Tag Archives: Amazon

Virgin Amazon? Think again


Yesterday I put up a post titled “Alarmist Whackjobism Continues?” where I chastised a recent alarmist report making claims the rainforests of the world are disappearing,which will increase CO2. I countered with a) the report only covers the period between 1980 and 2000, which seems a very dated and short time period, not to mention a seemingly convenient cutoff date, and b) because there is legitimate data showing that the regrowth ratio of the world’s rainforests is 50: 1, i.e., for every acre cut down, 50 acres are growing.

To pile some more fuel on the global warming isn’t anthropogenic fire, a friend tweeted me a URL this morning that leads to an article on Sott.net titled “Amazon was home to a large civilization, scientist says.” It is about a researcher who shows that much of the Amazon has been settled before by significant numbers of people. This means that a) much of it isn’t the “virgin” forest as the warmers and greens like to claim, and b) the jungle does reclaim what it had after man leaves.

This appears to be yet more evidence that condemns the claims in the study from Stanford University’s Holly Gibbs. More information to lead us in the direction that her study may just be last-minute alarmism and that perhaps the rainforests aren’t having the big problems the “warmer” crowd would like the public to believe.

Per the article you can see that Nigel Smith and others have discovered things long-buried in the jungle that seem to refute the claims that the rainforests are endangered. (Please note that this article originated from the Washington Post, which appears to be on the “warmer” side of the fence, which to me reinforces in my mind that the article isn’t just some “skeptic” BS).

To the untrained eye, all evidence here in the heart of the Amazon signals virgin forest, untouched by man for time immemorial – from the ubiquitous fruit palms to the cry of howler monkeys, from the air thick with mosquitoes to the unruly tangle of jungle vines.

Archaeologists, many of them Americans, say the opposite is true: This patch of forest, and many others across the Amazon, was instead home to an advanced, even spectacular civilization that managed the forest and enriched infertile soil to feed thousands.

What has been discovered is interesting. To make a long story short.

  • Man made indian mounts containing ceramic pieces and man-enrichened earth
  • huge swaths of terra preta, so-called Indian dark earth, land made fertile by mixing charcoal, human waste and other organic matter with soil
  • vast orchards of semi-domesticated fruit trees
  • moats, causeways, canals, the networks of a stratified civilization

Nigel Smith

It would seem to me that this research is another cog in the mounting evidence that is proving the global warming crowd is getting very over-heated about nothing. It appears to me that they’re on the defense after Climategate, and appear to be taking some great liberties with the way good science is done, as evidenced by some of the alarmist reports and articles we see. Lest you think not, you can go here and see a huge list of all the claims made by the “warmers,” many which appear contradictory.

They also appear rife to admit that perhaps Mother Nature takes care of herself and that what appears to be global warming to them is just part of a natural cycle, just like the rainforests rejuvenating themselves.

It appears to me that we have another nail in the CO2 Insanity coffin. I’d highly recommend you read the article from Sott.

Source: Sott.net

Comments Off on Virgin Amazon? Think again

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, Science

Alarmist Whackjobism Continues?

Per info in the article this cut in the Amazon rainforest will be replaced 50 times by new growth

We have a new study that appears to be another instance of  what I call “alarmist whackjobism.” It only bolsters my impression that the “warmers” are in desperation mode and are posting some rather amazing things. Things that have the appearance of being designed to bolster their failing arguments regarding anthropogenic global warming. Things designed perhaps to give the governments of the world motivation to pass carbon taxes, cap-and-trade laws and reign in all things that emit carbon. Things that could potentially create a new Unibomber or a new James J. Lee. This time it’s about the tropical rainforests (again).

Allheadlinenews.com has this article titled “New Farmlands Driving Out Forests Causes Climate Change Study Says.” It cites what is in my opinion an alarmist study (citation here) posted on the PNAS website (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America) that “conveniently” points out that those nefarious tropical farmers are cutting down those trees (the warmers so love to hug) by the millions, and that the process is (of course), going to increase CO2 (which we’re still supposed to believe increases global warming in spite of much damning evidence to the contrary). You can take the following statement into consideration.

More than half a million square miles of new farmland created in tropical countries, such as Brazil and Indonesia, between 1980 to 2000 was due to the felling of forests which in turn, accelerated the release of carbon into the atmosphere resulting in global warming, according to a new study led by Stanford postdoctoral researcher, Holly Gibbs, of the Department of Environmental Earth System Science.

Go ahead, read it again, look at the dates: “between 1980 to 2000.” That seems to be a “conveniently” dated report. Possibly “conveniently” dated because there’s nothing going on after 2000 to get excited about. You call it, I’m just pointing it out for you to think about.

The abstract at PNAS makes me wonder if there wasn’t some “convenient” timing there?  If you read the fine print you can see this study was submitted on September 22, 2009 and not approved until July 30, 2010. That’s a little over 10 months and a lot of negative things about global warming have happened since 9/22/09 such as Climategate, the IPCC getting sat on by the IAC, the Hockeystick graph, myriad problems with the MET, NOAA, NASA, GISS, Satellitegate and many other issues that appear to have increased the warmer desperation level faster than NOAA or GISS can alter temperature data.

I almost wonder if this wasn’t pulled out of the round file due to the increasing need to counter-attack the skeptics with anything they can muster. Like the saying goes “desperate times call for desperate measures,” which could be the new “warmer” mantra.

Why do I take umbrage at this? First, let us look at the definition of umbrage, which is why I chose that word as it seems to have a good take on the “warmer” claims made in this study about rainforests. From here at Dictionary.com we get the following:


[uhm-brij]  Show IPA


1. offense; annoyance; displeasure: to feel umbrage at a socialsnub; to give

umbrage to someone; to take umbrage at someone’s rudeness.

2. the slightest indication or vaguest feeling of suspicion, doubt,hostility, or

the like.

3. leaves that afford shade, as the foliage of tree

4. shade or shadows, as cast by trees.

5. a shadowy appearance or semblance of something.”

Sorry if you don’t get it but since we’re talking about rainforests I thought the definitions were funny, and yes, words such as offense; annoyance; and displeasure could describe my feelings about what I question is going on with this report (to say the least).

There is a reason I take umbrage, which takes us back to the date of the report. My suspicion is that they don’t have much to stir people up with after 2000, so they cut things “conveniently” off  at 2000. It appears that after 2000 we have things popping up that present problems with the claims in this report such as:

From Mongabay we get the following about the Amazon Jungle.

Annual deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon fell below 10,000 square kilometers for the first time since record-keeping began, reported Brazil’s Environment Minister Carlos Minc on Sunday.

You can read the whole article here. Please note that it’s dated June 22, 2009, about 8.5 years after the 2000 cutoff date cited in the study. Also please note the remark at the end about how the Brazilian government committing to significant reductions in deforestation of the Amazon Jungle, which is an indication the deforestation will slow down and possibly stop in much of the Amazon. Something not mentioned this report even though recently published.

Want more to ponder? You can read this from a New York Times article here circa June 29, 2009, again long after this studies cutoff date of 2000.

By one estimate, for every acre of rain forest cut down each year, more than 50 acres of new forest are growing in the tropics on land that was once farmed, logged or ravaged by natural disaster.

The new forests, the scientists argue, could blunt the effects of rain forest destruction by absorbing carbon dioxide, the leading heat-trapping gas linked to global warming, one crucial role that rain forests play.

Well now, isn’t that amazingly contrary to the report that prompted this post? Rainforest’s growing? Heaven forbid! This could be another reason we get the cutoff date of 2000. Again from the same NYT article.

The idea has stirred outrage among environmentalists who believe that vigorous efforts to protect native rain forest should remain a top priority. But the notion has gained currency in mainstream organizations like the Smithsonian Institution and the United Nations, which in 2005 concluded that new forests were “increasing dramatically” and “undervalued” for their environmental benefits. The United Nations is undertaking the first global catalog of the new forests, which vary greatly in their stage of growth.

Even the United Nations (home of the IPPC and who in general seem to love all things warming) bought into the fact that the rainforest are growing back in 2005, about 5 years after the 2000 cutoff date in the Stanford report. Is environmental outrage perhaps some or all of the driving force behind this report? Is this another good reason for the 2000 cutoff date?

We get even more from CO2 Science’s article found here.

In a report published in the 6 March 2009 issue of Science, Oliver L. Phillips of the UK’s University of Leeds and his 65 co-authors write that “old growth forests in Amazonia … through photosynthesis and respiration … process 18 petagrams [18 x 1015 grams] of carbon annually,” which they say is “more than twice the rate of anthropogenic fossil fuel emissions.” They also state that over the past quarter-century of intensive region-wide measurements, the productivity of the Amazon rainforest — even in its extreme old age — has been found to be “increasing with time,” in support of which statement they cite the comprehensive observational studies of Phillips et al. (1998), Nemani et al. (2003), Baker et al. (2004), Lewis et al. (2004) and Ichii et al. (2005).

So per the above the Amazon alone is processing more CO2 than we’re pumping out globally (2 x) and the ability to process CO2 is increasing, not decreasing as the report would have you believe.  This causes me to again wonder why the evident alarmism, what the motivation for this report was and why the seemingly “convenient” cutoff date of 2000? Note that the item from CO2 Science doesn’t even include the respiration of all the other forests and plants of all types worldwide, just the Amazon.

Think about this and tell me where’s the problem and why the alarmism? Is this more CO2 Insanity?

Source: Allheadlines.com

1 Comment

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Co2 Insanity, Ecoterror, Global Warming

WWF = World Wildlife Farce?

Merlin$60 Billion is a pretty big farce!  According to Christopher Booker’s recent column in Telegraph.co.uk that’s what they stand to make in a giant carbon credit scheme…talk about insanity!

If the world’s largest, richest environmental campaigning group, the WWF – formerly the World Wildlife Fund – announced that it was playing a leading role in a scheme to preserve an area of the Amazon rainforest twice the size of Switzerland, many people might applaud, thinking this was just the kind of cause the WWF was set up to promote. Amazonia has long been near the top of the list of the world’s environmental concerns, not just because it includes easily the largest and most bio-diverse area of rainforest on the planet, but because its billions of trees contain the world’s largest land-based store of CO2 – so any serious threat to the forest can be portrayed as a major contributor to global warming.

Sounds good, protecting a large area of the Amazon, but here’s the scheme…

The idea is that credits representing the CO2 locked into this particular area of jungle – so remote that it is not under any threat – should be sold on the international market, allowing thousands of companies in the developed world to buy their way out of having to restrict their carbon emissions. The net effect would simply be to make the WWF and its partners much richer while making no contribution to lowering overall CO2 emissions.

What a great way to make money from nothing.  Merlin the Magician would certainly be impressed as this is much more profitable than turning lead into gold.

Source: Telegraph.co.uk

Comments Off on WWF = World Wildlife Farce?

Filed under Editor, Financial

IPCC Busted…..again

AmazonScience Daily reports in this article that the IPCC screwed up again. This time it seems the Amazon Jungle isn’t going to dry up and blow away afterall…

ScienceDaily (Mar. 12, 2010) — A new NASA-funded study has concluded that Amazon rain forests were remarkably unaffected in the face of once-in-a-century drought in 2005, neither dying nor thriving, contrary to a previously published report and claims by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The IPCC gave this their “sky is falling” treatment, based (surprise) on bogus data…

The IPCC is under scrutiny for various data inaccuracies, including its claim — based on a flawed World Wildlife Fund study — that up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically and be replaced by savannas from even a slight reduction in rainfall.

“Our results certainly do not indicate such extreme sensitivity to reductions in rainfall,” said Sangram Ganguly, an author on the new study, from the Bay Area Environmental Research Institute affiliated with NASA Ames Research Center in California.

I have to ask does the IPCC ever get anything right?

Source: Science Daily

Comments Off on IPCC Busted…..again

Filed under Editor