This below is the Most False Deceptive and Misleading Statement I Have ever seen on SANET-MG. The
implications of this statement are that somewhere between one million years ago and 12,000 years ago
the entire Tropical Ecology suddenly mutated into existence, and did not have any prior existence.
You are very explicit with the statement "post-glacial" phenomenon.
<BART> The major point of my first post is that because the Amazon
<BART> forest is largely a post-glacial phenomenon, it is
<BART> disingenuous to say that the health of those soils is
<BART> inexticably linked with the forest. In the humid tropics,
<BART> most organic matter is stored in *living* plants, rather
<BART> than in the soil. Soil in the Amazon was probably far
<BART> healthier *before* the rain forest developed, since the
<BART> climatic conditions producing the rainforest are not
<BART> generally good for soil.
For reasons still unknown, the Earth entered into ice ages for the first time approximately
1,000,000 years ago, with large portions of the Northern Hemishere engulfed by vast ice sheets up to
a couple of miles thick. To a much smaller extent, the southern hemishere suffered glaciations, but
in no way comparible to the north. The tropics carried their "ARCs" of life through this holocaust
intact. The tropics were refuge for human beings during the 100,000 years of stone-tool development.
For possibly 35,000 (or more) years humans have been in the Amazon.
Nothing advanced by any school of "evolutionists" has ever supported such a rapid sudden appearance
of diversity of life as is stored in the rain forests. The cornerstone of evolution "theory" is that
gradual changes over eons of time produced the modern profusion of life. Your counter-theory is that
as little as 12,000 years, or even as few as 1,000,000 can produce the entire South American fauna
and flowering.
In order to sustain your theory you have to invalidate virtually every important principle of
physics (radiation, atomic decay, radioactive dating, atomic composition) AND chemistry
(fossilization, microbiology, genetic identification) AND geology (tectonic plates, vulcanism,
sedimentation) AND biology (radiative adaptation, speciation). In order to win some minor brownie
points for online debating you have falled to perceive the lessons to be obtained by the Amazon and
other rainforests. You are leading others into error and misdirecting them from obtaining the
insights you refuse to obtain.
You could profit a lot by deep study of "deep ecology" which informs the spirit that all flesh is
connected and important. Humans have identified cell technology (9x2 microtubules made of tubulin
proteins of identical composition) used by fungi, bacteria, plants, animals and humans. The clear
relationship of all life is a marvel and a wonder which can never be known to "human supremists" who
fear to know their own origins.
You have been intellectually consistent in your messages, and I have read them over a long period of
time. Outrageous errors of statement and beliefs have been traced to a consistency of character
which opposes enthusiastic investigations of ecology and ecological agriculture. Sadly, you have
obtained a punishing position as "organic farm inspector" over people who publically you do not
like, publically you do not respect, and publically you do not understand.
No matter how much intelligence you believe you have, the absurdity of your statement has
illustrated deep flaws in your educations, which can be remedied by humility and application of
generous amounts of time at quality libraries.
Signed: Lion Kuntz
------Original Message------
From: "Bluestem Associates" <bluestem@webserf.net>
To: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" <sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu>
Sent: June 27, 2000 11:00:42 AM GMT
Subject: Re: Who is scamming whom
On 27 Jun 00 13:12:16, Roberto Verzola wrote:
>Don says Moore left Greenpeace long ago and has been with a loggers'
>group for many years. So how recent is your "recent"? Klaus gave
>figures on the high deforestation rate in the Amazon and elsewhere. So
>what is your "many orders of magnitude"? 3 orders (meaning 1/1,000th)?
>4 orders (meaning 1/10,000th)?
>
>You owe this list an explanation.
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.
The major point of my first post is that because the Amazon forest is
largely a post-glacial phenomenon, it is disingenuous to say that the
health of those soils is inexticably linked with the forest. In the
humid tropics, most organic matter is stored in *living* plants, rather
than in the soil. Soil in the Amazon was probably far healthier
*before* the rain forest developed, since the climatic conditions
producing the rainforest are not generally good for soil.
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
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.
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
forests in Peru, and parts of central America. These concerns me more
than does the Amazon, if only because of the slopes involved. We should
also not forget that the most aggressive deforestation in the world
right now is probably the *boreal* forest, which is of particular
concern because the growth rates there are so abysmally slow.
Please don't anybody think that I've been saying there's no problem.
What I *am* saying is that we won't get very far solving the problems
as long as we toss out agendized numbers masquerading as science, and
as long as our approach is one of confrontation rather than
collaboration.
Bart
-----------------------------------------------
FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com
Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@cals.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@cals.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 21 2000 - 09:00:32 EDT