Green Peter Lawsuit
Attention Linn County area residents who had dark colored water coming out of your faucets! We invite you to join the Green Peter Class Action Lawsuit, a crucial step towards ensuring our community receives the justice and compensation it deserves. By participating, you’ll be standing with your neighbors to hold Environmental groups accountable for their actions. Don’t miss this opportunity to make a positive impact for yourself and your community. Sign up today and be a part of the change we need!
Class action complaint (lawsuit) to stop the judge’s decision in the ruling in 18-cv-00437-HZ Which is based on incomplete science published in a predatory journal. If you are in Linn County Oregon and had dark brown colored water coming out of your home or business faucets in early 2024 then please sign up for the class action lawsuit which will be filed in July 2024.
A ruling regarding the other Dams is now leading toward similar tragic results. In recent years’ casual observers had noted an increase in turbidity in the upstream reservoir. Turbidity is the opaque, cloudy appearance due to suspended dirt particles, which constitutes the key test of water quality. Again, a team of pseudo-scientists convinced a local federal judge, based on incomplete science, that the only way to reduce the turbidity was to dramatically reduce the water level and allow the reservoir to refill with clean water from upstream or rain.
Only three problems with that solution. First, the dramatic lowering in water level, reduced the oxygen content to the point that most of the fish in the reservoir died off. Second, the water level was too low to generate electricity for the nearby town of White Salmon and others. Third, the lower water level caused the mud banks of the reservoir to slough off resulting in more turbidity. this caused all he fish to die. The obvious, but overlooked solution was a fairly routine dredging operation to remove accumulated silt at the upstream base of the dam.
The manuscript used was published in a predatory journal with a woke chief editor who operates on a scientific belief system instead of an open mind scientific system.
Chapter 15 in the High School Textbook published June 2024 on cctruth.org. CRM emails went to National Science Teachers association, Beaverton School District Teachers and Oregon Education email weekly for it.
Predatory Journals are a Fabrication.
The American Meteorological Society (AMS), Plus One Journal and the Nature Climate Change (NCC) Journals started the predatory journals list website to distract from what the AMS and Plus One and the NCC are doing. These AMS, Plus-one and NCC journals charge thousands of dollars to publish manuscripts based on jaundiced science, and then perform prejudiced peer reviews. Their chief editors operate on a “belief” system based on political narratives and not the climate science issues.
For example, if a manuscript doesn’t match their belief system, then it won’t go to peer review. These journals also have a very high publishing rate. They almost always publish everything the chief editor allows to be peer reviewed. Also, their impact factors (the benchmark for journal effectiveness) are typically lower than the so-called predatory journals.
Predictably, the predatory journals list maligns many good journals, like the respected International Journal of Chemical Engineering. These journals generally charge lower rates in the range of $300 to $500 to publish a manuscript. Furthermore, they usually have higher impact factor scores than the AMS, Plus One or NCC journals. The Predatory Journals chief editors, like myself, function with an open-minded, scientific review system. That’s what actual scientists do and teach their students to do as well.
In short, bad analysis and application can ruin otherwise good science. Almost always the problem is due either to a downstream predator or mismanagement of upstream habitat. In the case of the Columbia River Dam it’s recognizing that Sea Lions account for 50% to 70% of the problem. In the case of the Green Peter Dam 70% to 90% of the issue is upstream habitat improvement.
The Federal Judge’s ruling in 18-cv-00437-HZ on the Green Peter Dam and other dams is based on incomplete or misleading science. The published manuscript the judge relied on correctly identified the issue, but the proposed solution was faulty and is making the issue much worse.