Guardian : Lush Green Indicates Drought

11 Responses to Guardian : Lush Green Indicates Drought

1. Andy Weiss says:

   February 7, 2011 at 4:33 am

   Looks in better shape than a lot of golf courses I have played.

   Reply
2. TheTempestSpark says:

   February 7, 2011 at 5:44 am

   The Guardian has gone full blown doomsday it’s unbelievable I’ve never thought I would see anything like that, they have convinced them selves and the people around them that they’re all doomed from Co2 like some creepy cult trying to provoke mass hysteria to get people to do what they want. Madness!

   I doubt that Billions of trees died as a result of drought this sounds like another sensationalist piece( Duh!), “Billions of trees died” how does someone come up with a figure like this do they check every tree to make sure that it’s dead then count it? I doubt it, they guess an estimate then exaggerate it! luckily there’s enough co2 to help billions of trees to grow there!

   “Lewis was careful to note that significant scientific uncertainties remain and that the 2010 and 2005 drought – thought then to be of once-a-century severity – might yet be explained by natural climate variation.”

   So it turns out that they were wrong in thinking that the 2005 drought was once-a-century severity,
   Lewis seems to be saying;
   “It may be going too far to blame the drought on man made co2 or global warming, because of all the other exaggerations, and because we have now been told that agw causes cold weather by the almighty manbearpig or something we don’t know at all,
   but look at all the dead trees, no we didn’t take photos of all the dead trees we thought that it would be disrespectful.” D’oh!

   Reply
3. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

   February 7, 2011 at 6:06 am

   Lush green is the new drought.

   Lushdrought, greendry.

   Reply
   • colliemum says:

     February 7, 2011 at 10:47 am

     You took the words out from my keyboard!

     Anybody else getting the impression that dying trees/forests is going to be the next ‘big scare’, after ocean acidification didn’t work so well?

     Reply
4. Philip Finck says:

   February 7, 2011 at 12:51 pm

   When the article is read carefully it is clear that they have test plots examined after the 2005 droubt. However, the billions of trees that died after the 2010 droubt is purely speculation. Note that hey state that they are trying to raise money to revisit the plots and actually collect data. what a thought, collect some data before you state what the conclusions are.

   Even worse, they indicate that the billions of extra dead trees may not exist as the droubt intolerant trees may have already died in the 2005 droubt.

   If I was a prof. teaching a first year university science course and got a paper like this I would give the student a 15%, i.e. minus 85% for stupidity and lack of scientific method, +15% for imagination and feeling sorry for the dumb a$*.

   It is garbage.

   Reply
5. Jeff K says:

   February 7, 2011 at 2:59 pm

   As the loopy scientist in Jurassic Park said, “shouldn’t there be dinosaurs in a dinosaur park,” shouldn’t there be dead trees in a forest with a billion dead trees. I don’t see any, and when looking at satellite images green is what I see, not brown.

   Reply
   • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

     February 7, 2011 at 3:31 pm

     That’s the thing, green is the new drought. Record cold is the new heat.

     Reply
6. suyts says:

   February 7, 2011 at 3:52 pm

   Didn’t we already debunk this bogus Amazon sensitivity madness a couple of years ago?

   Reply
   • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

     February 8, 2011 at 2:52 am

     Debunking means something to them? I didn’t get that memo.

     Reply
7. Justa Joe says:

   February 7, 2011 at 4:20 pm

   Areas were flooded in 2009 & 2004. How does that factor into the drought scenario?http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=39359

   Reply
8. omnologos says:

   February 8, 2011 at 7:13 am

   Future-minded Manaus rioters had been protesting our current drought since 1958

   Reply