Comments on: “Like it or hate it, this book cannot be ignored”

By: Andrew Walker

Andrew Walker — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 23:29:56 +0000

Thanks Bystander, why not read the book? The agenda is very clear.

And thanks R. Lindgren. Again, if you read the book you will see that we discuss the effects of forest on rainfall at considerable length (100-104).

By: Bystander

Bystander — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:18:03 +0000

I can’t understand why AW is particularly fixated on this particular so-called “myth”. What agenda is he trying to push here? While I find AW reasonable and agreeable on most other points he blog about, his obsession with this issue is puzzling. (Sort of like, trying to muddy the issues about the dangers of smoking, etc.).

I mean, in the end, what matters is that fragile forest ecosystem are preserved. It may not be done for the right reason, but I’m sure most people who really care about the environment and not their academic ego will settle for whatever wrong and pratical reasons that might be for the near term, be they superstition, propaganda, etc.

Second, if AW think his finding is so revolutionary and scientifically rigorous, why no just publish it in well-known peer-reviewed journal where bona fide hydrologists or other experts can evaluate, instead of publishing in some obscure journal with just some plots with no meaningful statistical test ( I did look up your paper).

By: R. Lindgren

R. Lindgren — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 22:53:52 +0000

The book appears to be a good example of linear thinking, which is a pity when what is being discussed is the water CYCLE. An example is “Much of the rain falling on forests gets evaporated from the leaves or transpired through the roots”. What goes up must also come down. That’s the other half of the cycle. And what does “transpired through the roots” mean? Sounds like garbled science to me.