ts demanding the forest be maintained in a "pristine" condition. When you do that you have fires.

Timothy Birdnow Uhhhhh no, deforestation makes wildfires more likely in environments like rainforest which are naturally humid. It’s naturally pretty difficult for fires to spread in rainforests because of the humidity, but this is altered as deforestation activities continue. It’s also worth nothing that many of these fires are being started intentionally to clear land for cattle ranching and other purposes.

Your last sentence is so mind-numbingly misinformed and illogical I just won’t even bother addressing it.

Megan Lovorn

Yes Meghan Lovorn, it may be intentional. Who is settincg the fires? It isn't the pro-development people. It serves only one side - the environmentalis ts. They've used this to rally support.

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:// twitchy.com/ gregp-3534/2019/ 08/24/ dear-climate-ala rmists-we-regre t-to-inform-you -that-nasa-decl ared-the-fires- in-the-amazon-t o-be-close-to-t he-average-in-c omparison-to-th e-past-15-years /

Timothy Birdnow It’s not my responsibility to hold your hand in being informed. You should know how to critically research a topic. But because I’m feeling nice: https:// www.sciencemag.o rg/news/2019/ 08/ theres-no-doubt- brazils-fires-a re-caused-defor estation-scient ists-say

https:// www.google.com/ url?sa=i&source= web&cd&ved=2ahU KEwjSrqmlwaPkAh WKTN8KHcAQCjMQz PwBegQIARAB&url =https%3A%2F%2F www.nationalgeo graphic.com%2Fe nvironment%2F20 19%2F08%2Fwildf ires-in-amazon- caused-by-defor estation%2F&psi g=AOvVaw1d_rBxY YeS3QRK-3PBO64Q &ust=1567011075 382938

Also NASA’s website literally states that Amazon fires this year are the most intense of the last decade, and also link it to deforestation activities. You need to learn how to use the internet better: https:// www.earthobserva tory.nasa.gov/ images/145498/ uptick-in-amazon -fire-activity- in-2019

Dylan Weil, they are the most intense IN THE LAST DECADE. So what? They are STI*LL below the fifteen year average. It means they are just having a bigger year than the last few. Probably because a lot of deadwood has built up.

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.

Timothy Birdnow I’m not sure if you’re being intentionally obtuse or if you’re genuinely having a difficult time comprehending the material being presented to you, but let me spell it out just in case...

The reason why this has been such a big year for wildfires isn’t because "a lot of deadwood has built up.” It’s because of DEFORESTATION. This is *explicity* stated in everything I’ve shared with you - ScienceMag, National Geographic, and NASA. You realize how deforestation is carried out correct? You should if you’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 t groups have anything to do with this, and plenty of direct evidence showing this has to do with cattle ranchers and other land developers acting on the encouragement of the Bolsonaro administration.

I assure you my critical research skills are perfectly adequate. So a bit of advice: it doesn’t necessarily matter if a source is one of the first you see after a Google search. What matters is if it’s reliable. Again, NASA, NatGeo, and ScienceMag are what I’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.”

Dylan Weil, I tire of the laziness of you people, and your dishonesty. You cold just as easily look up the fact that NASA says fires are slightly below the fifteen year average this year, but you won't be bothered. I took the trouble of giving you the Twitchy piece because it had a quote from NASA and was a quick link, but you complain. Here is NASA itself. https:// earthobservatory .nasa.gov/ images/145464/ fires-in-brazilWhat YOUR links worry about is a rise in the under ten year average. Well, if this is above average for the last ten years, what does that mean? It means there is a lot of deadwood waiting to be burned. I don't know why that concept is so difficult for you to grasp. And likely those years of lower than average fires is a result of environmentalis t policies leaving the basin in a 'pristine" condition. Well, it's natural for forests to burn.

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 ly policy than I have that they are being deliberately set by your friends. You have no proof. And if you do, then take it up with the native americans who live there.

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:// d2eehagpk5cl65.c loudfront.net/ img/q60/uploads/ 2019/08/ AmazonDeforestNY T.jpg
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:// www.nationalgeog raphic.com/ environment/ 2019/08/ why-amazon-doesn t-produce-20-pe rcent-worlds-ox ygen/

Try educating yourself on both sides of an issue before insulting other people.

You might want to read this from Accuweather, too. https:// www.accuweather. com/en/ weather-blogs/ weathermatrix/ 5-things-the-med ia-wont-tell-yo u-about-the-ama zon-fires/ 70009150

Here are a couple of other graphs you may be interested in, Dylan Weil. This https:// s3.amazonaws.com /jo.nova/graph/ plants/fires/ amazon-emissions -fires-graph-re cord-year.gif shows the emissions from fires as of 2016. Notice how low the last few years have been. Also, here https:// s3.amazonaws.com /jo.nova/graph/ plants/fires/ brazil-fires.gif is a graph of total fire counts. You may notice from both of these that this is not all that unusual.

Posted by: Mike Rooney at November 14, 2024 01:23 AM (bh+F4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment