# Burning Amazon Rainforest



## Jiehfeng (Aug 21, 2019)

Here's one link of many: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019...ecord-surge-forest-fires-190821052601171.html

Apparently it's most likely man made, makes sense as it's a rainforest. This is sad, the news is not giving this enough attention, it has been going on for weeks.

Just one fun fact; the Amazon Rainforest produces more than 20% of earth's oxygen.

EDIT: I just read a tweet about how when the Notre Dame was on fire, every second of it was covered and billionaires came to the rescue, but not in this more pressing case in comparison.


----------



## notimp (Aug 21, 2019)

On the 'billionaires came to the rescue' point - that just buys you public goodwill and renown. For a long time. Not directly - but everytime someone says 'and he/she financed the new roof of the cathedral' a little.  This adds up, and there arent many opportunities  for really good ones of these.. 

Its basically this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charitable_trust

Now people usually burn down rainforests, because putting a plantation there (not sure if thats what was the cause for the fire that got out of hand here) can get them more income than leaving trees standing. As a 'billionaire' you cant (and also don't want to) do much about that either. If its too costly (recurring cost) 'the economy' is supposed to solve it - not some benefactor.  At least long term.

edit: Although development aid/foreign aid is a thing - which is basically exactly that (long term economic support in exchange for political decision power in the country you are giving it to. But thats on the state level. (States have more 'recurring income' than a billionaire, usually.  )


----------



## IncredulousP (Aug 21, 2019)

From what I was taught, rainforests don't recover well from fires, unlike other kinds of forests that grow stronger each time.


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 22, 2019)

*sigh*

I unfortunately can't agree more. With all respect to the Notre Dame, but the rain forest actually fulfills a crucial role in the world.

On top of the (spreading) disaster is politics. Rather than looking for solutions, Bolsonaro is blaming NGO's for the fires. Because of course...why take responsability for your country when you can just pass blame to someone else without evidence?


----------



## Xzi (Aug 23, 2019)

These fires are definitely being set intentionally, and nothing is being done in an attempt to extinguish them.  I'd say other countries (including the US) should send their own firefighters to address this crisis, but I wonder if that move would be met with hostility from the Brazilian government.  It's a really fucked up situation, no two ways about it.


----------



## bodefuceta (Aug 23, 2019)

This was right after some european countries declaring they'd stop funding Fundo Amazônia, which was put on hold by the current goverment due to suspicions of mismanagement and corruption. It was created by the previous ruling party, marxists who still influence most of the forest's management. 

It's unfortunate but most of the thirld world's government and political institutions are still governed by marxists who wouldn't bat an eye at something like this. I've personally seen much worse while I was in Angola. Bolsonaro made a mistake while accusing them without smoking gun evidence, even if it really looks like their fault, the newspapers won't take it nicely.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 23, 2019)

bodefuceta said:


> This was right after some european countries declaring they'd stop funding Fundo Amazônia, which was put on hold by the current goverment due to suspicions of mismanagement and corruption. It was created by the previous ruling party, marxists who still influence most of the forest's management.
> 
> It's unfortunate but most of the thirld world's government and political institutions are still governed by marxists who wouldn't bat an eye at something like this. I've personally seen much worse while I was in Angola. Bolsonaro made a mistake while accusing them without smoking gun evidence, even if it really looks like their fault, the newspapers won't take it nicely.


Lol, are you suggesting Bolsonaro is a Marxist?  Because he's been the biggest proponent of deforestation by any means.


----------



## bodefuceta (Aug 23, 2019)

@Xzi brother, read again and stop smoking crack.

On a side note, I quickly googled the 20% oxygen claim and google seriously is supportive of that. It's crazy how misinformation is being spread by google and people not searching appropriately. The claim is absolute bollocks.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 23, 2019)

bodefuceta said:


> @Xzi brother, read again and stop smoking crack.


No matter how many times I re-read it, it's not making sense.  You claim Marxists would support deforestation (without any evidence or quotes to back that), yet it was the right-wing Bolsonaro who encouraged farmers to start these fires, and it's his government which is doing nothing in an attempt to extinguish them.  It sounds like you're trying to say the "deep state" is responsible for all the country's problems, and no blame for current events should be assigned to the people currently in charge.



bodefuceta said:


> On a side note, I quickly googled the 20% oxygen claim and google seriously is supportive of that. It's crazy how misinformation is being spread by google and people not searching appropriately. The claim is absolute bollocks.


I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt if you provide any scientific source disputing that figure, but I doubt it's much lower than that regardless.


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 23, 2019)

bodefuceta said:


> It's unfortunate but most of the thirld world's government and political institutions are still governed by marxists who wouldn't bat an eye at something like this.


Okay. Thanks for informing us that you have no idea what Marxism means (fuck..."governed by marxists" is almost a contradiction in itself  ). any other insights you wish to sha...ah, I see you've already done so.


bodefuceta said:


> On a side note, I quickly googled the 20% oxygen claim and google seriously is supportive of that. It's crazy how misinformation is being spread by google and people not searching appropriately. The claim is absolute bollocks.


Damn right! Stupid google search algorithms! How dare they mix in commonly generated studies with fabricated ones and averaging the results?! That isn't scientific!

You're right, of course. The actual percentage is actually closer to 28%.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Aug 23, 2019)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachel...e-resources-to-fight-amazon-rainforest-fires/

When its own president says that.. it sounds like he just doesn't care all that much and would rather let it burn. Then again, it's not as if Brazil is already in trouble for decades with the favelas and the gangs.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Taleweaver said:


> I unfortunately can't agree more. With all respect to the Notre Dame, but the rain forest actually fulfills a crucial role in the world.


Misinformed people like this aren't helping the problem at hand.

Notre Dame is a historical building while the Amazon are part of our ecosystem stability. Stop trying to downplay as if one matters less than the other, both matter differently.


----------



## Jiehfeng (Aug 23, 2019)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> Misinformed people like this aren't helping the problem at hand.
> 
> Notre Dame is a historical building while the Amazon are part of our ecosystem stability. Stop trying to downplay as if one matters less than the other, both matter differently.



One has religious value to a portion of the population, while the other has life value to the entire population. No matter how different they are, one is clearly more important to protect than the other. It's like saying protecting a particular Church is more important than saving the destruction of a planet from an imminent asteroid. I know the rainforest's importance can be debated upon, but to say this makes no sense to me.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Aug 23, 2019)

Sad!! Nobody cares.. Only people care are Norte Dame and they are an idiots. Norte Dame is a trash and a piece of junk! Let them damage the world and they will scream for starvation of oxygen and they will cry. Yeah, I will scream because I care.. they don't. I don't care. They are so dumb and so idiot!!


----------



## bodefuceta (Aug 23, 2019)

HomeStarRunnerTron said:


> uses





Xzi said:


> No matter how many times I re-read it, it's not making sense.  You claim Marxists would support deforestation (without any evidence or quotes to back that), yet it was the right-wing Bolsonaro who encouraged farmers to start these fires, and it's his government which is doing nothing in an attempt to extinguish them.  It sounds like you're trying to say the "deep state" is responsible for all the country's problems, and no blame for current events should be assigned to the people currently in charge.


I'm not sure you're joking or have actually been brainwashed to this point. Bolsonaro is actively persecuting those setting fire. It's the NGOs who stopped receiving money this year for their "work" on the forest, and there's evidence the fires are a ploy to receive international funding. It looks like first-world media seriously is leading you to believe it so you guys can be happy to send money like god damn retards.



Taleweaver said:


> Okay. Thanks for informing us that you have no idea what Marxism means (fuck..."governed by marxists" is almost a contradiction in itself  ). any other insights you wish to sha...ah, I see you've already done so.
> 
> Damn right! Stupid google search algorithms! How dare they mix in commonly generated studies with fabricated ones and averaging the results?! That isn't scientific!
> 
> You're right, of course. The actual percentage is actually closer to 28%.


Okay, do you even know what a guerrilla is? I lived under one in Brazil. I've worked in Angola and was stopped from doing so under gunfire. I can tell you their flags were red. But if you prefer to give them another name while living in some sort of marble castle dreaming the "same dream" as those terrorists, good for you, I guess?

Now, are you seriously attempting to claim scientificism and quote wikipedia of all things? Let's try to be actually scientific then, and not cite something completely unsourced in a website anyone can edit. Make sure you note down the difference.

1) Around 80% of the oxygen come from phytoplankton. Actually sourced, already debunks your claim.
2) There aren't adequate scientific papers on how much oxygen the Amazon alone produces. All those claims are completely baseless.
3) Grown forests barely/don't change the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere. If a tree size's remain the same, they consume just as much oxygen as they produce.
4) It's believed that tundras are the most productive forests in terms of oxygen. It's also known forests in temperate climates store most carbon per area.
5) The amazon isn't the only rainforest. Even if you somehow disagree with 2-4 (I don't have time to look up scientific sources now), and somehow believe the 20% oxygen from land is ALL from rainforests (this is completely absurd), if you split all between the world's rainforests you still get nowhere close to 20%

I don't even know why I'm spending my time with some rich ignorant kid's bullshit anymore. You didn't even deserve an answer as good as mine. Apologize.


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 23, 2019)

Hmm...while obviously not a bad thing, I just read a piece that puts things into perspective a bit. It probably won't make me popular, but I'm not on this forum for that.

The article itself can be found here, but as it's both in Dutch and a premium for my newspaper, I translate a bit.

It mainly questions the alarming number of the amount of reported fires. This is a bit exaggerated, based on the following points:

1) it's not that easy to measure the actual amount and size of the fires. And the number ("nearly 75'000 fires") came from a wrong interpretation of data, namely the 'fire counts'. Due to how fires are counted, individual fires are often counted multiple times.

2) the current amount and size doesn't seem to be a record (yet). In this period of the year, 2016 had much more carbon dioxide emission than currently. The peak, however, is usually around the end of August and goes on for some months. Meaning: there's no sign that it'll stop soon.

3) the smoke shown on satellite photos don't exactly show the actual fires. More specifically: farmers often burn down pieces of their own ground to make it better for plantation. On satellite photos, it can seem a whole lot worse than it is

4) the media attention itself isn't here "because of the fires" (as said: this happens every year), but because the media attention is already on fires in e.g. Greece and California. Sao Paolo being dark due to smoke in the middle of the day obviously didn't help.

5) yes, Bolsonaro cut the power of his government in preservation of the rainforest largely, but he's not the first president at all to allow it. He merely accelerated it (okay: and he pisses off the community).

6) some shared pictures that are currently going viral are years old. That's...obviously not helping to solve the actual problem (protesters: "stop this fire!" Bolsonaro: "sure thing. THIS fire has been dealt with...in 1989  ").




Saiyan Lusitano said:


> Misinformed people like this aren't helping the problem at hand.
> 
> Notre Dame is a historical building while the Amazon are part of our ecosystem stability. Stop trying to downplay as if one matters less than the other, both matter differently.


It's not because we disagree with each other that I'm misinformed. Shall we leave it at that, or shall I return the favor and get personal for no reason?


----------



## Jiehfeng (Aug 23, 2019)

bodefuceta said:


> snip



All the oxygen measurements are all estimates, we can all agree. But multiple sources and research says different things, NG for example: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/6/source-of-half-earth-s-oxygen-gets-little-credit/ says the phytoplankton produces 50% of the world's oxygen, and I agree about the importance of this plant. So it doesn't really refute the fact that the Amazon Rainforest produces a good chunk of the earth's oxygen. We shouldn't rely on one thing and ignore other large sources of oxygen for example.


----------



## bodefuceta (Aug 23, 2019)

You can't just compare a 2004 magazine article to a modern scientific publication.


----------



## Jiehfeng (Aug 23, 2019)

bodefuceta said:


> You can't just compare a 2004 magazine article to a modern scientific publication.



Fair enough, but you still haven't proved how the Amazon Rainforest doesn't produce a good portion of the earth's oxygen supply, only how that plant does most of the work. Did you expect the explanation would magically be apparent? The rainforest is 5.5 million km² btw.


----------



## bodefuceta (Aug 23, 2019)

Jiehfeng said:


> Fair enough, but you still haven't proved how the Amazon Rainforest doesn't produce a good portion of the earth's oxygen supply, only how that plant does most of the work. Did you expect the explanation would magically be apparent? The rainforest is 5.5 million km² btw.


I very much proved my original claim - that the 20% figure is absolute bollocks. I don't know what else you want, but it's not something I claimed. I also did mention there's no exact figure on it.


----------



## Jiehfeng (Aug 23, 2019)

bodefuceta said:


> I very much proved my original claim - that the 20% figure is absolute bollocks. I don't know what else you want, but it's not something I claimed. I also did mention there's no exact figure on it.



If you agree that there's no exact figure on it, then by logic it isn't "absolute bollocks".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...e9-bd25-c989555e7766_story.html?noredirect=on



> “Around 50 percent of the oxygen we breathe comes from phytoplankton,” said Brenda María Soler-Figueroa, a marine biologist at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center.



If you're just arguing on the 20% figure, and not denying the Amazon Rainforest's important role in the oxygen supply, we can end this meaningless debate in that case.


----------



## bodefuceta (Aug 23, 2019)

Jiehfeng said:


> If you agree that there's no exact figure on it, then by logic it isn't "absolute bollocks".
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...e9-bd25-c989555e7766_story.html?noredirect=on
> 
> If you're just arguing on the 20% figure, and not denying the Amazon Rainforest's important role in the oxygen supply, we can end this meaningless debate in that case.


What? It is absolute bollocks and nowhere close to true.
I just realized you are OP. What gives, man? You posted total bullshit and I demonstrated it. Apologize instead of saying it's a "meaningless debate".


----------



## Jiehfeng (Aug 23, 2019)

bodefuceta said:


> What? It is absolute bollocks and nowhere close to true.
> I just realized you are OP. What gives, man? You posted total bullshit and I demonstrated it. Apologize instead of saying it's a "meaningless debate".



If you read what was posted, a different researcher from a different research group said the plant gives about 50% of the oxygen supply, thus showing how your 80% figure is not concrete or solid to say "absolute bollocks". Not to mention my other point that they are estimates, which goes without saying that also makes your phrase "absolute bollocks" wrong, maybe switch to "kinda bollocks"? 

And apologize for what exactly? I said it's a meaningless debate if you're arguing the estimates here which different sources say different things. Try to remember the initial point of the figure, to show that the Amazon Rainforest plays a big role in the oxygen supply, and I said it's meaningless to argue if you agree that it is indeed important, making the use of the figures to prove this point, meaningless.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 23, 2019)

bodefuceta said:


> I'm not sure you're joking or have actually been brainwashed to this point. Bolsonaro is actively persecuting those setting fire. It's the NGOs who stopped receiving money this year for their "work" on the forest, and there's evidence the fires are a ploy to receive international funding. It looks like first-world media seriously is leading you to believe it so you guys can be happy to send money like god damn retards.


This is exactly the same shit being spewed by Bolsonaro himself.  He hasn't provided a shred of evidence to back these claims, and neither have you.



			
				Guardian said:
			
		

> The Brazilian president, Jair Bolsonaro, has accused environmental groups of setting fires in the Amazon as he tries to deflect growing international criticism of his failure to protect the world’s biggest rainforest.
> 
> A surge of fires in several Amazonian states this month followed reports that farmers were feeling emboldened to clear land for crop fields and cattle ranches because the new Brazilian government was keen to open up the region to economic activity.



Two weeks ago, a Brazilian newspaper reported that farmers, not NGOs, were planning a 'day of fire.' *THAT* would've been the time to do something about it if Bolsonaro actually gave a shit, but his entire campaign hinged mostly on the promise that he'd open up more "economic opportunities" through deforestation.


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Aug 23, 2019)

Jiehfeng said:


> fun fact; the Amazon Rainforest produces more than 20% of earth's oxygen.



The Amazon Rainforest also takes in a decent percentage of CO2...2bad for those assholes, by that, I mean loggers.







RIP Emyra Waiãpi; I hope the people guilty of your murder enjoy the same fate...and their families, from the heads of corporations to the asshole who bought the weapon, all the way to the guy who saw the murder and said, "Oh!" because fuck 'em.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...nvade-indigenous-village-brazil-leader-killed

I don't monetarily support TG, but citations.


----------



## chrisrlink (Aug 24, 2019)

welp nice knowing ya guys 2019/2020 is when the world ends thanks to multiple governments


----------



## bodefuceta (Aug 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The guardian quote


Wow, they're saying exactly what I said they were. How does this contradict anything?


Xzi said:


> Two weeks ago, a Brazilian newspaper reported that farmers, not NGOs, were planning a 'day of fire.'


False flag 101 right here brothers, hop in.

Seriously, it's ridiculous how you keep talking while obvious knowing absolutely nothing. You'd believe in the manchurian incident for fuck's sake, and cite some newspaper article as proof. Good for you to live the easy life in a civilized country, because you would be very much dead here. It's no wonder why muslisms will replace you


----------



## Xzi (Aug 24, 2019)

bodefuceta said:


> False flag 101 right here brothers, hop in.
> 
> Seriously, it's ridiculous how you keep talking while obvious knowing absolutely nothing. You'd believe in the manchurian incident for fuck's sake, and cite some newspaper article as proof. Good for you to live the easy life in a civilized country, because you would be very much dead here. It's no wonder why muslisms will replace you


Between being economically isolated and environmentally devastated, it won't surprise me if everybody there ends up dead soon.  So enjoy the consequences of buying into Trumpian-style bullshit politics, and don't say I didn't warn ya.


----------



## HomeStarRunnerTron (Aug 24, 2019)

bodefuceta said:


> I'm not sure you're joking or have actually been brainwashed to this point.



Errr... I'm confused, why did you quote me saying "uses" from a thread about inventive gamepad uses? ...


----------



## sarkwalvein (Aug 24, 2019)

bodefuceta said:


> Seriously, it's ridiculous how you keep talking while obvious knowing absolutely nothing.


It's good and healthy to do some introspection, well done. Though, using the first person when you talk to the mirror sounds weird.


----------



## bodefuceta (Aug 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Between being economically isolated and environmentally devastated, it won't surprise me if everybody there ends up dead soon.  So enjoy the consequences of buying into Trumpian-style bullshit politics, and don't say I didn't warn ya.


That's so scary, coming from an armchair revolutionary in a country women can barely bear having children. We've won against hordes trained by bolsheviks. Our people are happy and kind, and won't fall for yet another revolutionary ploy, neither from guerilla or soy creatures like you. The majority voted for Bolsonaro and no matter how much the international media foolery tries, we'll remain strong. If you have any sense it's you who will follow our steps or face destruction at a more cohesive power like islam!


----------



## Humanity (Aug 24, 2019)

Jiehfeng said:


> Here's one link of many: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019...ecord-surge-forest-fires-190821052601171.html
> 
> Apparently it's most likely man made, makes sense as it's a rainforest. This is sad, the news is not giving this enough attention, it has been going on for weeks.
> 
> ...


notre dame is trash and should have been ignored.

Save Amazon. Save Amazon. Save Amazon. Save Amazon.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 25, 2019)

Finally some good news in regards to this topic: Bolivia's president Evo Morales has contracted a 747 supertanker to help extinguish the fires, along with sending three more helicopters and 500 troops.  The supertanker can hold water equivalent to 100 regular air tankers.


			
				Telesur said:
			
		

> On the first day of the fires spreading to Bolivia, President Evo Morales visited the areas and brought two helicopters to evacuate affected communities, along with large shipments of emergency food aid.
> 
> The new measures by the government come amid calls by right-wing opposition candidate Carlos Mesa to allow foreign aid to help put out the fires.
> 
> Nevertheless, Bolivia’s government has long rejected calls for outside intervention for natural disasters, arguing that Bolivia’s economy has developed enough to provide sufficient resources to cope, and must deal with issues internally to protect sovereignty. Speaking earlier in the year when flash floods hit the Department of Beni, Vicepresident Alvaro Garcia Linera said “Bolivia has the resources...the era of begging [to outsiders] has passed, leave that to Carlos Mesa”.


Scary socialist boogeymen to the rescue.


----------



## SG854 (Aug 25, 2019)

Jiehfeng said:


> Here's one link of many: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019...ecord-surge-forest-fires-190821052601171.html
> 
> Apparently it's most likely man made, makes sense as it's a rainforest. This is sad, the news is not giving this enough attention, it has been going on for weeks.
> 
> ...





Taleweaver said:


> Hmm...while obviously not a bad thing, I just read a piece that puts things into perspective a bit. It probably won't make me popular, but I'm not on this forum for that.
> 
> The article itself can be found here, but as it's both in Dutch and a premium for my newspaper, I translate a bit.
> 
> ...


The whole Amazon Rain forest fires is fake news. Surprised?



Fires in the Amazon has been happening for years. Farmers burn land called slash and burn to prepare land for crops, which is a commonly used method in many parts of the world.

From the New York Times most of the fires happens on farm land were the rain forest was already cleared.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/24/world/americas/amazon-rain-forest-fire-maps.html

Data shows you all the fires from 2001. No one though made a big deal back then. It's up this year compared to the last 8 years. But compared to the 2000's they were worse during that time.


The bigger problem is deforestation by farmers to create new land for more crops. If people are so concerned about rain forest deforestation then stop eating soybeans. It's soybean farms after soybean farms. This is just a regular common person problem and them buying soybeans that causes this deforestation.




And an interesting thing about the Amazon soil was that it was created by humans. The land there is really infertile. So the Amazonian's have created an artificial soil called Terra Preta (or Amazonian Dark Earth). Basically they created one of the earths richest soil, and can instantly turn infertile land with barren soil to highly fertile grounds with this man made soil. And its made with bio-char. They created it by burning and smoldering so that it wont produce charcoal. It's called slash and char, which reduces carbon emissions compared to the slash and burn method. So basically the Amazon is a man made rain forest.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060301090431.htm


----------



## Kunty (Aug 25, 2019)

We have a bolsominion in our midst.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Aug 25, 2019)

SG854 said:


> The whole Amazon Rain forest fires is fake news. Surprised?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Saw that NYT article as well, definitely interesting, it does seem like the fires are mainly in deforested areas and an explanation that it's agricultural seems plausible but I have to admit I haven't paid too much attention to the story to begin with so I'll be careful with drawing conclusions.

With regards to Graham Hancock, this is what Wikipedia has to say about him


> *Graham Bruce Hancock* (/ˈhænkɒk/; born 2 August 1950) is a British writer and journalist. He is known for his pseudoscientific theories[1] involving ancient civilisations, Earth changes, stone monuments or megaliths, altered states of consciousness, ancient myths, and astronomical or astrological data from the past.
> 
> Hancock's works propose a connection with a 'mother culture' from which he believes other ancient civilisations sprang.[2] An example of pseudoarchaeology, his work has neither been peer reviewed nor published in academic journals.[1][3][4]



I know that Wikipedia isn't always fair so I try to read parts of the articles in multiple languages but the German Wikipedia does repeat the accusations of pseudoscience from the scientific community.

That Tera Preta stuff is fascninating though.


----------



## bodefuceta (Aug 25, 2019)

I don't think the origins of Terra Preta are completely known, but it's definitely related to slash-and-char. It's definitely possible for humans to improve the quality of soil, it's known since at least middle ages, and it's also a known fact the deforested parts of the Amazon have better soil, and that's also related to inserting hooved animals. But I wouldn't quickly jump into conclusions as to what one fire in particular is going to cause to the soil. All I can say about it is, it does not look like a big cause for concern.


----------



## SG854 (Aug 27, 2019)

superstonicwaffle said:


> Saw that NYT article as well, definitely interesting, it does seem like the fires are mainly in deforested areas and an explanation that it's agricultural seems plausible but I have to admit I haven't paid too much attention to the story to begin with so I'll be careful with drawing conclusions.om
> 
> With regards to G rmaham Hancock, this is what Wikipedia has to say about him
> 
> ...


Graham Hancock probably said pseudoscience stuff in the past, I don't know much about him or care enough to research and find out. But even Liars or conspiracy theorist can say truthful things sometimes. A person's history of lies or pseudo science is not important, what's important is their content and what they say for the specific thing I'm talking about and if its correct. Their of history lies only makes me more cautious of what they say but not completely dismissive. People accuse Trump of being an obsessive liar right, but if he said the moon landing is real not faked, or if he said the earth is not flat you wouldn't say well he lies a lot and says pseudo science stuff so therefore what he said is wrong, the earth is flat only because he said its not.


There is a picture of Terra Preta soil online and science articles talking about it so that's a real thing, he was right about that. 

Smithsonian article about humans shaping the Amazon forest. 
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scie...nforest-was-actually-shaped-humans-180962378/

And an Atlantic article
https://www.theatlantic.com/science...cient-humans-helped-enrich-the-amazon/518439/

He was right about that too. And people tearing down the forest for soybean farms. The New York times article mentioned it so he's right about that too. And that's all that matters for the point I'm making. Is those specific things in my post is real and not his history of pseudo science for topics that has nothing to do with the topics I'm talking about. Agriculture crops and beef eating is the reason for deforestation. But who's willing to give those things up? If they are willing to cause a big commotion about needing the forest for oxygen and preserving nature then I'm sure they'll be more than happy to give up those things.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 27, 2019)

SG854 said:


> From the New York Times most of the fires happens on farm land were the rain forest was already cleared.
> https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/24/world/americas/amazon-rain-forest-fire-maps.html


Err...that article says 35% of fires are burning in areas that have not previously been deforested, and they're burning with a greater intensity than years past.  Which makes sense given that this year has seen record-high temperatures worldwide.  35% is also not a small number when we're talking about thousands of individual fires.

Even Bolsonaro has changed his tune in recent days about the severity of the problem and committed over 40,000 troops to extinguishing these fires.  Then again, given his past statements and actions, we can only hope that's his true motive for this deployment, rather than committing genocide against the indigenous tribes of the Amazon.


----------



## SG854 (Aug 28, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Err...that article says 35% of fires are burning in areas that have not previously been deforested, and they're burning with a greater intensity than years past.  Which makes sense given that this year has seen record-high temperatures worldwide.  35% is also not a small number when we're talking about thousands of individual fires.
> 
> Even Bolsonaro has changed his tune in recent days about the severity of the problem and committed over 40,000 troops to extinguishing these fires.  Then again, given his past statements and actions, we can only hope that's his true motive for this deployment, rather than committing genocide against the indigenous tribes of the Amazon.


Where does it say 35% of fires is burning in areas that have not been previously deforested?

It says there are 35% more fires but that could be slash and burn type planed fires used for farming. And I know about the 35% number since I read the article and even acknowledged it in my post you are quoting. There are more fires then the previous few years but compared to the 2000's fires were worse which is what I said in that post.


And in the article it says that fires is not a natural occurrence in this region and all fires are caused by humans, so its not the record-high temperatures that's causing them. Fires that expand beyond farming is to be expected since it can be a beast to control, and most fires are by farmers for farming which is a common world wide practice and its done in already deforested areas, so some of the news surrounding this incident is fake news.





There are species of plants out there that have evolved in areas where fires is a natural common occurrence called Serotiny. Plants with Pyriscence have evolved to release their seeds when its triggered by heat. Which took thousands of years to evolve, a survival mechanism that evolved in fire areas in Australia, Africa, and South America.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



bodefuceta said:


> I don't think the origins of Terra Preta are completely known, but it's definitely related to slash-and-char. It's definitely possible for humans to improve the quality of soil, it's known since at least middle ages, and it's also a known fact the deforested parts of the Amazon have better soil, and that's also related to inserting hooved animals. But I wouldn't quickly jump into conclusions as to what one fire in particular is going to cause to the soil. All I can say about it is, it does not look like a big cause for concern.


It's really interesting how they have invented this. They are not stupid people, more advance then we thought. 
Slash and Burn doesn't look sustainable long term compared to Slash and Char.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 28, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Where does it say 35% of fires is burning in areas that have not been previously deforested?


Oh my bad, I was mixing up two different parts of the article.  It doesn't give an exact percentage.


			
				NYTimes said:
			
		

> Mr. Cochrane noted that while a large majority of the fires were on land that had already been cleared, many others were detected burning with particular intensity. He said these were likely deforestation fires, not just fires for clearing previously deforested land.





SG854 said:


> And in the article it says that fires is not a natural occurrence in this region and all fires are caused by humans, so its not the record-high temperatures that's causing them. Fires that expand beyond farming is to be expected since it can be a beast to control, and most fires are by farmers for farming which is a common world wide practice and its done in already deforested areas, so some of the news surrounding this incident is fake news.


I was referring to the intensity of the fires, not the cause of them.  We know the cause was farmers/loggers.


----------



## SG854 (Aug 28, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I was referring to the intensity of the fires, not the cause of them.  We know the cause was farmers/loggers.


Oh Ok


With fires not being the main cause of deforestation, it being farming, so people are going to have to put restrictions to reduce farming which then in turn yields less yearly crops. Deforestation is happening because a consumer demand for meat and crops like soybeans is high. Population is growing so more people to feed. You can get Bolsonaro to intervene to reduce the deforestation rate but that means less meat and crops and people will have to find another way to get their foods to make up the difference. If there is no demand for these things then deforestation will stop.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 28, 2019)

SG854 said:


> With fires not being the main cause of deforestation, it being farming, so people are going to have to put restrictions to reduce farming which then in turn yields less yearly crops. Deforestation is happening because a consumer demand for meat and crops like soybeans is high. Population is growing so more people to feed. You can get Bolsonaro to intervene to reduce the deforestation rate but that means less meat and crops and people will have to find another way to get their foods to make up the difference. If there is no demand for these things then deforestation will stop.


I won't contest that.  It's also partially tied in to the trade war, since Brazil wants to take over the US's role of soy bean supplier for China.  If that happens, the farming industry in the US is going to be crippled long after the tariffs are lifted.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 2, 2019)

Fuuuuck...2,000 more fires have been started in the last 48 hours despite a supposed "burning ban" from the government.  Clearly the punishment for violating this ban is not harsh enough.  The situation is getting really dire.  Normally I'd be 100% opposed to a foreign military intervening, but if it comes down to that or a desert where the rainforest once was, I choose the military intervention.


----------



## Jiehfeng (Sep 14, 2019)

This is sad.


----------

