2007-06-05 06:56:54 · 21 answers · asked by ≈ nohglf 7 in Environment ➔ Global Warming
Because a few scientists have a theory that deforestation in Southeast Asia (for rice paddies) in the 6th and 7th centuries was a proximate cause of the MWP.
And there was significant deforestation in Southeast Asia in the 6th and 7th centuries.
But if they're right, that would mean the UN would have to admit that they were wrong about the MWP which, given that their model doesn't pick up the MWP would also mean their model is wrong.
The new spin could be "well yes, the MWP happened and was warmer but it too was man-made" except that the credibility they'd lose having to backtrack over the model and their statements since 1998 about the MWP (before 1998 they accepted it like everyone else) would be significant.
They've dug themselves a real hole with that one.
2007-06-05 11:07:27 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Now deforestation is a topic not even up for debate, we know for a fact that trees supply oxygen. That should replace that lame global warming stuff.We are still finding new species on this world so how are we gonna go off another planets climate and we cannot even figure out the things that re going on in our own world! So my point is deforestation needs to come to a crawl if not a halt unless it is necessary.We get irate and upset and blame the government when nature knocks our houses over so why dint we give animals the same respect we want from nature. Besides trees help us breathe!
2007-06-05 14:54:40 · answer #2 · answered by Adonis D 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's a good question and the answer, sadly, is fashion. Right now it's fashionable to talk about carbon loading and trading and the like in association with industrial activity. Deforestation remains a problem, but there's money to be made and people heard about it all in the 80's and 90's and it's passe.
The way to combat global warming is to reduce carbon and other emissions and reduce the pace of foliage loss by sustained replanting and protection of what remaining forests we have.
It's a simple thing to do, but it ain't sexy and it ain't flashy, and someone may actually have to sweat to make it happen.
2007-06-12 16:39:23 · answer #3 · answered by Pugilist 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is being mentioned, there's just not as much media hype in the US because we don't have a deforestation problem here. Most of our agricultural properties are located in the plains (ie not forest) we actually have a lot more vegetation now than ever before. I've seen some lush farmland pop up where before there was little more than scrub.
2007-06-05 16:31:27 · answer #4 · answered by 3DM 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I would guess the answer to be that many people don't know the ins and outs of global warming.
Those who know about the subject are well aware of the impact that deforestation has on the climate and this is taken into account by scientists working in this field.
2007-06-05 14:00:25 · answer #5 · answered by Trevor 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
probably because deforestation happens when people need the firewood to live and those are the poor countries that are being helped with funds at the moment to feed them and help them with AIDS. We can't ask the poor people to do more, and we can't ask those contributors to do more.
Usually people use forests for livelihood, and those places who do so without replanting are now starting to feel the effects, i.e. loss of jobs, loss of land, etc. Replanting costs money and if I recall correctly there was an African woman who won a nobel prize for replanting trees a few years ago with her idea.
2007-06-09 12:44:39 · answer #6 · answered by sophieb 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The reason for that is because just as many trees are planted as are cut down. The liberals do not have an effective arguement. The tree huggers still have trees to hug they just are not as big.
2007-06-13 05:16:46 · answer #7 · answered by Lance S 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because the government would have to answer questions about why so many foreign companies are able to purchase our coastal land and remove natural wetlands to put up resorts.
2007-06-12 17:05:25 · answer #8 · answered by kimbo1205 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
because of president Bush, he doesnt have any sense to pass a bill saying to stop deforestation!
2007-06-05 16:59:07 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
because there are presently more trees in the world than when columbus landed in the americas. you have to understand that before we settled america more than half the country was a great plain with buffalo as far as the eye could see, because of this almost no trees could grow in this area.
2007-06-05 14:01:54 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋