Forest Service used Discredited IPCC Document to Justify Climate Change Forest Programs

Russ Steele

The Forest Service has announced its Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for land management planning on the National Forest System.  I had an opportunity to comment on this plan challenging the climate change assumptions and the use of IPCC Assessment reports to make policy decisions. You will even find my name in the list of consultants.

This is what the report has to say about the science of climate change.

 Scientific Findings About Climate Change

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body

for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations

Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to

provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate

change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. The UN General

Assembly endorsed the action by WMO and UNEP in jointly establishing the IPCC. The

IPCC is a scientific body. It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical,

and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of

climate change.

The IPCC (2007) concluded that earth’s climate has been undergoing a warming trend,

with increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow

and ice, and rising global average sea level. There have also been changes in the patterns

of precipitation. The IPCC concluded that it is very likely3 that over the past 50 years,

cold days, cold nights, and frosts have become less frequent over most land areas, and hot

days and hot nights have become more frequent. It is also likely that over most land areas

heat waves have become more frequent and that heavy precipitation events have also

become more frequent. There is very high confidence that recent warming is strongly

affecting terrestrial biological systems including such changes as earlier timing of spring

events, such as leaf unfolding, bird migration and egg laying and movement toward upper

latitudes and higher elevations in ranges of plant and animal species. There is also high

confidence that observed changes in freshwater biological systems, such as changes in

algal and zooplankton abundance in high latitude and high elevation lakes and changes in

range migration patterns of fish in rivers, are associated with rising water temperatures

and related effects such as changes in ice cover, oxygen levels, and circulation (IPCC

2007).

The global average temperature since 1990 has risen by about 1.5° F and the U.S. average

temperature has risen more than 2° F in the past 50 years (USGCRP 2009). Precipitation

in the United States has also increased an average of 5 percent over the past 50 years

(USGCRP 2009). These changes have been experienced differently across the country.

For example, in the Northeast, since 1970, the annual average temperature has increased

by 2° F, with winter temperatures rising twice as much (USGCRP 2009). In the

Southeast, the number of freezing days has declined by 4 to 7 days per year for most of

the region since the 1970s, and average autumn precipitation has increased by 30 percent

since 1901 (USGCRP 2009). Alaska’s temperature has increased at a rate higher than the

rest of the country. Over the past 50 years, that State’s annual average temperature has

increased 3.4° F, while winters have warmed by 6.3° F (USGCRP 2009). Thus, Alaska is

already experiencing impacts from climate change at higher levels than other regions,

such as earlier spring snowmelt, reduced sea ice, widespread glacier retreat, and

permafrost warming (USGCRP 2009).

By 2100, the global average temperatures is projected to rise another 2 to 11.5° F; by the

end of the century, the average U.S. temperature is projected to increase by 7 to 11° F

under the high emissions scenario and 4 to 6.5° F under the lower emissions scenario

(USGCRP 2009). These ranges vary owing to differences among climate model results

for the same emissions scenarios.

Just as changes in temperature and precipitation have already varied across the country,

the projected impacts vary as well. Temperatures in the Northeast are projected to rise 2.5

to 4° F in winter and 1.5 to 3.5°F in the summer over the next several decades, while in

Alaska temperatures are projected to rise about 3.5 to 7° F by the middle of the century

(USGCRP 2009). Impacts on water sources will be important to many regions,

particularly in the West; declines in mountain snowpack will be more important to the

West and Alaska where snowpack provides natural water storage. Coastal areas will be

more concerned with projected impacts to sea level rise and storm surge. The Great

Plains will likely see more storm impacts, such as more severe thunderstorms, tornadoes,

and hail than other regions.

If you read the whole report you will find climate change referenced 327 times.  We know from reading Donna Laframboise The Delinquent Teenager that was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert, that the World Wildlife Fund infiltrated the IPCC and used non-peer reviewed science to promote their global warming agenda in the IPCC 2007 report used by the Forest Service.

Donna writes in a report on her blog how the WWF infiltrated the IPCC:

 The WWF openly admits it’s trying to increase the public’s sense of urgency about climate change. Fear, alarm, anxiety – that’s what they’re pushing. 

In a 2008 document, the WWF said its panel of 130 “leading climate scientists” were “mostly, but not exclusively, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” These particular scientists, therefore, are more than merely sympathetic to the WWF’s point-of-view. They have a formalized relationship with that organization. They were wooed, they were won over, and then they stepped inside the WWF tent.

What does this mean for the celebrated 2007 IPCC report – the one that secured the IPCC its Nobel Peace Prize? Let me give you a quick snapshot:

It means that nearly two-thirds of the 2007 Climate Bible’s chapters – 28 out of 44 (which works out to 64%) – have at least one individual on their roster who is affiliated with the WWF.

It means that WWF-affiliated scientists helped write every last chapter in Working Group 2 – all 20 of them.

It means that 15 chapters in the 2007 Climate Bible were led by WWF-affiliated scientists – their coordinating lead authors are members of the WWF’s panel. In three cases, chapters were led by two WWF-affiliated coordinating lead authors. In one instance eight personnel in a single chapter have WWF links. In another there are six.

It means, ladies and gentlemen, that the IPCC has been infiltrated. It has been wholly and entirely compromised.

And, it was this compromised report that the Forest Service used as climate change mitigation justification in the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement.  All the details of Donna’s Report can be found HERE.  Her book can be found HERE  Bottom line, the Forest Service is making policy on some very bad science and we the taxpayer will end up footing the bill.

Advertisements

About Russ Steele
Freelance writer and climate change blogger. Russ spent twenty years in the Air Force as a navigator specializing in electronics warfare and digital systems. After his service he was employed for sixteen years as concept developer for TRW, an aerospace and automotive company, and then was CEO of a non-profit Internet provider for 18 months. Russ's articles have appeared in Comstock's Business, Capitol Journal, Trailer Life, Monitoring Times, and Idaho Magazine.

3 Responses to Forest Service used Discredited IPCC Document to Justify Climate Change Forest Programs

  1. gjrebane says:

    It’s not only the bill we’ll be footing, but the loss of access to public lands and more criminalizing of activities which have been the norm on such lands since the dawn of Man. Agenda21 must be promoted by all means, which includes the suppression of valid data and acceptance of whatever hokum is not challenged by alert readers with appropriate technical background. But then comes the hardest part, to convince the elected politicians with little or no technical knowledge, and a record of supporting Agenda21 related social and environmental ‘engineering’.

    • Russ says:

      George,

      Your are right one of the mitigations is restoration. These restoration project will be like those in the national parks, roped off areas where all access is denied, except the anointed few approved by the Forest Service. In the FS case the roped off area will cover square miles.

  2. Dixon Cruickshank says:

    Without reading it – I suppose they want to restrict access for rebuilding the habitat as it can’t sustain human interaction – just like our fisheries can’t sustain human recreational harvest in the name of of rebuilding and sustaining the stocks.

    just a guess

    Of course all this land was aquired by the Gov to protect the access and preserve it for future generations – from the evil developers. We have the same thing down here, they aquire control of areas and make them parks to preserve the access – now they can’t afford rangers all the time so padlocks on the gates and whine because we won’t provide money for rangers.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: