>I should have said "formerly of Greenpeace." The Greenpeace reference
>was solely to identify the particular Patrick Moore ---- specifically,
>since satellite images were involved, to avoid confusion with Patrick
>Moore the fairly well-known astronomer and space scientist.
Then why not "of the BC Logging Alliance", which seemed to be his
affiliation when he did the study? You were using the Greenpeace name
to unfairly strengthen your implication that the Amazon warning
circulated by rain forest activists was a scam, which it now turns
out, it isn't.
>Moore's press conference was in March or April of this year. His
>apparent intention was to establish that satellite imagery demonstrates
>that the more extreme claims about Amazon deforestation rates (umpteen
>'football fields' per second) were out of line. You can't have an
>effective and productive discussion about policy and direction if the
>numbers on which one side bases its position are out to lunch. In
I wonder whose numbers are "out to lunch".
Why don't you give actual numbers - claims which you have heard/read
from rain forest activists, like Klaus did? Then, we'll compute "many
orders of magnitude less" than these numbers, and let's see whose
figures are "out to lunch".
>agriculture, this is precisely the problem with Avery's position ---
>his numbers for organic yields are downright goofy. Moore is saying not
>that there's no cutting in the Amazon, just that many of the most
>highly publicised numbers are goofy.
You say "most highly publicised numbers are goofy", without citing the
numbers. This is not acceptable. When you accuse, be specific, so the
other side can defend themselves. What are those numbers? Where were
they publicized? We'll look at the numbers, compute "many orders of
magnitude less", and then see for ourselves which numbers are "goofy".
>The numbers Klaus put up certainly seem to support (somewhat) Moore's
>contention that the Amazon is one of the most intact (and least
>endangered) forests in the world. I've *seen* what has happened to the
I find it difficult to believe you, unless you specify the numbers
Moore gave, so that we ourselves can make the comparison.
And what's at issue here are not Klaus' numbers, but *your* numbers
("many orders of magnitude less") vis-a-vis rain forest activists
against whom you directed your snide remarks about scams.
To Unsubscribe: Email email@example.com with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
To Subscribe to Digest: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 03 2000 - 12:00:41 EDT