A PoMo Deconstruction of AGW
Note: the following arrived by email from an unknown (pseudonymous) source. We have no idea what it means, but we like it.
SmutGate reveals the bare naked truth
by Anton LePip
The latest bimbo-esque mythopoetical eruption from the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) camp is the publication of a “romance novel” written by the UN’s climate change chief, Dr Rajendra Pachauri [here].
Return to Almora, published in Dr Pachauri’s native India earlier this month, tells the story of Sanjay Nath, an academic in his 60s reminiscing on his “spiritual journey” through India, Peru and the US.
On the way he encounters, among others, Shirley MacLaine, the actress, who appears as a character in the book. While relations between Sanjay and MacLaine remain platonic, he enjoys sex – a lot of sex – with a lot of women. …
The book, which makes reference to the Kama Sutra, starts promisingly enough as it tells the story of a climate expert with a lament for the denuded mountain slopes of Nainital, in northern India, where deforestation by the timber mafia and politicians has “endangered the fragile ecosystem”.
But talk of “denuding” is a clue of what is to come.
By page 16, Sanjay is ready for his first liaison with May in a hotel room in Nainital. “She then led him into the bedroom,” writes Dr Pachauri.
“She removed her gown, slipped off her nightie and slid under the quilt on his bed… Sanjay put his arms around her and kissed her, first with quick caresses and then the kisses becoming longer and more passionate.
“May slipped his clothes off one by one, removing her lips from his for no more than a second or two.
“Afterwards she held him close. ‘Sandy, I’ve learned something for the first time today. You are absolutely superb after meditation. Why don’t we make love every time immediately after you have meditated?’.”
The dialectic paradigm of smut narrative counterpoised to the apparently asexual neoscientific theory of human-caused global warming — leading to the postdialectic apocalyptic destruction of the planet (Thermogeddon) — suggests a textual neosemanticist union of post-rationality with subcultural capitalist sexuality.
In other words, AGW is Freudian, and not in a healthy way.
The rise of Clintonesque libertine-arianism in postmodern culture is now a pan-disciplinary worldwide phenomenon. We must, therefore, once again search for the meaning of meaning within the clash of premodern traditional structures and postmaterialist socialism.
Pachauri et al. and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, along with Al Gore, not for scientific achievement (the Peace Prize is not a science prize), but for proliferation of postmodern (sexual) angst regarding imaginary anthropogenic global disaster (the putative coming Ecopalypse).
Contextualisizing a Pynchonist “powerful communication” that includes narrativity as a whole, poststructural dematerialism is offered as a “solution” to neoscientific alarms about the quasi-moral depravity of civilization as we know it.
The wellspring of postmodern neoscience may be traced back to confabulations of the 1970’s, early intercourses between poststructuralist “free love” advocates such as Margaret Mead and population bombers such as Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren (currently the Advisor to President Barack Obama for Science and Technology).
Simply put, the Cultural Revolution of the 1960’s erupted into class warfare over sexual identity and sexual morays [I think he meant mores, as in virtues or values, not eels, but who knows? - Ed], and that tide engulfed scientific institutions as well. Coed-ophilia supplanted rational inquiry, filling the institutional [intellectual?] vacuum left by the poststructuralist dialectic. Traditional science atrophied, and neoscience arose as a substitute.
Joyceian concepts of the distinction between feminine and masculine gave way to neosemanticist theories of sexual multi-morphism. Yet precognitive biological urges remained, and flourished, and with the dissolution of rational inquiry became the defining characteristic, and thus the stasis, of neoscience and postmodern society.
Baudrillard uses the term “Sontagist camp” to denote the conflation of “scientist” with “artist,” thus deconstructing “observation” and science itself as a self-referential semiotic paradigm.
Millernarianism (Doomsday-ism) satisfied the new dialectic and its socialist subtext. Abundance was seen to marginalize the underprivileged. Therefore, an abundance of postmaterialist thought came to dominate. But that neocultural sublimation was flimsy cover for [neo]premodern sexual conquest and exploitation, a profoundly instinctive human practice that continued unabated, and indeed has proliferated.
The anti-populationists copulated as never before, in oxymoronic expression of preapocalyptic hedonism. Neoscience institutions have become breeding grounds in counterpositional dissonance to their deconstructivist thema and schemata.
So it should come as no surprise that sexuality has infiltrated and indeed supplanted rational inquiry, despite the overlying Marxist asexual supertext of the neoscientific elites.
SmutGate seen in this context is thus neither pre- nor post-emergent, but is instead foundational and interpolational to the neodialectic cultural narrative of meaning within the neoscientific AGW camp.
Summarizing the Defects in Wyden’s OEFROGPJA
I fear that I have been too florid in my analyses of Sen. Ron Wyden’s proposed “Oregon Eastside Forests Restoration, Old Growth Protection, and Jobs Act of 2009″ (OEFROGPJA). My excess verbiage has obscured the key defects. In this post I simplify and specify with minimal artisticality of prose.
Previous posts regarding Wyden’s bill (OEFROGPJA) are:
Wyden Proposes the End of Forest Stewardship in Eastern Oregon [here]
AFRC Sells Out [here]
The Principal Defects in Wyden’s Forest Bill [here]
Harris Sherman on Jon Tester’s Forest Bill (same problems in both bills) [here]
What’s wrong with the eastside forest compromise (by Jack Ward Thomas) [here]
From those I have extracted the main issues, and who made the particular point:
1. prescriptive language violates NEPA and NFMA (Harris Sherman) (Mike Dubrasich)
2. draws action and funding away from other projects (HS)
3. will NOT result in any increased harvest (HS) (MD) (Jack Ward Thomas)
4. creates unrealistic expectations on the part of communities and forest products stakeholders (HS)
5. provisions are duplicative of existing authorities, such as the Forest Landscape Restoration Act of 2009 (HS) (MD)
6. will not achieve undefined “comprehensive ecological restoration” (MD)
7. proposed management guidance by “plant association” scientifically untenable, unmappable, obtuse (MD)
8. statutory limits on the size of trees removed scientifically untenable, unworkable, will not achieve resiliency goals (MD)
9. proposed management guidance by “site potential tree heights” scientifically untenable, unmeasurable, obtuse (MD)
10. proposed management guidance by “heterogeneity” scientifically untenable, unmeasurable, obtuse (MD)
11. will not limit or preclude obstructionist lawsuits (which have already been threatened by eco-litigious groups) (MD) (JWT)
12. delays and implementation failures will lead to more and larger destructive (severe, high intensity) wildfires (MD)
13. does not protect (increases risks to) heritage, utility, resiliency, sustainability, public health and safety, private property, and other human values (MD)
14. does not protect (increases risks to) vegetation, habitat, wildlife, water, air, soils, and other ecological values (MD)
15. “local forests” managed under separate laws and overseen by advisory panels financed with federal dollars and staffed with federal employees supplant current legally prescribed planning and management processes (JWT)
16. no guarantee of long-term funding (JWT)
17. does not address systemic problems with USFS mission, existing conflicting laws (JWT)
Hope that helps.
Land Swapping Bill Proposed by Wyden and Merkley
Oregon Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley have proposed a new “wilderness” bill for Eastern Oregon that is not quite what it appears to be. The same old enviro propaganda team is tooting their horns, but there is more to the story than meets the eye.
The deal is really a land swap more than anything else, not in the government’s favor, either. But that’s okay. The land to be designated wilderness does not qualify, and that’s a little more problematical. The proposed “protection” is not protection, and it will generate environmental destruction, but given Ron Wyden’s track record in that regard, it is less onerous than his terrible proposed OEFROGPJA bill [here, here].
The story as reported in the MSM:
Wyden, Merkley propose 16,000 acres of eastern Oregon wilderness
By Matthew Preusch, The Oregonian, January 28, 2010, [here]
Oregon’s two senators today proposed adding about 16,000 acres to the system of federally protected wilderness areas.
A land swap between private landholders and the federal Bureau of Land Management would create two new wilderness areas near the John Day River, Sens. Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley said.
One of the landowners involved in the potential swap is the Christian youth organization Young Life, whose Washington Family Ranch camp near the town of Antelope occupies the former home of the followers of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh.
Click [here] to see a map of the proposed wilderness area.
“Oregonians have a deep connection to their land,” Wyden said. “This legislation will strengthen that relationship by creating two wilderness areas that will preserve these natural treasures for generations to come and will serve as a hopeful postscript to the saga of the Rajneeshee colony.”
The map is incomplete. It does not show the Big Muddy Ranch where the loony Rajneeshees lived for a couple of years some 25 years ago in temporary bliss, sucking on nitrous oxide and planning their salad bar poisoning forays into The Dalles. I don’t know that the Rajneeshees need or deserve a postscript. Wyden sounds a little tipsy on that point.
The Big Muddy Ranch is now the site of the Washington Family Ranch, near the confluence of Currant Creek and Muddy Creek. Nor does the map show Antelope, which is just off the map to the west on Hwy 218. But that’s okay.
The map does show the checkerboard BLM ownership that will be traded. It is a good thing to privatize those isolated parcels and block up the Fed ownership.
AGW, the SEC, and the Decline and Fall of Civilization
As predicted [here], on January 27th the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued an “interpretive guidance” on climate change. The new rule requires corporations to disclose “business or legal developments relating to the issue of “climate change” [here]. The SEC explained:
… [A] company must consider whether potential legislation — whether that legislation concerns climate change or new licensing requirements — is likely to occur. If so, then under our traditional framework the company must then evaluate the impact it would have on the company’s liquidity, capital resources, or results of operations, and disclose to shareholders when that potential impact will be material. Similarly, a company must disclose the significant risks that it faces, whether those risks are due to increased competition or severe weather. These principles of materiality form the bedrock of our disclosure framework.
This new knife cuts in a variety of ways. One implication is that companies must disclose to shareholders how Cap-and-Trade legislation might impact their bottom lines. Dr. Tom Borelli, Ph.D., director of the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Free Enterprise Project, applauds this aspect [here].
Corporate CEOs who have been actively lobbying for cap-and-trade climate legislation may soon find themselves in an embarrassing position thanks to a new Securities and Exchange Commission regulation, says Tom Borelli, Ph.D., director of the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Free Enterprise Project.
The SEC voted January 27 to provide public companies with interpretive guidance that encourages corporations to disclose the possible business and legal impact of climate change to shareholders. Full disclosure will require companies to assess and describe how cap-and-trade legislation can harm company earnings.
“Fully disclosing the business risk of cap-and-trade will embarrass many CEOs who are lobbying for emissions regulations. Shareholders will discover that these CEOs are pursuing legislation that will negatively impact their company,” said Borelli. …
Giants of Forest Research
This book review has been sitting in my to-do pile for more than two years. I apologize — other matters have captured my attention. Recent changes at the OSU College of Forestry and other forestry schools and research institutions have made its importance more immediate.
Silvicultural research and the evolution of forest practices in the Douglas-fir region by Robert O.Curtis, Dean S. DeBell, Richard E. Miller, Michael Newton, J. Bradley St. Clair, and William I. Stein. 2007. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-696, 172 pp. is a wonderful history of forest research in the Pacific Northwest.
Silvicultural Research… is now in our Library and excerpted in the W.I.S.E. Colloquium: Forest and Fire Sciences [here]. The full text may be downloaded [here].
All the giants of forestry research in the PNW are mentioned, and brief biographies given. They include
* Thornton T. Munger, the first Director of the Pacific Northwest Forest Experiment Station (1924–38),
* Julius V. Hofmann, who was instrumental in establishing the Wind River Experiment Station,
* Leo A. Isaac, who did fundamental stand improvement research at Wind River and the new Pacific Northwest Experiment Station,
* Richard E. McArdle and Walter H. Meyer, who did seminal work in growth and yield,
* Stanley P. Gessel, who studied tree nutrition, soils, and nutrient processes,
* George R. Staebler, who basically founded Douglas-fir tree farming and later became Director of Forestry Research for the Weyerhauser Co.,
and many other forest science pioneers. Silvicultural Research… itself was written by some of our greatest forest scientists who “stood on the shoulders” of the founding giants.
Silvicultural Research… is much more than biographies, however. It is a history of the research, including seed and regeneration studies, reforestation, stand management, genetics and tree improvement, growth and yield, mensuration, and other aspects of silviculture. Although the emphasis is on the early work, later studies in sustained yield, multiple use, ecosystem management, sustainable forestry, carbon cycling, and riparian silviculture are also discussed.
Silvicultural Research… is a delightful and informative read for foresters, but it is also an excellent summary of the foundations of forest science in the Pacific Northwest accessible to non-foresters.
Some concluding excerpts:
Forest management practices have been and are continually evolving. Formal forestry research has been an important factor in the process, but it is only one of the factors involved. Progress in applied silviculture comes from the interaction of research results, observation and experience of managers and silviculturists, changes in harvesting and manufacturing technology, and a continually changing economic and social environment. …
It should be apparent that silviculture and silvicultural research have a much longer history than most people — both the general public and natural resource specialists in other fields — realize. There is a great amount of existing information available for those with the time, inclination, and expertise to seek it out. …
One has only to read the media coverage of various forestry issues to realize that much of the public and the media that shape public opinion have little understanding of the long history of Northwestern forestry, the nature of forests, possible management options, or the existence of a large body of research-based information. Unfortunately, much of the existing information is only available in specialized publications that are not ordinarily seen by workers in other fields, and that are often both inaccessible and unintelligible to the general public. There is a great need for synthesis of existing information and its presentation in forms understandable by nonspecialists and by people in other natural resource-related disciplines.
We hope that this publication will contribute toward that end.
Commenting on the New USFS Planning Rule
Last December the US Forest Service announced their intention to create a new Planning Rule [here]. The Planning Rule guides the creation, amending, and revision of National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans (LMRP’s) under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA).
The USFS cannot write forest plans as the mandated under NFMA without an overarching Planning Rule. The old Planning Rule(s) have been enjoined by the courts, and so a process has been instituted to create a new one.
The USFS set up a website to assist people in providing comments and feedback to the USFS [here]. They explain:
The USDA Forest Service has issued a notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for a new planning rule. This is the first step toward a new planning rule. The next step will be for people to provide the Forest Service feedback to help develop the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and proposed planning rule.
The NOI will begin the scoping period under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and a 60 day public comment period. The Forest Service will use the submitted comments to decide what to analyze in the environmental impact statement. Comments on the scope of analysis for the DEIS must be received by February 16, 2010.
How to Submit Comments:
Comments may be sent via e-mail to fspr@contentanalysisgroup.com
Written comments concerning this notice should be addressed to:
Forest Service Planning NOI
C/O Bear West Company
172 E 500 S, Bountiful, UT 84010
or via facsimile to (801) 397-1605.
All comments, including names and addresses, when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments [here].
The matter is complex and esoteric. Useful comments should be based on a familiarity with NFMA, since that is the (principal) applicable law. The USFS has provided some references to study [here].
In addition, the USFS provided some guidance in their Federal Register Notice of Intent posting [here]. Darrel Kenops, Executive Director of the National Association of Forest Service Retirees (NAFSR), has reviewed and summarized the key questions that the USFS is asking the public to comment on. Mr. Kenop’s summary [here] is excellent, and is very helpful.
Comments are due by Feb 16th. Please use the following (posted in full) from Mr. Kenops and NAFSR to assist in making your comments pertinent and germane to the exercise.
Reps Walden and Barton Question New SEC Rules on Climate Change
Tomorrow (Jan 27, 2010) the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) plans to issue a new rule requiring corporations to explain how they are “alleviating global warming.”
Representatives Joe Barton and Greg Walden of the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce have sent the SEC a letter requesting answers to seven key questions regarding the action [here].
The SEC plans to issue an “interpretive release” that has the effect of force of law with no hearings, taking no testimony, and without statutory authority to exercise jurisdiction over global warming “abatement.”
The SEC failed (with disastrous consequences for the entire world) to rein in investment banks and their credit default swaps that undermined the financial sector worldwide in 2008. The SEC failed to respond to repeated warnings about the Madoff Ponzi scheme, resulting in $65 billion in losses to investors.
Now the SEC has turned their defective attentions to the global warming hoax, not with the intention to protect investors from the fraud, but just the opposite — to force corporations to further the hoax.
As a result of the SEC’s ill-considered action tomorrow, corporations will be subject to civil lawsuits and criminal penalties if they do NOT participate in the greatest hoax in history.
Barton and Walden seek to forestall the SEC from become fraud merchants, the very thing the SEC was created to protect us from!
Let us hope that SEC Chairman Mary L. Schapiro and the rest of the SEC Commissioners take heed of Congressional displeasure and reject the new rule. If not, the SEC should be swept clean and responsible individuals installed in their place.
See also: Vested interests scary as any climate change scare by Annie Hales, Irish News [here]. A quote:
The transfer of carbon credits has the potential to devastate western economies.
The D’Aleo-Watts Report on Surface Station Records
The most important climate realist report written to date is now posted on the Internet.
SURFACE TEMPERATURE RECORDS: POLICY DRIVEN DECEPTION? by Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts, Science and Public Policy Institute Original Paper, January 26, 2010 is available for downloading [here or here] (6.2MB)
The report is a blockbuster. It is bigger than Climategate and bigger than the recent revelations that the IPCC is corrupt. The authors reveal that the temperature record from U.S. surface stations is unreliable and that NOAA and NASA have conspired to manipulate global temperature records to give the impression that temperatures in the 20th century rose faster than they really did.
The AGW (anthropogenic global warming) scare is kaput. From this point forward Al Gore’s hoax, carbon credit markets, and other climate alarmist responses to a non-existent problem will wither and die.
There has been no significant global warming over the last century — at least not enough to be measurable beyond statistical noise. Atmospheric carbon dioxide does not appear to be a significant driver of global temperatures, much less “climate change”.
The burden of proof of purported CO2-driven climate change is on the alarmist community, and they have failed to make the case despite perpetrating extensive corruption and fraud in the effort. This report seals that coffin.
This is an historic day, a victory for rational inquiry and the scientific method, and a huge relief to an unecessarily frightened public around the world.
Poor Forest Science Leads to Forest Policy Failures
It is a truism that reliance on defective forest science leads to defective forest policies which then fail miserably. The prime ignominious example in Oregon is the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP).
The NWFP was based on outmoded and outdated forest ecology theories that were originally proposed by Frederic Edward Clements (1874-1945) in the early 1900’s. From the Wiki [here]:
Clements suggested that the development of vegetation can be understood as a sequence of stages resembling the development of an individual organism. After a complete or partial disturbance, vegetation grows back (under ideal conditions) towards a mature “climax state,” which describes the vegetation best suited to the local conditions. Though any actual instance of vegetation might follow the ideal sequence towards climax, it can be interpreted in relation to that sequence, as a deviation from it due to non-ideal conditions.
Clements’ climax theory of vegetation dominated plant ecology during the first decades of the twentieth century, though it was criticized significantly by ecologists Henry Gleason and Arthur Tansley early on, and by Robert Whittaker mid-century, and largely fell out of favor. However, significant Clementsian trends in ecology re-emerged towards the end of the twentieth century.
Modern day Clementsians ascribe to “natural succession” that leads to “climax” forests, aka “old-growth.” The modern Clementsian theories have been promulgated by numerous individuals, but championed especially by Dr. Jerry Franklin of the UW School of Forest Resources.
In a recent Guest Opinion [here] in the Eugene Register Guard (co-authored by Dr. Norm Johnson of OSU), Dr. Franklin opined the following:
… Most BLM forests are growing on “moist forest” sites, outside of the interior Rogue River and Umpqua River valleys. These moist forests — typified by Douglas fir and Western hemlock — evolved with infrequent but relatively severe disturbance events, such as intense wildfires and windstorms. These disturbances allowed new generations of trees to become established.
Generally, it is unnecessary to do silvicultural treatments such as thinning to maintain existing old-growth forests on moist forest sites — in fact, such activities generally degrade these forests ecologically. Left alone, these old-growth forests can perpetuate themselves for centuries, barring one of those severe natural disturbances. …
There are many scientific errors in that statement. First, forests do not evolve, species do. Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection applies to species, not aggregations of species. The forests of today are not mutualistic associations of interdependent plant species co-evolved over millions of years; rather they are chance combinations of competitive species filling temporary niches during a temporary break in the Ice Ages [here].
The plant mixes in this interglacial are not the same mixes that occurred in prior interglacials, nor (in most respects) anything like the plant communities of the Miocene, the last time it was as warm (continuously) as today.
Montana DNRC Advises Against “Fires for Resource Benefit”
The Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation convened a working group to evaluate “lessons learned” from the 2009 Fire Season. Their conclusions matched those of the Oregon Department of Forestry Perspective on 2009 Federal Wildfire Policy Guidance [here] — let it burn fires use for “resource benefit” don’t benefit resources and should not be allowed:
Given the breadth and scope of the concerns raised by use of resource benefit fire management strategies, many state fire agencies agree that broad application of such strategies –- particularly adjacent to the WUI, commercially viable timber stands, or critical watersheds/wildlife habitat is not advisable.
Which watersheds are not “critical”? None — all the watersheds in Montana are critical and vital to the well-being of society and the environment. The Montana DNRC would just as soon the USFS and BLM bagged the concept of “resource benefit” wildfires. They said it nicely, though:
Here are some recommendations that merit additional discussions by the work group:
1. The USFS should limit the use of resource benefit fire strategies to those areas where priority areas identified in local CWPPs have been treated either through mechanical means and/or prescribed fire.
2. Expanded use of resource benefit fire management strategies may transfer a significant amount of financial and safety risk to state and local governments. Consequently, representatives from these entities should be informed well before the fire season and directly involved with any decisions to expand use of this tool.
In other words, Let It Burn wildfires (LIBWF’s) should only be undertaken where the watershed has been prepared to receive the wildfire via “mechanical means and/or prescribed fire” — the techniques of restoration forestry. Hopefully, the mechanical means and prescribed fires are not ends in and of themselves, but rather treatments carried out under a framework of scientific restoration to achieve multiple resource goals based on a collaboratively agreed upon desired future condition.
Simply put, first we agree on the multiple resource goals, then we apply active management to establish those desired conditions, and then and only then do we allow wildfires to burn through (only) the treated areas.
Fire can be a useful tool to achieve resource goals, but it is a tool, not a weapon. You don’t throw hammers and nails at the boards — you use the hammers and nails in a thoughtful and expert way to build the desired structure.
If our land management agencies allow LIBWF’s to run willy-nilly wherever and whenever such wildfires accidentally erupt, then we might as well use our national forests as bombing ranges — the real world impacts are very similar.
What’s wrong with the eastside forest compromise
By Jack Ward Thomas, OregonLive.com, January 22, 2010 [here]
Sen. Ron Wyden’s proposed legislation on eastern Oregon forests — the Oregon Eastside Forests Restoration, Old Growth Protection and Jobs Act of 2009 — clearly recognizes that the governance of the national forest system is increasingly dysfunctional, expensive, inconsistent, confused and frustrating.
Surely, those who cobbled together this “compromise” did so with the best of intentions. And Wyden has the courage to address the impasse. But the proposal sidesteps the real problem and opens a Pandora’s box. This solution will prove to be neither feasible nor long-lasting while further confusing the situation. Should the national forests become “local forests” managed under separate laws and overseen by advisory panels financed with federal dollars and staffed with federal employees? Who cut this deal — which is proposed as law supplanting current prescribed planning and management processes?
I don’t question the proponents’ integrity or motivations. I applaud their willingness to step forward. But the approach is flawed, inappropriate, less than fully informed and has implications for the management of the entire national forest system. It should be debated in that context.
If current laws, regulations and legal precedents continue in force, success is questionable. Proposed actions remain subject to legal challenge. And unless Oregon’s congressional delegation routinely earmarks funds to execute Wyden’s plan, the anticipated results are unlikely.
The deal assumes status-quo conditions – political, economic, ecological and legal. But dramatic change is but one insect and/or disease outbreak, one fire season, one mill closure, one appeal, one successful legal challenge, one budget, one new research result or one shift in market conditions away.
The deal hinges upon trade-off s between interest groups. Those who wanted environmental protection got their wishes – upfront. Those who wanted a “guaranteed” supply of raw material or a certain number of acres to be “treated” are, in gambler’s terminology, “betting on the come.”
What happens when this deal plays out? Who cuts the next deal? Will Wyden be there – ready, willing, and able – to enact the deal into law?
A similar tact is being taken by Sen. Jon Tester in Montana – but in a very different approach. Imagine such individualized deals made into law for 154 national forests by uncoordinated actions of dozens of senators who come and go with elections.
Clearly, the governance of national forests is dysfunctional due to numerous, overlapping, contradictory laws continuously and variously interpreted by the courts. That’s the problem. These bills are “sick canaries in the mine shaft” – indications that something is dangerously amiss.
Would it not be better to recognize and comprehensibly address that dysfunction?
Jack Ward Thomas is chief emeritus of the U. S. Forest Service.
2009 Fire Season Statistics
The 2009 Fire Season statistics have been posted at the National Interagency Fire Center, Fire Information - Wildland Fire Statistics website [here].
The total acres burned by wildfires nationally in 2009 is reported to have been 5,921,786 acres. That was more than last year, but 3 to 4 million acres less than the record years of 2005, 2006, and 2007. The average over the last ten years is 7.01 million acres.
Total Acres Burned in Wildfires, 1960-2009. Chart by W.I.S.E.
An additional 7,265 acres were reported to have burned in 33 Wildland Use fires (WFU’s). Those numbers are somewhat deceiving, because the WFU designation was mostly dropped in favor of “fires used for resource benefit” (FURB’s). The number of FURB’s and their acreage was not reported (at least not directly). For comparison, in 2007, before the FURB designation was adopted, 341 WFU’s were reported to have burned 419,685 acres, and in 2008 264 WFU’s were reported to have burned 236,834 acres.
Total number of wildfires was 78,792. That is the fewest number of wildfires since 2004 and 2005, and 62% of the average annual fire count from 1960 through 2009. The number of wildfires has been declining since the early 1980’s. That may be an artifact of the counting system. Many small fires started by multiple lightning strikes in the same vicinity are counted as one fire today, while they may have been counted as many individual fires in prior decades.
Total Number of Wildfires, 1960-2009. Chart by W.I.S.E.
In addition, delays in rapid response to small fires may result in those fires merging, and then they are counted as one fire. That can happen to large fires that merge, as well. There are many name changes and mergers of fires during the fire season, which confounds the fire count. Wildfires don’t happen in test tubes in a laboratory, and so the counting system is not as accurate and precise as some scientific studies might lead you to believe.
Another possible explanation for the decreasing number of wildfires is that human-caused and/or lightning-ignited fires are fewer today than 30 years ago. We have no data to either support or refute those hypotheses.
The average size of wildfires in 2009 was 75 acres. That is more than 2008 (66 acres per wildfire), but less than 2005, 2006, and 2007 when the average wildfire size was 131 acres, 103 acres, and 113 acres per fire, respectively.
Average fire size is not a useful statistic, though, because the distribution (number of fires by acreage class) is skewed by a few very large fires (greater than 20,000 acres). The NIFC does not report the distribution, but it is more or less in a “reverse-J” (negative exponential) shape, with many small fires, fewer medium-sized fires, and a handful of megafires out in the tail. The average fire size is also dependent on the total count of wildfires, which may be biased by inaccuracies and imprecision in the counting system, as mentioned above. We present the following chart anyway, because we have the annual data and it was easy to make the graph.
Annual Average Wildfire Size, 1960-2009. Chart by W.I.S.E.
New Study: The Economic Impact of Privately-Owned Forests
An excellent study conducted by Forest2Market, Inc. [here] has been published by The National Alliance of Forest Owners (NAFO) [here].
NAFO has been formed as a lean and nimble organization, focused on the U.S. industry of private forest owners/managers and their business needs. NAFO will strive to effectively influence and direct private forest policy by providing timely and relevant information, education and lobbying to policy-makers. We will develop strategic alliances where it is in the best interest of the organization, either from an efficiency or leveraged expertise standpoint. We strongly believe we will provide the greatest service and resources to our members by maintaining a top quality staff and volunteer commitment.
NAFO members own or manage over 75 million acres of private forests in 47 states, including: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
The study [here] is entitled The Economic Impact of Privately-Owned Forests.
The Executive Summary:
Privately-owned forests are an important part of the U.S. economy. As working forests, they employ active management techniques (land management planning, fertilizing, planting, thinning and harvesting) to produce timber, logs, pulpwood, chips and wood fuel. These intermediate outputs are then used by manufacturers of wood products, paper products and furniture and by energy producers to create higher value products. Private, working forests also contribute to the economy through recreation and tourism spending, hunting leases, and real estate taxes. In scope, these industries contribute as much to the national economy as the plastics and rubber manufacturing industry.
This study quantifies, in multiple ways, the contribution of the forestry, wood products, paper products and wood furniture industries on state and regional economies (exceptions are noted).
Table 1.1 shows the 5 regions and the 29 states that are covered in this study. In addition, it contains a breakdown of the following:
* The number of jobs created for each 1,000 acres of privately-owned forests (an average of 8 jobs).
* The amount of payroll that is generated for each acre of privately-owned forest (an average of $270)
* The state taxes (both income and severance) generated for each acre of privately-owned forest (an average of $9.85)
* The annual sales generated by each acre of privately-owned forest ($733)
* Contribution made to state and regional GDPs by each acre of privately-owned forests (an average of $318)
Contribution to state GDP per acre data show most dramatically the additional value that privately-owned forests make to the economy. For the 29 states covered in this study, the contribution to GDP per acre for all forests is $359; private forests account for $318 of this total and other ownership types account for an average of $41 per acre.
The difference between private and public GDP contribution demonstrates the extent of the additional value added by privately-owned forests that are, in large part, actively managed. In aggregate, privately-owned forests in these states created $277 per acre more than forests with other ownership types.
Some California Forest Statistics
The following comes from the Tuolumne County Alliance for Resources and Environment [here]
Tuolumne County Alliance for Resources and Environment, Inc., (TuCARE) was established to enlighten and advise the public on conservation and the wise use of natural resources.
TuCARE believes in the multiple-use of the many natural resources on our public lands. … TuCARE is committed to ensuring the long-term viability of all of our natural resources through an ecosystem management approach toward the stewardship of our public lands. Man must play an active role to ensure our forests are not destroyed by wildfires and that our resources are available for all to use and enjoy. …
TuCARE advocates an increased awareness in schools and communities, believing a more informed public will make better decisions regarding how natural resources are respected, utilized, and for the care they receive. …
TuCARE also publishes a quarterly newsletter updating the membership on issues of concern as well as TuCARE activities. Visit the news page on the web for excerpts from the newsletter and be sure to visit the membership page and become a TuCARE member to become active in the conservation and wise use of our natural resources.
Statistical Data on Region 5 Forests
from the TuCARE website, January 19, 2010 [here]
Percent of target log-volume goal sold by USDA Forest Service, Stanislaus National Forest, 2008… 32 %
Percent of target log-volume goal sold by USDA Forest Service, Eldorado National Forest, 2008… 74 %
Percent of target log-volume goal achieved by USDA Forest Service, statewide 2008… 54 %
Average annual log-volume delivered from Stanislaus National Forest, 1980-1990… 132 mmbf
Average annual log-volume delivered from Stanislaus National Forest, 1998 – 2008… 17 mmbf
Log-volume delivered from Stanislaus National Forest, 2008… 12 mmbf
Average annual log-volume delivered from Eldorado National Forest, 1980-1990… 147 mmbf
Average annual log-volume delivered from Eldorado National Forest, 1998 – 2008… 45 mmbf
Log-volume delivered from Eldorado National Forest, 2008… 24 mmbf
Percent of planned forest thinning blocked due to litigation, Stanislaus National Forest, 2008… 41%
Percent of annual Forest Service wood volume blocked by litigation, statewide… 33 %
Approximate percent of forest thinning in the Sierra Nevada that would be blocked by the most recent lawsuit against the USDA Forest Service… 95 %
Estimated percent of USDA Forest Service resources spent on planning, administrative appeals or litigation… 40 %
Volume of wood on California’s national forestlands currently blocked by litigation… 400 mmbf
Number of average-size sawmills that could operate for a year on 400 mmbf… 5 sawmills
Percentage of wood used in California that is imported… 75 %
Percent decrease in timber harvest on federal lands since 1990… 90 %
Percent of California sawmills closed since 1990… 70 %
Potential direct jobs created by returning harvest to half of 1990 levels… 3,000 jobs
Tree mortality, Stanislaus National Forest, 2008… 38 %
Increase in acres burned by severe wildfire in California in 2007 and 2008 respectively, over previous five-year average… 300 % and 315 %
Cost per acre to taxpayers to reduce fuel loads in the Sierra Nevada, with local sawmills… $500-$2,500
Cost per acre to taxpayers to reduce fuel loads in the Sierra Nevada, without local sawmills… $1,000-$5,000
Potential cost per acre to reduce fuel loads through public-private partnerships… $0
Acres of productive national forestland at serious risk of catastrophic wildfire… 7,000,000 acres
Percent reduction possible, in severe wildfire through increased forest management… 50-60 %
Taxpayer costs to fight wildfire, 2008… $1.4 billion
Data sources: U.S. Forest Service, Calif. Dept of Forestry and Fire Protection, California Board of Equalization or analysis of Forest Service data by California Forestry Association
The EPA and the Data Quality Act
Last week Sen. John Barrasso (Wyo.), Sen. David Vitter (La.), Rep. Darrell Issa (Calif.) and Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (Wis.) sent a letter [here] to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson expressing concern that the EPA’s recent “endangerment finding” regarding CO2 violates the Data Quality Act.
I’m guessing you never heard of the Data Quality Act (DQA). I hadn’t, either, until today. The DQA is not an Act per se; it is a statute that was attached to an appropriations bill in 2000 (Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 — Public Law 106–554; H.R. 5658). Section 515 directed the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to:
… issue government-wide guidelines that “provide policy and procedural guidance to Federal agencies for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical information) disseminated by Federal agencies.”
The OMB did so [here] by defining what the quality (including the objectivity, utility, and integrity) of information means, in the legal sense. The OMB guidelines also established:
… administrative mechanisms allowing affected persons to seek and obtain, where appropriate, correction of information disseminated by the agency that does not comply with the OMB or agency guidelines.
In the comment period prior to establishing the guidelines, concerns were expressed about whether the DQA applies to Federally funded scientific research. The OMB said no, unless:
… the agency represents the information as, or uses the information in support of, an official position of the agency.
Federally funded scientists can hold any opinion they want to (at least in regards to the DQA). However, any “information” used by a Federal agency in support of “an official position of the agency” must meet the quality guidelines.
This is a little bit tricky. If the research is Federally funded, and the researcher includes “an appropriate disclaimer … to the effect that the ‘views are mine, and do not necessarily reflect the view’ of the agency,” then that information is outside the purview of the DQA. But if the sponsoring agency “directs the person to disseminate the results, or the agency reviews and approves the results before they may be disseminated,” then the DQA does apply.
In sum, these guidelines govern an agency’s dissemination of information, but generally do not govern a third-party’s dissemination of information (the exception being where the agency is essentially using the third-party to disseminate information on the agency’s behalf).
What does data quality mean? According to the guidelines, qualifying information must be accurate, clear, complete, and unbiased, and must be presented with full, accurate, and transparent documentation. If the information is peer-reviewed (subjected to formal, independent, external peer review), then the objectivity criteria is satisfied, with the provisos that:
(a) peer reviewers [shall] be selected primarily on the basis of necessary technical expertise, (b) peer reviewers [shall] be expected to disclose to agencies prior technical/policy positions they may have taken on the issues at hand, (c) peer reviewers [shall] be expected to disclose to agencies their sources of personal and institutional funding (private or public sector), and (d) peer reviews [shall] be conducted in an open and rigorous manner.
Further, agencies were required to establish:
… administrative mechanisms allowing affected persons to seek and obtain, where appropriate, timely correction of information maintained and disseminated by the agency that does not comply with OMB or agency guidelines. …
Agencies shall specify appropriate time periods for agency decisions on whether and how to correct the information, and agencies shall notify the affected persons of the corrections made. …
If the person who requested the correction does not agree with the agency’s decision (including the corrective action, if any), the person may file for reconsideration within the agency. The agency shall establish an administrative appeal process to review the agency’s initial decision, and specify appropriate time limits in which to resolve such requests for reconsideration.
Meaning scientific information promulgated by agencies in support of their official positions can be challenged, and the agency must respond to those challenges. Theoretically, if the agency’s response does not satisfy, the appellant may seek judicial relief in Federal court, citing the DQA.
I don’t know if that has ever happened, but the possibility has cropped up regarding the EPA’s CO2 endangerment finding. The four Congresspersons’ letter refer to the Climategate emails and IPCC 4th Assessment as information the EPA relied upon that does not meet the tests of the DQA. They requested that EPA Admin Lisa Jackson conduct a review of the information the EPA used in their endangerment finding, and that she report to Congress as the whether the DQA was violated.
Chances are Jackson will either ignore the letter from Congress, or she may provide some excuses for the EPA’s compromising of the DQA. But the door has been opened to potential appeals and lawsuits, should “affected persons” (all of us) decide to legally invoke the DQA.
The situation is getting curiouser and curiouser. The CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) hoax is disintegrating. There may be a fireworks display or two before the party is over.
