Green groups and forests
Larry Harrell
able to point at our dying forests and say, "See?!?!..Look at what
climate change is doing to our forests!!!" Yet, when asked about
various facts and observations, they clam up and refuse to address the
issues. Issues like overstocking, species composition, and the lack of
active management as advocated by forest ecologists at the peak of
their profession. Forest management "deniers" use the same tactics as
climate change deniers. Both sides prefer to use faith instead of
science. Both sides have wads of money to lose if they don't win their
side of the debate. Both sides are willing to "win" at all costs. And,
finally, both sides doom the environment in their quests to be
"right".
The result for our forests from both their sides is fiery destruction.
Yes, our forests are now doomed to martydom and there's no reasoning
on earth that can stop this now. As Larry Caldwell said it a few years
ago, we're in the middle of a giant slow motion disaster, here in the
West. Fires that could have been put out for a few thousand dollars
and a few hundred acres have ballooned up to 30 million dollar
halocausts destroying forty times that acreage.
The forest issues will continue to haunt eco-groups as long as they
ignore these "Inconvenient Truths". Yes, foresters are stll considered
to be clearcut-loving forest rapers who are only in it for the buck.
Some even call us criminals.
Now, you see why I have no hope for our forests. As long as the eco's
can ignore tens of millions of dead trees, nothing will be done and
Obama's Katrina will roll over the West like a great tsunami.
Forester
Larry;
IMHO, forest managment and climate change suffer from the same
disease. Science is not involved! They are scientific matters,
however, poltics directs the actions and science has little to do in
shaping the politics. Politics is driven by short run actions.
Matters of forest managment are long run and matters of eco-groups is
perfectly aligned with poltical machinery and thus usually directs the
decisions or wags the dog. How often is it the that logging is halted
by some group and perhaps some years pass often 5 to 10 and that same
area is destroyed by beetles or fires. Long run consequences do not
enter the wretched arena of politics.
To understand the issues in a more in depth way, the following paper
is a must read. Fairly long in the tooth, but filled with insight
into the current scene for climate science, as well as, forest
managment.
When Linzen covers issues pertaining to commissions, publications from
these groups, the NSF, and board members etc. A little sluething and
you will find that he is spot on in forestry even though the subject
is climate science.
******* NCSSF publications can be found linked by the SAF here:
http://www.safnet.org/periodicals/NCSSF.cfm
Note the means this group operates is clearly mentioned by Lindzen.
Note the relationship the NSF is involved. Finally, consider the
board members of this National Commission on Science for Sustainable
Forestry http://ncseonline.org/NCSSF/
Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?
Authors: Richard S. Lindzen
(Submitted on 22 Sep 2008 (v1), last revised 28 Sep 2008 (this
version, v2))
Abstract: For a variety of inter-related cultural, organizational, and
political reasons, progress in climate science and the actual solution
of scientific problems in this field have moved at a much slower rate
than would normally be possible. Not all these factors are unique to
climate science, but the heavy influence of politics has served to
amplify the role of the other factors. Such factors as the change in
the scientific paradigm from a dialectic opposition between theory and
observation to an emphasis on simulation and observational programs,
the inordinate growth of administration in universities and the
consequent increase in importance of grant overhead, and the
hierarchical nature of formal scientific organizations are cosidered.
This paper will deal with the origin of the cultural changes and with
specific examples of the operation and interaction of these factors.
In particular, we will show how political bodies act to control
scientific institutions, how scientists adjust both data and even
theory to accommodate politically correct positions, and how
opposition to these positions is disposed of.
Comments: 36 pages, no figures, footnotes 16, 19, 20 added, footnote
17 changed, typos corrected
Subjects: Physics and Society (physics.soc-ph); Atmospheric and
Oceanic Physics (physics.ao-ph)
Cite as: arXiv:0809.3762v2 [physics.soc-ph]
Submission history
From: Richard Lindzen [view email]
[v1] Mon, 22 Sep 2008 18:39:48 GMT (215kb)
[v2] Sun, 28 Sep 2008 02:16:39 GMT (220kb)
Richard S. Lindzen, Climate Science: Is It Currently Designed to
Answer Questions? arXiv:0809.3762v2 (Physics and Society),
http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.3762, 2008.
Link to pdf article http://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.3762v2
We live in a dying world. Advocating green in our NF is resulting in
mass regions of death.
Al Bradley
Morgoth's Curse
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't putting out fires what caused the
problem in the first place? I thought it was widely acknowledged that
suppressing fires just allowed fuel to accumulate to the point where
the entire forest was consumed in a firestorm.
Morgoth's Curse
Joe
mgt."- in Massachusetts, the major enviro groups are powerful supporters of
the forestry party line- including Mass. Audubon, Mass. Chapter of the
Sierra Club, Appalachian Mt. Club, and a few others- are 100% is support of
FSC certification for all state land, despite the fact that the state has
carried out some truly hideous clearcuts and basicly is now doing industrial
strenght logging in areas where the tourist dollar is worth far more,
compared to the modest timber production of past years.
Yes, the enviros in Mass., the most liberal state in the country, are the
strongest supports of the worst sort of industrial strength logging.
And why? Well, some people I know are researching who runs these groups- and
it turns out that at the top are some people who have come right out of big
corporate America including the timber industry. The report still being
worked on is not ready for release, but when it is, I'll show it here.
Apparently out west the enviro groups still oppose SOME forms of harvesting,
though it would be disinformation to conclude that all enviros hate all
logging- that's not the case. And, don't worry, soon all enviro groups
everywhere will be owned by the timber industry.
Hey, a few billionaires own the American media- it's the new trend, only
makes sense, right? That rich people and huge industries should run the
world--- sure.
Joe
Larry Harrell
The parade of Administrations have amplified forest problems by doing
what was politically feasible and/or reasonable. Each successive
President has done the opposite of what forests need. Clinton had a
faint burst of understanding by forcing the forestry world to treat
the forests as complete living groups of organisms, instead of just a
crop of trees. Unfortunately, he removed the human stewardship from
the land. Bush stepped in and tried to put his version of "Healthy
Forests" through but, the Democrats intervened and altered the bill to
suit their liking (and it was the right thing to do, too!). Some in
the Bush Administration did not like the tinkering so, "Healthy
Forests" was never funded much. Obama will continue the tradition of
not understanding forests and forestry. I think he even mentioned
forests just once during his campaign. He will rely on his polarized
and ignorant advisors like Nancy Pelosi to solidify the forest
destruction plans already in place. Letting a forest burn
catastrophically without legally-required NEPA studies and public
input is not only illegal but, morally and scientifically bankrupt.
Yes, fire suppression was and is a major issue but, far from the only
one. The accumulation of fuels didn't just happen during the Bush
Administration. American Indians managed our forests and grew majestic
pine forests that sustained their way of life for centuries. Today,
the preservationists not only want to preserve an unnatural condition
but, they also are removing the land's "heritage" that the Indians so
carefully tended. The goal of today's misguided preservationist is to
"re-wild" forests by any means possible and to remove man from the
forests altogether. Either by decree or by the pioneer style of
burning them out. A forest without humans in it?? Doesn't sound
"natural" to me! If climate change were magically fixed tomorrow, we'd
still have this ongoing disaster because of a lack of site-specific
scientifically-sound active ecosystem management.
"Armchair foresters" like you (who hides behind a pitiful alias) think
that because maybe they took one ecology class, they are qualified to
set public policy on National Forests. Years of college and decades of
actual hands-on forestry work in a dozen states qualify me to help
shape public forest policy. Until foresters are considered, consulted
and respected, the forests will continue to suffer, and quite horribly
so.
But, don't worry. Obama's Katrina will lay waste to the forests, just
like his predecessors did.
Yes, we CAN turn old growth into brushfields. Hug those snags!!
Embrace the manzanita and whitethorn. Taste the sediment in the water
and smell the smoke of Presidential victory! (Not that McCain would
have fixed everything, either.)
Sadly, there is no hope, as the people in power now plan to continue
Bush's destructive "Let-Die, Let-Rot, Let-Burn" policy. Have you not
seen the massive die-off in the Rockies, while no one took action?
They plan to tax carbon AND spew massive tonnage of CO2 and toxic
greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere. How can they reduce CO2 to 350
parts per million while burning our forests down? Does this sound like
a future with hope?
I've fought against this scenario since I first got online in 1997.
Somehow, it just doesn't make me feel good to be right about my
warnings.
Larry
On Nov 24, 6:32 am, Morgoth's Curse
<morgothscurse2...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't putting out fires what caused the
> problem in the first place? I thought it was widely acknowledged that
> suppressing fires just allowed fuel to accumulate to the point where
> the entire forest was consumed in a firestorm.
>
> Morgoth's Curse- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Larry Harrell
power. I've worked under 4 Administrations and none of them followed
any "pure science". Thanks for the post!
On Nov 24, 5:35 am, Forester <a...@albradley.com> wrote:
>
> IMHO, forest managment and climate change suffer from the same
> disease. Science is not involved! They are scientific matters,
> however, poltics directs the actions and science has little to do in
> shaping the politics. Politics is driven by short run actions.
> Matters of forest managment are long run and matters of eco-groups is
> perfectly aligned with poltical machinery and thus usually directs the
> decisions or wags the dog. How often is it the that logging is halted
> by some group and perhaps some years pass often 5 to 10 and that same
> area is destroyed by beetles or fires. Long run consequences do not
> enter the wretched arena of politics.
>
> To understand the issues in a more in depth way, the following paper
> is a must read. Fairly long in the tooth, but filled with insight
> into the current scene for climate science, as well as, forest
> managment.
>
> When Linzen covers issues pertaining to commissions, publications from
> these groups, the NSF, and board members etc. A little sluething and
> you will find that he is spot on in forestry even though the subject
> is climate science.
> ******* NCSSF publications can be found linked by the SAF here:http://www.safnet.org/periodicals/NCSSF.cfm
> Note the means this group operates is clearly mentioned by Lindzen.
> Note the relationship the NSF is involved. Finally, consider the
> board members of this National Commission on Science for Sustainable
> Forestryhttp://ncseonline.org/NCSSF/
> Answer Questions? arXiv:0809.3762v2 (Physics and Society),http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.3762, 2008.
>
> Link to pdf articlehttp://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.3762v2
>
> We live in a dying world. Advocating green in our NF is resulting in
> mass regions of death.
>
> Al Bradley- Hide quoted text -
Joe
the USFS or maybe in charge of Interior! <G>
Your issues are very different than the private sector and from the state's.
There are many "forestry worlds"- we need to distinguish them. That would be
a great essay.
Private land has a history of cut and run. The large industrial lands aren't
much better. In northern New England, vast industrial lands have been
butchered and much of that is now up for sale. But the forestry universe at
all levels is filled with lies and propaganda. The few in all these worlds,
presumably including most of us here, are in the small minority. We all want
good scientific forestry with some sensitivity to other issues too. It's not
just about timber production.
Joe
"Larry Harrell" <lhfot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:93e0253e-9afd-4229...@13g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
D. Staples
avarice and greed".
>
Larry Caldwell
@x38g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, lhfot...@hotmail.com (Larry Harrell)
says...
> Obama will continue the tradition of
> not understanding forests and forestry. I think he even mentioned
> forests just once during his campaign. He will rely on his polarized
> and ignorant advisors like Nancy Pelosi to solidify the forest
> destruction plans already in place.
It depends a lot on who he picks for Sec. of Interior and Sec. of
Agriculture. So far he has been picking so many smart people to form
his government that they are calling it a "valedictocracy". He seems to
be banning ideologues from his cabinet, which indicates he may not care
much for Pelosi. I'm sure he will work with her, but tend to doubt that
he will be her ideological dancing monkey.
The biggest problem I see is that there are so many other problems
facing the USA that he will pick his battles, and forestry won't make
the cut.
--
For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
with my first name and last initial.