December 15, 2019
Scientists Shocked After Discovering Big Fire Caused Amazon Forest Loss
Timothy Birdnow
Here is a bit of illogic. Seems satellite data suggests that deforestation is way up in the Amazon.
According to the article, the Amazon has lost "104 percent" since the same month last year.
And the 217 square miles is the highest loss since 2015.
Well, goolllly!
The fact is, the Amazon was piling up flammable material at a prodigious rate as a result of protectionism, and this year there was a fairly major fire season. OF COURSE it lost more this year than in the last five or so!
That happens periodically. And it happened now because of overprotection by the previous liberal policies.
Naturally, the article tries to blame Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, whom the Brazilian National Institute for Space Research has been at odds with since his election (and who provided this data.) Think NASA's GISS and James Hansen when you think about the NISR. Hansen, you may remember, published bad data and then accused the Bush Administration of suppressing science. This is more of the same.
And Physorg published this uncritically.
We no longer have Science in the sense we knew it. We have politics masquerading as science, a kind of Cargo Cult affair.
Here is a bit of illogic. Seems satellite data suggests that deforestation is way up in the Amazon.
According to the article, the Amazon has lost "104 percent" since the same month last year.
And the 217 square miles is the highest loss since 2015.
Well, goolllly!
The fact is, the Amazon was piling up flammable material at a prodigious rate as a result of protectionism, and this year there was a fairly major fire season. OF COURSE it lost more this year than in the last five or so!
That happens periodically. And it happened now because of overprotection by the previous liberal policies.
Naturally, the article tries to blame Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, whom the Brazilian National Institute for Space Research has been at odds with since his election (and who provided this data.) Think NASA's GISS and James Hansen when you think about the NISR. Hansen, you may remember, published bad data and then accused the Bush Administration of suppressing science. This is more of the same.
And Physorg published this uncritically.
We no longer have Science in the sense we knew it. We have politics masquerading as science, a kind of Cargo Cult affair.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
01:41 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 210 words, total size 1 kb.
1
That last statement is certainly bang-on. Some wise man once said, not in these words but to this effect, quite awhile ago, that when government got into the business of funding science, things would pretty much go to hell in a handbasket. And such has proven to be the case. Because when the gummint puts money on something, strings are attached. They want particular results. And that's what has happened.
Cargo Cult, eh? Dunno as I'd describe it that way, but frankly, at the moment I can't think of a better term either. So OK -- Cargo Cult.
Cargo Cult, eh? Dunno as I'd describe it that way, but frankly, at the moment I can't think of a better term either. So OK -- Cargo Cult.
Posted by: Dana Mathewson at December 16, 2019 10:11 PM (HY6VT)
2
Dana, you may be thinking of Dwight Eisenhower. I know he warned about that in his farewell address (the famous "military industrial complex" speech). Ike was right on the money; he foresaw the rising government funding as perverting science and turning it to the service of statism. He was right.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at December 17, 2019 07:10 AM (dz6x/)
3
No, I don't think it was Ike. It was later, although I'm sure Ike understood the idea.
And Ike has always been misunderstood (deliberately, I'm sure) about that speech, by the Left, and anybody else who doesn't like the military. As you well know. They cherry-picked the term and ran with it, and missed the whole point of what he was getting at.
And Ike has always been misunderstood (deliberately, I'm sure) about that speech, by the Left, and anybody else who doesn't like the military. As you well know. They cherry-picked the term and ran with it, and missed the whole point of what he was getting at.
Posted by: Dana Mathewson at December 17, 2019 11:37 PM (ot1RL)
21kb generated in CPU 0.1585, elapsed 1.0868 seconds.
37 queries taking 1.0792 seconds, 162 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
37 queries taking 1.0792 seconds, 162 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
