Rural residents in Central and South America are moving to the big city, allowing the jungle to encroach on abandoned farms. An article in today’s NYT props up scientists who claim the semi-wilderness of an overgrown lot “is a suitable habitat” for fauna of the old-growth rainforests:
These new “secondary” forests are emerging in Latin America, Asia and other tropical regions at such a fast pace that the trend has set off a serious debate about whether saving primeval rain forest — an iconic environmental cause — may be less urgent than once thought. 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.
Not all the scientists agree, of course:
“Yes, there are forests growing back, but not all forests are equal,” said Bill Laurance, another senior scientist at the Smithsonian, who has worked extensively in the Amazon. He scoffed as he viewed Ms. Ortega de Wing’s overgrown land: “This is a caricature of a rain forest!” he said. “There’s no canopy, there’s too much light, there are only a few species. There is a lot of change all around here whittling away at the forest, from highways to development.”
Seattle also has its share of “rainforests.”
Regrowth is related to Global Warming (for air cleansing), but this subject is more bait for a deforestation denier than a global warming denier
Follow the money.
See who paid for the “research”.
Don’t believe one minor change will counteract the massive global warming emissions from China and the USA.
The weeds in my yard are about waist high. I think my yard is being reforested as well. Does that mean that we should all stop mowwing our lawns to fight global warming?
Will, why don’t you say “Follow the Money” about all the pro-global warming alarmist studies that are posted up here all the time. Because there is no conflict of interest there, either, huh?
All Global Warming science has been so politicized that you should rarely even pay attention to this bullshit. I won’t trust this “research” until scientists become completely removed from their donors and grant funding on both sides.
These researchers should not be able to know which organizations are funding their research. They will be inherently biased towards their benefactors.
@4: Just like those greedy, grant-grubbing poindexters who kept publishing all those alarmist studies connecting cigarette smoking to cancer back in the day, right? Man, what is it with scientists and their scare stories?
I am sure Hannity, O’Reilly and that nut from Pittsburgh, Jim Quinn will have this on their radio shows by Monday. What is worse, millions will believe them.
2
Exactly.
And do the same for the next study that shows homosexuality is innate.
Social Science research today is so eaten up with PC bias as to be WORTHLESS.
Claiming that rain-forests are important barriers against global warming is mostly a sham; most oxygen on earth (80%?) is produced by plant life in the top 5 inches or so of the oceans. Really, environmentalists try to link rain-forests to global warming or whatever else to create a sense of linked factors so that rainforest preservation won’t be marginalized, since apparently rainforests aren’t important in and of themselves, in terms of their biodiversity and ecosystems, to warrant protection in their own right.
The research in the Times is legit but you can’t extrapolate it the wrong way and say that everything’s okay because some other sort of forest exists.
This is the same b.s. logic behind carbon offsets, where essentially you say, “Okay, see that forest? That’s my offset now, which should pull enough CO2 out of the atmosphere to equal 80% of what I emit. So I’m much more eco-friendly now!” Well, actually if that forest was always there, you’ve had no net reduction in anything. Same thing’s true of biofuels; the assumption is they’re green because they pull in as much CO2 as they emit when they’re burned. Unfortunately, one of the leading causes of deforestation is due to agricultural demands, and a field of sugar cane or corn is less efficient than a more complex ecosystem at the atmospheric filtering we all want. In other words, it’s all (sadly) equally B.S., because it’s all–whether you’re a pseudo-green or climate change denier–an attempt to justify not changing our behavior.
What kind of fusspots are these scientists?
“Not enough rain cover”
Oh, and look at that orchid! Blue! No, that just won’t do!! I ordered Butternut Yellow! Out…OUT!!!!
Most people who deny global warming point out that we’re all “changing our minds” and calling it “climate change” because it isn’t getting hot everywhere, or think it’s all a con to make Al Gore and friends money. Everybody I know who denies climate change thinks this. They think it’s a scheme to make money.
All Scientific theories should be subject to debate. Only Flat-Earthers think it’s acceptable to declare that your side has a consensus and the debate is over.
The truth is that very little in the science arena is truly settled. If you’d like a little balance in your scientific information diet, please click on the following link:
http://www.hootervillegazette.com/videos…
If you’d like the names of a few thousand qualified scientists who disagree with global warming, please click on this link:
http://www.hootervillegazette.com/global…
Sincerely,
Dash RIPROCK III
The Hooterville Gazette