Yesterday, I wrote about some of the problems associated with the rhetoric from gloom and doom environmentalists. I am not anti-environment, quite the contrary. But the fact is that we aren’t really attacking environmental issues; we’re only paying lip service to them. Apparently, if you are a research scientist, it is more important to publish conclusions – even faulty conclusions, than it is to withhold publication pending additional data and, perhaps, coordination of findings with other scientists. We must stop this running to the press with half-truths if we expect to solve environmental issues.
In today’s Los Angeles Times, writer Robert Lee Hotz wrote an article headlined as follows: Wildfire Increase Linked to Climate followed by Higher temperatures over 34 years -- rather than land-use changes -- have led to more blazes, researchers say. They're sure it's not a fluke.
Hotz writes:
In today’s Los Angeles Times, writer Robert Lee Hotz wrote an article headlined as follows: Wildfire Increase Linked to Climate followed by Higher temperatures over 34 years -- rather than land-use changes -- have led to more blazes, researchers say. They're sure it's not a fluke.
Hotz writes:
Rising temperatures throughout the West have stoked an increase in large wildfires over the past 34 years as spring comes earlier, mountain snows melt sooner and forests dry to tinder, scientists reported Thursday.
More than land-use changes or forest management practices, the changing climate was
the most important factor driving a four-fold increase in the average number of large wildfires in the Western United States since 1970, the researchers concluded.
Okay, and who were the researchers? Dr. Tony Westerling from the University of California (San Diego) led the study. For a list of his erstwhile publications, visit his home page here. Who funded the research? I have no idea. Were there any dissenting opinions? We don’t know.
But Hotz apparently thinks the study is important, writing that “The average spring and summer temperatures were more than 1.5 degrees higher in Western states between 1987 and 2003 than during the previous 17 years. In fact, the seasonal temperatures were the warmest since record-keeping started in 1895, the researchers said.”
Wow . . . 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit. Is this really earth shaking? But let’s do address the subject of record keeping for a moment. Is temperature data that has been collected since 1895 something that we can take to the bank? Have all records been maintained according to a scientific standard? I suspect the answer is a resounding “no.” This does not suggest that the data collected is invalid, but it does suggest that it may be faulty. I only mention this because if there is a possibility that the data collection techniques are skewed, then we should withhold making decisions or implementing programs until we have solid scientific data.
How many weather/temperature collecting stations are there in the world? Okay then, how about the number of such stations just inside the United States? Half a century ago, most of these data collection stations were in rural environments, but with the growth of urban areas, many of these weather stations are are now nearer to cities. Is the heat generated by larger and more human intensive modern cities affecting the data collected by these weather stations? Should this even concern us?
But since the Hotz’ article addressed the topic of wildfires, should we pause to consider that they are natural phenomena? Forest fires have occurred long before written records. We even know that as stewards of the natural world before the arrival of the infamous white man, Native Americans actually set forest fires; indeed, they may not even be a bad thing. Here’s another interesting historical fact. Twenty thousand years ago, glaciers began receding from California eventually leaving behind them arctic tundra – the only vegetation that could survive in glacial soils. In time, trees took root. The trees had a warming effect on the region, which caused glaciers to recede even further. The warm, dry climate produced many forest fires and each time, new vegetation replaced the ones previously destroyed. Six thousand years ago, the temperature patterns changed again – and it had nothing whatsoever to do with the sparse human population. It became wetter, and this produced even new vegetation. What is the point? Simply this: every one-thousand or so years, climate conditions change and so does the vegetation in any given region. It wasn’t global warming then, and it may not be the result of the much-touted greenhouse gases now. The earth changes constantly; less than two hundred years ago, Americans (and everyone else) experienced what is now called a “mini-ice age.” And this is certain: it will happen again.
Thus — when Mr. Hotz tells us that scientists assert that “Last year was the worst wildfire season on record,” I have to ask, so what? Studying wildfires between 1970 and 2003 does not give us answers to global environmental issues. It certainly does not suggest a course of action for “protecting” our environment. Who can say that wildfires aren’t simply the natural order of things? It wasn’t much of a big deal before people over-populated California, but suddenly, with million dollar homes sitting in the middle of desert brush, environmentalists want us to believe that the sky is falling, it’s our fault, and we darn well should do something about it
Finally, the article states:
How many weather/temperature collecting stations are there in the world? Okay then, how about the number of such stations just inside the United States? Half a century ago, most of these data collection stations were in rural environments, but with the growth of urban areas, many of these weather stations are are now nearer to cities. Is the heat generated by larger and more human intensive modern cities affecting the data collected by these weather stations? Should this even concern us?
But since the Hotz’ article addressed the topic of wildfires, should we pause to consider that they are natural phenomena? Forest fires have occurred long before written records. We even know that as stewards of the natural world before the arrival of the infamous white man, Native Americans actually set forest fires; indeed, they may not even be a bad thing. Here’s another interesting historical fact. Twenty thousand years ago, glaciers began receding from California eventually leaving behind them arctic tundra – the only vegetation that could survive in glacial soils. In time, trees took root. The trees had a warming effect on the region, which caused glaciers to recede even further. The warm, dry climate produced many forest fires and each time, new vegetation replaced the ones previously destroyed. Six thousand years ago, the temperature patterns changed again – and it had nothing whatsoever to do with the sparse human population. It became wetter, and this produced even new vegetation. What is the point? Simply this: every one-thousand or so years, climate conditions change and so does the vegetation in any given region. It wasn’t global warming then, and it may not be the result of the much-touted greenhouse gases now. The earth changes constantly; less than two hundred years ago, Americans (and everyone else) experienced what is now called a “mini-ice age.” And this is certain: it will happen again.
Thus — when Mr. Hotz tells us that scientists assert that “Last year was the worst wildfire season on record,” I have to ask, so what? Studying wildfires between 1970 and 2003 does not give us answers to global environmental issues. It certainly does not suggest a course of action for “protecting” our environment. Who can say that wildfires aren’t simply the natural order of things? It wasn’t much of a big deal before people over-populated California, but suddenly, with million dollar homes sitting in the middle of desert brush, environmentalists want us to believe that the sky is falling, it’s our fault, and we darn well should do something about it
Finally, the article states:
If regional temperatures continue to rise, as many computer climate models predict, wildfire activity throughout the West will intensify so long as there is acreage to burn, several experts said.
Moreover, as more forests do burn, the destruction of so much biomass will release massive amounts of carbon dioxide, further accelerating the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and helping to further increase temperatures.
Again, I ask . . . won’t an increase in carbon dioxide accelerate plant growth? If trees and other vegetables produce oxygen, how is that bad? But even assuming that the most recent crisis demands a solution, what is it? And as to the much glorified and referenced “computer climate models,” they at best produce estimates. Another word for estimate is “guess.” Do we really want to design our environmental management policies on guesses?
I didn’t think so.
Tip of the hat to Ms. Raven for alerting me about this newest “gloom and doom” article.
Tip of the hat to Ms. Raven for alerting me about this newest “gloom and doom” article.
|