The Way I See It - The Fall of Science
Permalink +Wed, Mar 03, 2010, 5:00 am // Ham Hayes
Enough has been revealed, written and said about “Climate-gate” for me to be alarmed. And the alarm is about more than what our global weather is or is not doing. In this country especially, science and scientists have been elevated to a god-like status. There should be little argument that humanity’s pursuit of understanding how the physical universe works has led to hundreds of years of scientific discovery and consequential inventions. Science and scientists can honestly claim credit for truly immense improvements in health, agricultural productivity and material well-being for all of us. They are our go-to people for mastery and application of the scientific method, the methodology for gaining usable knowledge about our world. At times, science has also challenged our myths and beliefs. It has revealed facts about our history and the development of our societies and cultures. It has helped us know who we are. And the reason we have given such exalted status to science is that it has proven for the most part to be reliable. It has given us predictable and repeatable results, most of the time.
However, science and its methodologies are not infallible. Scientific theories are built from observations. Then those theories are tested against more observations. Scientific peers independently test the theories and observations of other scientists. It is this process that builds confidence the results are usable, if not necessarily 100% certain. Throughout history, there have been major shifts in humankind’s understanding of the universe. Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and Einstein are a few of many thinkers who have said, “Sorry, but our universe is different than we thought yesterday.” If scientists are honest they shy away from claiming certainty. They know they may not have all the observations needed, or their techniques and methods are not as reliable as required. These shifts and uncertainties are a normal part of doing “good” science. And if the principles of good science are followed, high confidence in the results can be maintained.
Science is corruptible. Conducting science with honesty and integrity is hard enough. But when those entrusted to hold to the rigorous and high principles of science begin to ignore or falsify observations, trust quickly turns to rejection. When bogus articles are quoted as truth without peer review or verification, doubt is born. And when we realize those who we trusted have hidden observations that are contrary to their theories, we also realize the scientists, their work and their conclusions are false. When they attack those who question their statements, the alarms go off.
Scientists have taught us a lot about how dynamic our planet is. Despite great expenditures of time and money, predicting Mother Nature, be it hurricanes or earthquakes, or even local weather, varies wildly from sometimes good, to sometimes iffy, to downright impossible. Our scientists may be getting better at predicting, but there is still a very long way to go. And that is in the situation where the scientists are trying to be honest. Virtually every sector of our society is dependent on having honesty and integrity in the underlying science. Imagine how we would feel if medical research was shown to have been falsified. We probably wouldn’t be so eager to get a flu shot or take our prescribed drugs. Our government has established regulatory and economic policies in medicine, agriculture, transportation, manufacturing, education, construction, and other areas based on what has been learned from the underlying science. We might not buy that car if we knew it was safety tested using faulty scientific methods. We wouldn’t be eager to trust a physician’s opinion without confidence in their knowledge.
Seemingly in the blink of an eye, one whole sector of our scientific establishment is now discredited. That doesn’t mean every scientist was part of the scam. Many, if not most, were probably not. But being on the outside, how does the public know what is truth and what is not? There seems to be a vacuum of information and action by agencies and organizations who should be watching out for us. Right now our government doesn’t appear to be interested in correcting the situation. My guess is they drank the Kool-aid of the Climate-gate folks. They need to get back to some good science. If they don’t, the question can easily become, “Where else is honesty and integrity missing?” For me, I think I will dust off my copy of the Old Farmer’s Almanac for the time being.
Comments (7)
To add a comment, click here to login or register.
Matt Petryni // Wed, Mar 03, 2010, 10:35 pm
Ham, I need to make sure I’m understanding this article.
Are you arguing that, as a result of the controversy around “Climate-gate,” the scientific theory on greenhouse forcing has been “discredited”?
Most of your article is, in my view, unobjectionable: science is indeed fallible, corruptible, and often corrected; the science on climate change is by no means perfectly understood. I think “the e-mails” might raise concerns about a particular lab and particular science (and it’s debatable it even does that), but the vast majority of the data remains just as it was the day before “the e-mails.”
So I can’t imagine that a person as reasonable as you generally seem to be would, at this point in the game, be persuaded against the scientific consensus by the “Climate-gate” story. Are you? Really? No way. Really?
I don’t mean to be rude or anything, I guess I’d find this genuinely surprising coming from you is all. I mean, there’s a lot of bloggers on the internet I’d expect it from, I don’t know. Agggh...; maybe I’m just kind of disappointed, I’ve generally enjoyed your columns.
Are you arguing that, as a result of the controversy around “Climate-gate,” the scientific theory on greenhouse forcing has been “discredited”?
Most of your article is, in my view, unobjectionable: science is indeed fallible, corruptible, and often corrected; the science on climate change is by no means perfectly understood. I think “the e-mails” might raise concerns about a particular lab and particular science (and it’s debatable it even does that), but the vast majority of the data remains just as it was the day before “the e-mails.”
So I can’t imagine that a person as reasonable as you generally seem to be would, at this point in the game, be persuaded against the scientific consensus by the “Climate-gate” story. Are you? Really? No way. Really?
I don’t mean to be rude or anything, I guess I’d find this genuinely surprising coming from you is all. I mean, there’s a lot of bloggers on the internet I’d expect it from, I don’t know. Agggh...; maybe I’m just kind of disappointed, I’ve generally enjoyed your columns.
Ham Hayes // Thu, Mar 04, 2010, 8:41 am
Matt, Thanks for your comment.
My point is that corrupted science leads to unreliable results. One can’t prove or disprove any theory with a bad process.
What has been discredited is a sector of our scientific community. Discredited by (formerly) trusted scientists who corrupted the scientific method. And they did it to themselves.
In the past, the earth’s climate has changed and we expect it will change again. What role our species plays now and in the future is a valid question. But we require methods that give us results we can trust in order to determine valid policies and actions.
We as a society really do need to clean up the process before we get back to the question. We hold that science is about dispelling belief and opinion. This clean up really does have to come from the scientific community and the leaders who set policy based on the recommendations of that community.
My point is that corrupted science leads to unreliable results. One can’t prove or disprove any theory with a bad process.
What has been discredited is a sector of our scientific community. Discredited by (formerly) trusted scientists who corrupted the scientific method. And they did it to themselves.
In the past, the earth’s climate has changed and we expect it will change again. What role our species plays now and in the future is a valid question. But we require methods that give us results we can trust in order to determine valid policies and actions.
We as a society really do need to clean up the process before we get back to the question. We hold that science is about dispelling belief and opinion. This clean up really does have to come from the scientific community and the leaders who set policy based on the recommendations of that community.
John Servais // Thu, Mar 04, 2010, 10:06 am
Actually, Matt, the University of East Anglia (UEA) emails are devastating. They have started a trail that leads to many other places, including the US. And there is much more evidence of climate scientists providing misleading information - whether on purpose or because of sloppiness. The motivations seem to be a belief in man made global warming and a desire to convince people of that. The role of science is to present facts and truth, not crusade. It is fine for individual scientists to crusade for their beliefs but not by promoting erroneous information. This is what has been happening.
Your comment relies mainly on peer pressure rather than any arguments against what Ham has written. This is the normal social pressure on those who speak their convictions when they run counter to the current fad. Your only criticism is that the emails are only a tiny part of climate research. In fact, UEA is the clearing house for climate data for the world. The emails are crucial to understanding what has been going on. The whole hockey stick graph that shows temperatures slowly rising and suddenly rapidly rising came from there.
The world is warming - and the climate skeptics agree that it is. The question is why and is it cyclic. Those who believe that climate warming is primarily caused by man have labeled the skeptics as “deniers”. This is pejorative. They do not deny climate warming. They even recognize that excessive CO2 is contributing. They simply say that the scientists are not being honest with their results and research. There is mounting evidence that this is true. There is now a saying that the scientists should “stop persuading the public” and return to accurate climate reports.
A humorous example of a scientist being sloppy is from NPR last Sunday. A US Geological Survey scientist stated that over the past 20 years that 20,000 square kilometers of Antarctic ice has been lost - and that is an area larger than Texas. Tilt. Texas is almost 700,000 square kilometers in size - over 30 times larger than the ice that broke off. Yet this scientist repeated this error. And I can expect some anxious friend of mine to quote that to me over a beer sometime soon. Isn’t NPR a good source of truthful reporting? I’m sure it was not purposeful but it is sloppy. And there are other examples that are purposeful.
Matt, you should visit the website “Watts Up With That” - conveniently linked in the right column. Scroll down to the post yesterday about the Antarctic ice. Yes, you can follow the links and listen to the original broadcast. Satisfy yourself that it really happened. And check out the accumulating information that encourages a healthy skepticism towards some of Al Gore’s claims.
Your comment relies mainly on peer pressure rather than any arguments against what Ham has written. This is the normal social pressure on those who speak their convictions when they run counter to the current fad. Your only criticism is that the emails are only a tiny part of climate research. In fact, UEA is the clearing house for climate data for the world. The emails are crucial to understanding what has been going on. The whole hockey stick graph that shows temperatures slowly rising and suddenly rapidly rising came from there.
The world is warming - and the climate skeptics agree that it is. The question is why and is it cyclic. Those who believe that climate warming is primarily caused by man have labeled the skeptics as “deniers”. This is pejorative. They do not deny climate warming. They even recognize that excessive CO2 is contributing. They simply say that the scientists are not being honest with their results and research. There is mounting evidence that this is true. There is now a saying that the scientists should “stop persuading the public” and return to accurate climate reports.
A humorous example of a scientist being sloppy is from NPR last Sunday. A US Geological Survey scientist stated that over the past 20 years that 20,000 square kilometers of Antarctic ice has been lost - and that is an area larger than Texas. Tilt. Texas is almost 700,000 square kilometers in size - over 30 times larger than the ice that broke off. Yet this scientist repeated this error. And I can expect some anxious friend of mine to quote that to me over a beer sometime soon. Isn’t NPR a good source of truthful reporting? I’m sure it was not purposeful but it is sloppy. And there are other examples that are purposeful.
Matt, you should visit the website “Watts Up With That” - conveniently linked in the right column. Scroll down to the post yesterday about the Antarctic ice. Yes, you can follow the links and listen to the original broadcast. Satisfy yourself that it really happened. And check out the accumulating information that encourages a healthy skepticism towards some of Al Gore’s claims.
Craig Mayberry // Sun, Mar 07, 2010, 9:43 am
This is a great and much needed conversation. Let me relate my own personal experience. I am nearing completion of my dissertation and I am looking at the relationship between leadership style, entrepreneurial orientation, and organizational effectiveness. One of my variables is transactional leadership and depending on what other variables I include it is either a significant factor or not a significant factor. So is it significant or not? The methodology part is incredibly important, yet under estimated in the public policy arena. Those making public policy decisions do not understand the intricacies of the research.
So what if we were now trying to determine a significant public policy based on my research (and similar research with similar conclusions). With millions of dollars of research money at stake, what would be my motivation? Would I play it straight, or quietly eliminate a couple of variables that I could easily argue were not that important anyway and come up with a very different result.
As John mentioned, the emails do not help the global warming cause and the scientific community at large. What it does show is that the scientific community is just like the banking industry and the health insurance industry, if millions of dollars are at stake, then self interest and preservation rules.
What we do know is that we cannot afford to pollute and waste our natural resources. Whether the impact is global warming (or climate change) or not is irrelevant. We know that oil and energy will get more expensive and that we have to move to more economically sustainable energy sources (renewables). We know that we need to protect our water because the cost of cleaning it up is much more expensive than the cost of protecting it in the first place. We know that we need to put a lot less pollution in the air because of the impact on our health. We know all of these things, not because of global warming science, but because it is the most economical thing to do. The problem was basing our entire environmental public policy initiatives on scientifically based global warming when the science could never prove or disprove the relationships.
So what if we were now trying to determine a significant public policy based on my research (and similar research with similar conclusions). With millions of dollars of research money at stake, what would be my motivation? Would I play it straight, or quietly eliminate a couple of variables that I could easily argue were not that important anyway and come up with a very different result.
As John mentioned, the emails do not help the global warming cause and the scientific community at large. What it does show is that the scientific community is just like the banking industry and the health insurance industry, if millions of dollars are at stake, then self interest and preservation rules.
What we do know is that we cannot afford to pollute and waste our natural resources. Whether the impact is global warming (or climate change) or not is irrelevant. We know that oil and energy will get more expensive and that we have to move to more economically sustainable energy sources (renewables). We know that we need to protect our water because the cost of cleaning it up is much more expensive than the cost of protecting it in the first place. We know that we need to put a lot less pollution in the air because of the impact on our health. We know all of these things, not because of global warming science, but because it is the most economical thing to do. The problem was basing our entire environmental public policy initiatives on scientifically based global warming when the science could never prove or disprove the relationships.
Tip Johnson // Sun, Mar 07, 2010, 10:56 am
Climate change is continuous, but irregular. It may be impossible to model such complex, dynamic systems.
Lovelock kinda gave up trying with the introduction of Lorenz’ “Butterfly Effect” - the modeling equivalent of Godel’s theorems to Whitehead and Russell’s Principia Mathematica.
Nevertheless, he has argued that 80% of humans will perish by the year 2100 due to global warming that will force mass migrations to habitable regions, and that meteorological variability such as 300 mph winds may be of greater consequence than rising sea levels.
One problem with science, in the context of policy, is that is has become merely a means of measuring our rate of decay. When definite proof is lacking - as it always is in complex systems - debating the data becomes the central effort. As with regulating pollution or the reducing the effects of development on Lake Whatcom, we are able to avoid taking precautionary measures while the debate continues.
The Precautionary Principle would suggest that carbon sequestered from the far less hospitable atmosphere of Earth’s earlier epochs should not be reintroduced.
However, our economic principle of protecting predators (Thanks, John) demands that anything can be destroyed if it makes a buck.
Why do I have a feeling that climate change will become a non-issue politically once the carbon allotments have been made and Wall Street brokers have collected their commissions on the derivatives?
Lovelock kinda gave up trying with the introduction of Lorenz’ “Butterfly Effect” - the modeling equivalent of Godel’s theorems to Whitehead and Russell’s Principia Mathematica.
Nevertheless, he has argued that 80% of humans will perish by the year 2100 due to global warming that will force mass migrations to habitable regions, and that meteorological variability such as 300 mph winds may be of greater consequence than rising sea levels.
One problem with science, in the context of policy, is that is has become merely a means of measuring our rate of decay. When definite proof is lacking - as it always is in complex systems - debating the data becomes the central effort. As with regulating pollution or the reducing the effects of development on Lake Whatcom, we are able to avoid taking precautionary measures while the debate continues.
The Precautionary Principle would suggest that carbon sequestered from the far less hospitable atmosphere of Earth’s earlier epochs should not be reintroduced.
However, our economic principle of protecting predators (Thanks, John) demands that anything can be destroyed if it makes a buck.
Why do I have a feeling that climate change will become a non-issue politically once the carbon allotments have been made and Wall Street brokers have collected their commissions on the derivatives?
John Servais // Sun, Mar 07, 2010, 11:47 am
Your welcome, Tip. He is referring to my privately help - till now - description of the core value of conservatives and Republicans. It is: The role of government is to protect predators.
From that all else springs. Core values cannot be argued with. They are the basic deep values. For instance, you either believe in a god or you do not. All your subsequent values and rationalizations and beliefs then go one way or the other. We all have several core values.
Most arguments are between people with different core values and that is why they each think the other person or group is blind to the obvious. Or closed minded. Or willfully obstinate. In truth they are usually both logical in their conclusions based on their core values. And, again, you cannot argue with another’s core values. Core values are part of us. We rarely change them and when we do it is always due to traumatic events. Very traumatic events.
I should note that I think the Tea Party folks are correct in their complaints. Their core value is not that of the hard core Republicans. I’m liberal and fully support the concerns, complaints and issues that the Tea Party folks have. Most Republicans are clueless to what the Tea Party movement is about. I have invited local Tea Party leaders to write here but they have declined. I think the reason is their philosophy is not yet fully formed and they are not sure how to articulate it.
What would be nice is if more people were aware of their own core values. Most are not. Philosophy includes the study of core values, but most people prefer to not indulge is that study. And the Republicans seem unaware of their own core value.
From that all else springs. Core values cannot be argued with. They are the basic deep values. For instance, you either believe in a god or you do not. All your subsequent values and rationalizations and beliefs then go one way or the other. We all have several core values.
Most arguments are between people with different core values and that is why they each think the other person or group is blind to the obvious. Or closed minded. Or willfully obstinate. In truth they are usually both logical in their conclusions based on their core values. And, again, you cannot argue with another’s core values. Core values are part of us. We rarely change them and when we do it is always due to traumatic events. Very traumatic events.
I should note that I think the Tea Party folks are correct in their complaints. Their core value is not that of the hard core Republicans. I’m liberal and fully support the concerns, complaints and issues that the Tea Party folks have. Most Republicans are clueless to what the Tea Party movement is about. I have invited local Tea Party leaders to write here but they have declined. I think the reason is their philosophy is not yet fully formed and they are not sure how to articulate it.
What would be nice is if more people were aware of their own core values. Most are not. Philosophy includes the study of core values, but most people prefer to not indulge is that study. And the Republicans seem unaware of their own core value.
Craig Mayberry // Sun, Mar 07, 2010, 7:36 pm
“The role of government is to protect predators.” I am not sure what Republicans or conservatives you are listening to in order to draw that conclusion. Maybe that is the Ed Schulz or Rachel Maddow view of Republican core values, but I have never heard any Republican articulate that as a core value.
I do agree that looking at the current system that it has evolved into government taking that role, but both parties are equally culpable. The systematic role of large bureaucracies is to maintain the status quo and acquire power. The largest bureaucracies are governments (state and federal) and multinational corporations. Their acquisition of power makes them a predator and they will go to great lengths to protect themselves (both government and business).
It is the nature of the organizations that cause the predation, not the nature of the “core values” of Republicans. Everyone seems to forget that with the exception of 2000-2006, Democrats have held at least the White House, US Congress or US Senate for almost a century. No law gets passed without all three bodies agreeing. I realize many people believe the country went to hell in 6 years, and all of our problems have occurred since 2000, but that is hardly the case. Our current issues have been slowly building for decades and are now coming to an obvious head. Both parties have been in power during that slow build and neither did anything to stop it, because both political parties benefited.
There are differences in core values between those on the right and the left. The right tends to place more value on individual rights and the left tends to place more value on the whole community/equality (a way over simplification of their values). Both are getting the short end of the current system and blame the other side for all of their problems. The reality is we are more united then we want to admit as the predatory nature (your language) of our current system has a detrimental effect on both individual rights and community rights/equality. The “have’s” will take a lot more at the expense of the have-nots, destroying equality and community; at the same time reducing individual rights to prop up their power structure. Everyone loses and the only way to solve the problem is to quite blaming the other political side and start fixing the root cause of the problem.
I do agree that looking at the current system that it has evolved into government taking that role, but both parties are equally culpable. The systematic role of large bureaucracies is to maintain the status quo and acquire power. The largest bureaucracies are governments (state and federal) and multinational corporations. Their acquisition of power makes them a predator and they will go to great lengths to protect themselves (both government and business).
It is the nature of the organizations that cause the predation, not the nature of the “core values” of Republicans. Everyone seems to forget that with the exception of 2000-2006, Democrats have held at least the White House, US Congress or US Senate for almost a century. No law gets passed without all three bodies agreeing. I realize many people believe the country went to hell in 6 years, and all of our problems have occurred since 2000, but that is hardly the case. Our current issues have been slowly building for decades and are now coming to an obvious head. Both parties have been in power during that slow build and neither did anything to stop it, because both political parties benefited.
There are differences in core values between those on the right and the left. The right tends to place more value on individual rights and the left tends to place more value on the whole community/equality (a way over simplification of their values). Both are getting the short end of the current system and blame the other side for all of their problems. The reality is we are more united then we want to admit as the predatory nature (your language) of our current system has a detrimental effect on both individual rights and community rights/equality. The “have’s” will take a lot more at the expense of the have-nots, destroying equality and community; at the same time reducing individual rights to prop up their power structure. Everyone loses and the only way to solve the problem is to quite blaming the other political side and start fixing the root cause of the problem.
UPDATE: City of Bham Moonlighting Issue - More Documents
Mon, Jan 30, 2012, 10:58 pm // Riley Sweeney
Riley updates us on the latest facts coming to light about City of Bellingham employee moonlighting2 comments; last on Feb 01, 2012
Compliance, Noncompliance and Invalidity in Whatcom County
Sun, Jan 29, 2012, 10:16 pm // Wendy Harris
The County's rural planning actions have not just failed to comply with the GMA...they have contradicted the goals of the GMA.2 comments; last on Feb 01, 2012
Open House on Feb 5
A Worm’s Eye View of our local WorkSource Center
Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 9:42 am // Riley Sweeney
Riley visits the local WorkSource center and interviews the regional director
0 comments
Watch out for basement flooding
Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 9:03 pm // Paul de Armond
Stormwater surge may back up sewers
5 comments; last on Jan 21, 2012
The Political Junkie interviews Kathy Kershner
Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 4:29 pm // Riley Sweeney
Riley discusses the Jail, Jack Louws, and an impartial council with our new Council Chair
1 comments; last on Jan 20, 2012
SOPA - A Step in Destroying Democracy
Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 12:17 am // John Servais
NWCitizen.com went black for Wednesday, Jan 18, 2012, as a protest against proposed legislation, SOPA and PIPA. Here is what was posted.1 comments; last on Jan 19, 2012
Why SOPA is so terrible
Tue, Jan 17, 2012, 6:28 pm // John Servais
On Wednesday, thousands of websites will go dark to show opposition to SOPA. I will be posting a single article explaining who SOPA is so bad.0 comments
Planning Commissioner Mocks Environmental Concern For Coal Terminal
Sat, Jan 14, 2012, 11:06 pm // Wendy Harris
Planning Commissioner Onkels should recuse himself from review of environmental impacts at GPT.2 comments; last on Jan 16, 2012
Jack Petree, Olympia, the Whatcom Council and Obama’s Inner Circle
Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 8:04 am // Riley Sweeney
Latest from the Political Junkie on a variety of subjects
7 comments; last on Jan 15, 2012
Commmunity Governance at its Best
Mon, Jan 09, 2012, 8:27 pm // Tip Johnson
We have a new mayor!
4 comments; last on Jan 10, 2012
Property Rights Protected Under Lake Whatcom Stormwater Proposal
Sun, Jan 08, 2012, 11:02 pm // Wendy Harris
The County's proposed stormwater regulations for Lake Whatcom will increase development without improving water quality2 comments; last on Jan 20, 2012
Riley Rouses Row Over Domestic Violence
Sun, Jan 08, 2012, 1:21 am // John Servais
Issue is County Council member Kathy Kershner and how our social service programs are funded.3 comments; last on Jan 08, 2012
Some thoughts on the Occupy Bellingham issue
Sun, Jan 01, 2012, 12:05 am // John Servais
A third note on Jan 1 about the Herald photos with links. And previous thoughts on the trivia around the militarized evictions.9 comments; last on Jan 10, 2012
Kelli Linville has taken oath as mayor
Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 2:07 pm // John Servais
Kelli assumes office of mayor at midnight Dec 316 comments; last on Jan 02, 2012
Bellingham Herald removes comments
Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 11:59 am // Wendy Harris
Decide for yourself if this blog comment, posted under my own name, should have been flagged and removed from the Bellingham Herald Online Edition.1 comments; last on Dec 30, 2011
Herald Permits Censorship of Pro-Occupy Bellingham Comments
Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 11:14 am // Wendy Harris
Anyone can "flag" a blog posting, resulting in immediate removal of your comment, regardless of merit. This is occuring for comments supporting OB.1 comments; last on Dec 30, 2011
City Exceeds Scope of Occupy Bellingham Eviction
Wed, Dec 28, 2011, 8:26 pm // Wendy Harris
The City infringed on the public’s right to peaceful assembly in a public park by enforcing an inappropriate public safety law2 comments; last on Dec 30, 2011
Dan Pike Issues Order to Evict Occupy Bellingham
Tue, Dec 27, 2011, 11:55 am // Riley Sweeney
Riley questions Pike's timing, and Occupy's choice of tactics2 comments; last on Dec 28, 2011
Updates from The Political Junkie
Tue, Dec 20, 2011, 2:19 pm // Riley Sweeney
Where Riley provides more info on the City of Bellingham employees moonlighting issue and Crawford's ethical troubles
0 comments
Dock Increases Risk of Invasive Species on Lake Whatcom
Sun, Dec 18, 2011, 8:43 pm // Wendy Harris
Relocation of a dock to Bloedel Donovan Park underscores failure to protect Lake Whatcom from invasive species0 comments
Sam Crawford Faces Ethical Concerns . . . AGAIN
Thu, Dec 15, 2011, 12:44 pm // Riley Sweeney
Local blogger Shane Roth files ethical complaint over Crawford's sweetheart deals
3 comments; last on Dec 16, 2011
Planning Commission Fails to Remove Cherry Point From Birch Bay Mitigation Plan
Wed, Dec 14, 2011, 7:05 am // Wendy Harris
Claiming it is unfair to treat large property owners different than small property owners, the Commission refuses to remove industrial areas from buffer mitigation proposal.0 comments
Rick Perry, Can We Talk?
Tue, Dec 13, 2011, 9:58 am // Riley Sweeney
Riley has a conversation with Rick Perry
2 comments; last on Dec 16, 2011
For Gift Ideas, Think Beyond Parker Brothers
Sat, Dec 10, 2011, 9:32 am // Riley Sweeney
Riley discusses his love of board games and some good gift ideas
2 comments; last on Dec 11, 2011
The Political Junkie needs your input
Thu, Dec 08, 2011, 12:47 pm // Riley Sweeney
Please take my reader's survey, I'm planning 2012
0 comments
Loophole Benefits SSA and Undermines Birch Bay Mitigation Proposal
Wed, Dec 07, 2011, 7:00 am // Wendy Harris
Tell the Planning Commission to eliminate this loophole2 comments; last on Dec 14, 2011
Washington United for Marriage: It’s Time!
Tue, Dec 06, 2011, 11:12 am // Riley Sweeney
Riley attends a public meeting on equality
0 comments
The Cole Train: Loads of BS
Sun, Dec 04, 2011, 4:53 pm // Tip Johnson
Wherein the sooty prospect of economic necessity rears its ugly head
2 comments; last on Dec 04, 2011
Update on Cherry Point Buffer Mitigation Proposal
Fri, Dec 02, 2011, 1:08 pm // Wendy Harris
Planning Staff's recommended revision will not prevent SSA from reducing wetland buffers.0 comments
UPDATE: City’s response focused on favoritism, not lost revenue
Wed, Nov 30, 2011, 5:51 pm // Riley Sweeney
More on the city employee moonlighting issue0 comments
TPJ Exclusive: Little Documented Oversight for City Employee Moonlighting
Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 4:29 pm // Riley Sweeney
The Political Junkie breaks a story of employee moonlighting within city of Bellingham
7 comments; last on Nov 30, 2011
Deer me!
Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 3:30 pm // Tip Johnson
O.K. Who's in charge of all these ungulates?14 comments; last on Dec 01, 2011
County Proposal Includes New Cherry Point Buffer Mitigation Requirements
Tue, Nov 22, 2011, 9:29 pm // Wendy Harris
The County's new mitigation proposal is unlikely to be adequate for Cherry Point's industrial impacts to habitat buffers3 comments; last on Nov 24, 2011
CameraGate: Red-light safety or city revenue?
Mon, Nov 21, 2011, 1:00 am // Guest writer
With budget woes, Bellingham passes on safety in favor of cash. Starting in 2008, Bellingham officials were coached by ATS on how to get Red Light cameras through…
26 comments; last on Nov 29, 2011
Cameras, not coal, decided the election
Sat, Nov 19, 2011, 8:24 pm // Paul de Armond
Looking at the numbers for the Bellingham elections
11 comments; last on Nov 22, 2011
Election Analysis: What does it take to win a county seat?
Fri, Nov 18, 2011, 12:28 pm // Riley Sweeney
Riley examines Maginnis/Crawford and Kremen/Larson
0 comments
Election Analysis: Dropoff, Lynden Suburbs and the “Buys Bounce”
Thu, Nov 17, 2011, 5:20 pm // Riley Sweeney
Riley looks at Lynden and coins some new phrases.
0 comments
Political Junkie Election Analysis: Louws/Ericksen
Wed, Nov 16, 2011, 12:31 pm // Riley Sweeney
Riley takes a look at Louws/Ericksen in the search for moderate Republicans
1 comments; last on Nov 17, 2011
Kelli Linville is elected Mayor of Bellingham
Tue, Nov 15, 2011, 5:21 pm // John Servais
Results are posted as of 5:21 pm. Use links at top of right side column.2 comments; last on Nov 15, 2011
Padden Trails Rezone – You Should Be Worried
Tue, Nov 15, 2011, 9:43 am // Dick Conoboy
The Padden Trails rezone effort is a misuse of the Infill Tool Kit on the outskirts of Bellingham.
8 comments; last on Nov 16, 2011
Still over 6,000 ballots to count
Mon, Nov 14, 2011, 4:52 pm // John Servais
Kelli Linville takes safe lead for mayor of Bellingham. Sam Crawford is leading for county council.1 comments; last on Nov 14, 2011
New links
Colbert Super PacCurrent Interest
Bham Camera ScamColbert Super Pac
Local Blogs & News
Bellingham HeraldBham Politics & Economics
Bhm Herald Politics Blog
Bob Sanders
Cascadia Weekly
Citizen Ted
Ferndale Record
Foothills Gazette
Get Whatcom Planning
HamsterTalk
KGMI
Latte Republic
Lynden Tribune
MikeatthePort
Northern Light
Northwest Review
Sweeney Politics
Twilight Zoning
Wally Wonders
Western Front - WWU
Whatcom Watch
Local causes
Bham Camera ScamBham CofC political blog
Chuckanut Mountains
Citizens of Bellingham
City Club of Bham
Community Wise Bellingham
Conservation NW
Cordata & Meridian
Futurewise - Whatcom
Jail - local mega plans
Lake Whatcom
N. Cascades Audubon
N. Sound Conservancy
Neighborhood Schools Coalition
No Leaky Buckets
NW Holocaust Center
RE Sources
Transition Whatcom
WA Conservation Voters
Publisher recommended
Americans Elect 2012Bham Politics & Economics
Community Wise Bellingham
Guardian Unlimited
Paul Krugman - economics
Redistricting WA state
Sweeney Politics
Watts Up With That? - climate
WikiLeaks.ch
NwCitizen 1995 to 2008
Early Northwest CitizenWeather & Climate
Cliff Mass Weather BlogClimate Audit
NW Radar
Two day forecast
Watts Up With That? - climate
Cascadia
Crosscut SeattleJoel Connelly
Orcinus
Portland Indy Media
Seattle Indy Media
Washington Votes
Leisure
Adventures NWEdge of Sports
Entertainment NNW
Famous Internet Skiers
Sailing Anarchy
Worth checking out
Al-Jazeera onlineAlaska Dispatch
AlterNet.org
Americans Elect 2012
Antiwar.com
Arab News
Asia Times
Atlantic, The
Buzz Flash
Common Dreams
counterpunch
Daily Beast, The
Daily Kos
Daily Mirror
Drudge Report
FiveThirtyEight
Foreign Policy in Focus
Guardian Unlimited
Gulf News
Haaretz
Huffington Post
Innocence Project, The
Intrnational Herald Tribune
James Fallows
Jerusalem Post
Juan Cole
Le Diplo
Media Matters
Middle East Times
MoveOn.org
Nation, The
New American Century
News Trust
NMFA
numbers
Online Journal
Palestine Daily
Palestine News
Paul Krugman - economics
Personal bio info
Politico
Progressive Review
Project Vote Smart
Reuters
Sea Shepherd
Slate
Talking Points Memo
The Onion
Tom Paine.com
truthout
War and Piece
WikiLeaks.ch
ynetnews.com
Governments
Auditor election pageBellingham
Bham - PFD
Candidate Filings
Election Results
Redistricting WA state
Skagit County
The White House
WA State Access
WA State Elections
WA State Legislature
Whatcom Auditor
Whatcom County
Other - for whatever
Ban Red Light CamsBushFlash.com
Chickehhawks
Coal quandary
Doonesbury
George Bush
Info Clearing House
Mainstreampolitics
Michael Moore
Nat Geo on Coal Trains
Reality News
The Crisis Papers
Third World Traveler
Unity08
Washington Outsiders
Less active
Bellingham RegisterCarl Weimer
Eye on Whatcom
John Watts
Post-Oklahoman Confessions
The American Telegraph
Quiet, offline or dead
David HackworthGitmo prisoner 345
Mega Awesome
Not in my county
Parkenfarker
Pro-Whatcom