Environmental Crisis: The Sky is Falling!

[Ranger Genius]

It's not a popular opinion, but I am compelled by the data: the so-called crisis of the global environment is grossly overstated. We're led to believe that 50,000 species go extinct annually, and that the trend towards global warming will kill millions of people and bankrupt the world economy by 2065. The real data, however, indicate a global climate change of less than .75 (that's POINT-seven-five) degrees centigrade over the next fifty years, plus or minus .25 degrees centigrade. What's more, those changes are exhibited at the coldest parts of the year, rather than the hottest. The result is an expanded habitat range for temperature-bounded plants and animals(Marshall Institute), increased agricultural output (due to the increase of drought not attended by an increase in flooding), and widening of inhabitable areas by humans. Almost all of the global warming that will occur due to human activity has occurred. The more CO2 released into the atmosphere, the less substantive its effect on global warming per unit.

Major scientific flaws have been shown in the IPCC (International Panel of Climate Change) and the USNA (US National Assessment) of climate change: The environmental models they use perform WORSE than a table of random numbers when applied to recent climate. The USGCRP (US Global Change Research Program) cherry-picked their data to support their preconcieved conclusions about global climate change, using the two WORST models for US temperature and precipitation change. This is scientifically indefensible. (CATO Institute).

While we all know that species extinction or endangerment are occuring, it is somehow heretical to say that the problem is not widespread, or to suggest that a cost/benefit analysis be applied to the efforts to save a handful of species. The emotional response that has been considered adequate for the last several decades no longer holds muster. I look forward to discussing this with you and hearing what you think.

[Alpha]

I should have started the thread so that I could name it. :-)

I will respond but have some urgent work to do right now. Do you have a cite for your .75 degree figure?

[stuart]

I think it very important that you look into who has funded the groups with opposing points of view. You will find in most cases that various organizations such as the petroleum institute are usually found to be funding the science that comes up with the don't worry be happy conclusions. Sort of like Cheney and Iraq, don't come back until you have the right answer.

[Bob]

I have no axe to grind, other than my usual beef that not citing sources for "data" is itself irresponsible.

And that a statement like "I am compelled by the data" is a dead giveaway that dogma & diatribe will follow.

That's all I have to say, though. Gotta run, there's a horde of Africanized bees riding the backs of poisonous Panamanian sea snakes landing from the waves lapping at my front door...

[stuart]

In North America, however, there is as much forest land today as there was a century ago

that's a rushism. I don't have the figures on a century ago, but just yesterday I read the comparo between sq miles at the country's birth vs. today. I am looking for the article.
you are right to call it an economic issue though. Just ask Cargill.

[Ranger Genius]

The sources are too numerous for me to even try to cite. Refer to the bibliography of the Pat Micheals articles at the CATO institute website (CATO.Org). As for the attempt by Stuart to poison my well, it's actually quite clear that the alarmists are the one who've been grinding their axes with selective data. "Enough research will tend to support your theory."

The figure regarding the amount of forest land in North America was cited by Patrick Moore, founding member and former President (and now vocal critic) of Greenpeace International. I'm not sure of his source, but I'll try to track it down for you. Google him, and you'll find plenty of articles by and featuring him.

[Ranger Genius]

Addendum: The first thing I found showing forest area changes only goes as far back as 1963, read it here, but shows that in that time, overall forest coverage hasn't changed significantly. Most of the declines for particular types that we are told about (the loss of ponderosa pine [10 million acres, or about one-half percent per year], and lodgepole pine [5 million acres, or about one-half percent per year]) are the result of shifts in forest types. Furthermore, “nonstocked” land (land where trees have been cut but that has not yet regrown as forest) has declined steadily.

This information is compliments of the John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment's 2003 "The State of the Nation's Ecosystem" report.

[Bob]

Have you actually been outdoors?

[DVD Burner]

Genius,

Chimp uses that avatar. Just letting ya know.

[Ranger Genius]

"Pragmatism! Is that all you have to offer?!"

Well, shit. I guess I'll have to change it.

[Isotopia]

As for the attempt by Stuart to poison my well, it's actually quite clear that the alarmists are the one who've been grinding their axes with selective data. "Enough research will tend to support your theory."

I'm assuming that you're one of the Rangers that people warn others about getting information from?

[Captain Goddammit]

I have a much more unpopular take on the environment; I'm not having any kids, and will likely live only another 30 or 40 years. The planet only needs to last that long.

[stuart]

CATO? Your citing CATO? Oh man, I was all respectin you and shit before. CATO is on the 'follow the money' Olympics squad. Is there a more self agrandizing 'free markets are god' think tank in existance? Well, I guess there is always the AEI.

[samtzu]

With a planet wide population growth that is accelerating with each generation, and a current planet wide population of over seven billion, how could you deny that there have been significant changes in the environment over even the last two hundred years? What the hell do you think the planet system is made of? Spandex? It stretches to fit whatever the hell we stuff into it? I don't think so.

As a former production manager in a brewery, I know what happens in a closed system when the population (yeast/humans) are allowed to consume (sugar/natural resources) and reproduce (divide/fuck) as much as they can; they poison themselves... and give off noxious gas.

There is a solution, but it doesn't involve playing with statistics... it mainly involves pulling your head out of your ass and paying attention.

I think that a well placed asteroid could really help the ecology of this planet to readjust itself in a positive way...
Sam

[KellY]

Okay RG, don't have time to refute all your ludicrous statements, but I've a couple of points (I'll get to the rest later). First as Stuart said, CATO is a very right-wing, and more importantly very pro-corporate, anti-regulation think-tank. You are not going to get objective data from them.

As for your contention that evironmental problems are overemphazied because it "sells papers", stop parroting the anti-environmentalists and look around you. Laci Peterson sells papers. O.J. Simpson sells papers. The War sells papers. Environmental isuues are not regular headline news, at all. If they're reported at all, it's usually buried in the miidle of the news section. And even rarer on TV. Yes, there are full-time activists out there, but no one's getting rich defending the bioshpere. On the other hand, major corporations have BILLIONS of dollars invested in staying the course - the energy companies that keep wanting to sell coal and oil, the pesticide manufacturers, the lumber companies, etc. And they certainly have the money to fund PR campaigns and think tanks (like CATO) to reassure the concerned public that everything they're doing is OK.

Lastly, your little comment about less than 1% of the Earth's species being endangered, this is a great emaple of using statistics to totally mislead people. It may well be true. But you know what? There are millions of different species on the planet, most of them insects and other invertabrates. We literally have no idea how many there are - we kind of stopped counting in the fifties and taxonomy has only very recently been taken up again in the field of biology in a major way - because the biologists realized that species are going extinct and we don't even know what they are. Anyway, the point is that every mammal on the planet could go extinct and that would, in fact, be less than 1% of the planet's species. Hell, you could probably throw in the birds and reptiles too and still come under 1%.

That's all for now.

[Guest]

Ranger, take for example the forest around Lake Tahoe and north to Sierraville. It appears to be even more forested today than 150 years ago. The entire area is now second growth, most of it beyond dense. The trees are crowded together pencil thick and unhealthy.. Certainly not the open stands of timber one used to gallop through at full speed.

In the intermountain west the dominant timber type is the Pinion Juniper woodland, today there are more than 60 million acres of the trees compared to an estimated 30 million acres 100 years ago. Entirely due to fire suppression. PJ forests are nearly biological deserts compared to the sage and grasslands they replaced.

So in some places there is forest and even more forest than 200 years ago,, but certainly there is no comparison to what is forever gone.

Ranger, I knew there were neocons on this board, likely mormons

[KellY]

It's always interesting agreeing with Black Rock Rick...

Anyway, speaking of forests, a lot of what's statistically considered "forest" are actually single-tree stands planted by lumber companies - no more real forest than an apple orchard. Yes, they can support some other life but they aren't actual ecosystems.

[Badger]

a lot of what's statistically considered "forest" are actually single-tree stands planted by lumber companies

Can you say monoculture? It's a word that's NOT synonymous with diversity.

Using CATO cites as a foundation to anchor your original post is like expecting the fucking Hoover Institute to objectively evaluate why Kent State happened BTW. I hope we won't be seeing too many more of their references if you expect any credibility from this crowd.

<waiting for this topic to heat up a bit>

[Ranger Genius]

[gameshow host] Hello, and welcome once again ladies and gentlemen to the program. And now it's time for everyone's favorite game: Name that logical fallacy!

Now, Genius, you've seen the arguments, and you've been given your clue: that it's an informal fallacy. For one hundred thousand dollars, would you like to hazard a guess?[/Gameshow Host]


I know this one, Alex, it's a particular type of Ad Hominem attack we call POISONING THE WELL! (oh, and one False Analogy Non Sequitur)

Arraigning the motives of a source doesn't prove anything. I suggest you go sign your ass up for a logic 1010 course, if only because they don't usually offer any remedial logic courses. The politics of a source are not a valid argument against the veracity of the data they provide. Of course CATO is only going to publish data that support their agenda. Likewise, do you think that environmental activist groups are going to publish data that state that global warming is no big deal? The scientists who wrote these articles are (to give two examples) a professor of environmental studies at U of Virginia, and a professor of Meteorological Studies at MIT. Try addressing the actual arguments next time.

Neither I nor Dr. Micheals is suggesting that the climate hasn't changed, or that it won't continue to change. My argument is that 1) most of the changes that can be caused by greenhouse gases have already taken place, and has since slowed down. 2) global warming is actually beneficial to human agriculture, as well as temperature bounded plant and animal species, and 3) the IPCCC and USNA studies on global warming are fundamentally, irreconcilably flawed.

Further, I understand the importance of biodiversity, and the need to preserve the rainforests. I don't advocate inactivity where endangered species are concerned, and think that perhaps we should be a bit MORE aggressive regarding protecting species. But that's not an environmental issue. It's a global economics issue. Rainforests are not being destroyed by global warming, or by oil companies, or big businesses (they're evil in other ways). They're being destroyed by starving South Americans and Africans. Feed and house those people, provide them with bioengineered crops that can grow and prosper in the environment they have, hook them up to a global energy grid, and you'll see a big change in deforestation.

Regarding North American forests: People need houses. They need food, shelter, and energy. Americans consume far too much of two of these, it's true: but you still need to house people; and if you're not using wood (a renewable source) you're using non-renewable sources (such as steel). Every time you buy lumber at your local Home Depot, you're not ordering the murder of another tree; you're ordering another tree to be planted. Besides which, a huge percentage of the forests in the West are protected (absolutely no lumber harvesting at all). You can't save every single tree and forest. [heresy]Apply a cost/benefit analysis[/heresy]

YES the environment has changed. YES it will continue to change (slightly). NO it's not on a cataclysmic spiral (in fact, global warming is a good thing), NO it's not that big a deal. More to come.

[Guest]

Regarding North American forests: People need houses. They need food, shelter, and energy. Americans consume far too much of two of these, it's true: but you still need to house people; and if you're not using wood (a renewable source) you're using non-renewable sources (such as steel). Every time you buy lumber at your local Home Depot, you're not ordering the murder of another tree; you're ordering another tree to be planted. Besides which, a huge percentage of the forests in the West are protected (absolutely no lumber harvesting at all). You can't save every single tree and forest. [heresy]Apply a cost/benefit analysis[/heresy]

Your argument is fallacious. Homes can be built without wood or steel. Have you seen European Power poles,, concrete. The old growth trees harvested are dense,, good strong wood. The "super trees" planted in monocultures are not nearly as strong, Second growth trees cannot be used for load bearing structure in many counties. By far the most planted trees are harvested for paper. Your statement that a huge percentage of the forests in the west are protected is a false statement. Forests in Wilderness are protected, but designated Wilderness is seldom found in good timber country, but high up in the lakes and rocks. Monocultures are highly subject to bugs and fire, as they are monocultures of the same age, besides being ecological deserts.

It is true that timber cutting in the West has declined mightily in the past 10 years, right wing wackos and ignorant woods workers blame Clinton or spotted owls. The truth is, we ran out of trees.. at least good board worthy trees. Go down to Home Depot, look at their checked, knotted, twisted boards. I have to search and discard many to find a few. A side note,,

During the 80's and 90's loggers in the Northwest (including the Tongass) were working, but the mills were shut down and the mill workers out of work. Why? The whole logs were floated out to sea to Japanese sawmill ships,, that wood was taken to Japan. Thousands of American workers were put out of work.

Less than 10% of the original Redwood forests are still around. There is a Redwood mill in Ensenada Mexico!! It is cheaper for the corporations (that support CATO among others) to ship logs to Mexico, mill them there and return them to the US.. More thousands of American workers out of work..

Along the way in my life I have worked on Forest Service tree planting crews,, awful work.. And logged a fair bit.. Chainsaw work is still a meditation for me.. But all in Balance..
I don't thhk you have the Morg rape and pillage the landscape out of your system..

[Ranger Genius]

Yeah, concrete is a renewable resource. If you've ever lived near a concrete/gravel quarry, you'd think differently about suggesting its more widespread use as a construction material. Trees, at least, grow back (when harvested responsibly, as I think your anecdote shows we are doing.)

a lot of what's statistically considered "forest" are actually single-tree stands planted by lumber companies

According to the USDA, only 4% of forests in the west are actively planted tree plantations, and 11% in the east (see the Heinz Ctr breakdown here). Roughly 40% is timberland from which wood is harvested, and that is regrown from seeds from nearby trees. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but 4% isn't what I would normally call a _lot_, when considered as a portion of the whole. You could convert that statistic to acres (or hectares, if you're into that) and make it sound very impressive; but the fact remains that it's only 4% of the total. That leaves about 45% that is not harvested at all, either because it is illegal or impractical.

I'm not sure what you're trying to drive at with your rambling anti-globalism arguments that followed.

[Guest]

I have no idea what globalism or antiglobalism is or isn't. My point was that major corporations make money, they fund the sources for your Rush Limbaughish arguments.

Plantation trees usually cannot be used for construction. Second growth usually cannot be used for construction. Get down to Home Depot, examine what you get. The forests you talk about, include 60 million acres of PJ which is no good for timber. The eastern forests you talk about are largely second growth hardwoods, and are really large shrubs. (An aside, the first branch on the General Sherman tree in Sequoia National Park is larger than any tree east of the Mississippi) and are not used structurally.

If you like harvesting pencils there are plenty of trees,, and they are harvested, by large faller bucker limber machines brought in from Austria. Because these trees for the most part cannot be used for lumber, many of them are chipped and fed to power plants.

We have enough used tires to build homes for millions,, just like Chester.

Another aside, I spent last week digging out springs, putting french drains in with pipes to troughs, so the wild critters can drink water (before I shoot them). What have you done for your planet lately?

[Guest]

Oh that regrown from seeds trick,, The Sierra, has a 150 year planting to harvest cycle.. Tree planting did not get serious until the 1950's we still have a hundred years to go before we can harvest them.. Around Tahoe 100 year old trees are still less than 3'dbh

[Ranger Genius]

Then the sierras (simply taking at your word) would fall under the category of "impractical" to harvest..the growing cycle is too slow. I don't see what argument is.

Alarmist groups (like the Sierra Club) Also make money, and they fund the sources(?) for your sensationalist arguments. So what?

What IS your point?

[Guest]

Jesus H. Christ, Ranger are you stupid as a fucking rock? You should have figured out from what I said that I spoke from experience and knowledge, I worked as a logger, a tree planter and a Forest Service firefighter in the Sierra for years... I know what the fuck I am talking about.. Numb nuts

[Simply Joel]

Jesus H. Christ, Ranger are you stupid as a fucking rock? You should have figured out from what I said that I spoke from experience and knowledge, I worked as a logger, a tree planter and a Forest Service firefighter in the Sierra for years... I know what the fuck I am talking about.. Numb nuts

BRR, is there anything you haven't been in a previous life?

Oh yeah, one thing comes to my mind... polite.

[blyslv]

Biologist of every political persuassion agree that Earth is in the midst of a 6th "mass die-off" or extinction. The fossil record shows 5 seperate "bottlenecks" where aproximatly 90% of life dies in a very short while.

http://www.lassp.cornell.edu/newmme/sci ... ction.html


The tropical glaciers are melting. Why?

http://www.ird.fr/us/actualites/fiches/1999/96.htm

What will all the fresh cold water flowing into the oceans do to the environment?

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/iceage-01e.html

One thing I'm curious about, is RG more interested in a discussion about the environement or just interested in pissing people off with spurious and unsupported statements about a volatile subject?[/url]

[DVD Burner]

hey, is'nt "Jesus H. Christ, Ranger are you stupid as a fucking rock" against TOS/CG

If so, can we Block BRR again till he gets it right please?

[stuart]

Arraigning the motives of a source doesn't prove anything.

this is entirely correct. So let me elaborate. You cite CATO, you could also cite AEI and the API. I can site the UCS, NSF, thousands of independant non-partisan multi-disciplinary scientists, and that bastion of liberal environmentalism: the pentagon.

So we have sources that sternly disagree. At this point we need to examine why they might disagree. Why did they come up with such differing results from supposedly the same data? We need to be critical. Criminologists might tell you to look for motive. So lets look at CATO. They never met a reg. they didn't like. Would broad policy changes addressing environmental issues lead to massive regulation of industries that fund CATO? Hells yeah. See the motive? Now, compare that to the pentagon. Would broad policy changes addressing environmental issues lead to a curtailing of their activities? You betcha. So where is their motive? Where is the their axe to grind? Also look at all the former gov. science geeks who paid a brief trip to the unemployment line because they gave bushco the wrong answer. Where did they benefit in claiming that 'the sky is falling'? (This statement btw, logic boy, is a straw man.)

So, you are correct to point out the fallacy, but this could perhaps be labeled as a stylistic attack, or perhaps a red herring, also a fallacies. It does not address the criticism directly.

[stuart]

2) global warming is actually beneficial to human agriculture, as well as temperature bounded plant and animal species

so as to satisy adressing some of the meat (although some of my other eplaya colleagues will surely do better)

this is a hilarious reductio ad absurdum crafted for the USA today reader. Examine N.A.. If we warm the climate and shift the wheat growing climate regions northward we have a big problem. The 'bread basket of america' can not function as it does when shifted into Canada due to the canadian shield. We would loose an agricultural region that sustains this country and many others. As far as those temparature bound plants and animals, so true, so true. I suggest you do a little digging and find out about the predicted malaria outbreaks in the U.S. due to the 'freeing' of temparature bound insects. And now I will get a little more local. In L.A. warming is predicted to have an increase mid-year rainfall. Hooey, a benefit right? Sounds that way. Well, not if you look at the total system. Seems L.A. benefits primarily from winter thaw and runoff from the mountains. Climate models show warming to dramatically decrease these sources of water for the area.