Another ‘Scientific Consensus’ found wrong?...

Space, the environment, new discoveries and new uses for old ones
Post Reply
User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Another ‘Scientific Consensus’ found wrong?...

Post by kramer » Sun Mar 10, 2013 4:00 pm

... Or is this just a BS science scam designed to help developing countries from returning our wealth after their trees die that we paid them for to store our carbon?
Tropical forests unexpectedly resilient to climate change
Models predict that forests such as the Amazon will keep carbon locked up until 2100.
Olive Heffernan
10 March 2013



Tropical forests are unlikely to die off as a result of the predicted rise in atmospheric greenhouse gases this century, a new study finds. The analysis refutes previous work that predicted the catastrophic loss of the Amazon rainforest as one of the more startling potential outcomes of climate change.

http://www.nature.com/news/tropical-for ... ge-1.12570

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) is a proposed market mechanism to encourage reductions in forestry-related emissions by providing a financial incentive for maintaining carbon stored in forests. REDD mechanisms establish a value for carbon currently sequestered in forests (and for the avoided release of that carbon) as well as for additional sequestration, together with a mechanism through which forest owners receive a payment for maintaining their carbon stocks. In addition to the carbon benefits, REDD mechanisms are promoted as a good way to incentivize maintenance of other forest- related ecosystem services such as habitat protection and provision, biodiversity, erosion control, and flood control.


REDD mechanisms are currently being debated at the international level as one potential way for countries to meet their obligations under international climate change agreements. Under such a system, developed countries could offset part of their emission reduction obligations by making payments to provide incentives for reduced deforestation in tropical countries.



http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/workgr ... 510wri.pdf
DRAFT DOCUMENT: DO NOT CIRCULATE OR CITE (yeah right...)

(logged in twice today)
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18139
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: Another ‘Scientific Consensus’ found wrong?...

Post by Fordama » Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:50 am

Maybe if you read the last three paragraphs it would have helped you write something actually accurate about this one study.

Fordama
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
barstow wiz
Posts: 1009
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2012 3:43 pm

Re: Another ‘Scientific Consensus’ found wrong?...

Post by barstow wiz » Mon Mar 11, 2013 10:17 am

one group of sientest's theory debunked by another group's?
:shock:
:)

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: Another ‘Scientific Consensus’ found wrong?...

Post by kramer » Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:29 pm

Fordama wrote:Maybe if you read the last three paragraphs it would have helped you write something actually accurate about this one study.

Fordama

Just did and didn't notice much in there other than this:
That tropical forests will retain their carbon stocks long term gives a major boost to policies aimed at keeping forests intact, such as the United Nations' REDD programme on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation.
Believe it or not, I didn't read the entire article and I did not know there was any mention of REDD in it...

This paragraph above supports my comment in the OP (that I didn't state very clearly after re-reading it...) that our 'refunds' that will be owned to us after those trees die will be delayed.
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18139
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: Another ‘Scientific Consensus’ found wrong?...

Post by Fordama » Mon Mar 11, 2013 5:10 pm

kramer wrote:

Just did and didn't notice much in there other than this:


Believe it or not, I didn't read the entire article and I did not know there was any mention of REDD in it...

This paragraph above supports my comment in the OP (that I didn't state very clearly after re-reading it...) that our 'refunds' that will be owned to us after those trees die will be delayed.
So I see by your reply that you did not understand the last three paragraphs.

Fordama
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

Post Reply