2008

As if the nonsense written about ‘global warming’ were not bad enough, that over the supposed retreat of tropical forests has tended to be even worse.

Luckily, there are some brave and meticulous scholars who seek the truth. One of my former colleagues, Dr Alan Grainger, Senior Lecturer in Geography at the University of Leeds, is one such, and an internationally-renowned expert on tropical deforestation, having studied the issue in great depth since 1978. He has now produced a major study, ‘Difficulties in tracking the long-term global trend in tropical forest area’, published in the Proceedings of the US National Academy of Sciences [see for full details: ‘No convincing evidence for decline in tropical forest’, EurekaAlert, January 7].

Dr. Grainger states: “The errors and inconsistencies I have discovered in the area data raise too many questions to provide convincing support for the accepted picture of tropical forest decline over the last 40 years. Scientists all over the world who have used these data to make predictions of species extinctions and the role of forests in global climate change will find it helpful to revisit their findings in the light of my study.”

As EurekaAlert points out:

“Dr Grainger first examined data published every 10 years by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) since 1980. These cover all forest in the humid and dry tropics and appear to indicate decline. FAO’s Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000, for example, showed that all tropical forest area fell from 1,926 million hectares to 1,799 million hectares between 1990 and 2000. Ten years earlier, however, FAO’s previous report said that tropical forest area fell from 1,910 million ha to 1,756 million ha for the same 90 countries between 1980 and 1990.

‘Owing to corrections to the earlier study, the 1990s’ trend was just like a ‘re-run’ of that in the 1980s,’ said Dr Grainger. ‘The errors involved in making estimates for forest area could easily be of the same order as the forest area reported cleared in the previous 10 years. Even if you take enormous care, as FAO does, I argue that large errors are inevitable if you produce global estimates by aggregating national statistics from many countries. This has important implications for the many scientists who rely on FAO data.’”

This time round, Grainger found no evidence for decline since the early 1970s. Indeed, while his own estimate in 1983 of tropical moist forest area in 1980 was 1,081 million hectares, the latest satellite data led to an estimate of 1,181 million hectares for the same 63 countries in 2000 – a small increase.

Although one should rightly be cautious about this putative small increase in area (as Grainger is himself), all this indicates that the apparent decline in tropical moist forest area is being offset by natural reforestation at a higher rate than previously thought.

Now let me stress, so that nobody tries to dismiss this important study out-of-hand: Alan Grainger is an excellent, main-stream researcher, and I respect his opinion completely.

So, yet again, we have clear scientific evidence of the yawning gap between reality and Green myth-making, this time in relation to tropical forests. This is perhaps not so surprising when it comes to ‘tropical rain forests’ per se, which are largely a Western, or Northern, construction of knowledge.

In this respect, you may like to read my own piece, ‘Jungles of the Mind: the Invention of the Tropical Rain Forest’, which was first published in History Today Vol. 51, May 2001, pages 38 – 44. This is available to read online here [premium web content] or in a very basic version for university students here.

Grainger has done us all a service, because the figures for tropical forest decline are used unquestioningly in so many studies, including those on climate change.

I would ask everybody who reads this blog to ensure the very widest reporting of Grainger’s new study. Thank you.

__________________

Please visit Philip's new blog, 'Global Warming Politics: a Hot Topic Blog' at: http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1

European governments are paying close attention to negotiations in Abuja, Nigeria, where Russian officials are trying to access the host country’s sizeable natural gas reserves, a development that would tighten Moscow’s grip on Western Europe’s energy supplies.

Russia already provides about a quarter of the continent’s natural gas demand, and its energy market share is poised to increase as the European Union begins to phase out coal power in order to fight global warming. The prospect of energy dependence has elicited concern from many Western European government officials, feelings that were heightened after Moscow cut off energy supplies to Ukraine in December, 2005, in order to enforce a precipitous price hike in natural gas.

European leaders have been slow to heed calls for a diversification of the continent’s energy ssources. Meanwhile, Russia’s state-owned energy giant, Gazprom, has been consolidating control over the regional supply. In May, 2007, Russian and Central Asian leaders came to agreement about the transport of natural gas from the Caspian Sea on terms favorable to Moscow. Algeria, the second largest provider of natural gas to Europe, has talked with Gazprom about better coordination, which has stoked fears of a possible natural gas cartel, like OPEC. And now, Russia is making moves on Nigeria’s promising reserves.

There has been a subtle yet important shift in the rhetoric of some global warming alarmists, whose industry has thrived for years on a disciplined party line of “ignore the skeptics”. This has played out in many absurd ways including by insisting that only a dozen or so actually exist. The audience for their rhetoric has remained instead the public.

We see here what appears to be almost desperation, coming on the heels of widespread pickup given to a recent Inhofe, et al. compilation of more than 400 scientists – from both “soft” and “hard” disciplines, just as is true with the IPCC and alarmists, generally, though they conveniently forget this when attacking (see the series of exposés on this from the gang at Climate Resistance).

The icing on the cake is the rest of the instruction, to change the subject.

To borrow their phrase, that’s “climate progress”.