An update really to the previous post that mentioned the satellite data that shows that planet earth is undergoing reforestation rather than deforestation! Just to show that you can get anecdotal evidence for the greening of the planet when you actually look for it, the New York Times had ran this story:
Containing the happy quotes:
"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."
"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."
“Biologists were ignoring these huge population trends and acting as if only original forest has conservation value, and that’s just wrong,” said Joe Wright, a senior scientist at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute here, who set off a firestorm two years ago by suggesting that the new forests could substantially compensate for rain forest destruction."
"Globally, one-fifth of the world’s carbon emissions come from the destruction of rain forests, scientists say. It is unknown how much of that is being canceled out by forest that is in the process of regrowth. It is a crucial but scientifically controversial question, the answer to which may depend on where and when the forests are growing."
They sure don't act like that de/reforestation is unknown do they? But hey I've an idea....why not just look at the available satellite data? Then it won't be so "unknown" any more. Too easy? Or just no juicy research money in that approach? We know - good news doesn't seem to sell papers - not unless it's "causing a firestorm".
And as if that wasn't enough good news, there's a reality check for the Malthusians (population worriers) too:
"In Latin America and Asia, birthrates have dropped drastically; most people have two or three children. New jobs tied to global industry, as well as improved transportation, are luring a rural population to fast-growing cities. Better farming techniques and access to seed and fertilizer mean that marginal lands are no longer farmed because it takes fewer farmers to feed a growing population."
Alas we had the predictable negative responses from those scientists whose income depends on alarmism. After all what's a professional earth science pessimist to do when nature seems to know how to sort things out on it's own? Well, how about becoming an entrepreneur and being a net giver to society rather than a net taker! Too scared to leave academia and face making your own living? Yes we know - that's why you stayed on for the PhD in the first place. The rest of us didn't fancy the trade-off of working 3 years for nothing for the shiny kudos of someone calling you doctor. Sadly, too many find that their new PhD allows them to be easily rejected as "overqualified" in the real world. We need a PhD vocational re-education program. The first two items I'd put in the curriculum would be:
a) Look at all the data, not just the bits that fit your hypothesis.
b) Stop being so darn pessimistic. eg think seal cubs might be saved rather than polar bears might be lost!
And for all you people who say well it can't hurt making sure we stop deforestation then you clearly haven't seen this PBS documentary: I urge you to do so!
http://www.pbs.org.news-channel.org/frontlineworld/stories/carbonwatch/moneytree/
That comment from anonymous below the film clip was from me. Ignored completely of course by the self-righteous - in complete line with the Stiglitz think tank who I'd alerted about reality not being quite the same as the models, before they went and made an arse of themselves at Copenhagen. Seems like they've dropped off the radar anyway - still using up public cash though and producing flawed reports that nobody seems to read. Oddly though they'd asked for comments on their reports and supplied an email to do so which is why I bothered. I'd even harboured a notion that they might at least acknowledge me (they didn't) though I'd known beforehand that they wouldn't say "thanks we'll think about this". And of course when the Sunday Times gets around to investigating the deforestation fiasco then they'll say that nobody informed them. Frankly it's not up to me either - it's up to Dr Steve Running who did the fine satellite work. Funny that he hasn't received funding for it since 2003 when he reported the good news isn't it? Almost like they didn't really want to know that deforestation wasn't a problem!
Stiglitz of course is one of the few economists who predicted the current financial fiasco - a Keynesian, he was predisposed to be skeptical of the Washington Consensus version of free-market strategies, and has written fine words in condemnation of the world Bank and IMF policies in Latin America. He really should know what it's like to be against the crowd but correct and he should realize the vital value of using real data to validate hypotheses because he was that man; resigning his position at the World Bank when they failed to listen to him.
So we have the tyranny of good intentions, the herdlike nature of humans to believe exactly what they want to believe, the failure to appreciate unintended consequences and plain old follow-the-money. Sure the planet can obviously take it but it's the poorest humans that suffer. Can't we at least learn to listen to them this time around?
And for all you people who say well it can't hurt making sure we stop deforestation then you clearly haven't seen this PBS documentary: I urge you to do so!
http://www.pbs.org.news-channel.org/frontlineworld/stories/carbonwatch/moneytree/
That comment from anonymous below the film clip was from me. Ignored completely of course by the self-righteous - in complete line with the Stiglitz think tank who I'd alerted about reality not being quite the same as the models, before they went and made an arse of themselves at Copenhagen. Seems like they've dropped off the radar anyway - still using up public cash though and producing flawed reports that nobody seems to read. Oddly though they'd asked for comments on their reports and supplied an email to do so which is why I bothered. I'd even harboured a notion that they might at least acknowledge me (they didn't) though I'd known beforehand that they wouldn't say "thanks we'll think about this". And of course when the Sunday Times gets around to investigating the deforestation fiasco then they'll say that nobody informed them. Frankly it's not up to me either - it's up to Dr Steve Running who did the fine satellite work. Funny that he hasn't received funding for it since 2003 when he reported the good news isn't it? Almost like they didn't really want to know that deforestation wasn't a problem!
Stiglitz of course is one of the few economists who predicted the current financial fiasco - a Keynesian, he was predisposed to be skeptical of the Washington Consensus version of free-market strategies, and has written fine words in condemnation of the world Bank and IMF policies in Latin America. He really should know what it's like to be against the crowd but correct and he should realize the vital value of using real data to validate hypotheses because he was that man; resigning his position at the World Bank when they failed to listen to him.
So we have the tyranny of good intentions, the herdlike nature of humans to believe exactly what they want to believe, the failure to appreciate unintended consequences and plain old follow-the-money. Sure the planet can obviously take it but it's the poorest humans that suffer. Can't we at least learn to listen to them this time around?
No comments:
Post a Comment