Sign in to follow this  
Sean

Amazon Fires

Recommended Posts

The Atlantic has a pair of worthwhile articles out today on the subject. It's a huge deal that doesn't seem to be getting the attention it deserves. WTF is wrong with people these days? Bolsonaro and Trump are cut from the same cloth. Worrisome.

 

The Amazon Fires Are More Dangerous Than WMDs

One person shouldn’t have the power to set policies that doom the rest of humanity’s shot at mitigating rising temperatures.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/amazon-fires-show-limits-sovereignty/596779/

Excerpt -

If a country obtains chemical or biological weapons, the rest of the world tends to react with fury—or at least it did in the not-so-distant past. Sanctions rained down on the proliferators, who were then ostracized from the global community. And in rare ( sometimes disastrously misguided) cases, the world decided that the threat justified a military response. The destruction of the Amazon is arguably far more dangerous than the weapons of mass destruction that have triggered a robust response. The consequences of the unfolding disaster—which will extinguish species and hasten a worst-case climate crisis—extend for eternity. To lose a fifth of the Amazon to deforestation would trigger a process known as “dieback,” releasing what The Intercept calls a “doomsday bomb of stored carbon.”

 

 

The Amazon Cannot Be Recovered Once It’s Gone

The fires blazing in Brazil are part of a larger deforestation crisis, accelerated by President Jair Bolsonaro.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/08/amazon-fires-are-political/596776/

Excerpt -

So the two scariest numbers for understanding the fires are this: There are 80 percent more fires this year than there were last summer, according to the Brazilian government. This surge in burning has accompanied a spike in deforestation in general. More than 1,330 square miles of the Amazon rainforest have been lost since January, a 39 percent increase over the same period last year, according to The New York Times.

Why are these figures so important? Because Brazil’s political leadership has changed in the past year. On January 1, Jair Bolsonaro, a far-right populist who has openly pined for his country’s authoritarian past, was sworn in as president. During his campaign, he promised to weaken the Amazon’s environmental protections—which have been effective at reducing deforestation for the past two decades—and open up the rainforest to economic development.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have trouble blaming Brazil's business people from wanting untold wealth. They kept their pristine wilderness as long as they could. Much like America did, or Europe did, or Asia did, or Africa did, they held back until they could no longer hold back the forces of development. Expecting indigenous people to keep their perfect land perfect, because the rest of the world is afraid of a lack of oxygen, is patently selfish. Each country who raped their own natural resources has a lot of nerve criticizing those who have nothing, they should go plant some trees and be responsible for their own air.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no fkg hippy, but we as a species have forsaken our Mother. This is tragic for the Earth's own sake.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

I'm no fkg hippy, but we as a species have forsaken our Mother. This is tragic for the Earth's own sake.

 

 

indeed , I'm quite fond of breathing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Expecting indigenous people to keep their perfect land perfect, because the rest of the world is afraid of a lack of oxygen, is patently selfish. Each country who raped their own natural resources has a lot of nerve criticizing those who have nothing, they should go plant some trees and be responsible for their own air.

start paying the guardians of the Amazon their worth in supplying our O2 ..............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think of all the unknowns going up in flames.

Animal and plant species, wonderdrugs, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

7 minutes ago, Mid said:

indeed , I'm quite fond of breathing

breathing is grand. I'm sure those forests and all the life it entails are fond of basic existence. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

I'm no fkg hippy, but we as a species have forsaken our Mother. This is tragic for the Earth's own sake.

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

I'm no fkg hippy, but we as a species have forsaken our Mother. This is tragic for the Earth's own sake.

 

 

We have been a lousy steward, and I hope as we move forward that we learn to live with constraints. Fracking is destroying much of Alberta, and Western Colorado, it is contributing to earthquakes in Oklahoma of all places, and no one is lifting a finger to control what I characterize as plain abuse. The open-pit mines are a blight and no one should be allowed to abandon those pits to move on to even more. We need to clean up our acts and people who cannot abide by the rules should be deported.

 

Just now, Mid said:

start paying the guardians of the Amazon their worth in supplying our O2 ..............

I don't know how you convince someone that a monthly annuity payment is preferred over stock options. They are entitled to their due, just as much as our ancestors were entitled to theirs.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

I have trouble blaming Brazil's business people from wanting untold wealth. They kept their pristine wilderness as long as they could. Much like America did, or Europe did, or Asia did, or Africa did, they held back until they could no longer hold back the forces of development. Expecting indigenous people to keep their perfect land perfect, because the rest of the world is afraid of a lack of oxygen, is patently selfish. Each country who raped their own natural resources has a lot of nerve criticizing those who have nothing, they should go plant some trees and be responsible for their own air.

Our back yard is your front yard is your school, is my church, and our neighbor's garden. There is no distinction of territory in these cases. It effects/affects everyone. My dead fish is your pet dog, is our house is a very, very fine house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

 

breathing is grand. I'm sure those forests and all the life it entails are fond of basic existence.

We allowed the forests of Montana to be so depleted they no longer clean the air of pollution. We used to have indigenous tribes that no longer exist, breathing is grand, but people need to look out for themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mrleft8 said:

Our back yard is your front yard is your school, is my church, and our neighbor's garden. There is no distinction of territory in these cases. It effects/affects everyone. My dead fish is your pet dog, is our house is a very, very fine house.

That's the problem with Capitalism. Until we learn to deal with it, we will earn our own heartache.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our planetary experiment won’t end well. I’ve already apologized to my kids. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

We allowed the forests of Montana to be so depleted they no longer clean the air of pollution. We used to have indigenous tribes that no longer exist, breathing is grand, but people need to look out for themselves.

OK............... So blow dart hunting Amazon natives are supposed to go up against D10 driving loggers with guards with AK47s? Good idea.... "Excuse me sir, but could you leave this patch of forest untouched so that my family can survive?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

OK............... So blow dart hunting Amazon natives are supposed to go up against D10 driving loggers with guards with AK47s? Good idea.... "Excuse me sir, but could you leave this patch of forest untouched so that my family can survive?"

Those are brown people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

OK............... So blow dart hunting Amazon natives are supposed to go up against D10 driving loggers with guards with AK47s? Good idea.... "Excuse me sir, but could you leave this patch of forest untouched so that my family can survive?"

You know how it works, someone will provide them with guns and they will be decimated out of existence. That's what happened here and no one ever cared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just hope this doesn't affect my delivery of a couple of items I recently ordered online.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I just hope this doesn't affect my delivery of a couple of items I recently ordered online.  

Well played. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If every developing nation insists on repeating the experience of the USA in the late 1800s to mid 1900s and recent Chinese history the world is utterly fucked. "Fair" doesn't enter into it. Kind of like if the Titanic got patched up, pumped out, and back underway and each new helmsman decides they get a turn at hitting icebergs because "fair".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OTOH - If the Amazon is a valuable world resource, I see no issue with paying for it. Brazil can sell or lease it and receive benefits from NOT wrecking it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, jzk said:

74,000 fires between January and August, and you look for the good news?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, badlatitude said:

74,000 fires between January and August, and you look for the good news?

Apparently, that is slightly below average, according to NASA.  

Are forest fires "bad?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jzk said:

Apparently, that is slightly below average, according to NASA.  

Are forest fires "bad?"

Forest fires aren't necessarily bad, but I would step back and consider 74,000 as a number to be reckoned with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Forest fires aren't necessarily bad, but I would step back and consider 74,000 as a number to be reckoned with.

Looking at the US, pre-industrial forest burn was 140 million acres per year on average.  Today 15 - 20 million acres burn on average.

NASA says that this years Amazon fires are less than average.  What is the big crisis?  Forest fires are natural and result in new forest growth.  There is a case to be made that it is a very good thing.  At worst it is neutral as far as effect on the "health" of the planet.  

Why all the ruckus?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, jzk said:

Looking at the US, pre-industrial forest burn was 140 million acres per year on average.  Today 15 - 20 million acres burn on average.

NASA says that this years Amazon fires are less than average.  What is the big crisis?  Forest fires are natural and result in new forest growth.  There is a case to be made that it is a very good thing.  At worst it is neutral as far as effect on the "health" of the planet.  

Why all the ruckus?

 

Take a look at the extent of those fires and tell me that it's not problematic. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/24/world/americas/amazon-rain-forest-fire-maps.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jzk said:

It is not problematic.

No? So the huge sink of carbon dioxide that the Brazilian jungle creates is not anything to be concerned about? Scientists seem to think that since we are only halfway through the fire season, it may actually be a huge problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only the jerk could declare that forest fires set by farmers and miners are "natural".  But, unfortunately that's not just him.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, jzk said:

It is not problematic.

it's extremely 'problematic', not just in it's immediacy, but more because of harmful chain reactions that have been set in motion.

you're a shriveled little fkg prick, jerkz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

Only the jerk could declare that forest fires set by farmers and miners are "natural". 

I figure that stupid sob is the only one here who would even attempt that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

I figure that stupid sob is the only one here who would even attempt that.

In the US, there were 10 times as many "natural" fires pre-industrialization than there are now.  It is probably a problem that there are so few fires in the US.  We should probably burn more often.

According to NASA, the fire activity is less than average in the Amazon.  Also, according to NASA, there is more vegetation on the planet today than there was 30 years ago.

See what happens when you get a few facts straight?

Clown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jzk said:

In the US, there were 10 times as many "natural" fires pre-industrialization than there are now.  It is probably a problem that there are so few fires in the US.  We should probably burn more often.

According to NASA, the fire activity is less than average in the Amazon.  Also, according to NASA, there is more vegetation on the planet today than there was 30 years ago.

See what happens when you get a few facts straight?

Clown.

I can't wait to be the one who gets to supply you with oxygen tanks and filtered masks, you will be waiting a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jzk said:

In the US, there were 10 times as many "natural" fires pre-industrialization than there are now.  It is probably a problem that there are so few fires in the US.  We should probably burn more often.

According to NASA, the fire activity is less than average in the Amazon.  Also, according to NASA, there is more vegetation on the planet today than there was 30 years ago.

See what happens when you get a few facts straight?

Clown.

look at that BBC link again. it states very simply the exact opposite of what you claim when you posted it.

gtfo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

No? So the huge sink of carbon dioxide that the Brazilian jungle creates is not anything to be concerned about? Scientists seem to think that since we are only halfway through the fire season, it may actually be a huge problem.

Yes, the prophetic "scientists."  The "scientists" think this may happen and that may happen.  Forests burn, and then they grow back.  That is the natural cycle.  Used to be much more burning.  We have reduced it.  Is that reduction a good thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 3to1 said:

look at that BBC link again. it states very simply the exact opposite of what you claim when you posted it.

gtfo

I read it again.  And so should you:

"Meanwhile, US space agency Nasa said that overall fire activity in the Amazon basin was slightly below average this year."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

I can't wait to be the one who gets to supply you with oxygen tanks and filtered masks, you will be waiting a lot.

What do you want to bet there will be no need for oxygen tanks and masks?  Alarmist a bit?

Kind of like when Austin said we are going to run out of farmland in the US.  Still waiting on that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jzk said:

I read it again.  And so should you:

"Meanwhile, US space agency Nasa said that overall fire activity in the Amazon basin was slightly below average this year."

so one space agency claims nearly a 50 percent increase while another claims the opposite?

look at the top of the article, you fkg madman, there's the story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

so one space agency claims nearly a 50 percent increase while another claims the opposite?

look at the top of the article, you fkg madman, there's the story.

Hey dipshit, they are citing two different metrics.  

Regardless, forests burning is no cause for alarm.  It is a completely natural process.  If anything, man has reduced the amount of acreage burned.  

Less fires.  More vegetation.  Those are the facts.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jzk said:

Yes, the prophetic "scientists."  The "scientists" think this may happen and that may happen.  Forests burn, and then they grow back.  That is the natural cycle.  Used to be much more burning.  We have reduced it.  Is that reduction a good thing?

 

Approximately 1/5 of the Amazon has been cut and burned, scientists warn that another 1/5 could trigger dieback, a situation where the jungle dries out and burns in a systemic collapse beyond any knowledge of science or human repair.

The fact that it is completely preventable is the greatest shame of all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jzk said:

Hey dipshit, they are citing two different metrics.  

Regardless, forests burning is no cause for alarm.  It is a completely natural process.  If anything, man has reduced the amount of acreage burned.  

Less fires.  More vegetation.  Those are the facts.  

yes, you're cherry picking, you c-nt. move on.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jzk said:

What do you want to bet there will be no need for oxygen tanks and masks?  Alarmist a bit?

Kind of like when Austin said we are going to run out of farmland in the US.  Still waiting on that one.

The Amazon region is known as the lungs of the planet generating 20%of the oxygen we need to survive, but hey! who needs oxygen, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

yes, you're cherry picking, you c-nt. move on.

 

You are sourcing data from Brazil's space agency over that of the US, and using different metrics.  Yeah, someone is certainly cherry picking.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh I get it, we're playing right-winger, alternate reality fuckfest games. I'm out.

the whole world see's a catastrophe, jerkz see's different. 

fuck you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 3to1 said:

oh I get it, we're playing right-winger, alternate realitity fuckfest games. I'm out.

the whole world see's a catastrophe, jerkz see's different. 

fuck you.

 

Just the actual data.  More vegetation on the planet.  Less fires.  Probably a bad thing that we have less fires.  

You are out because you are a dipshit that can't understand actual facts.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, jzk said:

I think you mean to say 5%, at most.  

But what are a few details on a forum like this?

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/brazil-amazon-rainforest-fires-climate-emissions-oxygen

 

 

No, I meant to say 20% https://www.sciencealert.com/the-amazon-is-burning-at-a-record-rate-and-parts-were-intentionally-set-alight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, jzk said:

It appears that the number is rounded up from 16% I will speculate that it was 20% before the fires began 20 years ago. 16% remains a lot of oxygen generation. You had better put in your order for bottles and filtered masks early, there will be a rush.

"from the same paper shows the total photosynthesis (also known as Gross Primary Productivity or GPP) of each major land biome. We need to multiplying by 2.67 to convert to total oxygen production. Hence total oxygen production by photosynthesis on land is around 330 Pg of oxygen per year. The Amazon (just under half of the tropical forests) is around 16% of this, around 54 Pg of oxygen per year. Rounded up, this is where the 20% figure comes from. 16% of the oxygen being produced on land today is from photosynthesis in the Amazon." http://www.yadvindermalhi.org/blog/does-the-amazon-provide-20-of-our-oxygen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, badlatitude said:

It appears that the number is rounded up from 16% I will speculate that it was 20% before the fires began 20 years ago. 16% remains a lot of oxygen generation. You had better put in your order for bottles and filtered masks early, there will be a rush.

"from the same paper shows the total photosynthesis (also known as Gross Primary Productivity or GPP) of each major land biome. We need to multiplying by 2.67 to convert to total oxygen production. Hence total oxygen production by photosynthesis on land is around 330 Pg of oxygen per year. The Amazon (just under half of the tropical forests) is around 16% of this, around 54 Pg of oxygen per year. Rounded up, this is where the 20% figure comes from. 16% of the oxygen being produced on land today is from photosynthesis in the Amazon." http://www.yadvindermalhi.org/blog/does-the-amazon-provide-20-of-our-oxygen

Keep working.  You are on the verge of getting it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, jzk said:

Keep working.  You are on the verge of getting it.  

Lol, enjoy your 16% less breathing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Lol, enjoy your 16% less breathing.

Went for a glorious sail on Lake Michigan just now.  The air was really great.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:

Went for a glorious sail on Lake Michigan just now.  The air was really great.  

It is until you start struggling to breathe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

It is until you start struggling to breathe.

When do you estimate that will be?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fuck yeah jerk-z, good on ya mate for doing the heavy shill lefting so your buds AGITC and Jeffreaux and the rest of the rightwing clowns don't have to publicly soil themselves like you do.

Now shuffle off stage and choke yourself, the world will be a better place for it. Dont' take the time to goofle up some shit news on my account - dont' care what your dumb fuckign ass can do. the worlds a worse place for your existence, hopefully you'll get imprisoned in china next trip.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jzk said:

When do you estimate that will be?

 

I have no estimates, I actually hope we can hold off an event like that. But that's just me, the eternal optimist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from CO2 release, or sequestration. the rainforest creates its own rain because it is moist- as the rainforest is diminished, there will be less rain. So where does the water to raise crops come from if rain levels diminish, and then what happens to the population of Brazil?  Or Andean countries?  

Will Brazilian crops replace CO2 encapsulation of the rainforest?  Oxygen release?  Rainfall?

  And if not, millions of people on the move?  How regional will oxygen depletion be?  Will it be slow enough to allow adaptation, like in Nepal or Tibet?  What will selection look like?   Who and how many will die?  If anyone believes there are too many people for the carrying capacity of the earth, this will be a brutally effective method for depopulation, either by reduced fertility, child survival, or disease.  Look at asthma increase, for example.  Reduction of oxygen in the atmosphere has real effects.  But if there is a human die off, maybe things will self correct?  What happens to GDP then?

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/what-really-turned-sahara-desert-green-oasis-wasteland-180962668/

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jzk said:

Went for a glorious sail on Lake Michigan just now.  The air was really great.  

it's the mighty seagoing dipshit. fu and your boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jzk said:

It is not problematic.

Dude!  Just stop talking.  You're an idiot.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, jzk said:

Jerkz can be judged by the link sources he posts, he doesn't use many.  But when he does, they tell you all you need to know about the lying shill cunt.

Forbes, Inc.

 

The company profile for Forbes, Inc. on Yahoo.com states "Repeat after Forbes: Capitalism is good!"

The family-owned company publishes the biweekly business magazine, " Forbes," long promoted as the 'Capitalist Tool'."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, badlatitude said:

Take a look at the extent of those fires and tell me that it's not problematic. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/24/world/americas/amazon-rain-forest-fire-maps.html

They're apparently burning farms.

Quote

 

"Natural fires in the Amazon are rare, and the majority of these fires were set by farmers preparing Amazon-adjacent farmland for next year's crops and pasture," soberly explains The New York Times. "Much of the land that is burning was not old-growth rain forest, but land that had already been cleared of trees and set for agricultural use."

It is routine for farmers and ranchers in tropical areas burn their fields to control pests and weeds and to encourage new growth in pastures.

What about deforestation trends?  Since the right-wing nationalist Jair Bolsonaro became Brazil's president, rainforest deforestation rates have increased a bit, but they are still way below their earlier highs:

 

AmazonDeforestNYT.jpg

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Dude!  Just stop talking.  You're an idiot.  

Forest fires are normal.  Try to learn something rather than just following the media meme hype.  

According to NASA this year's Amazon fire activity is slightly below average.  Now, I am taking that fact from the BBC article at face value.  If you can show otherwise, then that would be different.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Repastinate Tom said:

They're apparently burning farms.

 

Yes, until fairly recently, natural fires in the Amazon were a rarity. The rainforest maintained enough moisture to protect itself, twenty years ago, droughts began that created opportunity for farmers to expand their holdings, now the problem is Bolsanaro, the Brazilian President who thinks the land should be cleared for economic opportunity. Many of the fires are set by arsonist/opportunists who want indigenous land https://amazon-violence.amnesty.org/en/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, random said:

Jerkz can be judged by the link sources he posts, he doesn't use many.  But when he does, they tell you all you need to know about the lying shill cunt.

Forbes, Inc.

 

The company profile for Forbes, Inc. on Yahoo.com states "Repeat after Forbes: Capitalism is good!"

The family-owned company publishes the biweekly business magazine, " Forbes," long promoted as the 'Capitalist Tool'."

You know Randipshit has no case when he starts attacking the news source and not the actual allegations contained therein.  Randipshit is taking a play right from Trump's playbook.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, badlatitude said:

Lol, enjoy your 16% less breathing.

If you don't like Forbes as a source, how about Michael  Mann.

Randipshit really is stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jzk said:

If you don't like Forbes as a source, how about Michael  Mann.

Randipshit really is stupid.

LOL, I am chuckling over your reference to Michael Mann as your source. Do yourself a favor, and read the rest of his work. It may change your perspective on climate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, badlatitude said:

LOL, I am chuckling over your reference to Michael Mann as your source. Do yourself a favor, and read the rest of his work. It may change your perspective on climate.

At the same time, I hope you are learning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jzk said:

At the same time, I hope you are learning.

I am, and I hope you come to the same conclusion that the real enemy to the environment is carbon dioxide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

I am, and I hope you come to the same conclusion that the real enemy to the environment is carbon dioxide.

Can we at least agree that your 20% oxygen from the Amazon number is grossly inaccurate?

Can you really make the case that CO2 is the "real enemy" to the environment?  So far, we have a greener Earth.  Even under Mann's theory, how is CO2 "bad" for the environment?  At worst it will change it in a way that he alleges will be uncomfortable for human civilization.  But for the environment?  Hardly.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Let’s burn the Everglades!  :)

Damn nuisance anyway.....;)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jzk said:

Can we at least agree that your 20% oxygen from the Amazon number is grossly inaccurate?

Can you really make the case that CO2 is the "real enemy" to the environment?  So far, we have a greener Earth.  Even under Mann's theory, how is CO2 "bad" for the environment?  At worst it will change it in a way that he alleges will be uncomfortable for human civilization.  But for the environment?  Hardly.  

We already agreed that 20% was an inflated number. The rest is a debate, I would be uncomfortable with regular temperatures exceeding 105 degrees, you may not. But at some point, you will have to come to the realization that something is amiss. I hope that point isn't too late to remedy the damage done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jzk said:

Can we at least agree that your 20% oxygen from the Amazon number is grossly inaccurate?

Can you really make the case that CO2 is the "real enemy" to the environment?  So far, we have a greener Earth.  Even under Mann's theory, how is CO2 "bad" for the environment?  At worst it will change it in a way that he alleges will be uncomfortable for human civilization.  But for the environment?  Hardly.  

In a way, I have to admire your nihilism.  You really  don’t seem to give a shit about human civilization, other than what it might give you right now.  My compliments!  

You do realize what you’re attempting to volunteer the rest of us for?  Or in your philosophy, devil take the hindmost?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

We already agreed that 20% was an inflated number. The rest is a debate, I would be uncomfortable with regular temperatures exceeding 105 degrees, you may not. But at some point, you will have to come to the realization that something is amiss. I hope that point isn't too late to remedy the damage done.

The cool thing is that the US isn't really seeing many 100+ degree days like it used to in the 1930s.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Amati said:

In a way, I have to admire your nihilism.  You really  don’t seem to give a shit about human civilization, other than what it might give you right now.  My compliments!  

You do realize what you’re attempting to volunteer the rest of us for?  Or in your philosophy, devil take the hindmost?  

Why are you lying?  We are discussing the Amazon fires.   I have been pretty accurate in everything I have said about them.   NASA satellite data indicates that Amazon fire activity is slightly less than average.  And, the Amazon provides about 6% of the planet's oxygen.  

No one on this dipshit forum supports human civilization more than I do.  I suspect you advocate wrecking it to appease the climate alarmists.  

Why do you suppose there is so much Amazon alarmism in the news despite the fire activity not being unusual?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, badlatitude said:

 

The fact that it is completely preventable is the greatest shame of all.

Not sure how preventable it is. Brazilians wish to make money from their natural resources much like every country over history. The only way to stop it would be invasion, wipe them out and make the country a national park or buy it off them. But who should pay the price. Those that have developed, those that have developed the most, those partly developed pay a smaller part. By the time this could possibly be sorted out the place will be burnt down anyway. So a quick mobilisation and invasion would seem the only fast way forward. But then again who would run the invasion and wouldn’t they probably just rape the place anyway to cover the cost of the invasion. 

So is it really completely preventable. At best we can sit back with our cars, roads, hospitals, computers, air cons etc and tell a bunch of poor folk they need to just suck it up and stay poor. They are too late to the party and poverty is the best they can look forward to in their short life. Sucks to be them, but sacrifice for the betterment of us is a good thing I guess. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jzk said:

The cool thing is that the US isn't really seeing many 100+ degree days like it used to in the 1930s.  

Climate affects the world, not just the United States. In parts of the Middle East, temperatures hover toward the lower end of human sustainability. In Europe, we are seeing periods of extreme warming to a point where air conditioning in London, is a selling point. In Los Angeles, where I live, the climate is changing, we see many more humid days from Mexican hurricanes. The heat in the Western U.S. has brought about forest fires on a grand scale, the same as Australia. The change on a global scale should be concerning, and for too many, it is not.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Gissie said:

Not sure how preventable it is. Brazilians wish to make money from their natural resources much like every country over history. The only way to stop it would be invasion, wipe them out and make the country a national park or buy it off them. But who should pay the price. Those that have developed, those that have developed the most, those partly developed pay a smaller part. By the time this could possibly be sorted out the place will be burnt down anyway. So a quick mobilisation and invasion would seem the only fast way forward. But then again who would run the invasion and wouldn’t they probably just rape the place anyway to cover the cost of the invasion. 

So is it really completely preventable. At best we can sit back with our cars, roads, hospitals, computers, air cons etc and tell a bunch of poor folk they need to just suck it up and stay poor. They are too late to the party and poverty is the best they can look forward to in their short life. Sucks to be them, but sacrifice for the betterment of us is a good thing I guess. 

We don't need to invade anything. We need to change the political climate that allows these horrific things to happen. I think this is true, particularly in the United States, where ignorance guides us.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, badlatitude said:

We don't need to invade anything. We need to change the political climate that allows these horrific things to happen. I think this is true, particularly in the United States, where ignorance guides us.

So you are admitting that all this Amazon hype is just a political tool to advance an agenda.  That is what I thought as well.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Amati said:

In a way, I have to admire your nihilism.  You really  don’t seem to give a shit about human civilization, other than what it might give you right now.  My compliments!  

You do realize what you’re attempting to volunteer the rest of us for?  Or in your philosophy, devil take the hindmost?  

He doesn't give a shit. He's a tapeworm, here to suck all he can out of society, hence he's a libertarian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jzk said:

So you are admitting that all this Amazon hype is just a political tool to advance an agenda.  That is what I thought as well.  

I'm sorry if you gathered that from what I wrote. The accusation that the Amazon is a political tool, is about as stupid as the person who advocated nuclear bombs to control hurricanes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

I'm sorry if you gathered that from what I wrote. The accusation that the Amazon is a political tool, is about as stupid as the person who advocated nuclear bombs to control hurricanes.

Why all the hype about the Amazon despite the fire activity being below average?  Could it be the recent administration change in Brazil?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jzk said:

Why all the hype about the Amazon despite the fire activity being below average?  Could it be the recent administration change in Brazil?

Bolsonaro is definitely compounding the problem, it seems ignorance drives far too many world leaders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They’ve been cutting and burning for decades, why the sudden outcry now?!! 

Too little and way too late. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:

No one on this dipshit forum supports human civilization more than I do.  I suspect you advocate wrecking it to appease the climate alarmists.  

Why do you suppose there is so much Amazon alarmism in the news despite the fire activity not being unusual?

Lying?  Nice try.

Pretty accurate?  That’s a weird argument. :blink:

The mistake the Beautiful Leader Of Brazil has made is that he can’t handle or understand media, so he is getting what he deserves.  On the other hand, I didn’t see much coverage of inland Northwest fires the last half decade.  The air pollution has been choking, unhealthy to the point that going outside is dangerous,  and even Redoubt supporters in Montana and North Idaho (!) have become mildly irritated that their golf, biking, running,  fishing, waterskiing, wine, tourism, and crops are being affected.  There’s more smoke this summer, and allergies and asthma have increased enough to need medication for us and a lot of people we know.

I don’t advocate wrecking civilization to appease climate alarmists. Proof of this would be my vocal support of Gov. Inslee’s run for president which was centered around creating a more vibrant economy with green economics at it’s core.  He, and the State have made great strides in pursuit of that goal.  We will be supporting Gov. Inslee in his upcoming gubernatorial run.  We have made a commitment to stay in our native Washington State, although on the western side, because the west side at least, represents, and is creating, a green, wealthier future, and a better life.  As far as I can see on the east side, it’s going to to take a lot to wake the controlling right wing up, and politically, there’s no way to accomplish that, especially as they grind their teeth at any changes at all, even if it helps them make more money.  Which should sound familiar to you, eh?

You’d love the Redoubt!  Except the lake levels and air quality are not fine.  Apart from that.....you’d find kindred souls!  2 less Damn Liberals, at any rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Amati said:

No one on this dipshit forum supports human civilization more than I do.

That's quite the crock of shit, isn't it? If that were true you would be slamming Bolsonaro for stealing land from indigents, allowing arsonists to burn them out and stealing their land for nothing. You pass on concern about them as much as your ancestors probably did when they saw people collapse on the Trail of Tears right here in America.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

That's quite the crock of shit, isn't it? If that were true you would be slamming Bolsonaro for stealing land from indigents, allowing arsonists to burn them out and stealing their land for nothing. You pass on concern about them as much as your ancestors probably did when they saw people collapse on the Trail of Tears right here in America.

You and Mad have it right.  

As an aside, Senator Helflin liked to point out out that inconvenient truths are always being spoken eloquently and accurately- the problem seemed to be finding the right people to say it, so there might be a difference.  Sad truth.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, badlatitude said:

Bolsonaro is definitely compounding the problem, it seems ignorance drives far too many world leaders.

He was sworn in January 1, 2019.  The fires are his fault?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

That's quite the crock of shit, isn't it? If that were true you would be slamming Bolsonaro for stealing land from indigents, allowing arsonists to burn them out and stealing their land for nothing. You pass on concern about them as much as your ancestors probably did when they saw people collapse on the Trail of Tears right here in America.

Lying again?  My ancestors were not here then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, jzk said:

He was sworn in January 1, 2019.  The fires are his fault?

Yes, he has relaxed most laws protecting the Amazon and has advocated rapid development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jzk said:

Lying again?  My ancestors were not here then.

That's why I said probably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, badlatitude said:

No? So the huge sink of carbon dioxide that the Brazilian jungle creates is not anything to be concerned about? Scientists seem to think that since we are only halfway through the fire season, it may actually be a huge problem.

No different from historical norms... 

https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/weathermatrix/5-things-the-media-wont-tell-you-about-the-amazon-fires/70009150

Just sayin, 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites