August 29, 2019
Timothy BirdnowI got into an internet squabble on Facebook with a couple of alarmists worried about the Amazon fires. Here's the pertinent thread:
Your last sentence is so mind-numbingly misinformed and illogical I just wonâ€™t even bother addressing it.
Also, there are fires in Argentina, Paraguay, and Bolivia as well. And, did you know, NASA reports that these supposedly "historic" Amazon fires are about average for this time of year. https://
And I have no reason to worry about stories in Yahoo news. Maybe YOU should learn how to research a topic and not go to the first thing that shows up on Google.
The reason why this has been such a big year for wildfires isnâ€™t because "a lot of deadwood has built up.â€ Itâ€™s because of DEFORESTATION. This is *explicity* stated in everything Iâ€™ve shared with you - ScienceMag, National Geographic, and NASA. You realize how deforestation is carried out correct? You should if youâ€™ve read as well as you think you have. Loggers, cattle ranchers, and other land developers are clearing out sections of the rainforest BY BURNING IT DOWN. They chop down trees, wait for things to dry out, and then SET IT ON FIRE. There is zero evidence whatsoever that NGOs and other environmentalis
I assure you my critical research skills are perfectly adequate. So a bit of advice: it doesnâ€™t necessarily matter if a source is one of the first you see after a Google search. What matters is if itâ€™s reliable. Again, NASA, NatGeo, and ScienceMag are what Iâ€™ve shared with you. All of these are perfectly reliable sources (NASA literally tracks wildfire activity using satellites and publishes the data), certainly far more so than "twitchy.com.â€
Who is being obtuse?
As for your sources, National Geographic has been a politicized tool for years. NASA was politicized under James Hansen, too, although it is NASA satellite data I am relying on - and a broader view of science than just ten year averages. It's too bad you don't bother to look at long term trends.
And if your side is going to blame this on Brazil's president with no proof, why shouldn't he - or anyone else - blame it on environmentalists, who have a reason to want to embarrass the man? You have no more proof of the assertion that this is a result of field clearing caused by a more business-friend
l might point out that the fires are primarily fields that are being burned off and not old growth forests. Farmers burn their fields this time of year.
Look at this graph. https://
It shows deforestation levels in Brazil. Note how low they had dropped. When you have such a dropoff, you are going to have more fuel that will need to be burned. It's a matter of fundamental arithmetic.
BTW, I see you don't bother to address my point about fires in Argentina, Bolivia, and Paraguay. Why not? Because they have nothing to do with Brazil's president, that's why. They are a bit inconvenient to your theory.
BTW, I'll bet you believe that stupidity about how the Amazon provides twenty percent of the world's oxygen. It doesn't. Almost all of the Earth's oxygen comes from the oceans. Since you love National Geographic so much, here you go. https://
Try educating yourself on both sides of an issue before insulting other people.
You might want to read this from Accuweather, too. https://
35 queries taking 0.314 seconds, 142 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.