South American Forest Fires - The lie within a lie.

[The Conservative]

Just remember people, there are more than one side to every story.



The dark green is our current forest coverage, while the light green was our forest coverage.
This map shows from 1990 to 2014. If you notice, Europe, Asia and Africa have reduced their forests by over 50%. The loss equals or surpasses the entire size of the South American Rainforest.

So when people freak out about the South American rainforest being burned down and insist on doing something, what were you waiting for? The media to tell you to do something?

I am sorry to say this, but the media is playing you for a fiddle, have they told you Trump has offered the US services to get the burning forest under control? No?

He has.

Trump Tweet

So please, let's not get our underwear in a bunch because the media tells you to do so. If that forest was so important, the one in Africa should have been as equally, as should the one in China, which are now so small compared to what they were, we now have animals going extinct at a rate we have only seen after a massive negative effect.

On a side note, have you noticed the West has reduced their forests the least? Just saying... perhaps we should look at stop pointing the finger at the US for the world's problems and realize the world is messing up on their own just fine.

NASA says that this is the greatest fire we have ever seen down there, they are lying like a rug. So when you see the data article, let me show you the truth.

This is the next article that is going to make its rounds on FB if it hasn't already...

https://www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/i ... ty-in-2019

They show data that shows 2019 as the most severe per month fire creator ever known, they are manipulating the data, like bad scientists.
This is where they got their data from:

https://www.globalfiredata.org/forecast.html

The image below to this shows the true story. It is more severe since the last decade, but it's not the most severe since they have been recording information, by far.

The catastrophe is not being told the truth.

South American Fires.png

[Speaker to Animals]

Say you have two metal balls of the same circumference, but one has three times the mass of the other. Would you say 10% of the mass of either ball is equivalent?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_(ecology)


North American redwood forest:



Amazon rain forest:




Losing one acre of the Amazon rain forest results in a net loss of far, far more biomass than losing one acre of redwood forest.

[The Conservative]

Say you have two metal balls of the same circumference, but one has three times the mass of the other. Would you say 10% of the mass of either ball is equivalent?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_(ecology)


North American redwood forest:



Amazon rain forest:




Losing one acre of the Amazon rain forest results in a net loss of far, far more biomass than losing one acre of redwood forest.

Then your excuse for the African jungles?

Stop saying you are right-wing please.

[Fife]

Trees everywhere on Earth are a lot more important than Muh Carbon Taxes going off to the fatassed and faggoty losers in Brussels and on their Martha's Vineyard estates.

In New "Mind-Blowing" Study, Planting Trees Reduces Carbon Better Than Carbon Taxes

A recent article in the Guardian trumpeted the findings of a new study published in Science that found massive tree planting would be — by far — the cheapest and most effective approach to mitigating climate change. Ironically, the new thinking shows the pitfalls of political approaches to combating so-called “negative externalities.”

The good news about tree planting disrupts the familiar narrative about carbon taxes that even professional economists have been feeding the public for years. The whole episode is an example of what Ronald Coase warned about, in his classic 1960 article showing the danger in the traditional approach of using taxes to fix alleged market failures.

Ronald Coase vs. A. C. Pigou on “Externalities” [this is where the good stuff starts]

[The Conservative]

Trees everywhere on Earth are a lot more important than Muh Carbon Taxes going off to the fatassed and faggoty losers in Brussels and on their Martha's Vineyard estates.

In New "Mind-Blowing" Study, Planting Trees Reduces Carbon Better Than Carbon Taxes

A recent article in the Guardian trumpeted the findings of a new study published in Science that found massive tree planting would be — by far — the cheapest and most effective approach to mitigating climate change. Ironically, the new thinking shows the pitfalls of political approaches to combating so-called “negative externalities.”

The good news about tree planting disrupts the familiar narrative about carbon taxes that even professional economists have been feeding the public for years. The whole episode is an example of what Ronald Coase warned about, in his classic 1960 article showing the danger in the traditional approach of using taxes to fix alleged market failures.

Ronald Coase vs. A. C. Pigou on “Externalities” [this is where the good stuff starts]

Why is that amazing?

[Fife]

I don't know, TC. It's a mystery.

[Speaker to Animals]

Say you have two metal balls of the same circumference, but one has three times the mass of the other. Would you say 10% of the mass of either ball is equivalent?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_(ecology)


North American redwood forest:



Amazon rain forest:




Losing one acre of the Amazon rain forest results in a net loss of far, far more biomass than losing one acre of redwood forest.

Then your excuse for the African jungles?

Stop saying you are right-wing please.

I think you need to read what I explained to you. Instead of acting like the confrontational short-bus retard, actually try to understand what people are posting for a change. Even you can grasp this point.

You act as if all these forest acres are interchangeable. They are not. Tropical rainforests have substantially higher biomass than any other kind of forest. Any argument that starts with the assumption that an acre of Amazon rainforest is just like an acre of European forest is fallacious. The assumption was wrong.

This point is not the difference between right and left. It's the difference between actual science and being a fucking moron.

[The Conservative]

Say you have two metal balls of the same circumference, but one has three times the mass of the other. Would you say 10% of the mass of either ball is equivalent?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_(ecology)


North American redwood forest:



Amazon rain forest:




Losing one acre of the Amazon rain forest results in a net loss of far, far more biomass than losing one acre of redwood forest.

Then your excuse for the African jungles?

Stop saying you are right-wing please.

I think you need to read what I explained to you. Instead of acting like the confrontational short-bus retard, actually try to understand what people are posting for a change. Even you can grasp this point.

You act as if all these forest acres are interchangeable. They are not. Tropical rainforests have substantially higher biomass than any other kind of forest. Any argument that starts with the assumption that an acre of Amazon rainforest is just like an acre of European forest is fallacious. The assumption was wrong.

This point is not the difference between right and left. It's the difference between actual science and being a fucking moron.

YAFFM.

Did you ever notice I stated Africa, Europe and the Asian Countries removing the majorit of their forests... the "biomass" that you are bitching about is equivelant.

Stop trolling, you aren't as good at it as you think you are.

[Speaker to Animals]

It is not equivalent. Amazon biomass is off the charts compared to.any other forest.

[The Conservative]

I don't know, TC. It's a mystery.

If people plant trees, great... then lets start over where the most trees have been removed. I don't know if you want to populate the forest where none is any more go for it. Don't create new forests, because that would destroy local ecosystems.