'Warming' questions: Science vs. politics
Climate alarmists who blame mankind's "smokestack" emissions betray their unscientific slant by ignoring the effects of pre-industrial clearing of forests, which a new study documents.
Six French researchers report in the journal Science that ancient sediment cores from the Congo River's mouth show a significant human role "in changing the landscapes of Central Africa" about 3,500 years ago, according to Scientific American.
The cores show river sediments increased suddenly, without increased rainfall, at the time when the Bantu people "brought farming into the region."
Clearing forests to plant oil palm, pearl millet and yams -- "crops that need plenty of sunlight" -- they helped create African savannas, previously thought to be the result of "climate change" only.
Scientific American says the paper doesn't settle which came first, savannas or agriculture. But by demonstrating that clearing forests -- a practice that continues today -- can change climate, the paper exposes a glaring blind spot in global-warming alarmists' "reasoning."
It's a reminder that "settled" science about incredibly complex ecosystems is anything but settled -- and that when politics enters scientific debate, such debate becomes anything but serious and scientific.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.