I was about to do a post debunking the clearly inaccurate claim that More than 20 percent of the world oxygen is produced in the Amazon Rainforest, but those nice people at National Geographic have saved me the bother:
“The net [oxygen] effect of the Amazon, or really any other biome, is around zero,” he explains.
No point me summarising such a neat article, you might as well read it in full, if you're interested.
Tuesday, 3 September 2019
"Why the Amazon doesn’t really produce 20% of the world’s oxygen"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
A good article, but it contains a howler -
"Given that the atmosphere contains less than half a percent of carbon dioxide...".
Whilst strictly true, it's a *lot* less that half a percent - in fact 0.04%.
VFTS, I noticed that but decided to let it pass. Only out by a factor of twelve or so....
Love the way this post is labelled 'science'. One believes what possesses one, informs one to believe. See Rupert Sheldrake TED talk.
VFTS Wadderz always notices before you. And if it's not invented here, it never gets mentioned. Consistent. Cult stuff
"And if it's not invented here, it never gets mentioned."
Au contraire. This post itself is an example of Mark debunking "facts" that have been invented elsewhere.
Au contraire. This post itself is an example of Mark describing his "truth". Facts are used as seemingly gospel, yet limited by the world view of the preacher. That is, the preacher ignores other facts which discount the idea yet are ignored to conveniently up hold the doctrine. Its classic cult stuff. Science is having serious problems with religiosity recently(See Rupert Sheldrakes banned TED talk)
BTW what is your view on Location value Covenants?
@RS. Eh? Are you smoking something narcotic?
@Lola. You know what it means when you do ad hom right? Just read what I'm saying, in a quiet moment, while not being informed by ideology of any kind. And you will see. Jesus will have cured the blind as it were.
"This post itself is an example of Mark describing his "truth"."
Where? All I can see is him saying something isn't true.
Lost you there Bayard. Where did your name come from? I spent a lot of time in Baynard House.
George Orwell once said of socialists "they don't really care about the poor, they just hate the rich". Yet most of them are wealthy.
Similarly, Georgists don't really care about the homeless, they just hate the land owners. Yet most of them are landed.
And so it goes.
Saying something isn't true is not (which is what Mark is doing) is not the same as saying something else is true (which is what you are saying Mark is doing).
"Similarly, Georgists don't really care about the homeless, they just hate the land owners. Yet most of them are landed."
Beliefs are not responsible for the people that believe in them. An argument for change is no less valid just because it is put forward by someone who would benefit from that change.
@Bayard. I think you may be accidentally begging the question.
What I'm saying is more general and a common issue for those who allow a belief system to inform their thought. Such as Georgism.
"Socialists don't really care about the poor, they just hate the rich"
George Orwell, The Road to Wigan Pier
Likewise, Georgists don't really care about the homeless, they just hate the landed. This forum is a littany for that neurosis.
What do you think of Location Value Covenants?
@Robin Smith- you'll need to remind me how these work.
I'm happy that everyone acts in their own self interest- hard to demand much else.
For me, a Georgist from when I was landless, but now a "landed man" (ho ho)- I still see Georgist reforms as absolutely in my interest as they would make the country much better: for me, for my children, for my friends, and for the wider group of people I extend my sphere of giving a shit to.
I find no contradiction in my political position and my (not only immediate) self interests.
I don't hate landowners at all- I just don't like landowning as it currently works. I understand why many people oppose land reforms, narrowly thinking their own interests are best served by retaining the status quo. I believe that for many who believe their interests are best served would in fact be better off with Georgism, and so I appeal to them with arguments as to why.
@Thomas All good points and I think I understand them.
Would you like to have a call/beer to go over the LVC. Here's a good example for mortgagors in so much trouble today, whicj could be adopted without statute: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11hDUuALgqT_EjV0PFA9uTieK_Y_Zk-sKu2BWhjbIsWw/edit
When I talk about Georgism/Georgists I do not mean the person(i.e. you ad hominem) I mean the doctrine as a world view. Similarly for socialists and libertarians or even democrats. Its why people get so angry and violent - they become so attached to the idea, it becomes them to all intents. (see Brexit hahaha)
The point is to ask "have I become attached to the idea, or am I still thinking independently from it". So I'm saying the doctrine, in metaphor because there's no other way to describe it materially, develops a 'life if its own'. And then starts to inform the thought of those who allow themselves to become attached to it without them realising it.
Its all depth psychology. I don't mean its real materially. But certainly it is psychologically - an observed fact of the psyche. The problem with our science today(especially the economic) is its limited to material facts. And discounts the source of our thoughts as mumbo jumbo as Fred H tells me - the 'God Sized Hole'.
And we're left in an unassailable position, practically, despite having a technically perfect doctrine.
Too long for here so I'll cease. But that is my point in principle. We believe our thoughts are just pointing out the facts. Yet they are being informed by the doctrine almost fully. The informer may be actually correct. But who's watching him if not!
Post a Comment