The comments made by a local self proclaimed marine biologist, Dan Varoujean, in a locally produced public access program are so outrageous it reminded me of Naomi Oreskes & Erik Conway’s book Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming and David Michael’s Doubt is Their Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health. “The US scientific community has long led the world in research on public health and environmental science. Our scientists have produced landmark studies o dangers of DDT, tobacco smoke, acid rain, and global warming. But at the same time, a small yet potent subgroup of this community leads the world in vehement denial of these dangers.” These words from the dustcover of Merchants of Doubt began rushing through my head as I listened to Varoujean make one unscientific claim after another.

Varoujean has represented himself as a marine biologist and in one instance a marine ecologist. “I am a marine ecologist by trade, and have spent the last 35 years conducting research on the population dynamics of endangered species, including salmon and seabirds, the restoration of coastal wetlands and the quantification of pollution in our coastal embayments and estuaries.” Ecology is, as everyone knows, the branch of biology that deals with the relations of organisms to one another and to their physical surroundings. Speaking at a 2006 meeting in Coos Bay regarding the closure of the salmon fishery this marine biologist was quoted in the Register Guard making this ecologically sound statement, “The first thing that can be done, said Dan Varoujean, a Coos Bay fish researcher, “is to shoot 300 sea lions at the mouth of the Klamath river.”

This “ecologist” appears to disregard the important relationship between a forest and fisheries remarking that his well has been much better off since Weyerhaeuser clear cut a big stand of trees near his water table and more water, of course, means better conditions for spawning fish. Varoujean casually remarks that environmental disruption necessary to support industry is not irreversible. Without local empirical evidence there is no way a blanket statement like this can be accurately applied to every situation.

The claims made by Varoujean display an absence of scientific objectivity and strong partisan perspective that would color any conclusions he derives on behalf of his clients. He appears to operate a consulting business called Marine and Estuarine Research Company in North Bend and admits to having worked for the insurer of the COSCO Busan, a ship that leaked oil into San Francisco Bay in 2007. Varoujean characterizes the spill as small and claims the insurer was extorted for millions of dollars by a marine reserve contaminated by the oil. According to Wikipedia, the 53,500 gallon heavy fuel oil spill caused a lot of damage.

Environmental

A Contra Costa county sign in Richmond Marina Bay warns of shoreline closure due to oil contamination.
According to the California Department of Fish and Game, the spill is estimated to have killed 6,688 birds. 2,519 were collected: 1,084 were collected alive (664 of which died; 421 of which were rehabilitated and released) and 1,856 were collected dead.[14] About 200 miles (320 km) of coastline, incorporating about 3,000 acres, was oiled. The eggs laid by herring, which typically enter the bay in December, were killed in areas affected by the spill.[15]

Economic
Several fisheries in the Bay Area may have been affected by the spill and the crab and sport fishing seasons were postponed by several weeks.[16] As of November 30, State biologists had tested more than 1100 samples of fish, mussels and Dungeness crab in San Francisco Bay and coastal waters outside the Golden Gate. The tests found unsafe levels of contaminants in mussels from Rodeo Beach and the Berkeley pier.
Approximately one million recreational use days were also lost as a result of the spill. This includes general shoreline use as well as recreational fishing and boating.
Total monetary damages were estimated at $2.1 million for the ship, $1.5 million for the bridge’s fender, and more than $70 million for environmental cleanup. Environmental restoration costs are still being calculated.[4]

Scientists are often hired by big tobacco, big coal, the oil industry as well as the chemical industry and big pharma to help reduce their liability from acts of corporate negligence or outright fraud by offering pseudo-scientific reports without any regard for the victims. From Doubt is Their Product introduction “Sound Science or Sounds Like Science”

I need only cite a cynical memo that Republican political consultant Frank Luntz delivered to his clients in early 2003. In “Winning the Global Warming Debate,” Luntz wrote the following: “Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate… The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science”.

Sound familiar? In reality, there is a great deal of consensus among climate scientists about climate change, but Luntz understood that his clients can oppose (and delay) regulation without being branded as antienvironmental by simply manufacturing uncertainty.

One of the most outrageous statement made by marine ecologist Varoujean is that the Gulf oil spill will not cause irreparable damage. Even if one could travel thousands of years into the future, how would they measure the impact of that oil spill?

Another claim is that environmentalists suffer from “eco-guilt” and should just “hang themselves”. Would be interesting to see the impartial and objective scientific methods Varoujean used to reach his hypothesis. One thing is clear from a June, 2009 letter he wrote on behalf of the board of the Coos Soil and Water Conservation District to Senators Wyden and Merkley, complaining about environmental regulations, Varoujean is armed and dangerous.

If you decide to continue on course, then you should not be surprised or feign indignation before the TV cameras when a great number of us decide to protect our freedom, our property and our very lives at the point of a gun. We are no longer going to just sit in the darkness fearfully awaiting the rap on the door by some fascist regulator your actions have loosed upon us.

The funny thing about this series of programs, Build Docks and They Will Come, hosted by Frank Williams, is that no one I know of has objected to a container dock. The LNG terminal yes, there is strong science based opposition to the terminal and the pipeline but not to a container dock. Having said that there is a growing number who have zero confidence that the existing Port executive and the current commission possess either the integrity or the skills and sophistication to complete a complex project like a billion dollar container dock without screwing it up.