Yeah okay except that I agreed (I read 1491 among other reports based on satellite imaging showing the overgrown sites etc) .
However as I clearly stated, I asked for sources on the bogus alternative fact denial science concerning your support for the Trump troll's nonsense claim about more trees increasing global warming. Do you want to pretend that I was asking about something else?
You felt the need to promote alternative fact denial science in support of Pman claiming that there is 'evidence' basing it on an archaeological/anthropological comment from a book which was not about climate. Moreover I read the book and I am wondering exactly where the author makes a claim such as you suggest. Btw the book was not rigorous in its many theoretical assertions but offered popular science more often than not. However I agreed with the theory but not in the exaggerated claims the author made since he was speculating rather than presenting peer reviewed evidence.
Nevertheless, you seem to treat the theory reflexively or do you now want to present scientific evidence showing the connection between this speculative Amazonian Jungle civilization ( I know of no cities in the jungle but only of a trade network of villages reaching across the jungle from the Andes to the Atlantic. It is a theory and most certainly did not speculate that large portions of the jungle had been cut down at the time but only that there was a network of villages.
Similarly you don't even cite your reference to the little ice age of the 1500's making the connection to tree growth. You obviously do not do your own research about the causes of these relatively minor blips in climate which occur periodically, most of which are misnamed little ice ages by a sensationalist press rather than by scientists. The one around the time of the Vikings excepted, most were of very minor effect on climate.
But cite your 'science' as I asked ( not some author's speculation) concerning your assertion (implied or otherwise) that additional tree growth could increase global warning instead of the accepted science showing how added tree cover reduces global warming.
You say 30 to 50 million people in the jungle? Cite this evidence then. Try maybe a few million people spread out through numerous villages but not tens of millions. Satellite imaging do not corroborate such a sensationalist claim of cities etc.
Btw the coasts did have considerably larger population densities than did the less hospitable interior but you cite unsubstantiated speculation not hard science and it wasn't the question I asked anyway!
The trees? Global warming? Hello?