Rain Forest Myths

truffler1635 at my-deja.com truffler1635 at my-deja.com
Mon Oct 9 09:09:15 EST 2000

In article <XKjE5.25853$bF.1511389 at nntp1.onemain.com>,
  "Jim" <jcampbell90 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> ------=_NextPart_000_001D_01C031CA.87BC6700
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> 	charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>     Karl Davies wrote in message <39DDB9F5.D37610C5 at daviesand.com>...
>      =20
>     They flew over it and met all the environmental authorities!  They =
> studied satellite pictures of the entire area!  This is "good science?"  =
> Sheesh!=20
>         Unfounded conjecture is persuading nobody. Comments like yours =
> have inspired=20
>         my own involvement in countering the wrong thinking out there. =
> Stott backs=20
>         his findings with data, not conjecture.
>     What data???  I didn't see any data in that rant you copied.  When =
> Moore and Stott did their thing earlier this year, they didn't gather =
> any data.  They didn't reference any data by others either.  These guys =
> are CORPORATE PROPAGANDISTS, pure and simple.  They're running =
> interference for corporate clearcutters and high-graders who want to cut =
> more rainforest timber.  Here's what they were trying to counteract =
> (copied from http://www.solcomhouse.com/rainforest.html):=20
>    =20
>     Why is it that you expect of others what you don't provide? =
> Researchers are entitled to make general statements via articles, based =
> on their research. It isn't necessary to always include the data itself. =
> Data is available upon request.  Your own observations are deficient in =
> data, appearing purely subjective and un-founded "rantings" as you put =
> it.  You make a charge here that is unfounded speculation out of inner =
> fears.  Find data and be objective. Otherwise, increase your =
> respectability by either agreeing or disagreeing with statements, and =
> offering your own thoughts based on something besides your fears.

An interesting apologist statement and with some logic. Good.

However...I have to question satellite surveying techniques when the most
easily identified portion of the Brazilian rainforest is usually obscured
by smoke from forest burnings...

A _reasonable_ person might also question the validity of the same
verification technique.

Several years ago (1996?) The Oregonian ran comparison satellite survey
photographs from the Amazon compared to our own extensive forest fires in
the PNW. The difference? Part of the PNW could be made out. Little of the
Amazon could be seen through the smokescreen.

Daniel B. Wheeler

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

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list