BenedictGomez
Well-known member
you know this. but, even in knowing the above fact feel perfectly comfortable with cutting a mere trail or two while not knowing the effects that will have.
My pointing out the limited terrain, is to suggest that the current population of this species could be completely expected, as it is with other species with such specialized habitat. To wit, if you paid careful attention, you'd note the researchers are NOT saying that the bird is currently numerically diminished (they cant). There is absolutely nothing to suggest that the bird's current numbers are not normal - perhaps even above normal for all we know.
I've already mathematically pointed out the imperceptibly small area "a mere trail or two" of this bird's habitat would holistically represent. As such, in this instance it should be the scientists burden to somehow prove why a new ski trail couldn't be responsibly cut.
And your above bolded comment is the circular argument that environmental zealots repeatedly use to stall or permanently stop development (Well..... you cant know it isn't bad for sure, even if technically there might not be a problem right now, so we'll just go ahead and assume it IS harmful. You know....gotta err on the side of caution here folks).
Frankly, after reading that report? Their argument seems rather unconvincing in this case. But guess what? Logic and material fact doesn't matter here. This bird IS going to be listed at "threatened" in the next year. How? Well, since they cant use CURRENT numbers to suggest the bird is threatened (the math and statistics for that do not work, as I've already pointed out), they're going the "future numbers will be harmed because of Global Warming" route (a "problem" that we dont even know is legitimate or not).
At the end of the day, it's all a sham, and the environmental extremists who wont allow a shovel to ever be put in the ground will eventually win this fight - again. And given this bird's habitat is on virtually every friggin' New England ski resort's property? Yeah, put my guess down for this being a MAJOR impact for ski area management coming to a town near you about a year from now. If I were Jay Peak I'd start cutting those trees YESTERDAY for that terrain expansion they have planned, because if they wait until next summer, it might be too late.
Attacking the science (the information) without any real knowledge or basis is a way to avoid making difficult decisions. This has become so widespread in politics now that we've lost our ability to use scientific information the way it's intended.
No, you have it completely reversed. Once politics enters into the equation, science ceases to exist.
You're making the assumption that the science is solid; a dangerous assumption.
The politics is the problem, because increasingly it determines the RESULT of the "science" before the scientist(s) even develops his/her methodology for a study.
It's becomes not testing a hypothesis, but figuring out how to frame a study to end in the predetermined conclusion that supports one's political beliefs and ideologies. And IMHO, there is no larger party guilty of this, than the environmental lobby. They have become so self-righteous, that it is almost a religion. They believe their "religion" is on the side of good, so the ends justifies the means, bogus pseudo-science or not.