Rain Forest Myths

truffler1635 at my-deja.com truffler1635 at my-deja.com
Sat Oct 7 01:57:13 EST 2000

In article <39DDB9F5.D37610C5 at daviesand.com>,
  Karl Davies <karl at daviesand.com> wrote:
> --------------3C337413CDFAFAB7619214C6
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Jim Campbell wrote in alt.forestry; KD responded in alt.forestry; JC responded
> privately; this KD response cc'd to alt.forestry, bionet.agroforestry,
> sci.environment, Philip Stott:
> > > > The following article was written by Prof. Philip Stott, a Biogeographer
> > > > at the University of London.
> > > > His web site is http://www.probiotech.fsnet.co.uk.
> > >
> > >Yeah, check it out.  This guy Stott is nothing but a biotech corporate
> > >stooge.  He probably wants to clearcut all the rain forests and replant to
> > >frankentrees.  That's why he's so hot on exposing the rain forest "myths."
> > >
> > >KD
> >
> > Karl,
> > Your response is not very objective. Prof. Stott is a researcher at the U.
> > of London with excellent credentials. That hardly describes a "corporate
> > stooge". Too many assumptions here. I read his web site and found not one
> > hint he wishes to do anything of the sort with rainforests.
> Any big fan of genetic engineering qualifies as a corporate stooge in my book.
> Stott's a freaking CHEERLEADER FOR GE.   As for his specific designs on
> rainforests, maybe he'll fill us in on that part.
> > In fact, the
> > rain forests that were converted to agri have largely been abandoned and are
> > reverting due to excessive operational costs and many other factors. S.
> > American governments are the ones needing the quick cash and willing to
> > strip their forests.
> This is the same Stott who teamed up with fellow corporate stooge Patty Moore to
> write a similar rant on rainforests back in June.  See
> http://csf.colorado.edu/bioregional/2000/msg00424.html for a report on their
> rant.  Notice where Moore is quoted saying:
> > "All these save-the-forests arguments are based on bad science," says
> > Moore, a founding member of Greenpeace who recently returned from a
> > fact-finding mission to the Amazon.
> >
> > "They are quite simply wrong. We found that the Amazon rainforest is more
> > than 90 percent intact. We flew over it and met all the environmental
> > authorities. We studied satellite pictures of the entire area."
> They flew over it and met all the environmental authorities!  They studied
> satellite pictures of the entire area!  This is "good science?"  Sheesh!
I agree 100% Karl. While he may have "empeckable" credentials, this
sounds more like an op-ed piece than a science supposed conclusion.
Science requires citations. This is supposition, inuendo, slurs and
packed with sematic clap-trap. S.I. Hiyakawa would have a field day with
it, were he still alive.

Daniel B. Wheeler

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list