<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Matt's right Re: [MCN] 3 recent takes on whether
wildfire</title></head><body>
<div>Matt's right. It's mistaken to use " wildfires in general as
'proof' of climate change."</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>And thanks, Matt, for the charting showing acreage burned
1930-1980, below. That chart sure does challenge claims that today's
fires break all records, and it bolsters claims that risk is being
exxaggerated.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Using wildfires as "proof" of climate change is
mistaken because trends in the forests only provide us with lines of
evidence from forests. Climate science of recent decades was largely
pioneered by physics, via the early General Circulation Models and
subsequent revisions, but added lines of evidence have come from
archeology, more often from botany, cryology on through fisheries,
geology, limnology, and on to meteorology, soils, and zoology.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I'd be glad to have a link to the online FS chart below</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>At 10:57 AM -0800 1/10/16, Matthew Koehler wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
For example, see this chart from the U.S. Forest Service which we
managed to locate in an official USFS document that is still available
on-line.<br>
<br>
<img src="cid:p0624080bd2b862b94cd8@[192.168.0.16].1.0"
alt="wildfire stats.png" width="409" height="329"></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>In 1930 and 1931, over 50 million acres
burned each year in the U.S. and during the 10 year (hot and dry)
period from the late 1920's to the late 1930's an average of 30
million acres burned every year in the U.S. Additionally, according to
the 2001 National Fire Plan an average of 145 million acres burned
annually in the pre-industrial, conterminous U.S.</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<x-sigsep><pre>--
</pre></x-sigsep>
<div><font face="Geneva" size="-1"
color="#000000"
>====================================================================<span
></span>=======<br>
"Americans took on tons of debt to support a lifestyle which their
incomes did not justify - an extra $3 trillion, by my
calculations."<br>
<br>
Michael Mandel, Chief Economist, Business Week, April 20,
2008</font></div>
<div><font face="Geneva" size="-1"
color="#000000"
>--------------------------------------------------------------------<span
></span
>------------------------------------------------------------------<br
>
"We have only one planet and the time has come to transform our
present lifestyle and consumption patterns in order to halt the
degradation of the Earth's natural capital ..."<br>
<br>
>From the Executive Summary, WWF: <i> China Ecological Footprint:
Report 2012 : Consumption, production, and
sustainability.</i></font></div>
<div><font face="Verdana" size="-1"
color="#000000"
>--------------------------------------------------------------------<span
></span>------------------------------------------</font></div>
<div><font face="Verdana" size="-1" color="#000000">"Because the
decimating factor of economic growth eliminates welfare factors for
virtually all imperiled species via the principle of competitive
exclusion, economic growth may be classified as the limiting factor
for wildlife conservation. The wildlife profession has been virtually
silent about this limiting factor, suggesting that the profession has
been laboring in futility."</font><br>
<font face="Verdana" size="-1" color="#000000"></font></div>
<div><font face="Verdana" size="-1" color="#000000">Brian Czech.
Economic growth as the limiting factor for wildlife conservation.<i>
Wildlife Society Bulletin</i> 2000, 28(1):4-15<br>
</font><font face="Geneva" size="-1" color="#000000"><i><br>
<br>
<br>
</i></font><font size="-1" color="#000000"></font></div>
<div><font size="-1" color="#000000"><br></font></div>
</body>
</html>