Political Crossfire Forums

[Infinite911911]

The Destruction of the worlds forests. These forests are critical in stabilizing the world's climate by storing large amounts of carbon that would otherwise contribute to warmer/drier weather and climate change. They also help provide clean water for us to drink and provide a habitat for wildlife to live. But thanks to over logging, hydro-electric development, land for agriculture and the search for resources such as oil, gas, coal and minerals nearly 80% of the world's forests have been destroyed, (much of it in the last three decades) and less than 10% of the world's land area remains as intact forests larger than 500km. If this trend is not stopped and reversed life on this planet has a dim future.

[John Galt]

There are 800 million acres of forest.

In America.

Which is over one fourth of the land.

One third of the land was forested in pre-Colonial days (that little graphic there is from Greenpeace. Let us remember the founder of Greenpeace quit the organization after he felt they became too radical and do not believe in truth but propogandizing their lies).

Of course, now we are supporting a society of 300 million people that likes to read books, live in houses, and make shelters for animals.

(Hint: over 80% of the pre-Colonial land that was forested... is forested today. 80% have not been destroyed -- 80% remains intact!).

What is your point? We use tres -- so what?

[Wolverine]

We have more forest now than ever before. :think:
Quote: MYTH # 3 — We Are Destroying Our Forests

Lots of Americans feel bad when they see images of trees being cut down, because they've been told that America's running out of forestland.

Carl Ross, of the group, Save America's Forests, says we've cut way too much.

"The loss of natural forests in America is a crisis," he said. "And we will lose species forever, and they'll go extinct, if we don't take action now."

Other environmental groups run ads warning of the dire consequences.

But The U.S. Agriculture Department says America has 749 million acres of forestland. In 1920, we had 735 million acres of forest.

We have more forest now. How can that be? One reason is technology that allows us to grow five times more food per acre — so we need less farmland. Lots of what once was farmland has reverted to forest.

But Ross says we don't really have more forests. "We have more areas, in America, with trees on them, that's true. But we have less that are natural," he said.

He's right that many of the oldest trees have been cut down, and about 7 percent of America's forests have been planted by man, but that still means that 93 percent are natural.

Ross is also concerned that loss of old-growth forest is leading to a loss of biodiversity. But while some species have decreased, the populations of many others animals have actually increased in the past 75 years.

Michael Shermer says many people believe America is destroying the forests because environment groups need to scare people to raise money.

"The fear is there," he said, "because, if your goal is to raise funds you have to scare people. You can't tell people things are getting better, and here's the data. You have to tell people things are worse."

The truth, however, is that today in the United States there are two acres of forestland for every single person, and America is growing more trees than it cuts.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123606

[Infinite911911]

John Galt wrote: There are 800 million acres of forest.


And? Seems your more interested about where the pic comes from and destroying credibility then the actual subject, typical. But I'm already used to you and your little games when it comes to these subjects. You dont effect me.

Now onto the subject, In North America (not just America :wink: ), more than half of the coastal temperate forests, once extending from California to Alaska, have been destroyed. In fact only One-fifth of the Earth's remaining forests are pristine and undisturbed.

The FACT is John that 80% the Earth's forests are gone, and the growing demand for wood threatens those that remain (estimated to grow by 50% by the year 2050). If something is not done life on this planet will not survive. That's a simple fact, now go and spin it which ever way you want John.

[Infinite911911]

Wolverine wrote: MYTH # 3 — We Are Destroying Our Forests


Oh my, A Libertarian believing what the government has told him!?!?! I guess not believing the Government only applies to matters you see fit then huh?

[Wolverine]

Infinite911911 wrote: Wolverine wrote: MYTH # 3 — We Are Destroying Our Forests


Oh my, A Libertarian believing what the government has told him!?!?! I guess not believing the Government only applies to matters you see fit then huh?
Its ABC news, I do believe the government on a few things also.

Do you have anything to counter the article?

[John Galt]

Fact is infinitate that redwoods were here after humans. Your costal temperate forests were not there when humans first came here. It was covered in ICE. Don't lecture me about the importance of keeping old trees. There is no need to keep old trees. Cut them down, plant new ones, start again. Burn the land after the trees are gone so you can plant in better soil. It is a renewable resource.

As for global warming, the fact of the matter is that one acre of sod absorbs three times the amount of CO2 that an acre of forest does.

And the fact is infinate that your site is wrong. The Arbor society put the forested land in this country at over 80% of what it was in the 1600s. Other estimates that take into account the large uncontrolled fires of yesteryear say we have more trees now.

[Infinite911911]

Wolverine wrote:
Its ABC news,


Quote: But The U.S. Agriculture Department says

O'RLY?

Wolverine wrote:
Do you have anything to counter the article?


Yea, common sense, an interest in the subject and nothing you'll believe so 'ill save us both time.

[Infinite911911]

John Galt wrote:
And the fact is infinate that your site is wrong. The Arbor society put the forested land in this country at over 80% of what it was in the 1600s. Other estimates that take into account the large uncontrolled fires of yesteryear say we have more trees now.

It's funny you keep mentioning the US joao when the 80% figure was in reference to WORLD FORESTS. I understand you want to badly prove your point but it fails when you spin information.

[John Galt]

Infinite911911 wrote: John Galt wrote:
And the fact is infinate that your site is wrong. The Arbor society put the forested land in this country at over 80% of what it was in the 1600s. Other estimates that take into account the large uncontrolled fires of yesteryear say we have more trees now.

It's funny you keep mentioning the US joao when the 80% figure was in reference to WORLD FORESTS. I understand you want to badly prove your point but it fails when you spin information.

To begin, it is not our buisness.

As for world forests, 12% of the amazon has been 'deforested' with one quarter of that returned to foresest growth. If the largest forest in the world is greater than 80%, and our continent is greater than 80%... well I just don't see how the world could have possibly lost 80% of it's forest. Europe is heavily deforested and I think it still has much forest growth. No matter. I do not know how much is in Europe I do not care. All I care about is this great land. I even went and looked up the rainforest figure. So there you have it: The New world apparently has nearly all the forests it had 400 years ago (BUT I MIGHT ADD... FAR GREATER than the amount from 10,000 years ago. THANK GOODNESS for global warming. If it wasn't for global warming... there would not be as many trees! No I'm very serious in many respects) which means that the rest of the world must have at least 75% of the total forested area of 400 years ago and it must be completely deforested for your position to be true.

[Achilles The Myrmidon]

John Galt wrote: There are 800 million acres of forest.

In America.

Which is over one fourth of the land.

One third of the land was forested in pre-Colonial days (that little graphic there is from Greenpeace. Let us remember the founder of Greenpeace quit the organization after he felt they became too radical and do not believe in truth but propogandizing their lies).

Of course, now we are supporting a society of 300 million people that likes to read books, live in houses, and make shelters for animals.

(Hint: over 80% of the pre-Colonial land that was forested... is forested today. 80% have not been destroyed -- 80% remains intact!).

What is your point? We use tres -- so what? What is a tres?

[Achilles The Myrmidon]

Infinite911911 wrote: Wolverine wrote: MYTH # 3 — We Are Destroying Our Forests


Oh my, A Libertarian believing what the government has told him!?!?! I guess not believing the Government only applies to matters you see fit then huh? :owned:

[John Galt]

Achilles The Myrmidon wrote: John Galt wrote: There are 800 million acres of forest.

In America.

Which is over one fourth of the land.

One third of the land was forested in pre-Colonial days (that little graphic there is from Greenpeace. Let us remember the founder of Greenpeace quit the organization after he felt they became too radical and do not believe in truth but propogandizing their lies).

Of course, now we are supporting a society of 300 million people that likes to read books, live in houses, and make shelters for animals.

(Hint: over 80% of the pre-Colonial land that was forested... is forested today. 80% have not been destroyed -- 80% remains intact!).

What is your point? We use tres -- so what? What is a tres?

Achilles, I have not chided you for your horrible spelling and grammar, and yet one mistake and you pounce on the moment to troll me, as you tend to do every day. Tell me, why shouldn't you be banned? I cannot think of a reason.

[ieatfood]

there's something very deceiving in this picture
it's the word "ancient"
you're right--80% of the world's ancient forests have been destroyed
but at the same time it has been replaced with non-ancient forest
thus, the TOTAL amount of forest in the world HAS NOT CHANGED

the problem with environmentalists is that they use selective information
they only look at the forest that is destroyed
they ignore the forest that is replanted
If you destroy 80% of the world's forest, but replant the same amount, then you end up with a net loss of 0.

Funny how math works.

Bottom line, forests cover about 1/3 of the world's area. That's a lot.

Here's a picture of how much TOTAL forest there is in the year 2000 (UN statistics)--gee, it looks the SAME!!!: :owned:

http://www.unep.org/Geo/geo3/english/fig91.htm

Of course, I'm sure someone here is going to argue that the UN Environment Programme is an evil government spin-machine hellbent on world domination..... :owned:

[Achilles The Myrmidon]

John Galt wrote: Achilles The Myrmidon wrote: John Galt wrote: There are 800 million acres of forest.

In America.

Which is over one fourth of the land.

One third of the land was forested in pre-Colonial days (that little graphic there is from Greenpeace. Let us remember the founder of Greenpeace quit the organization after he felt they became too radical and do not believe in truth but propogandizing their lies).

Of course, now we are supporting a society of 300 million people that likes to read books, live in houses, and make shelters for animals.

(Hint: over 80% of the pre-Colonial land that was forested... is forested today. 80% have not been destroyed -- 80% remains intact!).

What is your point? We use tres -- so what? What is a tres?

Achilles, I have not chided you for your horrible spelling and grammar, and yet one mistake and you pounce on the moment to troll me, as you tend to do every day. Tell me, why shouldn't you be banned? I cannot think of a reason. Because deep down i am a good guy and you like me? :-D

[Infinite911911]

ieatfood wrote:

there's something very deceiving in this picture
it's the word "ancient"
you're right--80% of the world's ancient forests have been destroyed
but at the same time it has been replaced with non-ancient forest
thus, the TOTAL amount of forest in the world HAS NOT CHANGED

the problem with environmentalists is that they use selective information
they only look at the forest that is destroyed
they ignore the forest that is replanted
If you destroy 80% of the world's forest, but replant the same amount, then you end up with a net loss of 0.

Funny how math works.

Bottom line, forests cover about 1/3 of the world's area. That's a lot.

Here's a picture of how much TOTAL forest there is in the year 2000 (UN statistics)--gee, it looks the SAME!!!: :owned:

http://www.unep.org/Geo/geo3/english/fig91.htm

Of course, I'm sure someone here is going to argue that the UN Environment Programme is an evil government spin-machine hellbent on world domination..... :owned:


Quote: Note: dark green represents closed forest, more than 40 per cent covered with trees more than 5 metres high; mid-green represents open (10–40 per cent coverage) and fragmented forest; light green represents other woodland, shrubland and bushland


:gdgf: Now subtract all the color that is NOT dark green (trees more than 5 meters high) and our graphs look almost alike.

LEARN2UNDERSTANDINFORMATIONBEFOREYOUPOSTIT. 8:)

We are talking about forests, not fragmented forest or woodland, shrubland, bushland or your backyard grass.

[ieatfood]

Most of it looks dark green or mid green to me
Besides, your greenpiece map doesn't even make a distinction
Thus, we have no idea what the green on your map even represents
So you have no right to talk.


Consider yourself :owned:


Viva la ignorant infinite911911

[John Galt]

Infinite911911 wrote: ieatfood wrote:

there's something very deceiving in this picture
it's the word "ancient"
you're right--80% of the world's ancient forests have been destroyed
but at the same time it has been replaced with non-ancient forest
thus, the TOTAL amount of forest in the world HAS NOT CHANGED

the problem with environmentalists is that they use selective information
they only look at the forest that is destroyed
they ignore the forest that is replanted
If you destroy 80% of the world's forest, but replant the same amount, then you end up with a net loss of 0.

Funny how math works.

Bottom line, forests cover about 1/3 of the world's area. That's a lot.

Here's a picture of how much TOTAL forest there is in the year 2000 (UN statistics)--gee, it looks the SAME!!!: :owned:

http://www.unep.org/Geo/geo3/english/fig91.htm

Of course, I'm sure someone here is going to argue that the UN Environment Programme is an evil government spin-machine hellbent on world domination..... :owned:


Quote: Note: dark green represents closed forest, more than 40 per cent covered with trees more than 5 metres high; mid-green represents open (10–40 per cent coverage) and fragmented forest; light green represents other woodland, shrubland and bushland


:gdgf: Now subtract all the color that is NOT dark green (trees more than 5 meters high) and our graphs look almost alike.

LEARN2UNDERSTANDINFORMATIONBEFOREYOUPOSTIT. 8:)

We are talking about forests, not fragmented forest or woodland, shrubland, bushland or your backyard grass.

All of the green is trees more than 5 meters high. Mid green is 10-40% covered with trees more than 5 meters high. Light green is less than 10%... It's still all covered with trees.

Quote: LEARN2UNDERSTANDINFORMATIONBEFOREYOUPOSTIT. 8:)

QFT


In any event, he is right about one thing: the use fo the word ancient.

I submit that there is THE SAME amount if not MORE now of "ancient" forest as there ever was. Fires destroy more forest than man does. Ancient to us was new to the ancients. And like I said, the entire forests of North America are just a few thousand years old, at the oldest. They also change species as the forest evolves. Humans were here before the trees.

Trees are a renewable resource. Enviornmentalists should rejoice when we use wood, since there will always be more.

[Infinite911911]

ieatfood wrote: Most of it looks dark green to me
Besides, your greenpiece map doesn't even make a distinction
Thus, we have no idea what the green on your map even represents
So you have no right to talk.

Don't feel bad, I'd mess up to if I were more interested in posting 'owned' smiles then actually understand the information.

[ieatfood]

Infinite911911 wrote: ieatfood wrote: Most of it looks dark green to me
Besides, your greenpiece map doesn't even make a distinction
Thus, we have no idea what the green on your map even represents
So you have no right to talk.

Don't feel bad, I'd mess up to if I were more interested in posting 'owned' smiles then actually understand the information.

i see you are more interested in complaining about the owned smile than actually answering intelligently

ok

but the map still looks mostly dark/mid green to me.
i'm also willing to bet that your greenpeace map includes brushland and shrubland in its definition as well--you should probably research your sources better and figure out what they actually mean by "forest"


in any case, its not an 80% destruction--that's for sure
your argument has clearly been shatterred--you're just grasping at straws.