31 replies to this topic

[Tibet Libre]

According to this article, Genghis Khan and the Mongolians killed off so many people that it had a positive effect on global climate; arable lands turned to forests again, which bound 700 million tons of carbon.

http://archaeologyne...invader-in.html

[Eidolon]

If this post is not tongue-in-cheek, then I am sorely disappointed in the OP's ability of discernment.

[Loong]

This is a very disappointing article, which is of bad taste. It would be a great example of being intelligent without wisdom.

[Tibet Libre]

Dr Pongratz explained: “We found that during the short events such as the Black Death and the Ming Dynasty collapse, the forest re-growth wasn't enough to overcome the emissions from decaying material in the soil.

“But during the longer-lasting ones like the Mongol invasion... there was enough time for the forests to re-grow and absorb significant amounts of carbon.”

Perhaps these researchers don't share your notion of humor but I don't see how the Carnegie lead analysis was intended to be funny.

Edited by Tibet Libre, 10 April 2011 - 04:51 PM.

[baybal]

How ironic

[William O'Chee]

For this who missed the actual article, it was entitled Ghengis Khan voted greenest invader in history, and read as follows:

Genghis Khan, who established the world's largest contiguous empire between the 13th and 14th centuries, has been branded the “greenest invader” in history as his murderous invasion actually helped scrub about 700 million ton of carbon from the atmosphere.

Genghis_Khan_statue_UB_MGLAccording to a new research, the ruthless Mongol warrior killed so many people during his bloody invasions that huge swathes of cultivated land depopulated and returned to forest.

Nearly 40 million people were believed to be killed in Mongol invasions which led to an empire that spanned 22 per cent of the Earth's surface. This resulted in huge cultivated land becoming forests again, absorbing an estimated 700 million ton of carbon from the atmosphere, found the research by the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology.

Though his methods may be difficult for environmentalists to stomach, ecologists believe it may be the first ever case of successful manmade global cooling.

“It's a common misconception that the human impact on climate began with the large-scale burning of coal and oil in the industrial era,” said lead researcher Dr Julia Pongratz.

“Actually, humans started to influence the environment thousands of years ago by changing the vegetation cover of the Earth's landscapes when we cleared forests for agriculture,” Dr Pongratz was quoted as saying by the Daily Mail.

The 700 million ton of carbon is equivalent to the quantity produced in a year from the global use of petrol. The Carnegie study measured the carbon impact of a number of historical events that involved a large number of deaths.

Time periods also looked at included the Black Death in Europe, the fall of China's Ming Dynasty and the conquest of the Americas. All of these events share a widespread return of forests after a period of massive depopulation. But the bloody Mongol invasion immediately stood out for its longevity.

And this is how Khan, who repeatedly wiped out entire settlements, was able to scrub more carbon from the atmosphere than any other despot, the researchers said.

Dr Pongratz explained: “We found that during the short events such as the Black Death and the Ming Dynasty collapse, the forest re-growth wasn't enough to overcome the emissions from decaying material in the soil.

“But during the longer-lasting ones like the Mongol invasion... there was enough time for the forests to re-grow and absorb significant amounts of carbon.”

Though the Khan will remain known as Genghis the Destroyer and not Genghis the Green, Dr Pongratz hopes that her research will lead to future historians examining environmental impact as well as the more traditional aspects of study.

Quite frankly, I think the article is a moral disgrace. No matter what one thinks about global warming, to subordinate the moral implications of his massacres to the question of whether or not it reduced atmospheric carbon is inexcusable.

Unfortunately, there are some people who are so obsessed with their belief in anthropogenic climate change and the environment that they forget about people. This article is, one hopes, an extreme example. It does show, however, that some people seem to live an a moral and ethical vacuum.

[TheAznValedictorian]

Quite frankly, I think the article is a moral disgrace. No matter what one thinks about global warming, to subordinate the moral implications of his massacres to the question of whether or not it reduced atmospheric carbon is inexcusable.

Unfortunately, there are some people who are so obsessed with their belief in anthropogenic climate change and the environment that they forget about people. This article is, one hopes, an extreme example. It does show, however, that some people seem to live an a moral and ethical vacuum.

Very well said, Mr. William O'Chee.

[Lawrence86]

Err... this one even though sounds sick to my stomach in a way... I but I get the idea where they are coming from.

In the BBC documentary planet Earth, you can also say two hosts at the commentaries saying that "I think the earth can support in a sustainable way about half of what we have today. We would have more diversity and it would certainly make the planet happier and make the people happier."

Something like that, it seems like promoting killing people in a sick sense.

But this article just like that comment in the documentary also made me sick and sad.

[Eidolon]

Perhaps these researchers don't share your notion of humor but I don't see how the Carnegie lead analysis was intended to be funny.

Eco-terrorists also do not share my notion of humor, but at least they're environmentalists.

Genghis Khan, though? Since when did he ever care about the environment? The Mongols terrorized for wealth and power, and in some respects for their own survival. Whether the forests came back was of little concern to them. If we accept Genghis Khan as an environmentalist, then we'll have to say that any initiator of prolonged massacres was an environmentalist. Thus, Pol Pot was an environmentalist, and Mao misses the mark only because he encouraged more births than deaths.

[moobie]

Interesting. We can also assume that, because of the relatively per capita high resource consumption of Jews, that Hitler was indeed the greatest environmentalist of history.

[CPK]

Interesting. We can also assume that, because of the relatively per capita high resource consumption of Jews, that Hitler was indeed the greatest environmentalist of history.

I beg to differ. "Only" 6 million jews died whereas Chairman Mao could have caused the death of >60 million chinese (according to some estimates).

[moobie]

Those estimates would be classified as "unsourced propaganda", and even if he did he did so over a 27 year period- during which time, he is to blame for a net increase in the Chinese population by hundreds of millions.

[SuZheYu]

Meh, I've read something about Latin America causing a similar situation with the lands reforesting. but it has too disastrous implications - ultimately, if there is good in wiping people out, who are first to go?

[moobie]

Most whites and Westerners will say "Chinese, especially Han Chinese". Hitler and Goebbels with a shiny coat of New Age paint.

The whole point of the article is to claim that murdering Han Chinese women and children is acceptable.

[mariusj]

Most whites and Westerners will say "Chinese, especially Han Chinese". Hitler and Goebbels with a shiny coat of New Age paint.

The whole point of the article is to claim that murdering Han Chinese women and children is acceptable.

And where part in the article EVER condone killing of ANY one let alone woman and children.