the greatest amazon desaster!
- Thread starter livebearerfreak
- Start date
- Status
CLDarnell;4748647; said:Miguel, from the looks of your avatar, it seems we are more jowls than ears
OK, I will be quiet. I have a feeling this is going to get really, really good...
We are, my quick eyed friend, we are....
My jowls quiver in frantic anticipation of the cientific clash about to ensue
freeskier;4748514; said:
Surely it is for the author of the published article to cite sources and to correctly link cause and effect?
Sr Bleher says:
“I think that global warming is 100 times worse than what we are told”
Someone please tell me how is that statement in any way objective or quantifiable, especially coming from someone that wants you to believe that he knows what he is talking about?
100X worse rain? 100X higher temperature? More floods? 100X more bacon?
Unsupportable gross exaggerations like this are like steroids for AGW skepticism and only really serves to undermine all the real researchers and scientists who actually work on these questions.
Sr Bleher provides another misleading photo showing a full river “ before the water receded”
I would suggest it was taken at a different time of year/different season, and the 2 photos are 7 years apart in different specific localities.
Massive inundation and massive draining is the norm for this place. Around Manaus the Rio Negro and the Amazon itself normally rise and fall about 20 meters/65 feet each year. You can check this kind of data yourself on google.com
The waters of the Madeira, Purus and Jurua come mostly from Andean snow melt. Just look on a map
While global warming is a good direct candidate for influencing ( rapid melting of) the Andean snows and hence water levels of those rivers fed from that source, Amazon deforestation is not such a direct candidate.
Theses rivers’ massively variable flow volumes are seasonal and always have been.
The trees do play a very important role in the water cycle. They are responsible for transpiration, returning massive amounts of water to the atmosphere. The deforestation is more to blame for the increasingly deeper and longer record floods during the ‘wet’ season.
History shows there was a similar terrible drought in 1915 and several others almost as bad since that time, notably in 2005. But in 1915 deforestation had hardly begun anywhere in the Tropical world compared to subsequent annual totals so it cannot solely be blamed for these droughts. Global warming skeptics love that kind of apparent contradiction, attributing the wrong cause to the wrong effect.
“I think that global warming is 100 times worse than what we are told”
Someone please tell me how is that statement in any way objective or quantifiable, especially coming from someone that wants you to believe that he knows what he is talking about?
100X worse rain? 100X higher temperature? More floods? 100X more bacon?
Unsupportable gross exaggerations like this are like steroids for AGW skepticism and only really serves to undermine all the real researchers and scientists who actually work on these questions.
Sr Bleher provides another misleading photo showing a full river “ before the water receded”
I would suggest it was taken at a different time of year/different season, and the 2 photos are 7 years apart in different specific localities.
Massive inundation and massive draining is the norm for this place. Around Manaus the Rio Negro and the Amazon itself normally rise and fall about 20 meters/65 feet each year. You can check this kind of data yourself on google.com
The waters of the Madeira, Purus and Jurua come mostly from Andean snow melt. Just look on a map
While global warming is a good direct candidate for influencing ( rapid melting of) the Andean snows and hence water levels of those rivers fed from that source, Amazon deforestation is not such a direct candidate.
Theses rivers’ massively variable flow volumes are seasonal and always have been.
The trees do play a very important role in the water cycle. They are responsible for transpiration, returning massive amounts of water to the atmosphere. The deforestation is more to blame for the increasingly deeper and longer record floods during the ‘wet’ season.
History shows there was a similar terrible drought in 1915 and several others almost as bad since that time, notably in 2005. But in 1915 deforestation had hardly begun anywhere in the Tropical world compared to subsequent annual totals so it cannot solely be blamed for these droughts. Global warming skeptics love that kind of apparent contradiction, attributing the wrong cause to the wrong effect.
Hi David,
I am new here, so this may be a very dumb question...but may I ask, what are your credentials? Don't worry, I can tell by your signature statement and your posts/comments that you're obviously not a forum troll.
Keep up the good work Sir...
I am new here, so this may be a very dumb question...but may I ask, what are your credentials? Don't worry, I can tell by your signature statement and your posts/comments that you're obviously not a forum troll.
Keep up the good work Sir...
CLDarnell;4748891; said:
My credentials are :
I am a member of MFK and I have a brain.
I am able to surf the net and use google when I have questions.
I have been up and down the Brazilian Amazon and parts of some of its tributaries and I have waded in and tested the water of the Rio Negro at almost exactly the spot where the first photo was taken.
I am NOT heiko bleher!!
I am therefore able to recognize and identify BS when I see it.
AGW is real.
There IS a big problem with deforestation in the Amazon, but I believe that cause is undermined when 'those-who-would-be-king' write garbage to self promote and pose as legitimate commentators by using phrases like " during the course of my research" to justify alarmist fairy tales
Sr Bleher also says:
" I drove just recently 2500 km through Mato Grosso, seeing only Soya from horizon to horizon - when I had crossed it during my childhood with my mother, it was full of rivers and creeks and the thickest primary rainforest on earth."
Mato Grosso was not “ the thickest primary rainforest on earth”. Its name tells you exactly what that region was from its first discovery by outsiders: Mato Grosso, meaning Thick Weeds.
It is true that a lot of soy has been planted there, but there were only ever relatively small pockets of forest in the area Bleher refers to and they are mostly still there. ‘Weeds’ ( varieties of the grass family) have been replaced in places by Soy. In terms of AGW and deforestation it is almost a balance. It looks worse than it is from the road because that is where the bulk of soy is grown, within easy distance from the road for easier transportation .
I can only imagine that Sr Bleher has the problem that many of us suffer from, that candy bars seemed a lot bigger when we were small kids! ☺ And just like we all were taught as kids, it is important not to ‘cry wolf’.
While it may be true that “billions of fish will die” this is another alarmist (cry wolf) statement. It is also true that many billions more will survive and go on to reproduce and some species will do better than others.
Sr Bleher should perhaps also mention that through government policies, Brazilian deforestation is decreasing and for the last 2 years, although still considerable, is in fact at record lows and as he can testify from his own experience, Brazil is much more active tackling the problems of Biopiracy, and other countries are becoming much more aware of exploitation by outsiders and the lingering effects of colonial attitudes.
If Sr Bleher is to be taken seriously then why does he not talk at such length about deforestation in Asia, which is considerably greater than that in the Amazon? Why does he only talk about Brazil and not about Peru or Colombia etc? Does he lack objectivity or is he influenced by his legal problems in Brazil? It sure reads like it!
" I drove just recently 2500 km through Mato Grosso, seeing only Soya from horizon to horizon - when I had crossed it during my childhood with my mother, it was full of rivers and creeks and the thickest primary rainforest on earth."
Mato Grosso was not “ the thickest primary rainforest on earth”. Its name tells you exactly what that region was from its first discovery by outsiders: Mato Grosso, meaning Thick Weeds.
It is true that a lot of soy has been planted there, but there were only ever relatively small pockets of forest in the area Bleher refers to and they are mostly still there. ‘Weeds’ ( varieties of the grass family) have been replaced in places by Soy. In terms of AGW and deforestation it is almost a balance. It looks worse than it is from the road because that is where the bulk of soy is grown, within easy distance from the road for easier transportation .
I can only imagine that Sr Bleher has the problem that many of us suffer from, that candy bars seemed a lot bigger when we were small kids! ☺ And just like we all were taught as kids, it is important not to ‘cry wolf’.
While it may be true that “billions of fish will die” this is another alarmist (cry wolf) statement. It is also true that many billions more will survive and go on to reproduce and some species will do better than others.
Sr Bleher should perhaps also mention that through government policies, Brazilian deforestation is decreasing and for the last 2 years, although still considerable, is in fact at record lows and as he can testify from his own experience, Brazil is much more active tackling the problems of Biopiracy, and other countries are becoming much more aware of exploitation by outsiders and the lingering effects of colonial attitudes.
If Sr Bleher is to be taken seriously then why does he not talk at such length about deforestation in Asia, which is considerably greater than that in the Amazon? Why does he only talk about Brazil and not about Peru or Colombia etc? Does he lack objectivity or is he influenced by his legal problems in Brazil? It sure reads like it!
interesting thread. i agree with david. awhile ago on simply discus forum. there was a heated thread that some guy came in and called bleher out. saying all he does is take peoples credits for their work and saying its his...it was interesting. ill try to look for that thread.
i found the thread:
http://forum.simplydiscus.com/showthread.php?72104-Are-wild-discus-endangered
it starts getting interesting on page 3 when that unknown guy "wildthing" shows up
that guy wasnt you was it david?
enjoy!
i found the thread:
http://forum.simplydiscus.com/showthread.php?72104-Are-wild-discus-endangered
it starts getting interesting on page 3 when that unknown guy "wildthing" shows up
that guy wasnt you was it david?
enjoy!
- Status
