22 thoughts on “USFS Ditching Climate Change Materials?”

  1. A friend of mine works on fed funded transportation projects. Said any project that mentions climate change is being flagged.

    There are a variety of opinions here on TSW but something many of us have in common is an education in one of the sciences and/or working w/ science based information.
    I agree that civility in our comments is important.

    Let’s call a spade a spade though. Current transition in administrations is unlike any I’ve seen. Reagan was elected early in my USFS days.

    Current administration is obviously denying science!
    I hope we can agree that denying science is NOT a good foundation for managing complex, natural resource issues.
    What can be done about that?

    I’ve been reaching out to my friends who are still in the agency to let them know the work they do is appreciated.

    Reply
    • So 1. I wouldn’t have done that and I agree that this is unlike any change in Admin we have seen. And at the risk of seeming to be an apologist for the Admin…

      2.It’s a symbolic act.
      3. People have plenty of other places to get climate info. And I’ve got to say, having looked at many grants for “climate resilience” quite a few sound like plain old community infrastructure to me.
      4. “Denying Science” is kind of a big leap to me from taking down websites.
      I thought the climate downplaying had occurred in the last Trump Admin as well?
      Certainly reaching out to employees is a good thing to do.

      Reply
      • Maybe we don’t agree on what “denying science” means. I think taking down websites means refusing to acknowledge scientific facts in public communications. Which will give the public the impression that these facts are not being acknowledged in scientific analysis to support decisions – and therefore in decision-making. Whether agencies are actually ignoring science will come out in court, so if they’re smart this is mostly symbolic (and maybe a stick in the eye), but a lot of what I’m seeing from Trump II (the Administration, including those who are pretending to be part of it) doesn’t look smart.

        Reply
        • I think both sides “refuse to acknowledge scientific facts in communications”- it just depends on which scientific facts authored by whom and whose political ox is being gored.
          Here’s what the new Energy Secretary said:

          Climate change is a global challenge but is far from the world’s greatest threat to human life.
          Zero Energy Poverty by 2050 is a superior goal compared to Net Zero 2050.

          People like him in the Admin agree that climate change is real (the science)
          But disagree about the best path forward to decarbonize while :

          Improving the wealth, health, and life opportunities for the less energized seven billion people who aspire to be among the world’s lucky one billion.

          Which path toward decarbonization will help the world (not just us, because we don’t control other countries) decarbonize while maintaining or improving standards of living and protecting the environment?

          Asking those questions does not make a person a “science denier.”

          Reply
            • You wouldn’t be so crass as to suggest such boldly ~heterodox~ thinkers like a PERC board member and energy CEO would have anything to gain by obfuscation here. Nosiree I don’t see any relation between that and what’s going on at NOAA or elsewhere in gov.

              Reply
  2. No, but the fact that we are in a similar climate cycle of about 11,000 and 700 years ago, does not make the impacts of a changing climate go away because notes are being tossed. I know that in the west things have been dry and that’s not especially good for vegetation. But I sure wish we would stop blaming the LA Fires, for exampl, on climate change. Yes, some of the impacts are linked to our current cycle and unless we reduce development intensity, harden homes, use what we know about defensible space, and in other more forested areas halt the unwise (read, idiotic) notion of “managed” fire, nothing will change. I never thought this great agency called the USDA Forest Service would become so stodgy about change, to the clear detriment of itself. A long time ago, I did my SES alternate assignment with USAID. There were then and I suspect still are, a super organization. I really appreciated that assignment. Now, there is talk about tossing efficiency by an entity that is supposed to be for efficiency. If you want to improve efficiency, we are tripping over a benchmark agency right now, and it sure is not USAID. My point: sometimes the all too obvious is right in front of of you, if you have the task-relevant maturity to just recognize it.

    Very respectfully,

    Reply
    • How do you feel/think about managed wildfire from natural (i.e., lightning) started fires, outside of extreme drought conditions? It’s as natural as a mud puddle in North America.

      Reply
      • Jon, your statement has the same value as “if you wear a cloth mask, you are protected from corona virus! How about eggs are bad for you, aspirin is good, my sons computer is Russian disinformation…..

        So please, I realize some of the above is not really science, some of it is; there’s very little that is really settled science these days, it’s who screams the loudest….

        Reply
    • I’m a bit torn on this, always believing in at least listening to both sides. However, tying climate change to everything from spoiled buttermilk to absolute lack of common sense in populating the WUI certainly gets tiresome! Our climate is, and has been changing, and hopefully will continue to change. There are so many factors affecting these changes that even for someone to spout a correlation, absent Integrating the process of the whole, turns off lots of folks.

      Time will tell on how any rollout takes shape…. It’s a brave new world…..

      Reply
  3. The newly created Ministry of Truth is being put in place.

    If the Leader says of such and such an event or reality, “It never happened” — well, it never happened. If he/she says that “2 + 2 = 5” — well then, two and two are five.

    Reply
  4. So much for staying out of the ol’ partisan vitriol swamp here at TSW, eh? That the Trump Organization wants humans to continue changing Earth’s climate should come as no surprise to anyone who visits this space.

    Reply
  5. No, but the fact that we are in a similar climate cycle of about 11,000 and 700 years ago, does not make the impacts of a changing climate go away because notes are being tossed. I know that in the west things have been dry and that’s not especially good for vegetation. But I sure wish we would stop blaming the LA Fires, for exampl, on climate change. Yes, some of the impacts are linked to our current cycle and unless we reduce development intensity, harden homes, use what we know about defensible space, and in other more forested areas halt the unwise (read, idiotic) notion of “managed” fire, nothing will change. I never thought this great agency called the USDA Forest Service would become so stodgy about change, to the clear detriment of itself. A long time ago, I did my SES alternate assignment with USAID. There were then and I suspect still are, a super organization. I really appreciated that assignment. Now, there is talk about tossing efficiency by an entity that is supposed to be for efficiency. If you want to improve efficiency, we are tripping over a benchmark agency right now, and it sure is not USAID. My point: sometimes the all too obvious is right in front of of you, if you have the task-relevant maturity to just recognize it.

    Very respectfully,

    Reply
  6. There isn’t going to be much left online if the everything that mentions climate change is removed from FS websites

    Not surprising the Climate Risk Viewer, used in conjunction with EO14072 and NOGA is no longer online.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Discover more from The Smokey Wire : National Forest News and Views

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading