Where do you want to go? Home | Wingtips | Alerts | Announcements |Archives | Articles | Birding & Hiking | Join | Links | Officers | Yavapai County Sightings | Mojave County Sightings | Trips & Meetings

Search this site or the web powered by FreeFind Site search Web search

Updated 12/15/2008

Articles and Reports

President's Message (See latest Wingtips)
Current Conservation Issues (12/08)
      Save the Upper Verde River Petition and Water Issues of the Prescott Area (12/08)
      The Science of Climate Change: Selected References for the Public (6/08)    
      Arizona Eagles to Remain on Endangered List (3/08)
      Biofuels Will NOT Work (8/07)
      How Beneficial is Replacing 20% of our Fossil Fuel Use with Renewable Energy by 2020??? (8/07)
      Climate Change, the Accepted Science - Responses to Prescott Courier Editorial which denied human impact - submitted to Courier (5/07)   
      Climate Change, the Accepted Science - Responses to Prescott Courier Editorial which denied human impact - Draft, more complete (5/07) 
      The Arizona Bald Eagle: Who’s Protecting Our Endangered Species? (2/07)
      Some Additional Comments and References to The Arizona Bald Eagle (2/07)
      Please Vote Environment!
      New Book review - Undermining Science: Suppression and Distortion in the Bush Administration
Budget 2005 - 2006 (9/05)
Conservation Grant Awarded (11/05)
Adopt a Classroom for Audubon Adventures (9/05)
Feathered Hearts Wild Bird Sanctuary/Rehabilitation and Educational Center (9/05)
Book Review - The Peregrine (11/05)

Audubon President John Flicker Hails UN Report Linking Global
      Population Growth with Environmental Decline (1/02)
Living Oceans and Seafood Wallet Card (3/02)

Birds Paying a Price for Global Sprawl (4/01)

Why Migratory Birds are Crazy for Coffee (5/01)
Shade Grown Coffee in Prescott (5/01)
Eco-Tourism Cards
I SAW A GOOD BIRD, NOW WHAT DO I DO?

Archives
Read more articles in our Newsletter, Wingtips

Opinions expressed by authors do not necessarily reflect the policy of the National Audubon Society or Prescott Audubon Society.

Back to the top

Back to the top

Back to the top

Eco-Tourism Cards When you travel to other parts of the state or country for the purpose of birdwatching or other wildlife viewing, you visit local businesses, such as motels, restaurants, service stations, gift shops, bookstores, etc. Letting the owners of those businesses know why you are there will help them realize the value of natural areas to their tourist business. We are following the lead of other conservation groups in providing business-card-sized cards to our members to present to those businesses when you buy their services or products. The cards have our Prescott Audubon logo and are worded to encourage businesses to speak out for conserving wildlife habitat. (See the sample.) These cards will be available at general meetings for you to pick up for an upcoming trip. Please do not take more than you expect to use and return any you have left over (or save them for a future trip). Call Bonnie (445-7502) if you need some between meetings. Back to the top

Conservation Issues from Our Conservation Committee

Tony Krzysik

**************************************************************

Back to the top

Some GOOD NEWS for a change.

You may have heard that in 2006 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under pressure from the Bush administration took the Bald Eagle off the Endangered Species list.  Although virtually all major populations of the Bald Eagle have recovered, the Arizona population never increased and was in danger, primarily from our rapid urbanization and water pumping.

The Endangered Species Act was designed to protect "individual populations", and science-based evidence was available documenting that the Arizona population needed protection.  The Center for Biological Diversity in Tucson and Maricopa Audubon petitioned to keep the Arizona Bald Eagle population on the Endangered Species list.  The CBD is primarily an attorney-based pro-environment organization that takes legal court action nationally to protect biological resources by using the intent of existing environmental laws and mandates.  The USFWS in 2007 DENIED the CBD petition, and CBD sued the USFWS.

A few days ago a judge ruled IN FAVOR of CBD and the Arizona Bald Eagle population will remain protected under the Endangered Species Act.

This was a complicated and political mess.  At the end of Jan 2006, the Prescott Courier had published an article about the Arizona Bald Eagle that was inaccurate and technically incorrect.  I sent to the Courier for publishing, an accurate account of the Arizona Bald Eagle, and discussed the issue with the reporter that did the Jan Courier article.  My article was never published. (see below for the article and here)

********************************************

Back to the top

Biofuels Will NOT Work

Tony Krzysik, Ph.D., Prescott Audubon Society, Conservation Chair and Board of Directors
updated 14 August 2007

The political and social emphasis on “biofuels” or “biomass” as an alternative renewable energy source is very interesting, especially because of all the miss-information, deception, and ignorance associated with it. I will keep learning more and updating everyone. This is a humble beginning as I am quite busy with energy-related ecological consulting work.

BIOMASS for Energy

It is important to remember that biomass utilization will never be a viable energy option, even as politicians blind the public with inaccurate information and data.

Ethanol from corn takes MORE energy to make than it produces by burning it. Meanwhile, it is highly subsidized by your tax dollars, and of course, there are some folks becoming richer on this folly.

Cellulosic Ethanol: Making ethanol from the entire plant (corn, sugar cane, switch grass, etc) does generate more energy, and potentially a positive energy balance. However, the U.S. and the world’s energy demands are so high that we cannot ecologically, nor economically, nor socially/morally/ethically devote so much land area (and possibly water use in some areas) for energy production at the expense of human food production and viable ecosystems that themselves produce critical ecological services and recreation for humanity. Biodiesel from soybeans faces the identical ecological and moral issues.

However, the real eye-opener why biomass utilization cannot be a major energy option for earth’s inhabitants is the following interesting data. The period between 260 and 330 million years ago (roughly the second half of the Carboniferous and first half of the Permian) was a special and unique period in earth’s history. This is when 90% of our coal formed. This was a time of globally optimal temperatures and moisture for plant growth. At this time, the earth’s oxygen content was the highest in the last 600 million years (and presumably in earth’s lifetime), approximately 40% higher than at present. Carbon dioxide was also at the all time low. This was due to the extreme photosynthetic activity of both land plants and marine phytoplankton. The fungi (only Basiodiomycetes break down lignin) that break down woody tissue may not have been present, and as these plants and plankton died they were subsequently buried in land and marine sediments, coal and other fossil fuels eventually formed with time under heat and pressure.

In a most informative article by Jeffrey Dukes he translates how this ancient biomass translates to current fossil fuel consumptive.
Dukes, J.S. 2003. Burning buried sunshine: Human consumption of ancient solar energy. Climatic Change 61:31-44.

Some examples:

It takes 196,000 pounds of buried plant material to produce a single gallon of gasoline. In other words, 40 acres of wheat – seeds, leaves, stalks, and roots – to drive the average car 20 miles.

In 1997 the world’s fossil fuel consumption was equivalent to 97 million billion pounds of carbon from the ancient plants living 260-330 million years ago. This is equivalent to over 400 times all the plant matter that grows globally in a year, in ecological words, “net primary productivity”.

Using biomass for energy in a global community with expanding populations and economic aspirations is an impossibility!!

More Info
Sent from Jim Morgan

" From an agricultural vantage point, the automotive demand for fuel is insatiable. The grain it takes to fill a 25-gallon tank with ethanol just once will feed one person for a whole year. Converting the entire U.S. grain harvest to ethanol would satisfy only 16 percent of U.S. auto fuel needs.
Lester Brown, Earth Policy Institute, http://www.earth-policy.org/ "
This website is a great source of information and references for global sustainability.
I assume that grain = wheat + corn + rice

So what is the answer??

The answer is technically simple, but socially impossible to implement.
Four factors are most critical – and much more important than increasing our energy dependence on renewable energy of any kind. As you can easily guess, none of these things will happen. Of course, to varying degrees there will certainly be an attempt at Number 3, but that will be inadequate, considering the importance of Numbers 1 and 2. Additionally, the significant danger is that politicians will deceive the public by making it appear that “conservation” will provide the ultimate cure for our energy problems, while completely ignoring the severity and inescapability of Numbers 1 and 2. Our science and intellect is useless when it comes to our innate genetic programming of GREED – in other words – short-term gains at the expense of long-term sustainability. This of course makes perfect sense in the context of “natural selection”.

1) The Global Societies MUST Reduce Human Population Numbers – Drastically
In both the U.S. and all the global communities, very serious efforts need to be taken IMMEDIATELY to not only DECREASE population growth, but dramatically REDUCE human population sizes in BOTH industrial and developing countries. Many European highly industrial countries are currently showing population declines.

The U.S. has globally the highest population growth rate for developed-industrialized countries.

In the U.S., strong efforts need to be taken to reduce (preferable eliminate) both legal and illegal immigration.

2) The Global Community MUST Attain Ecological Sustainability
And Abandon Economic Growth
Tough to say it – but economic growth and development must be dramatically slowed globally and replaced with SUSTAINABLE ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS.

3) There MUST BE Serious Energy Conservation - Everywhere
The U.S. and worldwide we must conserve energy, starting with more fuel-efficient cars. There is no reason that a single person needs to drive to the grocery store or to work in a 6000+ lb SUV or 4-WD pickup.

There is a great deal of information available virtually everywhere now on how to conserve energy, and reduce personal and family impacts on climate change parameters.

4) The U.S. Must Assume Leadership Role in Global Ecological Sustainability
The U.S. must assume a very proactive leadership role in the global community for all of the above three factors. It cannot do so under the current administration, and will be severely handicapped in future attempts.

Back to the top

*************************

How Beneficial is Replacing 20% of our Fossil Fuel Use with Renewable Energy by 2020???

Tony Krzysik, Ph.D., Prescott Audubon Society, Conservation Chair and Board of Directors
18 July 2007

Of course we should push our Congress for implementing legislation for increasing our use of “Renewable Energy” while concurrently decreasing our use of “Fossil Fuels”. Fossil Fuels are: coal, oil, and natural gas. Fossil Fuel use, especially at the unprecedented current global use, but particularly by the U.S., represents three highly significant problems:

1) contributing significantly to greenhouse gases (mainly carbon dioxide, but also methane, and some nitrous oxide);

2) our dependence on foreign oil, especially in the Middle East – a major security threat and the reason for our war with Iraq, when we should have been concentrating on Al Quada and bin Laden;

3) fossil fuels are a finite resource that not only take at least tens of millions (if not several hundred million) of years to develop, but the environmental conditions have to be rather specific. Therefore, fossil fuels need to be conserved for our future generations for both energy and the synthesis of plastics, rubber, and other polymers.

The problem with the current proposed legislation to replace 20% of our fossil fuel consumption by renewable energy by the year 2020 is identical to many legal actions taken or proposed by our government. These actions completely deceive the vast majority of the public into thinking that something substantial is attempted and a significant action is directed at the problem, so the public is “appeased”, while the “REAL SOLUTION” is ignored and hidden from the public.

The current population in the U.S. is 291 million, and in 2020 it will be 336 million. The U.S. is the third largest country in the world (behind China and India), and has the highest population growth among the industrialized countries. I do not know if this 45 million increase assumes no immigration, current level or increased immigration; not to mention illegals. This represents a 15.5% increase in the U.S. population, and most certainly immigrant levels (both legal and illegal) will increase as population increases, dwindling resources, and water depletion plague their native countries. Economic growth and aspirations will increase in the U.S. from all segments of our society – from the poorest through the hyper-rich. Therefore, it is a certain prediction that U.S. energy needs will increase by over 20% in 2020, and at best we will be consuming the same amount of fossil fuels in 2020 as we do today, even if we increase our use of renewable energy by 20-30%. Meanwhile, by 2020 the rest of the entire world (especially China and India) will be demanding and using more fossil fuels, at the same time that oil is becoming scarcer and scarcer.

The bottom line is that replacing 20% of our fossil fuel consumption with renewable energy will have NO practical value.

This legislation is typical for politicians, because most of the people will get the impression that our government is doing all it can for our energy problems, and this is the optimal solution. Meanwhile, the technical reality is that the problem remains with us, but now forgotten or ignored by the public.

Also, let’s review renewable energy options. Renewable energy sources primarily include:
Solar (passive solar, active solar, photovoltaic cells), wind turbines, geothermal,
hydro-electric, and biomass utilization.

Fuel cells, although potentially useful in the future do not classify with “renewable energy sources”. It takes natural gas or hydrogen to power fuel cells. Hydrogen would be derived from natural gas or water. It takes a little more energy to produce hydrogen from water than you get from hydrogen when it forms water in the fuel cell. In my first research position after college, I worked on natural gas and hydrogen fuel cells 44 years ago – and we are not that much further ahead these days.

Nuclear Energy – who knows??
VERY expensive and represents significant RISKS

Hydro-electric energy development has already been fully exploited in this country, and all the industrialized world. It comes at a high economic cost, and is no longer socially accepted for its significant environmental impacts and severe ecological damage.

The use of geothermal energy is similar to the energy derived from tides and waves in that it is strongly dependent on specific geographic locations to derive benefits.

Utilizing solar and wind energy is of course strongly desirable, and represents our best and optimal options. Nevertheless, there will be development time-lags, economic investments, power grid design considerations, and environmental considerations. For example, wind turbines are responsible for bird and bat mortality, wildlife disturbance, and human aesthetic considerations.

BIOMASS for Energy
It is important to remember that biomass utilization will never be a viable energy option, even as politicians blind the public with inaccurate information and data.

Ethanol from corn takes MORE energy to make than it produces by burning it. Meanwhile, it is highly subsidized by your tax dollars, and of course, there are some folks becoming richer on this folly.

Cellulosic Ethanol: Making ethanol from the entire plant (corn, sugar cane, switch grass, etc) does generate more energy, and potentially a positive energy balance. However, the U.S. and the world’s energy demands are so high that we cannot ecologically, nor economically, nor socially/morally/ethically devote so much land area (and possibly water use in some areas) for energy production at the expense of human food production and viable ecosystems that themselves produce critical ecological services and recreation for humanity. Biodiesel from soybeans faces the identical ecological and moral issues.

However, the real eye-opener why biomass utilization cannot be a major energy option for earth’s inhabitants is the following interesting data. The period between 260 and 330 million years ago (roughly the second half of the Carboniferous and first half of the Permian) was a special and unique period in earth’s history. This is when 90% of our coal formed. This was a time of globally optimal temperatures and moisture for plant growth. At this time, the earth’s oxygen content was the highest in the last 600 million years (and presumably in earth’s lifetime), approximately 40% higher than at present. Carbon dioxide was also at the all time low. This was due to the extreme photosynthetic activity of both land plants and marine phytoplankton. The fungi (only Basiodiomycetes break down lignin) that break down woody tissue may not have been present, and as these plants and plankton died they were subsequently buried in land and marine sediments, coal and other fossil fuels eventually formed with time under heat and pressure.

In a most informative article by Jeffrey Dukes he translates how this ancient biomass translates to current fossil fuel consumptive.
Dukes, J.S. 2003. Burning buried sunshine: Human consumption of ancient solar energy. Climatic Change 61:31-44.

Some examples:

It takes 196,000 pounds of buried plant material to produce a single gallon of gasoline. In other words, 40 acres of wheat – seeds, leaves, stalks, and roots – to drive the average car 20 miles.

In 1997 the world’s fossil fuel consumption was equivalent to 97 million billion pounds of carbon from the ancient plants living 260-330 million years ago. This is equivalent to over 400 times all the plant matter that grows globally in a year, in ecological words, “net primary productivity”.

Using biomass for energy in a global community with expanding populations and economic aspirations is an impossibility!!

So what is the answer??

The answer is technically simple, but socially impossible to implement.
Four factors are most critical – and much more important than increasing our energy dependence on renewable energy.

Human Population Reduction
In both the U.S. and all the global communities, very serious efforts need to be taken IMMEDIATELY to not only DECREASE population growth, but dramatically REDUCE human population sizes in BOTH industrial and developing countries. Many European highly industrial countries are currently showing population declines.

In the U.S., strong efforts need to be taken to reduce both legal and illegal immigration.

Ecological Sustainability NOT Economic Growth
Tough to say it – but economic growth and development must be dramatically slowed globally and replaced with SUSTAINABLE ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS.

Serious Energy Conservation - Everywhere
The U.S. and worldwide we must conserve energy, starting with more fuel-efficient cars. There is no reason that a single person needs to drive to the grocery store or to work in a 6000+ lb SUV or 4-WD pickup.

There is a great deal of information available virtually everywhere now on how to conserve energy, and reduce personal and family impacts on climate change parameters.

U.S. Must Assume Leadership Role in Global Ecological Sustainability
The U.S. must assume a very proactive leadership role in the global community for all of the above three factors. It cannot do so under the current administration, and will be severely handicapped in future attempts.

Back to the top

*****************************

The Arizona Bald Eagle: Who’s Protecting Our Endangered Species?

Historically, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) managed the approximately 43 Arizona breeding pairs of Bald Eagles as a population distinct from other Bald Eagles in the lower 48 states. Arizona Bald Eagles are smaller, breed earlier, and may be more genetically isolated than other U.S. populations. The Arizona population had its own recovery plan and recovery program. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is actually based on “Distinct Population Segments”, and this population concept was further validated in a National Academy of Sciences report (see “Science and the Endangered Species Act”, National Research Council, 1995).

Early in 2000 the USFWS proposed to treat the lower-48 Bald Eagles as a single population and remove the species from protection under ESA. The Center for Biological Diversity (Tucson) and the Maricopa Audubon Society petitioned USFWS on 6 October 2004 to keep the Arizona Bald Eagle listed under ESA. USFWS convened a seven-member science panel to study the delisting decision. All scientists were Bald Eagle authorities and members of the Raptor Research Foundation. This panel on 11 August 2006 approved the national delisting, but recommended that the Arizona population not be delisted, because of increasing environmental threats attributed to the rapid growing human population in Arizona, increasing drought in the Southwest, and the synergistic impact of climate change (http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/SPECIES/eagle/delisting-comments-RAPTOR-RESEARCH-FOUNDATION-081106.pdf). Major direct threats included, urban sprawl with habitat loss and fragmentation, overdraw of water, recreational disturbances (including tangles in fishing line), and toxic pollutants. These impacts are gradually decreasing the life span and reproduction of our resident Bald Eagles. The Southwestern Bald Eagle is one of three avian taxa predicted for dramatic impact by global warming; the other two are Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and Mexican Spotted Owl (see “Potential Impacts of Global Climate Change on Bird Communities of the Southwest”, 2003, USGS-BRD, http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/sw/impacts/biology/birds/).

An identical conclusion was reached by Robert Magill, former Chairman of the Southwestern Bald Eagle Management Committee, and reported 17 June 2006. This research, management, and education organization consists of 23 partners, primarily federal and state agencies and Native American tribes.

USFWS denied The Center for Biological Diversity and Maricopa Audubon Society petition on 30 August 2006, agreeing that the Arizona population was a valid population, but declared that it was neither endangered nor biologically significant. Despite having the science peer-review Raptor Research Foundation and Magill assessments in hand, USFWS declared that the agency did not possess "information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted." The USFWS decision does not discuss or admit the existence of either assessment. USFWS suppressed the documents until the CBD was tipped-off by an angry federal scientist. On 5 January 2007, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Maricopa Audubon Society filed suit challenging the Bush Administration's suppression of scientific reports concluding that the Arizona Bald Eagle should remain listed under ESA. The suit seeks an injunction barring USFWS from removing the Arizona Bald Eagle from the endangered list and requiring it to incorporate scientific data and evidence in its management plans. For detailed documentation of the Bush administration’s broad and deep science abuses see: Union of Concerned Scientists (http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/preeminent-scientists-protest-bush-administrations-misuse-of-science.html) and (http://www.utne.com/webwatch/2006_280/news/12385-1.html);
“Undermining Science: Suppression and Distortion in the Bush Administration”, 2006, Seth Shulman; and “The Republican War On Science”, 2006, Chris Mooney.

By:
Anthony J. Krzysik, Ph.D.
Research and Consultant Ecologist
Prescott Audubon Society, Conservation Chair & Board of Directors

11 Highland Terrace
Prescott, AZ 86305
928-777-2106
krzysika@cableone.net

7 February 2007

Back to the top

********************************

Some Additional Comments and References to The Arizona Bald Eagle

The USFWS petition denial of The Center for Biological Diversity and Maricopa Audubon Society was titled “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Petition to List the
Sonoran Desert Population of the Bald Eagle as a Distinct Population Segment, List that Distinct Population Segment as Endangered, and Designate Critical Habitat” (Federal Register Vol. 71, No. 168, Wednesday, August 30, 2006, Proposed Rules; 50 CFR Part 17; U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 17pp). The USFWS denial is well-written and the science behind it appears reasonably rigorous, but a great deal more field data and literature effort would be required to technically challenge the USFWS position. I have not read the Raptor Research Foundation and Magill assessments that USFWS was accused of ignoring. However, the petition was submitted when Gale Norton was the head of USFWS. Gale Norton is a protégée of James Watt and was trained by him. She began her career litigating on behalf of cattlemen, miners, and oil companies at James Watt's Mountain States Legal Foundation. A Los Angeles Times article was titled “Gale Norton Is No James Watt; She's Even Worse” (see Los Angeles Times, 2001, attached). With Norton at the helm of the USFWS when the petition was submitted there is no doubt that she ordered the predictable conclusion.

Nevertheless, the reality of the Arizona Bald Eagle as a focal or umbrella species (or population) is without question, in the face of Arizona’s dramatic rapid human population growth, groundwater depletion, reduced instream flows, and increasing recreation impacts. The ecological and population viability of Arizona Bald Eagles, must therefore, also be cast in this context. Focal and umbrella species represent ecological indicators of ecosystem functionality and biotic integrity of the landscapes they occupy and reproduce in. For example, water pumping at the Big Chino aquifer poses a severe threat to the instream flows of the upper Verde watershed, and by default the entire Verde River. The Verde and Salt Rivers have the largest concentration of nesting Bald Eagles in Arizona.

The over-riding threats of habitat degradation, destruction, and fragmentation; population viability analysis; and metapopulation dynamics are the well-acknowledged tenants of Conservation Biology. However, equally important but not appreciated, is the maintenance of population evolutionary potential. Populations will be facing and they must adapt to rapid and dynamic selection forces as climate change affects vegetation communities, hydrology and water availability, and biotic interactions. Biotic interactions include predation, competition, symbiosis, parasitism, and pathogens. All of these interactions are “adjusted” to new climate regimes. Small populations at the edges of their range are particularly important for evolutionary continuity and the transition into new adaptive zones (i.e., new species in new environmental settings).

Two highly recognized and respectable investigative journalists wrote the books that I recommended for documenting the active and planned interference of the administration in matters of science. Seth Shulman was commissioned by the Union of Concerned Scientists. UCS’s formal statement of the Bush administration’s interference in science was signed by more than 5,000 scientists, including 48 Nobel laureates, by 5 January 2005 (http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/01/05/weeks-knobloch/). These books are extremely informative. The complete citations for the three books that I referenced are:

Mooney, C. 2006 edition. The Republican War On Science. Basic Books, New York, NY. 357pp.

National Research Council. 1995. Science and the Endangered Species Act. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 271pp.

Shulman, S. 2006. Undermining Science: Suppression and Distortion in the Bush Administration. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 202pp.

By:
Anthony J. Krzysik, Ph.D.
Research and Consultant Ecologist
Prescott Audubon Society, Conservation Chair & Board of Directors

11 Highland Terrace
Prescott, AZ 86305
928-777-2106
krzysika@cableone.net

11 February 2007

Back to the top

****************************

I recently analyzed Congress' voting record from 2003 to 2006 regarding conservation and environment issues. I was truly appalled by what I discovered. We all realize that Democrats are more pro-environment, while Republicans are more anti-environment because they are strongly supported by mega-corporations and developers. Nevertheless, my analysis has made me realize that both sides appear to almost exclusively vote along "pre-established" party lines, regardless of the VALUE TO SOCIETY of the SPECFIC legislation and issues that are currently before them to vote on. There were INDEED very few individual exceptions in Congress. Our Senator John McCain was one of the VERY few in the entire nation that split from the herd and used logic and his brain to vote in favor of some environmental issues. Nevertheless, even McCain had a poor conservation score when contrasted to over 80% of his Democratic colleagues.

I have always been an "Independent" and strictly voted on the merits of individual candidates, Democreats or Republicans. I have always placed environmental concerns as number one in my voting decisions. There is nothing that is more important!!! In most circumstances, voting out of the 2-party system is a wasted vote. In reality, usually I have ended up voting "against" a candidate rather than "for" a candidate - the lesser of two evils strategy.

Please read my attached report for details. This is a quick and dirty summary. All Senators and Representatives from 2003 to 2006 were scored on their voting record supporting conservation and environment issues. The HIGHEST score an individual could have in a given year was "100" (they voted in favor of every single issue), while the LOWEST was "0" (they voted AGAINST every single issue). Based on this analysis, three-quarters of all Democrats in Congress had a score of "75" or higher (16% had perfect scores of "100"); while ONLY 2.5% of Republicans had a score of "75" or higher. At the anti-environmental end of the scale representating scores of "25" or less, over four-fifths (84%) of Republicans voted against the envorinment, while less than one percent (0.82%) of Congressional Democrats could be considered anti-environmental. Almost a fifth (19.3%) of Republicans voted against EACH and EVERY conservation and environment issue in the 109th (2005-2006) Congress. See my two Tables for more details.

This time I am voting pure Democrat. The logic is most simple. Regardless of the merits and social benefits of a conservation or environmental issue up for vote in Congress; and despite the intellect, integrity, ethics, overall quality, conscience, and personal feelings of your elected official, or lack of all of these; if they are Republican they will vote AGAINST the environment, and if they are even "sleasy" Democrats they will vote IN FAVOR of the environment. Please pass this message and the attached report to everyone and anyone. And please make sure that you vote for the environment. I have folks on other lists that I will send this off to.

THANKS FOR LOVING NATURE

Tony

Back to the top

************************************

Climate Change: The Accepted Science
11 May 2007

For Prescott Courier, Talk of the Town

Human-caused global climate change has been endorsed by our National Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Ecological Society of America, American Institute of Biological Sciences, and to my knowledge every credible science organization in the world. Discussion of climate change and its repercussions are appearing in the popular media.

This recent attention is the result of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC is composed of a large number of scientists that summarize the research of tens of thousands of scientists around the world who are involved with climate change. For example, the 4-volume IPCC 2007 Climate Assessment will have 450 lead authors, 800 contributing authors, and will be reviewed and commented on by 2500 scientists.

Despite this overwhelming consensus of global scientists, Terry Lovell in an April 15 article challenged the reality of Climate Change and its human causes. Mr. Lovell is not a scientist and based his information on the credentials of three “climatologist”, none of who is credible. Tim Ball according to Lovell is with the Dept. of Climatology, Univ. Winnipeg. There is no such department. Ball retired in 1996 and since then has not published anything in a science journal. Ball is the former head of “Friends of Science” and an executive director of “Natural Resource Stewardship Program,” and Ian Clark is on their advisory board. These two organizations are funded by the fossil fuel industry and are seen as discrediting genuine science data (see www.desmogblog.com/node/1272).

Lovell's words will mislead his readers, because the claims he makes are completely contradictory to the published research of the global scientific community. He states that the sun is responsible for global warming. Of course, the sun provides the earth with heat. However, most of sun’s energy reaching earth is visible radiation, not heat. Only when it strikes the surface does it warm the earth. Much of this heat is radiated back into outer space. However, greenhouse gasses (like carbon dioxide, CO2) trap some of this heat, and the amount depends on the concentration of greenhouse gasses. The higher the concentration of these gases, the more heat is trapped.

Lovell claims that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is inadequate to cause substantial heating. Just how effective is CO2 in this regard? At an atmospheric concentration of 0.028% CO2 (pre-industrial) and 1-3% water vapor, the natural greenhouse effect is equal to 57.6 OF. In other words, without this CO2 and water vapor the earth’s average annual temperature would be –0.4 OF, instead of 57 OF. The contribution of CO2 is approximately 14 OF.

Lovell places part of the blame of atmospheric CO2 on human, cattle, and termite respiration. Importantly, neither Lovell nor his “experts” appear to realize that CO2 from fossil fuels has an isotope fingerprint whose release can be traced with tree ring carbon isotope ratios over the last 10,000 years. These data show that CO2 from fossil fuels started to increase in 1850. The tree ring data are verified with parallel data from carbon in marine corals and sponges, and CO2 trapped in ice cores. These data also discredit his claim that temperature increases precede increases in CO2 concentrations.

Humans have released over 1600 billion tons of CO2 while burning fossil fuels and clearing land, with half of our energy consumption since 1800 occurring in the last 20 years. This equates to a human CO2 footprint of 0.05% - 23 times that claimed by Lovell. Our atmosphere and ocean have absorbed this CO2 equally. Other greenhouse gasses emitted by human activities include: methane, nitrous oxide, lower atmosphere ozone, and CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons, human made Freon refrigerants, etc).

Lovell claims that there is no relationship between CO2 and temperature, because of times in the geologic past when they were not related. The Antarctic ice core data, however, very clearly demonstrate the very close association of CO2 and temperature over the last 650,000 years, even across the eight ice ages during this time frame. However, many other factors also determine air temperature, and they can dramatically override CO2 concentrations. Canada and Brazil have similar atmospheric CO2 concentrations, yet their average annual temperatures are dramatically different. The proximity of continents to the equator and the influence of ocean currents and its maritime climate are major temperature determinants over geological time periods.

For additional analysis of Lovell’s article and the currently accepted science of Climate Change, including important references, visit the Prescott Audubon Society web site, www.prescottaudubon.org/.

Tony Krzysik, Ph.D. is a research ecologist with over 40 years of research, teaching, and consulting experience, primarily in ecology, environmental sciences, and statistics, but also in biology, chemistry, and physics. He is a Board member of Prescott Audubon Society and Chair of its Conservation Committee.

Back to the top

*********************************

Climate Change: The Accepted Science
9 May 2007

Tony Krzysik, Ph.D.
Research Ecologist, Prescott Audubon Society, Conservation Chair & Board of Directors
krzysika@cableone.net

This was the original DRAFT for the Prescott Courier, Talk of the Town
Thanks to the PAS Board and Conservation Committee for editing help
Courier’s word limit is 750, this is 937 of text, therefore, I am making this shorter
This version and a much more detailed one, as well as, my other reports on Climate Change will eventually be available on the Prescott Audubon Society web site, www.prescottaudubon.org/.

Human-caused Global Climate Change has been endorsed by our National Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Ecological Society of America, American Institute of Biological Sciences, and to my knowledge every credible science organization in climatology, meteorology, earth sciences, ecology, biology, chemistry, and physics. Climate Change and its repercussions are currently making inroads into the popular media: newspapers, magazines, TV, even Consumer Reports (June). This attention is the result of recent news releases and reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), founded in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environment Program. The IPCC is composed of a large number of scientists that summarize, synthesize, and report the research of tens of thousands of scientists around the world who are directly or indirectly involved with Climate Change. For example, the 4-volume IPCC 2007 Climate Assessment will have 450 lead authors, 800 contributing authors, and will be reviewed and commented on by 2500 scientists.

Nevertheless, despite this overwhelming consensus of scientists from all over the world, Terry Lovell in TOT (15 April) challenged the reality of Climate Change and its human causes. He is not a scientist, and he based his information on the credentials of three “climatologists”. None of these is a credible climate scientist. Tim Ball according to Lovell is with the Dept. of Climatology, Univ. Winnipeg. There is no such department. Ball retired in 1996, and since then has not published anything in a science journal, much less climate science. Ball is the former head of “Friends of Science”, and an executive director of “Natural Resource Stewardship Program”, where Ian Clark is on their advisory board. These two organizations are supported and funded by fossil fuel (oil, coal, natural gas) energy interests for the purpose of discrediting genuine science data (see www.desmogblog.com/node/1272).

Lovell's words will mislead his readers, because the claims he makes are completely contradictory to the published research of the global scientific community. He states that the sun is responsible for global warming – earth’s temperature increase and the melting of polar and glacier ice. Of course, the sun provides the earth with heat. However, most of sun’s energy reaching earth is visible radiation, not heat. Only when it strikes the surface does it warm the earth. Much of this heat is radiated as infrared radiation back into outer space. However, greenhouse gasses trap some of this heat. The amount of heat trapped depends on the amount of greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere. The higher the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, lower atmosphere ozone, and CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons, human made Freon refrigerants, etc), the more heat is trapped. All of these greenhouse gasses are significantly increasing from human activities, including land-use. Water vapor is also a major greenhouse gas, but its concentration only depends on air temperature and availability of evaporated-transpired water from earth’s surface. Power plants mainly (but also volcanoes) emit sulfur dioxide (SO2), resulting in acidic deposition (acid rain) and sulfate aerosols. These aerosols are very effective at reflecting sunlight. The Clean Air Act and its amendments have dramatically reduced SO2 emissions, and therefore their cooling effect on global temperatures.

Lovell claims that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is inadequate to cause substantial heating. Just how effective is CO2 in this regard? At an atmospheric concentration of 0.028% CO2 (pre-industrial) and 1-3% water vapor, the natural greenhouse effect is equal to 57.6 OF. In other words, without this CO2 and water vapor the earth’s average annual temperature would be –0.4 OF, instead of 57 OF. The contribution of CO2 is approximately 14 OF. The details of the natural greenhouse effect are very complex and include cloud cover.

Lovell places part of the blame of atmospheric CO2 on human, cattle, and termite respiration. This CO2 is insignificant. It represents the immediate uptake and recycling by vegetation and algae. However, cattle and termites are responsible for significant release of methane. Importantly, neither Lovell nor his “experts” appear to realize that CO2 from fossil fuels has an isotope fingerprint whose release can be traced with tree ring carbon isotope ratios over the last 10,000 years. These data show that CO2 from fossil fuels started to increase in 1850. The tree ring data are verified with parallel data from carbon in marine corals and sponges, and CO2 trapped in ice cores. These data also discredit his claim that temperature increases precede increases in CO2 concentrations.

Humans have released over 1600 billion tons of CO2 while burning fossil fuels and clearing land, with half of our energy consumption since 1800 occurring in the last 20 years. This equates to a human CO2 footprint of 0.05% - 23 times that claimed by Lovell. Our atmosphere and ocean have absorbed this CO2 equally.

Lovell claims that there is no relationship between CO2 and temperature, because of times in the geologic past when they were not related. The Antarctic ice core data, however, very clearly demonstrate the very close association of CO2 and temperature over the last 650,000 years, even across the eight ice ages during this time frame. However, many other factors also determine air temperature, and they can dramatically override CO2 concentrations. Canada and Brazil have similar atmospheric CO2 concentrations, yet their average annual temperatures are dramatically different. The proximity of continents to the equator and the influence of ocean currents and its maritime climate are major temperature determinants over geological time periods.

For a very in depth analysis and critique of Lovell’s TOT article, and the current accepted science of Climate Change, including important references, see my reports at the Prescott Audubon Society web site, www.prescottaudubon.org/.

Tony Krzysik, Ph.D. (Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Pittsburgh and Pymatuning Laboratory of Ecology) has over 40 years of research, teaching, and consulting experience, primarily in ecology, environmental sciences, and statistics, but also in biology, chemistry, and physics.

Back to the top

***************************

I just received a notification from University of California Press that an important book is just coming out. Their web site says it will be out in Jan 2007, but also says it is shipping in 2-3 days? The data below are from the University of California Press web site. Read the reviews below from some of the top scientists in the country.

Tony Krzysik 19
October 2006

Shulman, S. 2007. Undermining Science: Suppression and Distortion in the Bush Administration. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 222pp.

BOOK REVIEWS

"We can only expect the best decisions from our leaders in government when they use the best factual information they can receive from science. Shulman outlines how the current administration has systematically blocked the input of scientists in favor of ideology and favors to special interest groups." William H. Schlesinger, Dean, Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, Duke University

"In a free society, no separation of powers is more fundamentally important than that between the power of science in informing debate, and the power of politicians in implementing policy. Seth Shulman's remarkably well-documented litany of abuses should serve as a wake-up call not only to society, but also to political leaders, who cannot govern for long without independent scientific expertise grounded in unquestioned integrity." Simon Levin, Center for BioComplexity, Princeton University

"In this disturbing and important book, Seth Shulman has uncovered the myriad ways George W. Bush and his anti-science administration have distorted--almost beyond recognition--the accomplishments that have elevated America to its position as one of the greatest scientific and technological nations in history. That status is now being undermined. But thanks to investigators like Shulman, the gig is up, just in time for us to do something about it." Michael Shermer, Publisher Skeptic magazine, monthly columnist Scientific American, author of The Science of Good and Evil

"Seth Shulman's Undermining Science forcefully makes the case that in the Bush administration ideology trumps fact, political expediency trumps science. The extraordinary claims made by Shulman are persuasive because they are based on concrete and fully documented events. The blow-by-blow narrative is eminently readable, as well as enlightening, even fascinating." Francisco J. Ayala, Professor of Biological Sciences, U.C. Irvine, 2002 recipient of the National Medal of Science

BOOK DESCRIPTION

This vitally important exposé shows how the Bush administration has systematically misled Americans on a wide range of scientific issues affecting public health, foreign policy, and the environment by ignoring, suppressing, manipulating, or even distorting scientific research. It is the first book to focus exclusively on how this explosive issue has played out during the Presidency of George W. Bush and the first to comprehensively document his administration's abuses of science. In 2001, a group of eminent American scientists affiliated with the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) contacted Seth Shulman, an experienced investigative journalist, to look into charges of serious mishandling of scientific information in the current administration. Shulman's investigation resulted in the groundbreaking report "Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policy Making," which served as the basis for a highly publicized UCS scientists' statement accusing the Bush administration of a misuse of science that was signed by dozens of Nobel laureates, National Medal of Science recipients, and members of the National Academy of Sciences. To date, more than 8,000 scientists across the country have signed the statement based upon Shulman's reporting. This book, drawing upon scores of interviews and including never-released information, goes beyond the UCS report to document the Bush administration's suppression and distortion of science, bringing this issue to a wider audience.

Undermining Science covers:

* The Bush administration's abuse and misuse of science in areas including stem cell research, AIDS prevention, environmental protection, the Iraq war, the teaching of evolution, and global warming;

* The administration's use of political litmus tests in selecting administrators for science-based agencies and in selecting scientists on federal advisory committees;

* The dangerous consequences of the Bush administration's war on science for the caliber and integrity of the nation's scientific research.

Shulman explains that, by knowingly misrepresenting and suppressing the truth, the Bush administration broke its covenant with its constituents in the most fundamental way possible, with consequences that reach far beyond the scientific community.

BOOK CONTENTS

Preface

1. Facts Matter

2. "Icing" the Data on Climate Change

3. Doctoring Evidence about Your Health

4. Abstaining from the Truth on Abstinence and AIDS

5. Clear Skies? Healthy Forests? Understanding Bush's Real Environmental Policy

6. When Good Science Is the Endangered Species

7. Burying More Than Intelligence on Our Security

8. Stacking the Deck against Science

9. Stem Cells and Monkey Trials

10. Restoring Scientific Integrity

Notes

Index

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Seth Shulman is an award-winning journalist and author who has written for many magazines, including Nature, Smithsonian, the Atlantic, Discover, Rolling Stone, Parade, and Popular Science; and for newspapers including, the Times of London, the Boston Globe, and the Los Angeles Times. He is the author of books including The Threat at Home: Confronting the Toxic Legacy of the U.S. Military. For the 2004-2005 academic year, he was the first-ever Dibner Science Writer Fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Back to the top

******************************************