Democrats created a dust bowl based on junk science.

[Capitalist]

A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that the liberal study that forced California officials to cutback on water to the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta was based on faulty science.
SFGate reported:

A federal judge has ruled that a landmark 2008 environmental study laying the groundwork for controversial water cutbacks from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta relied on faulty science.
In his much-anticipated decision released Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Oliver Wanger ordered the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to re-examine and rewrite its plan for the threatened delta smelt.
The agency’s solution for shoring up the collapsing species – namely cutting water exports to California cities and farms – is “arbitrary” and “capricious,” the Fresno judge wrote in his 225-page decision…
…Wanger’s ruling upheld the evidence showing that the delta pumps do indeed trap and kill many delta smelt – a consolation for environmental groups that had fought for pumping cutbacks. However, the judge found fundamental flaws in the scientific analysis on the benefits of trimming water supplies to urban and rural areas and said the federal agency failed to examine the economic impacts of such a policy.
happy
Agricultural water districts, plaintiffs in the case and the most vocal critic of the 2008 Fish and Wildlife Service report – officially termed a “biological opinion”- were delighted with Tuesday’s decision.
“With the economy struggling and unemployment still soaring, it is welcome to see a judge refusing to rubber-stamp extreme, destructive and unjustified environmental regulations,” said Damien Schiff, attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, which backed several farmers in a lawsuit against the federal government. “Bottom line: The people win; junk science loses.”
​

 

[editec]

For those who opine that some enbironmentists are limo-liberals who truly do not give a shit about how their regulation effect common man, I QUITE AGREE.

For those who imagine that every environmental regulation is wrong, I quite disagree.

The devil or angel of every regulation is, as always, in the details.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

For those who opine that some enbironmentists are limo-liberals who truly do not give a shit about how their regulation effect common man, I QUITE AGREE.

For those who imagine that every environmental regulation is wrong, I quite disagree.

The devil or angel of every regulation is, as always, in the details.

True...but the wacked out enviro nuts cry wolf so often that its makes it difficult to weed out the good policy from the bad.If they were a little more selective about what they took to court ie: things that actually matter. They would'nt have so many calling them nut jobs and we'd all benefit.

 

[mal]

For those who opine that some enbironmentists are limo-liberals who truly do not give a shit about how their regulation effect common man, I QUITE AGREE.

For those who imagine that every environmental regulation is wrong, I quite disagree.

The devil or angel of every regulation is, as always, in the details.

Can you be more Specific?...



peace...

 

[editec]

For those who opine that some enbironmentists are limo-liberals who truly do not give a shit about how their regulation effect common man, I QUITE AGREE.

For those who imagine that every environmental regulation is wrong, I quite disagree.

The devil or angel of every regulation is, as always, in the details.

True...but the wacked out enviro nuts cry wolf so often that its makes it difficult to weed out the good policy from the bad.If they were a little more selective about what they took to court ie: things that actually matter. They would'nt have so many calling them nut jobs and we'd all benefit.

YUP.

Wanna know how that works?

Who do you think actually controls the nation-wide pro-environmental organizations?

Working people, or scions who are limo-liberals?

Let me tell you the golden rule is no less in effect in the so called "liberal" community than it is in the so called conservative community.

The rich control BOTH SIDES OF THE DEBATE.

This is standard operating procedure in every SHAMOCRACY in the world.

It's the good cop. bad cop GAME.

 

[rightwinger]

Where was the "junk science"??

 

[PoliticalChic]

A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that the liberal study that forced California officials to cutback on water to the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta was based on faulty science.
SFGate reported:

A federal judge has ruled that a landmark 2008 environmental study laying the groundwork for controversial water cutbacks from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta relied on faulty science.
In his much-anticipated decision released Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Oliver Wanger ordered the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to re-examine and rewrite its plan for the threatened delta smelt.
The agency’s solution for shoring up the collapsing species – namely cutting water exports to California cities and farms – is “arbitrary” and “capricious,” the Fresno judge wrote in his 225-page decision…
…Wanger’s ruling upheld the evidence showing that the delta pumps do indeed trap and kill many delta smelt – a consolation for environmental groups that had fought for pumping cutbacks. However, the judge found fundamental flaws in the scientific analysis on the benefits of trimming water supplies to urban and rural areas and said the federal agency failed to examine the economic impacts of such a policy.
happy
Agricultural water districts, plaintiffs in the case and the most vocal critic of the 2008 Fish and Wildlife Service report – officially termed a “biological opinion”- were delighted with Tuesday’s decision.
“With the economy struggling and unemployment still soaring, it is welcome to see a judge refusing to rubber-stamp extreme, destructive and unjustified environmental regulations,” said Damien Schiff, attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, which backed several farmers in a lawsuit against the federal government. “Bottom line: The people win; junk science loses.”
​

Oh, no...not again: you mean that scientists are fallible?
Who knew?

"...environmental histories that suggest human intervention in the balance of nature generally wreaks unintended havoc.
Kaibab deer

"Before 1905, the deer on the Kaibab Plateau were estimated to number about 4000. The average carrying capacity of the range was then estimated to be about 30,000 deer. On November 28th, 1906, President Theodore Roosevelt created the Grand Canyon National Game Preserve to protect the "finest deer herd in America."

Unfortunately, by this time the Kaibab forest area had already been overgrazed by sheep, cattle, and horses. Most of the tall grasses had been eliminated. The first step to protect the deer was to ban all hunting. In addition, in 1907, The Forest Service tried to exterminate the predators of the deer. Between 1907 and 1939, 816 mountain lions, 20 wolves, 7388 coyotes and more than 500 bobcats were killed.

Signs that the deer population was out of control began to appear as early as 1920 - the range was beginning to deteriorate rapidly. The Forest Service reduced the number of livestock grazing permits. By 1923, the deer were reported to be on the verge of starvation and the range conditions were described as "deplorable."

The Kaibab Deer Investigating Committee recommended that all livestock not owned by local residents be removed immediately from the range and that the number of deer be cut in half as quickly as possible. Hunting was reopened, and during the fall of 1924, 675 deer were killed by hunters. However, these deer represented only one-tenth the number of deer that had been born that spring. Over the next two winters, it is estimated that 60,000 deer starved to death."
The Lesson of the Kaibab

 

[Granny]

The EPA needs to be reined in. The projects take years to "complete." Most of the projects do a lot more harm than good. The legal paperwork is absolutely phenomenal - and hard copies of every single document have to be distributed to everybody concerned. Any modifications to the paperwork have to be distributed. Then there are all the documents created by the EPA that have to be distributed. So, a 57 page document distributed to 25 people and then passed back and forth with every modification to the same 25 people = lots of dead trees. And it goes on day in and day out with multiple different documents being created, copied, distributed, etc.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Where was the "junk science"??

The Fish and Wilflife report went from No Danger to Likely to Jeopardize without any consideration of either the actual environmental impact or the economic impact of cutting off the water supply to 25 million people and the some of the most productive farmland in the world. That is junk science.

 

[Two Thumbs]

If I recall properly, the regions that got cut off the most were the few conservative regions in the state.

Assuming you beleive what you hear on the news.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Where was the "junk science"??

The same science that supports the lie of global warming.

 

[JScott]

A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that the liberal study that forced California officials to cutback on water to the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta was based on faulty science.
SFGate reported:

A federal judge has ruled that a landmark 2008 environmental study laying the groundwork for controversial water cutbacks from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta relied on faulty science.
In his much-anticipated decision released Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Oliver Wanger ordered the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to re-examine and rewrite its plan for the threatened delta smelt.
The agency’s solution for shoring up the collapsing species – namely cutting water exports to California cities and farms – is “arbitrary” and “capricious,” the Fresno judge wrote in his 225-page decision…
…Wanger’s ruling upheld the evidence showing that the delta pumps do indeed trap and kill many delta smelt – a consolation for environmental groups that had fought for pumping cutbacks. However, the judge found fundamental flaws in the scientific analysis on the benefits of trimming water supplies to urban and rural areas and said the federal agency failed to examine the economic impacts of such a policy.
happy
Agricultural water districts, plaintiffs in the case and the most vocal critic of the 2008 Fish and Wildlife Service report – officially termed a “biological opinion”- were delighted with Tuesday’s decision.
“With the economy struggling and unemployment still soaring, it is welcome to see a judge refusing to rubber-stamp extreme, destructive and unjustified environmental regulations,” said Damien Schiff, attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, which backed several farmers in a lawsuit against the federal government. “Bottom line: The people win; junk science loses.”
​

Damned activist judges....

 

[Rozman]

It a shame what the government did to those farmers.Their farms were destroyed,the farmers were forced to go to food backs to get their food.And of course the Libs are proud of this accomplishment.More people lose their homes,their jobs,their hope.Their only choice for survival is to go to the government for help.The government is happy because they get to control the lives of more people.