The Way Things Really Are: Debunking Rush Limbaugh on the Environment


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++







                        THE WAY THINGS REALLY ARE:

                DEBUNKING RUSH LIMBAUGH ON THE ENVIRONMENT

     

     

By:  Leonie Haimson

     Michael Oppenheimer

     David Wilcove

     

     

     

A publication of:   Environmental Defense Fund

                    257 Park Avenue South

                    New York, NY 10010

                    Phone: 212/505-2100

                    FAX:   212/505-2375

     

Acknowledgements:

     

The authors wish to thank Dr. D. Albritton, Dr. R. J. Gutierrez, and

Dr. S. Solomon for reviewing draft sections of this booklet.





About The Authors: 



Leonie Haimson is a free-lance writer based in New York.



Dr. Michael Oppenheimer is an atmospheric scientist;

Dr. David Wilcove is an ecologist.  Both are senior scientists with

the Environmental Defense Fund.





Introduction:



Rush Limbaugh's best-selling books The Way Things Ought to Be

and See, I Told You So are full of statements on the environment

that are misleading, distorted, and factually incorrect. Indeed,

Limbaugh's claims often fly in the face of carefully considered

scientific evidence, and put him in opposition to the views of the

most eminent scientific experts, as reflected in the conclusions of

such esteemed bodies as the National Academy of Sciences and

the World Meteorological Organization. Though Limbaugh likes to

frame the debate as a contest between him and the "environmental

wackos", it is really Limbaugh's word against the overwhelming tide

of scientific knowledge.





Unfortunately, his fallacies have created a great deal of confusion

and have perpetuated the misunderstanding of a number of critical

issues. It is important that Limbaugh's disinformation campaign be

confronted directly and that the resulting misconceptions be cleared

up.



Here we present several examples of erroneous statements from

Limbaugh's books, followed by the actual scientific facts. In each

instance, we have included sources in the scientific and

professional literature, unlike Limbaugh, who offers little or no

evidence to back up his claims.



Chlorofluorocarbons and Ozone Depletion:



RUSH FICTION: 



Limbaugh proposes that environmental "alarmists and prophets of

doom" have exaggerated the problem of ozone depletion,

suggesting that it has been limited to "occasional reduced levels of

ozone over Antarctica." 1/



SCIENTIFIC FACT: 



Substantially reduced levels of ozone have been measured over

most of the globe, including North America, Europe, and elsewhere. 

In fact, scientists have observed a thinning of the ozone layer at all

latitudes outside the tropics.  By 1991, the depletion over North

America averaged nearly 5 percent. 2/  Since 1991, ozone depletion

has further intensified. 3/



RUSH FICTION:



"Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines spewed forth more than a

thousand times the amount of ozone-depleting chemicals in one

eruption than all the fluorocarbons manufactured by wicked,

diabolical, and insensitive corporations in history. . .  . Conclusion:

mankind can't possibly equal the output of even one eruption from

Pinatubo, much less billion years' worth, so how can we destroy

ozone?" 4/



SCIENTIFIC FACT: 



Limbaugh's numbers are completely off-base. Volcanoes emit two

sorts of ozone-depleting compounds.  One is hydrochloric acid, but

the amount of this chemical in the stratosphere, measured before

and after Pinatubo's eruption in 1991, was found to be largely

unchanged. 5/  



The other ozone-depleting chemical emitted by Pinatubo, sulfur

dioxide, is converted in the stratosphere into tiny particles which,

acting in combination with man-made chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's),

temporarily increased the rate of ozone depletion by several

percentage points during 1992 and 1993. 6/  Nevertheless, nearly

all the particles resulting from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption have

already washed out of the atmosphere, unlike CFC's, which remain

in the stratosphere for as long as a century. 7/



Cumulatively speaking, Pinatubo's destructive effect on the ozone

layer has been about fifty times less than that of CFC's, rather than

a thousand times greater, as Limbaugh claims.  Thus, his estimate

is off by a factor of fifty thousand. 



RUSH FICTION: 



What "environmental wackos . . . really want to do is attack our way

of life" in the effort to limit CFC's.  "Their primary enemy:

capitalism."  8/



SCIENTIFIC FACT: 



Limbaugh ignores the fact that the conservative Reagan

administration signed onto the Montreal Protocol, the international

agreement to restrict CFC's, and that crucial support for the

measure came from some of the largest manufacturers of these

chemicals, who, like Ronald Reagan, are hardly enemies of

capitalism.  Although many of these corporations initially resisted

action when the ozone problem was discovered, Dupont, Allied

Signal, and other domestic producers of CFC's have long favored

strong restrictions concerning their production and use. Indeed,

Dupont proposed a global ban of CFC's before European or United

States governments did. 9/



RUSH FICTION: 



"In just one day in January [1992], NASA measured the amount of

chlorine and another gas in the atmosphere of the Northern

Hemisphere and found an unusually high level compared to normal.

. . . There were headlines for days about an ozone hole in the

atmosphere above North America.  Senator Al Gore . . . predicted

that President Bush would soon come around on all this because of

the 'ozone hole over Kennebunkport,' despite the fact there was no

such thing. . . . Within a few weeks, it was learned that most of the

unusual measurements could be attributed to Mount Pinatubo's

eruption, a fact the agenda-oriented scientific community attempted

to ignore." 10/



SCIENTIFIC FACT: 



Limbaugh's last statement is absolutely false. The measurements to

which he refers, of extremely high levels of chlorine monoxide, were

made by NASA only six months after Pinatubo's eruption and in a

particular region of the Arctic stratosphere that was at the time

unaffected by the volcanic emissions.  Furthermore, large amounts

of these chemicals were measured throughout the month of

January, not just on one day, as Limbaugh asserts. 11/



As for the rest, the condition of the ozone layer in January of 1992

was a great deal more complex than Limbaugh's account would

suggest.  Indeed, many scientists were disturbed by the high

chlorine monoxide levels.  For a very large depletion to occur,

however, the Arctic stratosphere would have had to remain cold for

several more weeks, as it often does that time of year.  Instead, a

sudden warming occurred the following month, so the damage to

the ozone layer never became as severe as originally feared.  If it

had, the depletion might well have reached 20 to 30 percent in the

lower stratosphere, rather than the 10 to 15 percent that was

recorded. Indeed, such large depletions could occur over parts of

Northern Europe and Canada during any winter, and may do so in

the future. 12/



In his most recent book, See, I Told You So, Limbaugh returns to

the subject of ozone depletion. This time, he discusses the

implications of a possible prehistoric supernova that may have

damaged the atmosphere:



RUSH FICTION: 



"Scientists say a supernova 340,000 years ago disrupted 10

percent to 20 percent of the ozone layer, causing sunburn in

prehistoric man.  Wait a minute - I thought only man could destroy

the ozone. . . . And if prehistoric man merely got a sunburn, how is

it that we are going to destroy the ozone layer with our air

conditioners and underarm deodorants and cause everybody to get

cancer?  Obviously we're not...and we can't ...and it's a hoax." 13/





SCIENTIFIC FACT:  



The report of a prehistoric supernova exploding close enough to the

Earth to have possibly affected its ozone layer, thousands of years

ago, though of doubtful relevance to Limbaugh's argument, was

published in the British journal Nature and followed up by the New

York Times in 1993. As quoted in the Times, Dr. Neil Gehrels, one

of the authors of the report, clearly did not mean to minimize the

possibility that the ozone loss that may have resulted would have

damaged whatever forms of life were roaming the planet.  Indeed,

he was reported as saying that the effects of such an ozone

depletion may well "have impaired the health of human beings and

other creatures..." 14/



RUSH FICTION: 



"Even The Washington Post - that haven of liberal mythology -

published a front-page story on April 15, 1993, that dismissed most

of the fears about the so-called ozone hole... had this to say: 'In

fact, researchers say the problem appears to be heading toward

solution before they can find any solid evidence that serious harm

was or is being done.'" 15/



SCIENTIFIC FACT:  



Limbaugh neglects to mention that the problem of ozone depletion

appears to be heading towards solution only as a result of

international agreements to restrict the production and use of

CFC's. Thanks to these agreements, the ozone layer should return

to near-normal levels around the year 2045.  Before 1998,

however, stratospheric ozone is expected to become thinner every

year, and the amount of ultraviolet radiation reaching the Earth to

increase, assuming other influences remain constant. 16/

Although the consequences of increased ultraviolet exposure for

plants and marine life are just beginning to be explored, the

damage to humans from long-term exposure is well known.  In

many parts of the globe, ozone depletion is likely to cause a rise in

rates of skin cancer, particularly non-melanoma cancers, which, due

to lifestyle factors, are already at record levels. 17/



RUSH FICTION: 



"A few days later, the authoritative journal Science published a

story headlined 'Ozone Takes Nose Dive After the Eruption of Mt.

Pinatubo.'  It pointed out that the ozone layer should show

significant signs of recovery by 1994.  But have you heard Algore

(sic) or any other ozone alarmist step up and admit that he or she

perpetuated (sic) a fraud on the American people?" 18/



SCIENTIFIC FACT: 



Indeed, the ozone layer did not thin as much in 1994 as it did in

1993, due to the washing out of emissions from Mount Pinatubo

(see above).  Nevertheless, as Science magazine pointed out in a

recent issue, this improvement is only temporary, since levels of

"atmospheric chlorine will continue to increase until controls on

CFC emissions take hold late in this decade.  Pinatubo or no,

things will get worse." 19/



Global Warming and the Greenhouse Effect



Global warming is another topic about which Limbaugh attempts to

mislead his readers, despite the international scientific consensus

on many aspects of this issue.  This consensus is reflected in the

findings of the top researchers in the field, as published in the peer-

reviewed scientific literature, and the conclusions of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the

international scientific panel assessing climate change, which

consists of a network of 2,500 experts worldwide. The IPCC has

issued two reports clearly stating and then reaffirming that the

Earth's climate will warm due to the buildup of man-made

greenhouse gases. 20/  In 1992, the National Academy of Sciences

published its own report, concluding that "greenhouse warming

poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses." 21/



Instead of taking on the international scientific community directly,

however, Limbaugh chooses to attack Vice-President Al Gore, and

his book Earth in the Balance.



RUSH FICTION: 



"Algore's (sic) book is full of calculated disinformation.  For

instance, he claims that 98 percent of scientists believe global

warming is taking place.  However a Gallup poll of scientists

involved in global climate research shows that 53 percent do not

believe that global warming has occurred, 30 percent say they don't

know, and only 17 percent are devotees of this dubious theory." 22/



SCIENTIFIC FACT: 



These numbers, apparently lifted from a George Will syndicated

column of September 3, 1992, 23/ are supposed to reflect the

findings of a Gallup poll taken in late 1991 to ascertain the opinions

of research scientists concerning global warming.  Even though

polling is of doubtful relevance for determining the scientific truth of

any proposition, it should be pointed out that nowhere in the actual

poll results are there figures that resemble those cited by Will or

Limbaugh. 



Instead, the Gallup poll found that a substantial majority of the

scientists polled, 66 percent, believed that human-induced global

warming was already occurring.  Only 10 percent disagreed, and

the remainder were undecided. 



Moreover, the 98 percent figure appears in the context of Al Gore's

book to refer to the percentage of scientists who believe that

human-induced global warming is a legitimate threat, not, as

Limbaugh frames it, to the number of those who argue that it is

already in effect.  In fact, the Gallup poll seems to bear out Gore's

estimate as well, finding that only 2 percent of the scientists polled

believed that there was no chance that substantial, human-caused

warming will occur over the next fifty to one hundred years. 24/ 



RUSH FICTION: 



"Algore told the Washington Times on May 19, 1993: 'That

increased accumulations of greenhouse gases, particularly CO2,

cause global warming, there is no longer any serious debate. 

There are a few naysayers far outside the consensus who try to

dispute that.  They are not really taken seriously by the mainstream

scientific community.' Yet we saw in the last chapter that there is

nothing resembling a consensus on this issue among scientists who

have some expertise in this area.  In fact, a majority clearly does

not believe global warming has occurred." 25/ 



SCIENTIFIC FACT:  



See the preceding item.  Furthermore, even the most publicized

and vehement of scientific naysayers, such as Pat Michaels of the

University of Virginia, agree that increased accumulation of carbon

dioxide will eventually cause global warming.  What they disagree

about is how much warming will occur over what period of time. 26/ 



RUSH FICTION: 



"...back at the time of the first Earth Day, the big concern wasn't

global warming, it was global cooling. . . .  the view of

most environmentalists for years after." 27/ 



SCIENTIFIC FACT: 



Although the Earth has warmed by about one degree Fahrenheit

over the past hundred years, this warming has not occurred

uniformly.  In particular, during the period from 1940 to 1970, the

Northern Hemisphere stopped warming and may have even cooled

slightly. 28/  This hiatus in the long-term trend contributed to

concerns that the Earth was about to cool significantly, possibly due

to the increased amount of soot and other particulates in the

atmosphere.



However, warming resumed again in the 1970's and the nine

warmest years on record have all occurred since 1980. 29/  Recent

calculations indicate that the greenhouse effect will outrun the

effects of particulate cooling in the future, although the

accumulation of particulates in the atmosphere may slow the overall

rate of warming. 30/ 



RUSH FICTION:  



"A fact you never hear the environmentalist wacko crowd

acknowledge is that 96 percent of the so-called 'greenhouse' gases

are not created by man, but by nature." 31/



SCIENTIFIC FACT: 



This is an obvious straw man set up by Limbaugh. It is true that the

greenhouse effect is, by and large, a natural phenomenon,

produced by gases in the atmosphere such as carbon dioxide and

water vapor that have warmed the Earth for eons, making its

climate moderate enough to support life as we know it.  Without

these gases, Earth would be forty to sixty degrees colder,

essentially a frigid desert. 32/



However, in nature these gases usually remain in balance, leading

to a stable climate, while the greenhouse gases added by humans

over the last two hundred years have accumulated to the point that

the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, for example, is

now more than 25 percent above what it had been for the previous

10,000 years.  (Scientists have direct evidence of this data, from

measurements of air bubbles trapped in polar ice cores.) 33/  The

scientific consensus is that the accumulation of carbon dioxide and

other gases due to human activity will alter the climate substantially,

warming the globe by three to eight degrees Fahrenheit over the

next century. 34/



Forests and the Spotted Owl



One of the most contentious of current political debates

concerns the old-growth forests in the Northwest.  Limbaugh

addresses this issue in See, I Told You So by citing mostly

irrelevant statistics on tree growth in the United States as a whole:



RUSH FICTION: 



"Would it surprise you to learn, for instance, that America's forests

are much healthier today in the 1990s than they were at the turn of

the century?  In fact, you could say that in the last seventy years

America's forests have been reborn.  There are 730 million acres of

forest land in our country today, and the growth on those acres is

denser than at any time. . . . New England has more forested acres

than it did in the mid-1800s.  Vermont is twice as forested as it was

then.  Almost half of the densely populated northeastern United

States is covered by forest.  Why?  How could this be?  If we are

ravaging our land, as the environmentalists suggest, why are there

more trees around -- more forests?" 35/ 



SCIENTIFIC FACT:  



Here, it seems, Limbaugh cannot see the forests for all those trees. 

It is true that due to the abandonment of farming, there has been a

regeneration of forests in the northeastern United States over the

past century, although not with all the species they originally

contained.



Instead, environmentalists' primary concern during the last decade

has been the rampant destruction of old-growth forests, particularly

in the Northwest, where ancient trees were being cut down at an

unprecedented rate, leaving only about 11 to 14 percent of the

original forests still standing. 36/



RUSH FICTION: 



"What the environmentalists are saying,  in effect, is that some

trees are better than others.  Trees that have been planted by man

are not as worthy or valuable as those that grow in 'virgin' forests. 

What is a virgin forest anyway?  Most trees live for only a couple of

hundred years and then die.  No tree lives forever." 37/



SCIENTIFIC FACT:   



Virgin forests are forests untouched by humans.  In the

Northwest, they are mostly old-growth forests, featuring towering

stands of trees, 200 to over 1,000 years old. 38/  These trees are

known to harbor a number of endangered or threatened species,

among them (but not limited to) the Northern spotted owl.  Which

brings us to Limbaugh's next point:



RUSH FICTION: 



"It reminds me of the researchers who recently ventured into the

forests of California.  Do you know what they found?  No, not

Algore.  They found spotted owls.  It seems the place is teeming

with spotted owls - even though they're supposed to be an

endangered species." 39/



SCIENTIFIC FACT: 



Fewer than two thousand pairs of the Northern spotted owl are

thought to survive in California forests -- a number that could hardly

be described as "teeming". 40/  Even more importantly, at a meeting

of experts called by the U.S. government in December 1993 at Fort

Collins, Colorado, virtually every biologist who presented data

concluded that the total numbers of the owl are still in decline.

Moreover, the population loss rate appears to be accelerating. 41/



On the whole, Limbaugh dealt with this issue more honestly in his

first book, The Way Things Ought to Be, when he asserted, "If the

owl can't adapt to the superiority of humans, screw it. . . ." 42/



Conclusion



Although he attacks his opponents in the scientific community

for being driven by ideology, it is Rush Limbaugh who clearly allows

his political biases to distort the truth about a whole range of

important scientific issues.



All in all, the words he uses to describe Al Gore's book could more

appropriately be applied to his own.  Limbaugh's most recent work,

just like the previous one, is "nothing more than a hysterical,

pseudo-scientific tract designed to cut off calm, reasoned

discussion of environmental issues and simply push the nation

toward irrational, irreversible, misguided (not to mention expensive)

public policies."  If the words of Rush Limbaugh on scientific

subjects prove anything, it should be "to discredit  from any

serious participation in our nation's debate over the

environment." 43/



The American public deserves better: to have its intelligence

respected, not abused.



                       Endnotes

     

     1.   Limbaugh, Rush.  The Way Things Ought To Be. (New York,

          NY: Pocket Books, 1992, p. 155.

     

     2.   World Meteorological Organization, Scientific Assessment of

          Ozone Depletion, 1991, pp. 2, 16.

     

     3.   World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations

          Environment Programme, Scientific Assessment of Ozone

          Depletion: 1994, Executive Summary, pp. 2, 11.

     

          The 1994 Assessment cited anthropogenic chlorine and

          bromine compounds such as CFC's as the cause of polar

          ozone depletion and described the cause of the long-term

          downward trend in ozone at other locations as follows:

          "... recent scientific findings strengthen the conclusion of the

          previous assessment [Endnote 2] that the weight of scientific

          evidence suggests that the observed middle- and high-

          latitude ozone losses are largely due to anthropogenic

          chlorine and bromine compounds."

     

     4.   The Way, pp. 155-56.

     

     5.   Wallace, L. and W. Livingston.  "The Effect of the Pinatubo

          Cloud on Hydrogen Chloride and Hydrogen Fluoride." 

          Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 19, June 1992, p. 1209.

     

     6.   Kerr, R.A.  "Ozone Takes a Nose Dive After The Eruption of

          Mt. Pinatubo."  Science, vol. 260, April 1993, pp. 490-91;

          Gleason, J.F., et al. "Record Low Global Ozone in 1992."

          Science, vol 260, April 1993, pp. 523-26; and Hoffman, D.J.,

          et al. "Ozone loss in the lower stratosphere over the United

          States in 1992-93: Evidence for hetero- geneous chemistry

          on the Pinatubo aerosol."  Geophysical Research Letters, vol.

          21, January 1994, pp. 65-68.

     

     7.   D'Altorio, A., et al. "Continuous Lidar Measurements of

          Stratospheric Aerosols and Ozone After Pinatubo Eruption

          Part II: Time Evolution of Ozone Profiles and of Aerosol

          Properties." Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 20,

          December 1993, pp. 2869-72; and WMO Assessment 1994,

          pp. 1-2.

     

     8.   The Way, p. 156.

     

     9.   Benedick, Richard.  Ozone Diplomacy. (Cambridge, MA:

          Harvard University Press), 1991, pp. 31-32.

     

     10.  The Way, pp. 156-57.

     

     11.  Browell, E.V., et al. "Ozone and Aerosol Changes During the

          1991-1992 Airborne Arctic Stratospheric Expedition." Science,

          vol. 261, August 1993, pp. 1155-58; and Toohey, D.W., et al.

          "The Seasonal Evolution of Reactive Chlorine in the Northern

          Hemisphere Stratosphere." Science, vol 261, August 1993,

          pp. 1134-35.

     

     12.  Newman, P., et al. "Stratospheric Meteorological Conditions

          in the Arctic Stratospheric Expedition." Science, vol. 261,

          August 1993, pp. 1143-45; Anderson, J.A. and O.B. Toon.

          "Airborne Arctic Stratospheric Expedition II: An Overview."

          Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 20, November 1993, pp.

          2499-2502.

     

     13.  Limbaugh, Rush. See, I Told You So (New York, NY: Pocket

          Books) 1993, p. 178.

     

     14.  The New York Times, February 25, 1993, Section D, p. 23.

     

     15.  See, pp. 178-79.

     

     16.  WMO, Assessment 1994, p. 11; "Quicker Ozone Recovery

          Forecast," in Random Samples, C. Holden, editor. Science,

          vol. 265, September 1994, p. 1806.

     

          Changes in cloudiness or air pollution may also enhance or

          diminish ultraviolet radiation reaching Earth in different ways

          at different locations.

     

     17.  United Nations Environment Programms. Environmental

          Effects of Ozone Depletion. November 1991, pp. 15-24.

     

     18.  See, p. 179.

          

     19.  "Ozone Has Recovered From Pinatubo's Jold," Random

          Samples, R. Stone, editor. Science, vol. 264, May 1994, p.

          1078; WMO, Assessment 1994, p. 11.

     

     20.  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate

          Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment. (New York, NY:

          Cambridge University Press), 1990, p. xi.; Intergovernmental

          Panel on Climate Change. Climate change 1992: The

          Supplementary Report to The IPCC Scientific Assessment.

          (New York, NY: Cammbridge University Press), 1992, p. 5.

     

          It is worth reproducing the original IPCC statement on this

          point from the 1990 report --

     

          "We are certain of the following:

     

               there is a natural greenhouse effect which already

               keeps the Earth warmer than it would otherwise be.

     

               emissions resulting from human activities are

               substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations

               of the greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane,

               chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and nitrous oxide.  These

               increases will enhance the greenhouse effect, resulting

               on average in an additional warming of the Earth's

               surface.  The main greenhouse gas, water vapor, will

               increase in response to global warming and further

               enhance it."   

     

          These conclusions were reaffirmed in the IPCC's 1992 report.

     

     21.  National Academy of Sciences. Policy Implications of

          Greenhouse Warming. (Washington, DC; National Academy

          Press) 1992, p. 68.

     

     22.  See, pp. 162-63.

     

     23.  Will, G.F.  "Al Gore's Green Guilt." The Washington Post,

          September 3, 1992.  Will's erroneous summary of this poll

          has been quoted so many times that it has become gospel

          for the proponents of the environmental backlash.

     

     24.  The Gallup Organization. A Gallup Study of Scientists'

          Opinions and Understanding of Global Climate Change.

          November 1991, pp. 5, 8.

     

          Available from the Center for Science, Technology & Media,

          6900 Wisconsin Avenue, Chevy Chase, MD.

     

     25.  See, p. 179.

     

     26.  Michaels, P.J. and D.E. Stooksbury. "Global Warming: A

          Reduced Threat?" Bulletin of the American Meteorological

          Society, vol. 10, October 1992, p. 1563.  

     

     27.  See, pp. 180-81.

     

     28.  IPCC, 1990, p. 213.

     

     29.  Wilson, H. and J. Hansen. Update of GISS Global

          Temperature Analysis Through 1993 (New York, NY:

          Goddard Institute for Space Studies) 1994; Hansen, J. and S.

          Lebedeff. "Global Surface Air Temperatures: Update Through

          1987." Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 15, April 1988, pp.

          323-26.

     

     30.  Kerr, R.A. "Pollutant Haze Cools the Greenhouse." Science,

          vol. 255, February 1992, pp. 682-83; Wigley, T.M.L. and

          S.C.B. Raper. "Implications for climate and sea level of

          revised IPCC emissions scenarios." Nature, vol. 357, May

          1992, pp. 293-300.

     

     31.  See, pp. 179-80.

     

     32.  IPCC, 1990, p. xxxvii.

     

     33.  Raynaud, D., et al. "The Ice Record of Greenhouse Gases."

          Science, vol. 259, February 1993, pp. 926-34.

     

     34.  IPCC, 1990, pp. xxii, xxv; IPCC, 1992, p. 18.

     

     35.  See, p. 175.

          

     36.  Wilcove, D. and J.T. Olson. "The ancient forests of the

          Pacific Northwest" in Perspectives on Biodiversity, eds. C.S.

          Potter, et al. (Washington, DC; American Association for the

          Advancement of Science Press) 1993, pp. 177-85.

     

     37.  See, p. 176.

     

     38.  U.S. Forest Service, Old-Growth Definition Task Group, 1986.

     

     39.  See, p. 177.

     

     40.  Gutierrez, R.J. "Changes in the Distribution and Abundance

          of Spotted Owls during the Past Century." Studies in Avian

          Biology, vol. 15, 1994, pp. 293-300.

     

     41.  Burnham, K.P., et al. "Estimation of Vital Rates of the

          Northern Spotted Owl." Summary of the Fort Collins Spotted

          Owl Demographic Workshop, January 12, 1994; available

          from Colorado Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit,

          Fort Collins, CO.

     

     42.  The Way, p. 161-62,

     

     43.  See, p. 162.

         

     



     Copyright 1994 -- The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)


RETURN TO OUR ENVIRONMENT CONTENTS PAGE Allan Allan Allan