Political Crossfire Forums

[Infinite911911]

John Galt wrote:
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.


Since when are shrubland and Bushland considered Forests?
Shrubland:


Bushland:


Just because there's trees doesn’t mean it’s a forest. :wink:

John Galt wrote:
Fires destroy more forest than man does.


That's absolutely true, but the forest eventually grows back on their own. Nature regrows itself. Tell me, how many forests grow back after they've been logged, made into farmland or drilled for oil?

[ieatfood]

shrubland:




clearly, the UN map has a higher threshold for shrubland than you think

You would trust greenpeace over the UN?


Cmon.

I bet Greenpeace put a bunch of shrubs in their maps too--why don't you investigate your source huh?

you're right that trees dont grow back after oil drilling
but good thing that humans plant trees where there weren't trees before

[Infinite911911]

ieatfood wrote: shrubland:




clearly, the UN map has a higher threshold for shrubland than you think

You would trust greenpeace over the UN?


Cmon.

I bet Greenpeace put a bunch of shrubs in their maps too--why don't you investigate your source huh?

What are you posting?? Where's the shrubland indicated in that map and why does it matter to this conversation??????

[ieatfood]

Infinite911911 wrote:

What are you posting?? Where's the shrubland indicated in that map and why does it matter to this conversation??????

My point is there are different definitions of shrubland. In the map i posted, ALL of the green is shrubland. Clearly, the UN has a definition of shrubland that is stringent enough to be classified as forest.

In any case, I would bet that Greenpeace's definition of forest is the same as the UN's definition since the UN is an internationally recognized organization and sets the standards.

My main point, which has not been argued, is that greenpeace only looks at ancient forest, while ignoring non-ancient forest.

[mathurin]

Infinite911911 wrote: John Galt wrote:
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.


Since when are shrubland and Bushland considered Forests?
Shrubland:


Bushland:


Just because there's trees doesn’t mean it’s a forest. :wink:

John Galt wrote:
Fires destroy more forest than man does.


That's absolutely true, but the forest eventually grows back on their own. Nature regrows itself. Tell me, how many forests grow back after they've been logged, made into farmland or drilled for oil?

i would call the first one scrubland, its near desert


its all has trees, the dark green just has more

you are just annoyed that your lame greenpeace map was proven wrong by the UN

[Infinite911911]

mathurin wrote:

you are just annoyed that your lame greenpeace map was proven wrong by the UN

Again, they show different data. This thread is about Forests.


mathurin wrote: i would call the first one scrubland, its near desert


Learn what Scrubland is.

[ieatfood]

Infinite911911 wrote:
Again, they show different data. This thread is about Forests.




no
the UN defines the light green areas as forest

I wonder what Greenpeace defines forest as.

But I guess we won't know because Greenpeace isn't honest enough to disclose its definition of forest....

THe UN tells me that 1/3 of the world is covered by forest.
That's all the evidence I need.

btw, that picture you put up of shrubland is a strawman
clearly, the UN does not define forest as that
if it did, there would be a lot more green on the map than there is.
that kind of stuff exists all over the place.

[mathurin]

Infinite911911 wrote: mathurin wrote:

you are just annoyed that your lame greenpeace map was proven wrong by the UN

Again, they show different data. This thread is about Forests.

the UN says forests
your map says _ANCIENT_ forests

face it dude, your map is a lie made to get people to crap their pants yell "we are all gonna die!!" and give money to greenpeace
ok, so not totally a lie, but you get the point, it hides the truth

Infinite911911 wrote:
mathurin wrote: i would call the first one scrubland, its near desert


Learn what Scrubland is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrubland
Scrubland is plant community characterized by scrub vegetation. "Scrub" consists of low shrubs, mixed with grasses, herbs, and geophytes

Xeric scrublands or desert scrublands occur in the world's Deserts and xeric shrublands ecoregions, or in areas of fast-draining sandy soils in more humid regions. These scrublands are characterized by plants with adaptations to the dry climate, which include small leaves to limit water loss, thorns to protect them from grazing animals, and succulent leaves or stems, storage organs to store water, and long taproots to reach groundwater.




http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scrubland
An area of land that is uncultivated and covered with sparse stunted vegetation.


it seems i already know