August 31, 2019
See part tw0 here and part I here.
The fight continues:
"Does that mean these fires are
all slash and burn? That contradicts everything everyone has been
saying.” What? No, what everyone has been saying IS that fires of this
intensity are most likely caused by human activities such as
deforestation. If we’re seeing canopy burn, the fire is most likely
caused by human activity, and that IS what we’re seeing. Even your CNN
article explicitly states most of these fires are being caused by human
activity, mostly increasing deforestation practices by loggers and
My Reuters article shares quotes from the INPE that precipitation was only slightly below average this year.
No ones denying fires are normal this time of year.....but the fire
count increased by over 80% since last year, and the intensity of many
of these fires can only have been caused by human activity.
Here’s the thing Tim - if it is true most of these manmade fires are
caused by farmers that already own ranches removing large amounts of
deadwood, we still wouldn’t be seeing these kinds of increases in
deforestation and fires. This increase is only be ranchers and loggers
clearing MORE jungle, not fire-managing ranches that already exist
(although one of the articles I shared above explains that fire-managed
ranches can spark uncontrolled wildfires as well, especially as more
forest gets cleared over time).
Another thing - with the
trajectory we’ve started on, eventually we will reach a point where
fires that were sparked naturally WILL be able to burn canopy on their
own and spread much farther. This is because Amazon plant life is
actually directly responsible for regulating humidity and rainy
seasons, as opposed to other geographic factors that normally regulate
tropical climate: https://
As vegetation is cleared by loggers, ranchers, and other other land
developers, the Amazon will gradually lose this capability,
precipitation patterns will change, and dry seasons will get more
severe. Droughts will also increase as well, compounded by the more
general effects of manmade climate.
None of this is
"alarmist,” this is literally how science is supposed to be used in
making decisions. Again, take it from someone with an actual scientific
background, good science is supposed to be PREDICTIVE. When designing
and enacting policy based in science, the goal is to be proactive, not
reactive. We don’t simply wait to see where trends take us, we study
the datasets we’ve already been able to accumulate, identify trends
within those datasets and determine how various factors influence those
trends. Then, when we see those factors begin manifesting again, we
know to say "hey, we’ve seen this before, we can predict where this
will take us, let’s stop this now.”
"No, natural fires can still occur in humid environments, they are just limited in how far they can spread and how intense they can become, with these limitations being a function of the actual level of humidity"
How is a fire started by man any different there? What is the limiting factor? In fact, if these are fires that started naturally or from campfires or were the result of slash and burn it doesn't matter; they all amount to the same thing when the forest starts burning. You seem to think that somehow fires are different once they get out of human control. Remember, the slash and burn fires are being done with care to avoid this, so it's not like the farmers are flying in thermite and dropping it all over the forest. You can say whatever you like, but in the end you still have to find a way to differerntiate between human and non-human fires. You say human fires are over a larger area. Well, maybe so, but how does that make any difference in the HEAT of the fires and how it catches the canopy? Your argument here is absolutely illogical.
I know what my CNN article says. You will find that same approach with every major media article, because they have an agenda and also because they are getting most of their information from environmental activists. Journalists generally aren't overly bright, and even less diligent.
Dylan, science is supposed to be predictive, but first it must be factual and gather data in an impartial manner. None of that is applying here; most of this discussion stems from the environmentalis
The New York Times disagrees with your assessment that this burn is all forest: https://
'\"Natural fires in the Amazon are rare, and the majority of these fires were set by farmers preparing Amazon-adjacent
Now,the New York Times isn't worth the paper it's printed on They - a very rabid progressive lobby - seem to disagree with your point that this is all old growth forest. It should be pointed out too that the Brazilian forestry department has not been maintaining controlled burns. https://
And bear in mind this was an El Nino year.
Fire is natural in most rainforest regions, and is indeed beneficial. http://
As to your last point, you apparently don't understand the difference between a democratic republic and a dictatorship. The President of Brazil was democratically elected, and as head of the executive branch he has a right to hire and fire people. What YOU are suggesting is an oligarchy run by the bureaucracy, not a republic, not a democracy. Guys like the head of the space bureau serve at the pleasure of the President, not the other way around. YOU are proposing to thwart the public will. Bolsonaro isn't the one here with dictatorial tendencies.
Nobody has told the head of the space agency he couldn't speak out publicly, btw. And nobody has pulled a Google or a Facebook and shadow banned the man. He was just sacked by his boss, and for cause.
We aren't' going to agree on this. You seem absolutely convinced that there is no way these fires are natural, and I am convinced that this is mostly a function of over prptection in recent years coupled with a ten year drought cycle. It is certainly true in North America, where California has been subject to massive wildfires in recent years because they won't allow logging or even removal of deadwood. Now, the Amazon isn't California by a long shot, but I don't think you can dismiss the possibility that large amounts of deadwood coupled with drought can and will lead to fires. If nothing else, it means more fuel for human caused fires - a point you seem unwilling to concede.
Angola and the Congo both had greater fires than the Amazon this year, and they are also rainforest territory https://
At any rate, this has been a rather enjoyable if somewhat heated discussion. I wish I had more time to indulge it, but I've already spent more time than I could afford on it. If you wish the last word be my guest.
41 queries taking 0.0388 seconds, 124 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.