under the ESA.

Either I’m not fully enlightened or am too honest, but I happen to think that “significant portion” would mean a big or perhaps as much as a majority or more of something, especially when used in the context of a word that describes size, i.e. “portion”. Evidently I’m wrong, according to the “Services” Draft Policy to define “significant portion of its range”.

There is a reason that Congress and the President, beyond the usual politics, are taking a look, finally, at the ESA. It’s badly broken. In its day, it was intended, we were told, to provide a means in which government regulation could prevent the needless destruction of plant and animal species. Perhaps because the bill was signed into law by President Richard Nixon, who was embroiled in the Watergate scandal, set the stage for a bill designed to fail. And fail it has.

The Act has done little to save species and a lot to put a lot of money into the bank accounts of environmentalists, stifling job growth and stripping Americans of their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

If you and I can get beyond arguing whether the ESA is worth anything and discover that it’s not, then surely we can begin to see the efforts of Congress to examine portions of the ESA and President Obama’s administration to define words in the Act as laughable.

Regardless of whether President Obama thinks he can define “significant”, it is NOT going to do anything to change the problems with the ESA. Among the massive issues that makes the ESA look like a falling down old barn, is the lack of specific information in the administration of this bill. This leaves the door open to giving the Secretary of Interior too much discretion, flexibility and deference as it pertains to interpretive policy, and it has led to a myriad of court rulings in which judges have taken it upon themselves to interpret the ESA in any fashion they can.

One of the downsides to the judicial branches of our government is that every time there is a court ruling the words created in that ruling become case law and at least to some degree becomes precedent in future court cases, regardless of the truth or accuracy of what is written.

So what I can say right from the beginning that what the “Services” are attempting to do in defining “significant portion of its range”, is to hand select from existing statutes, case histories and case law, some or all which are seriously flawed, combined with their own interpretations of what they think the intention of the legislators were in writing the Endangered Species Act.

What on earth could go wrong?

Remember back in 1998?, when then President Bill Clinton was answering questions before a grand jury about his involvement with Monica Lewinsky? He was asked if there was anything going on between him and Miss Lewinsky. Bill Clinton responded to the jury:

“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the–if he–if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not–that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement….Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true.”

This kind of jibber-jabber spin is endemic among politicians and governmental agencies. That’s why we all hate them so. Obama’s “Services” people don’t go quite to that extreme in their attempts to define “significant portion of its range”, but read what they did say.

This Draft Policy took approximately 20 or more pages to conclude using the various resources and criteria I have already described above to determine that “significant portion of its range” in its entirely, together, as a whole, means:

provides an independent basis for listing and protecting the entire species

In other words, this is pretty much what we have all become subjected to over the past near 40 years. Some too highly paid, well indoctrinated person(s) at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) made a determination that a particular species was in trouble and was in trouble over a “significant portion of its range” and therefore was declared “endangered” and the “range” essentially became critical habitat.

But the “Services” have determined that it depends on what the meaning of significant is as to whether or not significant actually becomes significant.

This draft policy includes the following definition of “significant” as it relates to SPR [significant portion of its range]: a portion is “significant” in the context of the Act’s “significant portion of its range” phrase if its contribution to the viability of the species is so important that, without that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction.

Significant, used as an adjective, which if my English 101 is correct, is defined in most dictionaries as:

1. important; of consequence.
2. having or expressing a meaning; indicative; suggestive: a significant wink.
3. Statistics . of or pertaining to observations that are unlikely to occur by chance and that therefore indicate a systematic cause.

If “significant” is used as an adjective to describe portion, and portion in this context relates to a physical area or size of land, i.e. range, then wouldn’t significant portion suggest what is being talked about here is geographical scope of the range of a species?

The “Services” concluded that the choice of definition for “significant” is “important”. Therefore, it’s not the size of the portion of the range but the importance of the portion of the range they have decided to use.

I could go on with such foolishness but it’s more important to provide focus on what’s the bottom line. The bottom line here is that not only will Obama’s Draft Policy not only not help anything as it pertains to the ESA but will in fact make matters even worse.

Nothing in this policy limits the discretion and authority of the “Secretary” to implement and make definitions and rulings as he/she deems “scientific” and necessary for the administration of the ESA. Not only that, but this policy seriously places into the hands of the government, greater authority to not only create “portions of its range”, in other words, the Secretary can declare a species endangered and establish all the “critical habitat” he wants. He will still have power to create Distinct Population Segments. However, this new policy will allow the Secretary, through a series of predetermined “thresholds”; a measure of how important it is to protect one small area where a certain species may exist in order to save the entire species globally, create millions of tiny DPSs that the “Services” have said they don’t want to do.

Try to paint a picture in your mind of what this might look like. Haul out a map of the U.S. and it is peppered with 6,537,129 little dots where the Secretary has created a “significant” “significant portion of its range”. And that “significant” range happens to be the 350-acre ranch your trying to eke out a living on. I think this is significant.

Oh, that won’t happen! You all say. Won’t it? If not, then why is this included in the Draft Policy?

Therefore, if a species is determined to be endangered in an SPR, under this draft policy, the
species would be listed as endangered throughout all of its range, even in situations where the facts simultaneously support a determination that the species is threatened throughout all of its range. However, we recognize that this approach may raise concerns that the Services will be applying a higher level of protection where a lesser level of protection might arguably fit if viewed across a species’ range. The Services are particularly interested in public comments on this issue.

I am sure that how I see this Draft Policy and how others may see it will be worlds apart. For those who have faith and confidence in government and believe the ESA is a viable statute that actually protects species, while preserving the rights of Americans, you may think this attempt at defining “significant portion of its range” is a good thing. I do not!

I see it as further pushing the ESA bus over the cliff. It defines nothing. It only serves to foist even more autocratic power into the hands of government, particularly that of the Secretary of Interior. And, gives authority to the Secretary to amass hundreds upon thousands of SRPs (Significan Range Portions) and DPSs (Distinct Population Segments) all over the country.

One can think of instances where this authority and application may be practical but you shouldn’t think it actually will. One example might be the instance in Wyoming, where the state, in working with the Feds, has come up with a SRP of sorts that provides protections for the gray wolf in one zone, while at the same time the rest of the state isn’t burdened under the same ball and chain of ESA protection. But when you consider the amount of abuse that will come from this authority, it becomes a more effective fire starter than an extinguisher. There are so many catch words and phrases in this Draft that one would be foolish to think it’s intended for anything of value to the people.

While I am not expecting anything productive to come out of the Committee hearings in Washington, I will write them and tell them that they need to derail this Draft Policy and actually get down to meat and potato changes or consider complete repeal of the ESA.

If you would like to take the time to read Obama’s Draft Policy, you can read it at this link. In addition, at the end of the Policy proposal, you’ll find specific questions the “Services” are seeking comments on and how you can submit comments about this policy. Comments will be opened for 60 days after the official posting of the Draft to the Federal Register.

Tom Remington

Share

Obama Administration’s Attempt to Define “Significant Portion of it’s Range”

Let me say right off the top in order that some may not want to waste their time seeking truth, that I believe very strongly that the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA)(Act) is unconstitutional. It is such because it does not stand up against the authority of the Constitution in which a statute cannot, in and of itself, be a violation of the Constitution. It also does not mean that I oppose species protection. The majority of people in this country don’t care nor are they free to undertake independent thought to learn about the truth. Most every, if not all, laws on our books are nothing more than tools to extract power from the people and put it into the hands of government. I pray for your epiphany for truth.

However, simply because I believe the Act is criminal, doesn’t dismiss me from exposing the further fraud behind the ESA and now the attempts by Congress and the Obama Administration to “fix” it.

As I have written about recently, the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources has begun a series of hearings to examine the Endangered Species Act, (ESA) in hopes of determining: “How litigation is costing jobs and impeding true recovery efforts.” With the Committee using that description of the intent of their hearings, should we hold out any hope that any efforts will be directed at amending or, as some are asking, repealing of the ESA? Not likely.

But this has not stopped the Obama Administration of getting into the ESA fray. After all, we do have an election coming up and doing and saying anything to steal a vote is chichi these days in Washington. The “Services”, collectively the Department of Interior, the Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Commerce and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, have gone all out to help Americans define the simple phrase, “significant portion of its range”.

That phrase is used extremely sparingly in the ESA and it pertains, at least in my mind and after reading Obama’s proposal I question if the “Services” have any mind, to criteria used to determine when and if a species might be considered for federal protection under the ESA.

Either I’m not fully enlightened or am too honest, but I happen to think that “significant portion” would mean a big or perhaps as much as a majority or more of something, especially when used in the context of a word that describes size, i.e. “portion”. Evidently I’m wrong, according to the “Services” Draft Policy to define “significant portion of its range”.

There is a reason that Congress and the President, beyond the usual politics, are taking a look, finally, at the ESA. It’s badly broken. In its day, it was intended, we were told, to provide a means in which government regulation could prevent the needless destruction of plant and animal species. Perhaps because the bill was signed into law by President Richard Nixon, who was embroiled in the Watergate scandal, set the stage for a bill designed to fail. And fail it has.

The Act has done little to save species and a lot to put a lot of money into the bank accounts of environmentalists, stifling job growth and stripping Americans of their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

If you and I can get beyond arguing whether the ESA is worth anything and discover that it’s not, then surely we can begin to see the efforts of Congress to examine portions of the ESA and President Obama’s administration to define words in the Act as laughable.

Regardless of whether President Obama thinks he can define “significant”, it is NOT going to do anything to change the problems with the ESA. Among the massive issues that makes the ESA look like a falling down old barn, is the lack of specific information in the administration of this bill. This leaves the door open to giving the Secretary of Interior too much discretion, flexibility and deference as it pertains to interpretive policy, and it has led to a myriad of court rulings in which judges have taken it upon themselves to interpret the ESA in any fashion they can.

One of the downsides to the judicial branches of our government is that every time there is a court ruling the words created in that ruling become case law and at least to some degree becomes precedent in future court cases, regardless of the truth or accuracy of what is written.

So what I can say right from the beginning that what the “Services” are attempting to do in defining “significant portion of its range”, is to hand select from existing statutes, case histories and case law, some or all which are seriously flawed, combined with their own interpretations of what they think the intention of the legislators were in writing the Endangered Species Act.

What on earth could go wrong?

Remember back in 1998?, when then President Bill Clinton was answering questions before a grand jury about his involvement with Monica Lewinsky? He was asked if there was anything going on between him and Miss Lewinsky. Bill Clinton responded to the jury:

“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the–if he–if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not–that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement….Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true.”

This kind of jibber-jabber spin is endemic among politicians and governmental agencies. That’s why we all hate them so. Obama’s “Services” people don’t go quite to that extreme in their attempts to define “significant portion of its range”, but read what they did say.

This Draft Policy took approximately 20 or more pages to conclude using the various resources and criteria I have already described above to determine that “significant portion of its range” in its entirely, together, as a whole, means:

provides an independent basis for listing and protecting the entire species

In other words, this is pretty much what we have all become subjected to over the past near 40 years. Some too highly paid, well indoctrinated person(s) at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) made a determination that a particular species was in trouble and was in trouble over a “significant portion of its range” and therefore was declared “endangered” and the “range” essentially became critical habitat.

But the “Services” have determined that it depends on what the meaning of significant is as to whether or not significant actually becomes significant.

This draft policy includes the following definition of “significant” as it relates to SPR [significant portion of its range]: a portion is “significant” in the context of the Act’s “significant portion of its range” phrase if its contribution to the viability of the species is so important that, without that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction.

Significant, used as an adjective, which if my English 101 is correct, is defined in most dictionaries as:

1. important; of consequence.
2. having or expressing a meaning; indicative; suggestive: a significant wink.
3. Statistics . of or pertaining to observations that are unlikely to occur by chance and that therefore indicate a systematic cause.

If “significant” is used as an adjective to describe portion, and portion in this context relates to a physical area or size of land, i.e. range, then wouldn’t significant portion suggest what is being talked about here is geographical scope of the range of a species?

The “Services” concluded that the choice of definition for “significant” is “important”. Therefore, it’s not the size of the portion of the range but the importance of the portion of the range they have decided to use.

I could go on with such foolishness but it’s more important to provide focus on what’s the bottom line. The bottom line here is that not only will Obama’s Draft Policy not only not help anything as it pertains to the ESA but will in fact make matters even worse.

Nothing in this policy limits the discretion and authority of the “Secretary” to implement and make definitions and rulings as he/she deems “scientific” and necessary for the administration of the ESA. Not only that, but this policy seriously places into the hands of the government, greater authority to not only create “portions of its range”, in other words, the Secretary can declare a species endangered and establish all the “critical habitat” he wants. He will still have power to create Distinct Population Segments. However, this new policy will allow the Secretary, through a series of predetermined “thresholds”; a measure of how important it is to protect one small area where a certain species may exist in order to save the entire species globally, create millions of tiny DPSs that the “Services” have said they don’t want to do.

Try to paint a picture in your mind of what this might look like. Haul out a map of the U.S. and it is peppered with 6,537,129 little dots where the Secretary has created a “significant” “significant portion of its range”. And that “significant” range happens to be the 350-acre ranch your trying to eke out a living on. I think this is significant.

Oh, that won’t happen! You all say. Won’t it? If not, then why is this included in the Draft Policy?

Therefore, if a species is determined to be endangered in an SPR, under this draft policy, the
species would be listed as endangered throughout all of its range, even in situations where the facts simultaneously support a determination that the species is threatened throughout all of its range. However, we recognize that this approach may raise concerns that the Services will be applying a higher level of protection where a lesser level of protection might arguably fit if viewed across a species’ range. The Services are particularly interested in public comments on this issue.

I am sure that how I see this Draft Policy and how others may see it will be worlds apart. For those who have faith and confidence in government and believe the ESA is a viable statute that actually protects species, while preserving the rights of Americans, you may think this attempt at defining “significant portion of its range” is a good thing. I do not!

I see it as further pushing the ESA bus over the cliff. It defines nothing. It only serves to foist even more autocratic power into the hands of government, particularly that of the Secretary of Interior. And, gives authority to the Secretary to amass hundreds upon thousands of SRPs (Significan Range Portions) and DPSs (Distinct Population Segments) all over the country.

One can think of instances where this authority and application may be practical but you shouldn’t think it actually will. One example might be the instance in Wyoming, where the state, in working with the Feds, has come up with a SRP of sorts that provides protections for the gray wolf in one zone, while at the same time the rest of the state isn’t burdened under the same ball and chain of ESA protection. But when you consider the amount of abuse that will come from this authority, it becomes a more effective fire starter than an extinguisher. There are so many catch words and phrases in this Draft that one would be foolish to think it’s intended for anything of value to the people.

While I am not expecting anything productive to come out of the Committee hearings in Washington, I will write them and tell them that they need to derail this Draft Policy and actually get down to meat and potato changes or consider complete repeal of the ESA.

If you would like to take the time to read Obama’s Draft Policy, you can read it at this link. In addition, at the end of the Policy proposal, you’ll find specific questions the “Services” are seeking comments on and how you can submit comments about this policy. Comments will be opened for 60 days after the official posting of the Draft to the Federal Register.

Share