It’s interesting the people you meet on the internet.  I recently have met an environmentalist I actually agree with.  His name is John Droz, Jr. of Greig, NY.  John is a successful retired entrepreneur.  He also is a self-described “environmental activist”. Currently he is a member of four NY statewide issues groups (electrical energy, water extraction, water quality, & property taxes). He lives on a lake in the Adirondacks, and is a participating member of several environmental organizations including the Adirondack Council, Association for Protection of the Adirondacks, Residents’ Committee to Protect the Adirondacks, Sierra Club, NYS Federation of Lakes.

What is interesting about John is that he is upon a perhaps quixotic, but none-the-less very sane, effort to try to bring some scientific rationality to the environmental movement and the political juggernaut it has spawned.  John is proposing the establishment of a “Scientific Integrity Foundation (SIF)” that would be “an independent non-partisan organization that would give its official ‘Seal of Approval’ to technical policies, proposed technical legislation, reports, etc. (i.e. “initiatives”) that met sound scientific standards. (SIF would be neither Conservative nor Liberal, Democrat nor Republican.)  This Seal would be like the one given by Underwriter Laboratories, Inc. (UL).”

Policies of the SIF would be to promote:

1) real science [vs consensus or pseudo science],

2) a greater emphasis on science in our academic institutions,

3) higher standards in our academic institutions [vs grade inflation], and

4) more Critical Thinking in our society as a whole.

“The SIF Seal would be awarded if an initiative was based on objective and comprehensive evidence analyzed using the scientific method,” John writes. “Similarly, organizations (e.g. the Sierra Club) would be granted or denied a Seal, based on whether their technology policies areas were truly science-based. A key point is that the SIF review would not be of the results but of the process.  For instance, let’s say an important energy report is released by DOE. The question is: did they use the scientific process in coming to their conclusions? That would entail a review of such basic process elements as: whether the authors had conflicts of interests, the objectivity of the material they referenced, the transparency of the critiques they received , etc. So the Seal would be awarded based on their adherence to scientific standards, not the results.”

John argues that public policy now is being made on “consensus or pseudo science”.  With that, I agree wholeheartedly.  John says he doesn't want to pre-judge the global warming movement, but my concern all along is that it is based on pseudo-science.  John also argues that “consensus” science threatens great economic harm to the United States.  I agree with him there,as well.  And, while I am not a scientist, John certainly is, he holds degrees in physics and mathematics from Boston College, and a graduate degree in physics from Syracuse University.  John puts it this way: “I am an extremely environmentally concerned person, but am against ineffective and uneconomical policies.”

Contrary to what people who label me as a Global Warming “denier” may believe, I actually do believe in protecting the environment.  I just don’t believe in using political “pseudo science” to wreck the economy and the utility industry to do so.  That is precisely what is happening now in Washington and even John Droz, who certainly has ample scientific and environmental credentials, agrees. 

Speaking of political pseudo-science, there's a bit of good news (sort of) around the Waxman-Markey cap-and-tax bill: apparently the radical environmentalists hate it.  It's still a pseudo-science-inspired initiative that likely will wreck the economy and the utility industry.  But the fact that the radicals hate it means if it becomes law maybe it might be only a "partial" train wreck.  Secure Green Future (SGF) issued a press release declaiming the bill because it doesn't go nearly far as they would like to see (to wreck the economy-my words).  I admit, I just don't understand some of these people.  They seem to have little regard for hard science or common sense.  However, I may have found a new voice of reason in John Droz.  John has a rather lengthy but interesting argument for science and even against wind power here: http://www.slideshare.net/JohnDroz/energy-presentationkey-presentation