Voices from the Flats – Alaska’s War on Science
29 12 2009
Alaska’s War on Science Needs to End
By Rick Steiner – University of Alaska
Alaska’s escalating war on science should be a grave concern to us all. On climate change, endangered species, predator control, environmental impacts of industrial development, and other important policy issues, Alaska now has arguably the most anti-science government anywhere in the nation.
For instance, with virtually no public input, the 2008 legislature appropriated $2 million for an “endangered species conference,” for which “conclusions had already been agreed upon,” according to an Anchorage Daily News report. The stated objective for the appropriation was to refute federal climate science, particularly the science behind the listing of polar bears as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. In the words of its primary sponsor, Rep. John Harris, “You know as well as I do that scientists are like lawyers … we want to have the money to hire scientists to answer Interior (department) scientists.” Many asked former Gov. Sarah Palin to veto this appropriation, but being a non-believer in climate change and species protection herself, she approved it. Palin recently claimed that climate change concerns are based on “snake oil science,” questioned “whether we are warming or cooling” and concluded that climate is simply “cyclical” and thus no reason to constrain fossil fuel use. No wonder we’ve made no progress on the climate crisis. If it takes place as envisioned, the state’s “conference to nowhere” and public relations campaign will be a laughing stock of the scientific community.
In a Dec. 12 opinion piece in the Anchorage Daily News, Attorney General Dan Sullivan decried the “misuse’ of the ESA “by Outside environmental groups,” asserted that protecting endangered species could “lock up Alaska resources and shut down our economy,” and said the administration will fight proposed ESA listings. Sullivan neglects to mention that Alaska already has 20 species on the federal threatened and endangered list and that hasn’t shut down our economy. As justification for the state’s ill-conceived lawsuit against the federal government over the polar bear listing, he states that polar bear populations are “robust and stable.”
Not so, says the science. Of the 19 polar bear populations worldwide, only three are currently listed as stable, none in Alaska. Alaska’s polar bear populations in the Chukchi Sea and Southern Beaufort Sea are both now listed as declining, primarily due to loss of sea ice caused by carbon emissions. In fact, despite Palin’s and Parnell’s assertions to the contrary, we learned from documents the state tried to keep secret last year that the state’s own marine mammal scientists agree with the science and rationale behind the threatened listing.
On predator control, hundreds of respected scientists and wildlife professionals, the American Society of Mammologists, and the National Research Council have all raised serious concerns about the lack of scientific basis for Alaska’s arcane predator control program, but their overtures to state government have been ignored.
And on Cook Inlet beluga whales, Rep. Don Young criticizes federal agencies for producing “false science,” and says that “the state should have the science available to (contradict) what comes forth.” He and Anchorage Mayor Dan Sullivan will ask the Legislature to appropriate “millions” to conduct studies designed to contradict the federal science.
During the Exxon Valdez oil spill, scores of researchers were hired by Exxon to deliver the results Exxon wanted, and to contradict legitimate government science. These researchers, who came to be known as “biostitutes,” are the sort that Alaska politicians will be looking to enlist in their anti-science crusade.
With the recent revelation that the University of Alaska no longer protects the freedom of its faculty to honestly convey their scientific perspective to the public without fear of reprisal, particularly if their perspective is critical of industry or government, this war on science comes into sharp focus. Have we entered the Dark Ages of science and reason in Alaska?
Surely, Alaska deserves better. Science cannot continue to be abused in such a blatantly biased, dishonest fashion. If we are to develop an environmentally sustainable economy, we need to ask the right scientific questions, listen objectively to the answers, openly debate the results, and act accordingly.
Alaska needs to end its shameful war on science.
[This article also appeared in The Juneau Empire and is cross-posted with permission from the author]
December 29th, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Agreed. Also consider former half term Gov. Sarah Palin and the Washington Post’s war on science.
December 29th, 2009 at 2:25 PM
George Will has been waging a pretty strong war on Science, too. A classic example of it, and some of the reasons why, are explored here: Last paragraphs is a must read for anyone skeptical of Will.
December 29th, 2009 at 2:25 PM
terrific article. i can hardly imagine a law-making body literally appropriating funds for the purpose of attacking science. that’s mind boggling. i wish the author had provided more details and/or links regarding the reprisals to professors at the university.
December 29th, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Last paragraph, sorry. It’s even more of a must read (well, the whole piece is) for anyone not skeptical of will.
December 29th, 2009 at 2:32 PM
Thank you Proff Steiner for your courage and conviction. I know how difficult this path is you’ve chosen to walk.
As a female wildlife biologist and environmental educator that grew up and started my career in the deep South of the US, I am intimately familiar with being immediately dismissed as a woman and having the work that I and my peers were paid to do supressed, ridiculed, and ignored because the research conclusions (or even in some cases the law) didn’t meet what the administration / politician wanted to accomplish.
If you wanted to keep your job you had to stay quiet and not rock the boat in order to advance. If you spoke out it was to put the noose over your own head. I’ve watched peer’s have important, timely research hidden from publication and be contractually obligated to not talk or write about what they know. I chose to leave university education system and stop working for a (non Ak) State agency because of just such problems. I wonder how many talented, dedicated people have we lost from the research pool due to such issues?
The ramifactions of such actions have done significant harm to this country on many, many fronts. Whether we will actually be able to stop this type of coersion in the future….it will take a whole lot more people like Dr. Steiner to make it happen.
December 29th, 2009 at 2:51 PM
Kudos to Rick Steiner. Let’s keep the pressure on for healthy watersheds and a healthy planet!
December 29th, 2009 at 2:56 PM
Hedgewytch, a true and sorry story. It’s happened many times over. Still, credibility has a way a making itself known, with or without official sanction, and is its own reward.
Bowing down to all who choose integrity and make a few waves.
December 29th, 2009 at 3:12 PM
thank you for posting this important essay on mudflats. having worked in the science industry for the past decade, i can tell you first hand that this is a huge problem out there in the legal landscape and in the regulatory world of “plenty of rules but no enforcement”.
industry rarely hires its own PhDs anymore — instead they buy university departments and get the research performed by graduate students for pennies on the dollar. why pay a dozen PhDs in chemistry and physics and engineering $200,000 a year when you can have a grad student at your beck and call for $10,000 a year. seriously. and better yet – a foreign student trying to get an education in the states is so terribly vulnerable to the corporate whims with respect to length and breadth of research projects.
now consider why would a student dedicate time and dollars to advanced degrees if there is no hope of a well-paid job at the end? so less students sign up for advanced degrees in the science programs.
this is a calamity of epic proportions. (rant over)
December 29th, 2009 at 3:28 PM
A calamity, indeed. We so easily sell our souls and our planet down the river. If truth hurts, hire someone to tell us sweet lies.
Kudos to Rick Steiner and for using his eloquent combination of knowledge and voice at the same time.
Glad to see you posting here. Hope you become a regular.
December 29th, 2009 at 3:50 PM
So the question is: What can we do about it? Articles like this one work for those of us who already get it. What can we DO to work toward fixing this problem?
hope? not so much.
December 29th, 2009 at 3:51 PM
ENOUGHwiththetrainwreck @December 29th, 2009 at 3:12 PM
I share the concerns of you and the author. Fortunately, when I was a student, the US still treasured science. That’s no longer the situation. As we entered the 1980’s, it became clear obvious when leaders such as Reagan, with his polluting trees, were given free rein by the MSM and other power brokers to ridicule fact based science. By Bush II, scientists were leaving the US in droves for other countries that saw the opportunity to become the frontrunners in the scientific fields and paid our experts well to immigrate.
It is a sorry state of affairs. We need a new generation of scientists, but poor public education and the high cost of college are making that unlikely.
December 29th, 2009 at 4:02 PM
Dr. Steiner speaks truth to power, and I hope we are all listening. What he is describing is a problem that is bigger than what is happening in Alaska. It is a national and probably world-wide problem. I think we all remember the tobacco industry and their scientist-prostitutes who lied to all of us about the risks of smoking and second hand smoke. And think of the millions of dollars that all of the trade industries put into hiring lobbyists to influence our congress to pass laws that are favorable to their corporations and profits, with nary a thought to what should instead be done based on truth and justice. Our representative democracy is in many ways now not much more than a Corporatocracy. Very sad… we all need to speak up more. THANK YOU, Dr. Steiner. Lead the way for the voice of truth and justice.
December 29th, 2009 at 4:07 PM
It would be great to see this article re-printed in more places, such as the Anchorage Daily News, as an Op-Ed in the New York Times or The Washington Post, and on The Huffington Post. This war on science is serious, and has wide-spread dangerous implications.
December 29th, 2009 at 4:11 PM
It is indeed a sorry state of affairs. We need a new generation of scientists and tech people also and our schools are not now up to par in a lot of cases as some schools no longer teach true science.IMO God gave us the means to get as far as we have and if science was not a fact it would have not come about.Do these people who laugh at science laugh also about sending our people into space or about those first steps on the moon.That was done thru science,with scientist leading the way forward.
Very well written article Mr Steiner,keep up the push forward
December 29th, 2009 at 5:54 PM
Remember when reagan tried to turn ketchup into the vegetable of choice for school children? Seems things haven’t changed much in some places.
Do people realize how much energy they expend by practicing stupidity?
December 29th, 2009 at 6:17 PM
All states, and the Feds need to get a brain about fact based information collected by the rigorous rules of science.
Alaska is in the unique position of actually being able to save most of its God given gifts. The rest of the 49 states have already destroyed and or cashed theirs in.
As for Sarah’s non belief in climate change. It doesn’t need science just common sense to know that there is climate warming.
Fossilized plant and animal remains that were protected from exposure to the environment, have for millennia stored chemical energy as coal, oil and gas.
For millions of years energy stores have accumulated.
Modern man discovered ways to recover the coal oil and gas and have released the stored chemical energy, mostly as heat.
Stored chemicals have been released into earths ecosystem as heat, nitrates, sulfates, CO2, etc.
Just like lighting a fire in your house to warm it by releasing heat from the burning of stored chemical energy, the earth is going to warm from the burning of stored chemical energy.
You light a fire and warm your house. You burn gas and warm you car.
You light a fire and warm the earth. You burn gas and warm the earth.
Its just that simple.
Except that as in any chemical equation if any factor is altered the product of the chemical equation will be altered. We have profoundly changed the chemistry of the earth. The status quo of 100 years ago no longer exists and cannot exist again unless the chemistry of earth returns to the equilibrium of 100 years ago.
Which is impossible.
December 29th, 2009 at 6:19 PM
Yes, it is a sad state of affairs.
After watching Food, Inc. I am now perplexed in how I feel towards those in the scientific field, because, they can be on both sides, pro natural earth or pro being paid for services, they all may be true to scientific experimentation and research, but what of the division on what to do with end results. Where is that discussion.
Because…….
What huge corporations are capable of doing, and are doing to our world food supply, our environment, and global economy is VERY disturbing. Their scientific researchers are why they can advance their greedy control.
And, that corporate decision making, enabled by researchers, is furthered by politicians who came out of the very corporations they now promote in our government.
http://www.foodincmovie.com/
I side with Professor Stein, because I agree with his stance on preserving our natural habitat. And I appreciate his dedication and honorable work. I thank him.
I personally know of two others that would definitely take this stand, who fortunately, are still able to continue their studies and to contribute research papers.
Since I can only post one link per post, I’ll continue later. There is much to learn. Much our general population does not know about, and should be very concerned. The greedy bad guys are out ahead of us on too many fronts.
December 29th, 2009 at 6:21 PM
barbara Says:
December 29th, 2009 at 2:25 PM
terrific article. i can hardly imagine a law-making body literally appropriating funds for the purpose of attacking science. that’s mind boggling.
The Ragan and Bush number two did as well.
December 29th, 2009 at 6:24 PM
Thank you Rick for the insightful article. So sad that our education system is corporatized. I am glad you are not a mindless drone to the corporate brainwashing thats called education today. What if Alaska had an education system devoid of corporate interests?? The world would beat down our doors to get in! From K-Phd bar none A-one. Ahhhhh wish in one hand…..
December 29th, 2009 at 6:34 PM
Much as I agree and sympathize with Dr. Steiner’s Op-Ed piece it is really too little and too late. Too little because his focus is narrowly on Alaska which, though he may well be right is the most anti-science state government, gives a miss to the enormous impact that the extreme anti-science influences have in states like Texas and Florida and even California. Too late because this has been coming for more than 30 years. While it is true that many scientists both in industry and academia spoke out, no one paid any attention. Scientists are a very minor minority when it comes to elections.
So the real point is fairly straightforward if not easy. What to do about it?
Education: First educate yourself, nothing in science has stood still since you last were in school, no matter when that was, whether last week or in the middle of the last century. Second, educate your children responsibly and be proactive and concerned and aware of what is going on in your local school systems. This is where the battle was joined and it is ongoing. Just because it is unconstitutional to teach religious beliefs in lieu of real science does not mean it is not happening. I have no statistics, no one has the statistics because no one is paying attention but I would hardly be surprised if half the high schooles in the US had creationists teaching biology classes.
Information: The knowledge is “out there”. There is little if any excuse for people living in the US to not know what is going on around them and to be ill informed about scientific issues that have a strong bearing on policies and budgets. So turn off the television and learn to use your computer, learn to discriminate between the genuine and the bogus. Share this quest with your whole family (your kids can probably teach you some technical tips but they are impressionable as well as quick studies so first have them teach you how you can track what they have been doing on the computer!)
Discriminate: Suspend belief, examine everything that has moment in a critical way. What are the sources of this information? How was the work done (if any) funded? Why was it funded? By competitive grant proceedings or by special interests? Quiz question, what is the Templeton Foundation?
Question: Any Alaskan could have in 2006 asked pointed questions about Alaska’s future revenue potential based on fossil fuel production. Did any? If not why not? If the ADN is blatently biased, hold their feet to the fire, accuse them of it and never miss an opportunity of pointing it out. Question political candidates in particular, ask them point blank if faced with a choice between the informed opinion of relevant scientists on a policy issue and your personal beliefs, which would you chose to follow? Anything but an unequivocal affirmation that policy should be based on knowledge and not belief should be unacceptable.
Invest: Dedicate not only some of your time, but some of your resources to causes that support the same goals. Form a local “citizens for science” group and actively participate in it. DO THINGS. Organize yourselves to make sure a representative of the group attends school board meetings. Hold fund raising events to muster some resources to contribute to the campiagns of school board candidates who are NOT ideologs. Go to your local libraries and see how they treat science. Make a note of what is in the stacks. It is easy to browse through the science section, if you see books by people like Behe, Dembski and Wells, tell the librarian they should be moved to Fiction.
Resist: Go back and read again, “Civil Disobediance” by Thoreau.
Do not just stick to the electonic medium of interaction, I am a unique case, anyone willing is well to come find me in N. Mato Grasso, I will gladly provide the particulars of travel arrangements. But think about it for a minute, we are all mudflatters, yet how can we know whether the person we are interacting with is in Alaska or Juruena? We can’t, though this might be useful information. On the other hand it might be useful to others as well who could possibly use it against individuals. Am I paranoid? Damn right.
This is a very extempraneous response and relects no deep consideration of the many cogent factors.
To the overall question whether in fact there is a war on science being waged one only has to look at recent events in the climate change issue. In the community of climatologists it is called swifthack instead of climate gate. What it amounts to is the willful and wanton slander and libel of a number of scientists who otherwise no one would notice at all except they worked on a problem and discovered something that is not only inconvenient, but potentially catastrophic. While there is no need to panic, because even in the worst case, panic serves no purpose, there is a dire need to reconsider our actions as a global population. Those who argue against taking global action, even if wrong, have a vested interest and stand to gain from inaction. We too, the vast majority, stand to gain, the planet will (may) remain viable to large complex organisms. If we do nothing, we may well not experience much of any inconvenience, though your children or grand children, may well curse your existence.
It is time to grow up. We are responsible for how the human world works, if we don’t partake in it, we have abdicated our citizenhood and acquiesced to being chattel.
I think this issue to be the paramount issue of our times because it is obvious to anyone who is aware of more than his/her own tiny world space that humanity can continue to blunder forth into the future blind and faithful that they have a unique place in the vast and complex ecosystem that has survived on this planet for more than 3 thousand million years. Our entire biological history is a trivial 1/10th of one percent of the planet’s history. Our written history is a tiny fraction of that. We are but children in the vast and unforgiving universe. We are faced with a stark choice, we can go forth into the future wagering everything we are or ever will be on un-evidenced faith, or we can try to take action according to what we can empirically learn.
The consequences of these two strategies are evidenced by the events that have ensued during the respective time periods. From year 0 to about 1800 the most sophisticated and profound invention was the cuckoo clock. 145 years later as a direct consequence of science, at Alamagordo, New Mexico the energy of the atom was released without fetter. This science has advanced more than 1000 fold since then. Is the science itself at fault?
Choose.
December 29th, 2009 at 6:40 PM
This all makes perfect sense if you think about one thing. Who are the first people who are rooted out when a new radical regime takes over? Scientists, Doctors, Proffesors…..in short, educated people. Because people who are well educated tend to stick to facts that might not be conducive to what the new regime wants to accomplish. The last thing anyone pushing a faulty agenda wants is to be questioned or put on the spot. They need blind loyalty.
All this started with the Reagan years and went on during Clinton during Newt Gingrich’s “Contract With America” days. The republicans have been systematically dumbing down the US education system because undereducated or falsely educated people are as good as uneducated ones. The voucher system they pushed was so the kids of the people who followed their agenda could get a good education and lead the uneducated masses. Bush Jr and his crew carried on the tradition.
Corporate science is junk science that starts with a conclusion and looks for “facts” that help reach that conclusion. Look at the Tobacco industry, the Oil industry, the Food industry, and the Medical industry for starters. They all hire their own experts and have them “prove” whatever it is that they want proven. They start “dummy” organizations to host summit where the results are a foregone conclusion and give them fancy names to make them sound important and make them seem like they are stand alone organizations, not some shill for an industry.
Unfortunately, the dumming down process seems to be working as more Americans fall for this junk science.
December 29th, 2009 at 7:09 PM
KN, even “a very extempraneous response” from you is important to read and always welcome.
As someone who was a product of the CA school system until grad school, I am appalled by what has happened to a great public school system that produced many talented engineers and scientists. Now, we all seem to be obsessed by the “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous” and other garbage.
(I’m not saying a watchful eye doesn’t need to be kept on the rich and famous, as they seem to think the laws don’t apply to them. They do, even the laws of gravity.)
December 29th, 2009 at 7:19 PM
How to fight a war on science? GET INVOLVED!! Seek out non-profits that are trying to save science/save our environment and donate. Even in this worthy pursuit, however, be careful. Plant-a-tree foundations might sound great, but planting a genetically engineered tree that requires a toxic brew of chemicals to survive is not what we’re seeking. Instead, donate to a cause that *preserves* rain forest, or cloud forest, etc. And non-profits are not the only way to go. If you’re an investor, seek out tomorrow’s technology today and put your money where you want your future. Start at home. One of the many reasons I live in NYC is so I don’t have to own a house, don’t have to own a car, and can buy produce grown organically/sustainably in my region from greenmarkets to which I can walk or take public transit. If you want to curb greenhouse gases, consider apartment life rather than a private house. I live like a bee in a hive, in a building over 100 years old (my maternal grandparents lived 2 blocks away when my mother was born). If you love the natural world, do everything you can to preserve it. This includes eating real food, rather than the corporate crap that’s artificially cheap (because it’s subsidized) in the supermarket. This is the same pseudo-food that will give you degenerative illness (cancer, heart disease, diabetes). Be informed. Update your information. If you start by taking care of yourself, your family and loved ones, and the little piece of the planet you inhabit, you can and will make a difference. The longest journey begins with a single step. Health and peace.
December 29th, 2009 at 8:07 PM
And, did we know, (I did not until recently) that part of the Iraq peace rebuilding/agreement established under Bush’s administration REQUIRES ALL Iraqi food producers (ie farmers) to buy U.S. Monsanto seed, genetically modified, patent protected, in their (Iraq) case, seed that will not reproduce. That is all they can purchase and plant. No original crop seeds from their own country can be sold and bought, seeds passed on from generation to generation, for hundreds of years, no can plant and sell. I say preserve while you can.
Can you see how food for populations, (here in the US and anywhere in the world) can be controlled? If a seed producer can control who gets their seed, and if, per contract agreement, their seed is the only seed allowed to be bought and used, what becomes of food that can be grown if that seed is withheld?
And, what if other seeds from the past have not been preserved. Food is a necessity of life. If one conglomerate gets control of our or the world food source or products manufactured from that food source, that can not hold a good outcome, they can hold food or seeds to grow food as a hostage trading chip.
People, something is very wrong with this picture. Monsanto, who started out as a chemical company, (think Round Up weed killer), just 12 short years ago discovered a soybean plant strain resistant to it’s Round Up weed killer, they took that soybean gene, claimed it as their own, then came a corn strain, also patented. Both corn and soy are used in millions of absolutely everyday products, millions, from food to other items, made and sold all over the world.
So, the corn and soy farmers in our country and across the world are being told what seed to use, and is this a good thing? is it health tested? is it safe? is it the right way to go? should one company have so much control over such a hugely used/needed agriculture product?
Now they are expanding and cornering the WORLD market on food seeds sold to farmers, buying up independent seed companies left and right world wide, replacing non patented seeds with genetically chemically engineered food seeds that have patent protections and/or do not produce seeds for future crop reproduction.
Patent protected means if a NON Monsanto seed planting farmer, on US soil, has cross politnation via bees or wind with Monsanto gene, well then, that farmer is shit out of luck and cannot save his crop seeds for replanting, may pay fines if he tries to do so, and will most likely go on a black ball list, he will go under, before being allowed to buy Monsanto seeds. It’s vicious. And it’s got to stop.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/13/monsanto-squeezes-out-see_n_390354.html
“Monsanto was only a niche player in the seed business just 12 years ago. It rose to the top thanks to innovation by its scientists and aggressive use of patent law by its attorneys.
First came the science, when Monsanto in 1996 introduced the world’s first commercial strain of genetically engineered soybeans. The Roundup Ready plants were resistant to the herbicide, allowing farmers to spray Roundup whenever they wanted rather than wait until the soybeans had grown enough to withstand the chemical.
The company soon released other genetically altered crops, such as corn plants that produced a natural pesticide to ward off bugs. While Monsanto had blockbuster products, it didn’t yet have a big foothold in a seed industry made up of hundreds of companies that supplied farmers.
That’s where the legal innovations came in, as Monsanto became among the first to widely patent its genes and gain the right to strictly control how they were used. That control let it spread its technology through licensing agreements, while shaping the marketplace around them.
Back in the 1970s, public universities developed new traits for corn and soybean seeds that made them grow hardy and resist pests. Small seed companies got the traits cheaply and could blend them to breed superior crops without restriction. But the agreements give Monsanto control over mixing multiple biotech traits into crops.
The restrictions even apply to taxpayer-funded researchers.”
December 29th, 2009 at 8:45 PM
Zyxomma,
Although I agree with much of what you say I do not agree with everything. I too have lived in NYC and it was a very fine experience. In a sense it is the model of what a city should be. London is a close second in many respects.
One thing you seem to have overlooked is that if a lot more of us were urban creatures, it would leave a lot more of the world free of our influences. IOW there might be a bit more wilderness if we were more willing to live cheek by jowl.
I generally depart from your claims when it comes to the food issues. While it is all well and good to be in favor of healthy foods, I think you have overlooked the fact that nutrition is simply chemistry. This is a broad topic with many nuances that bear considering. If anything I would point out that there is a kind of profiterring involved in the so-called healthy foods market that plays upon people’s fear.
Regardless, the key issue is one of how we as a species impact our environment. You might call it human ecology. Though there are many negative things about confining immense numbers of humans to narrow geographic confines, there are also offsetting benefits and opportunities that simply are impossible in a more rural and dispersed population.
I for one can accept it easily though I grew up in the wilderness far apart from any dense concentration of people. From the age of about 18 to 22 I lived in NYC and overall, consider it to have been a profoundly good experience.
I could say a lot more upon the point because I have also been into some profound bits of wilderness, but that is not particularly important.
I lived in the Clinton Hll district of Brooklyn close by the defunct Navy Yard.
Where do you reside if I may presume to inquire? In particular I lived on the “wrong side” of the EL that ran down Myrtle Ave. Half a block or so but enough to make a distinction.
Cities too have their provinces.
Cheers,
December 29th, 2009 at 8:53 PM
Thank you for a great posting that in its essentials is applicable to the entire country.
I remember Reagan saying that kids didn’t need to go to college – tech school was enough if they really had to go past high school. Since that time, higher education has been begging for adequate funding. Conservatives generally (both Republican and Democrat – though Republicans have been much more active in cutting funds) have devalued education at every turn. This is particularly true in states where Republicans hold the majority.
I live in Kansas. Funding for education is becoming grime. Republicans go after school budgets at all levels before they go after anything else. They truly despise education. I’m sure you’ve all heard about Kansas and its brush with the far-right. in regards to evolution, sex education and other “progessive” dangers. I realize that most of our Republicans come from rural areas where Christian home schooling has made huge numbers of supporters, but that is no excuse to attack science in particular and public education in general.
Way back when President Reagan first espoused his “you don’t need to go to college – tech school is sufficient” opinion, we feared it spelled a huge shift away from a traditional respect for and emphasis on higher education. Little did we know that the Republican Party would go far beyond that and begin a determined campaign to undermine education at all levels. It seems they are always against programs such as Head Start, subsidized meals, after school programs, and student loans.
They sure don’t blink an eye, though, when it comes to funding wars, do they? When I heard Lieberman, the faux Democrat/Independent, blabber on about the need to start a new war (preemptive strikes) on Yemen, I lost. The man won’t spend money on helping Americans get health care or a better education, but he and his cohorts in the Republican Party will not hesitate to drain our Treasury to kill people in the lame hope of “protecting” the homeland.”
The homeland (egads, isn’t that so Nazi-sounding a label for our country?) won’t be worth protecting if we ignore the basics: health care, jobs, retirement security, education, and all the basic public services such as firefighters, police protection, et cetera.
We need to make our voices loud and clear and persistent: we want these issues to predominate! We value learning, we value our environment, we value the quality of life of our people period!
December 29th, 2009 at 8:56 PM
I lived on the Upper East Side for 9 years when I moved to NY for grad school and still think there is plenty of room for improvement. For example, using thermostats instead of opening windows in the winter to control the heat. Or opening the doors when the AC is on in the summer, causing more energy to be used to cool down. Those two examples were very depressing to me because it was common sense, and we weren’t using it because it was the landlord’s problem or some other stupid excuse to not use one’s own brain.
December 29th, 2009 at 9:04 PM
Excellent article, Prof. Steiner. I’m not sure how to make people wake up and take a good look at what is going on in Alaska, and as others have said, everywhere else. But it is so important that we keep trying. Saying nothing is the worst that we can do.
December 29th, 2009 at 9:06 PM
just posting for those, other than yourselves who know,…….
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/13/monsanto-squeezes-out-see_n_390354.html
December 30th, 2009 at 1:10 AM
Sullivan at The Daily Dish has quoted & linked to this article. Glad to see it get some national attention! http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/12/going-rogue-on-energy-policy-in-alaska.html#more
December 30th, 2009 at 5:58 AM
One lights a match..in a stadium..and the flow of light..is kindled..rises-spreads. A voice here ..there..the delicate sound of a chorus building-Rising. Here here..Hear hear!
December 30th, 2009 at 6:12 AM
Further proof of corruption and propaganda in Alaska Politics. All the more important we support MudFlats, Shannon Moore, and others who are bringing us independent news. Alaska really needs a cleaning and good journalism to expose the criminals. Whether they be clergy, bought-off scientists, politicians, businessmen, sports hunters, miners, etc.
It is upsetting that the legislature never do anything to correct the corruption even when it is so obvious. The Governor has too much power in appointing the Attorney General, commissioners and high ranking officials.
December 30th, 2009 at 6:19 AM
#9 @luckycharms ~ A calamity, indeed. We so easily sell our souls and our planet down the river. If truth hurts, hire someone to tell us sweet lies.
———————————————————–
In a nutshell, well said.
The vast mountains of money spent to prove or disprove a particular ideological or political viewpoint on these studies and studies to study the study and more studies could fix this country in a day and feed the world in a week (well, maybe I exaggerate)! And all they do is delay and obstruct fixing the original problem, while more land is lost and more creatures perish and suffer. I forget who it was who said: There are lies, dam*ed lies and statistics. Interesting thing about statistics; they can be skewed to present information in whatever way the statistician wants it to represent. I don’t believe statistics for a moment. I believe that if Beluga whales are not thriving over a period of time and they are not reproducing in numbers to support a healthy population, then there is a problem and that needs to be addressed. Another study will not increase their numbers. I believe every creature has evolved to fill a niche that is important from the lowest plankton to the mighty blue whale and we need to respect that or we shall certainly rue the day.
Sorry, I went off on a tangent and a rant.
@Krubozumo Nyankoye ~ I always enjoy reading your thoughtful, intelligent and meaty posts. We do not hear from you enough.
December 30th, 2009 at 8:53 AM
lilady @32
@Krubozumo Nyankoye ~ I always enjoy reading your thoughtful, intelligent and meaty posts. We do not hear from you enough…………………………………
i love KN’s posts also….tickled to see him and zyxomma make friends.
KN is an expert in mining engineering. what he don’t know probably not worth knowing. i wonder how he would go about mining at Pebble if he had all the time and money and resources in the world his disposal. could it be done in a way that would benefit the environment? just curious.
December 30th, 2009 at 10:28 AM
“Have we entered the Dark Ages of science and reason in Alaska?” Not just Alaska, I’m worried that this whole country has entered a dark age. Facts are any written or spoken word from any “celebrity,” whether that be a politician or not. We have lost something important. I don’t know what it is, but reasoned opinion seems to have all but disappeared. What I see every day is wild Orwellian doublespeak and Alice in Wonderland “science” and just plain old lies, with nothing more than a wink and a shrug and “heh heh” when exposed. Seems all that needs to be done is spout a lie on a Sunday morning talk show and it becomes fact forever more … If it weren’t for earnest souls, such as the writer of this blog, the people would learn nothing real at all …
December 30th, 2009 at 11:41 AM
If one has..an agenda..and one..wishes to ..’foist’..a myth of ..we can’t do anything about anything because theres an All Powerful Man..trailing about the Skyways….puppeteering all of us..what better way than to homeschool in a particular faith-pattern..or..deny that science has anything of value to it. A perfect plan for destroying this entire country..AND..the planet. I do have some cousins who are..seemingly..waiting with fairly ill-concealed joy..for a ..second coming..or armagedden..or the uplifting..etc.,etc.etc….. The term city of refuge..sadly..comes to immediate-mind!
December 30th, 2009 at 12:06 PM
Thanks, Rick Steiner!!
For everyone, Please explore all of knikriver.org website to learn what is transpiring at the headwaters of the Cook Inlet. Alaska DNR has managed to create, through rude misinterpretation of legislation and BAD planning,
an unlimited motor use ‘park’ in an area named by prior DNR & F&G Commissioners as critical habitat.
Science and much publicly funded planning was tossed here, too.
December 30th, 2009 at 3:10 PM
Thanks Bubbles-good point.
Pebble mine seems like a really bad idea to me, I hate everything about it.
K.N.-can you give us some input? I can’t see how salmon and mining can coexist.
Professor Steiner-thank you. Please keep speaking out. Some of us do listen.
December 30th, 2009 at 8:43 PM
Sorry to be slow in responding as usual but it has been a long day here.
Thanks to all who praise my little essays, I try to afford a unique perspective.
I will answer a few people specifically.
#34 bubbles
I have to correct you, I am actually an exploration geologist, but it is of course necessary to have a fairly broad understanding of what is possible in terms of mine engineering to make reasonable decisions about whether or not a give prospect is capable of development. Your question is quite appropriate. Without being thoroughly familiar with the situation I cannot be very sure of any conclusion regarding either the Pebble or the Kensington mines, but it is apparent to me that their containment designs for tailings disposal are simply the cheapest possible solutions, and as such, fraught with risks. The risks are easy to gloss over and difficult to understand. In the simplest possible terms the companies involved are simply externalizing costs and thereby improving their profit.
Can Pebble be developed in a responsible way? In general I would have to answer probably yes. Pebble is a little bit a-typical because it has an open cast prospect and an underground prospect. If I were the CEG on the project I would propose that in the first phase of development, the open cast, the tails be dewatered and emplaced. In the second phase of the project the tails would ideally be recycled into the underground workings as structural backfill to minimize the various problems of underground mines. It is possible that the reduction in grain size related to the processing of ore would require that some of the emplaced tails from open cast operations would be required to accomplish complete backfill. This is all highly speculative because the particulars about the deposit are not available on the net.
The Kensington mine is a different issue, I believe there they won a lawsuit that allows them to use an existing lake as a tailings impoundment. This is utter folly because by definition a lake communicates with the ground water and the ground water communicates with every stream in the watershed. It is too complex to explain why it is a bad idea to put fresh mine tailings into an existing lake but I might be able to answer that specific question in another post.
#38 NEO
I think I have answered your general question above but I want to say a little more, not to be argumentative but to try to inform. Mining is a dirty, nasty, dangerous, expensive and in some ways corrupt business just like every other business. People may object to that assessment but I can’t come to any other conclusion as long as the sole motive for any business is profit when we all know that there is no such thing, in fact the opposite is true. I’ll resort to a layman’s version of thermodynamics to explain. The first law is you can’t win. The second law is you can’t break even. I am a geologist, it is my job to find resources that can be exploited. Usually the criteria for exploitation are purely economic and most discoveries don’t cut the mustard, but they might in two or three decades. It would be fine with me if there was some mechanism in society that allowed us to just scientifically try to understand the whole world that exists beneath our feet. But it is not so, instead we are driven by the need to consume raw materials. As time passes, it becomes increasingly difficult to find concentrations of raw materials that can be utilized economically. It is a very complex problem and that is what I have chosen to devote my life to.
I don’t know if Salmon and mining can coexist, I probably don’t have the necessary knowledge or skill set to make a reasonable determination, but if I could contrubute something to the study of it, I would be willing.
#33 LiladyNY
While I agree that statistics can be used to lie, they can only lie to those who do not understand statistics. Statistics are a vital tool to science because we have to deal with the unknown. Properly applied, statistics are what we use to determine whether or not our data is representative of anything in the real world. The problem is further confounded by the fact that nature is not random. Good science depends upon accurate statistics. Unfortunately, statistics are apparently not intuitively obvious to everyone. So yes they can be and often are abused by those willing to lie to achieve their objectives.
Thank you for your encouragement, I enjoy this forum and I enjoy contributing my point of view when it is relevant. That is not often the case but I am content with it.
#27 kssunflower
Egad, yes that “homeland” meme is kind of ugly. In Germany it was the patriarcal, “fatherland”.
On the education issue you are more or less correct I think, I am not a student of these issues but if my memory serves me, it was in the 1980s that the decline of public funding for education began. We had a president who basically made the claim – look at me, I am an idiot who knows nothing about anything and I am president of the United States and the most powerful person in the world!
If human beings were not gullible, carnivals would have gone out of business two centuries ago.
I cannot tell if there is any hope for the world, I am but one individual. But unless many individuals seek and come to a common understanding of what we all confront, then in my opinion, we shall see unprecedented chaos.
I hope I have addressed what has been put forth.
Cheers,
December 31st, 2009 at 11:14 AM
I recall recieving a nice research award from th PCCRC one year only to have it revoked after one of our individuals made a comment that Trawling the Bering and Gulf of Alaska are the prime reasons for many a specie decline. Oh the ruckus that caused, it was eventually reinstated but at a much reduced rate, we never made the new.
Great job Rick!
January 2nd, 2010 at 7:51 AM
Happy New Year everybody. Since I am Alaska Native, I will feel free to make a comment no one else has made about the state of Science these days. “The Eskimo Way of Knowing” was the buzz phrase coming out of the willows in the early 90’s as if it all is true science. The idea that ‘we know because we live here and our ancestors told us about it’ is so unscientific and silly that this whole approach has brought science in Rural Alaska back another 20 to 30 years.
It’s pure hogwash and one that has been used to manipulate the ignorant and illiterate and to give them a sense of importance while the species of salmon continue to decline here and there throughout the state. I am embarrassed that so many of my people are so easily suckered into believing knowledge passed down is science.
So now it’s ‘Social Science’ to continue to confuse the ignorant and illiterate and ‘Social Scientists’ are running around collecting data that is nothing new from what we know and have known for years with every tribes own personal twist of course. Pure and dirty hogwash. Thousands of good American dollars wasted to prove what? Every group has their own stories and if they want to preserve their stories let them foot the bill and use the money instead to help nature survive so that the people can survive.