Is Global Warming a Myth?
Way to go ThiChi.
Your cut and paste reply does have disadvantage of being out of context.
You respond to
the world is depleting it's forests at an alarming rate
This widespread guilt is misplaced. North America's forests are not disappearing. In fact, there is about the same amount of forest cover today as there was 100 years ago,
The WORLD (the USA is not the world) has less forests than 100 years ago.
Did you simply not read what was asked, or not read what you posted?
Now I'm even more confused.
I thought the evidence for an "unnatural speeding up" of global warming was pretty convincing, but now I'm not so sure.
Some great articles, thanks. Can anyone clarify beyond "its a combination of factors"? Is there evidence of unusual warming?
Heathen said: Mary --- obviously the polution is ruining parts of the planet that's why recycling is important so as to keep the garbage dumps from filling too quickly ..... There are problems with tires and disposing of them as well or anti freeze in auto mobiles , stuff like that is jut plain not good to get in the water supply . There are plenty of herbacides and chemicals that are dangerous when igested by humans or animals .
I agree. Every day I see a convoy of trucks in Toronto taking their garbage over to Michigan to dump........it's pretty frigging gross when you think about it. I recycle, but I'm as guilty as everyone else about not recycling enough. I think Switzerland has the best recycling program around; they waste virtually nothing and we really need to do more of that over here.......my understanding of global warming is not that the whole earth would become warmer (god, we couldn't be that lucky here in Ontario!) but that there would be more extremes in the weather: longer, colder winters (yep, I can vouch for that), extreme heat, extreme cold, more tornados, more flooding, more droughts..........as I say, I find it hard to believe that all the pollution in the atmosphere isn't at least partially to blame.
Wow, hit a nerve, did I? While I noticed you used "cut & past" to create your response, that makes you what? A hypocrite? Who knows? Would it have made you feel any better if I typed the information in by hand instead? The absurdity of your "poison well" tactic is plain to all....attack the messenger and not the information.....
At any rate, in fact, the same holds true world wide. In fact, Europe has a much more aggressive Forest management plan than we do....The co2 is driving all forests throughout the world through the roof, so to speak. America?s example is relevant since it is by far the largest consumer and producer of wood products for the whole world. So the points are valid to rebut the claim made.
Notwithstanding, a very powerful point is made economically, by a renowned Environmentalist, which demonstrates the radical left?s agenda once more...If this is over your head, I can?t help you.....
(this also was cut & past...sorry)
""Ok, now add the fact the the world is depleting it's forests at an alarming rate. "" Really? Source: Los Angeles TimesThe LA Times article doesn't represent the forests of the world, nor super-forests of Africa and S America. It doesn't represent the loss of old-growth forests that have harboured many diverse species which do not and cannot live and develop in a farmed forest environment. These old-growth forest which Bush and his special interest groups and corporations want to destroy (had to put a politcal punch in there as it is all politics and corporate money). It's been in the local news often enough here in the Pac NW and in Calif. Redwoods.
Headline: Commentary: Greens Don't See Forest for the Trees
Byline: Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, president of Greenspirit
Dateline: Tuesday, March 26, 2002
I'm all for paper. I request paper over plastic in the market. I reuse my paper bags until they fall apart, then recycle. I reuse plastic until it falls apart, then send it for recycling.
Here in Pac NW, in the Woodland, WA, Lewis River bottom lands which used to be minimal agriculture, they have planted hundreds of acres of hybrid, fast-growing poplar trees for woodpulp. No different from planting timothy grass for hay, and a great use of the floodplane.
On the Island of Hawaii, eucalyptis plantations have replaced sugar cane at higher elevations for paper pulp. (Sugar is no longer grown on Hawaii commercially - last plant to close was in 1996), I think there may be some small company producing on Maui).
On Mt. St. Helens, Weyerhaueser lost hundreds of thousands of acres of forest plantation in the blast of May 18, 1980. As soon as they were allowed, they went in and recovered as much as they could of the blown-down and burnt timber - only about 10% of their holdings. Then they replanted. Where the ash was shallow, they could replant with no problems. Where the ash was deep (and sterile) they had to come up with alt. solutions, which was Red Alder that has nitrogen nodules in its roots and impart nitrogen to the soild around it. Red alder became a live furtilizer and within 3 years they were able to plant Doug. Fir.
Because of the shortages of lumber due to forestfire, and shipping overseas, and extensive use of it's byproducts, and the closing of oldgrowth forests to logging, corps have come up with new ideas and development of new resources. Remember "necessity is the mother of invention". If we didn't have to change our practices or do it differenly, we wouldn't!
Look at your copier paper. It now has a large % of recycled (pre- and post-consumer) product in it. This is true of most paper products today. 10 years ago, it was difficult to find any copier paper with even 5% pre-consumer recycled product.
The US and Canada may have as much or more forest land today, due to replanting, but how healthy are these man-made forests? That's why the huge fires in the West these last 10 years. Fire = consumption of oxygen and release of carbons (our original thread).
Also, replanting of forest land, private and public, is a fairly recent event - 1930's-40's - after 80+/- years of cutting without replanting nor awareness of the effects. Sure the excess CO2 helps these forests grow, that the CO2 is not the REASON we have the forests we have today!
Forest studies began in the early 1900's when scientific visionaries understood that forests were not going to survive the "cut and run" attitude of the era. Afterall, the forests seemed to go on forever!
If government didn't step in and support the visionaries, if corporations weren't told "no more old growth", etc., we wouldn't be anywhere near as advance today as we are in our forest management and recycling. We're still not THERE yet, either.
Pulp to ponder
""The LA Times article doesn't represent the forests of the world, nor super-forests of Africa and S America. It doesn't represent the loss of old-growth forests that have harboured many diverse species which do not and cannot live and develop in a farmed forest environment. These old-growth forest which Bush and his special interest groups and corporations want to destroy (had to put a political punch in there as it is all politics and corporate money). It's been in the local news often enough here in the Pac NW and in Calif. Redwoods""
No claim was made that it did. No where. However, this situation is the same all around the world. So the information is representative of all timber type forests everywhere where Forest Management is used. I stand by this claim.
I can provide much information around the world if I need to (but, by God, I don?t want to be accused of Cut & Past...)
Your other claims do not pass the logic test:
Your claim that " loss of old-growth forests that have harbored many diverse species " is just another myth. In fact, it has been shown that when trees are cleared, more sun light comes through, providing more species support/ fauna/ than a darkened forest does, creating a richer environment and a base for more growth.
The fact is, emotionally, we like the look of a forest much more than a cleared area.
Notwithstanding, Where did the "diverse species" live when the "old Growth" Forest was new? Again, just superficial reasoning.....
""Bush and his special interest groups and corporations want to destroy (had to put a political punch in there as it is all politics and corporate money). It's been in the local news often enough here in the Pac NW and in Calif. Redwoods""
Again, not the true facts of the matter. In fact, the Government/Enviros have destroyed more forest through letting the vegetation build up to the point that it has burned many Acers in California and other states. Clearing is good for the forest, and most importantly, it is a renewable resource.
"""The scientific evidence paints a much brighter picture of deforestation in the world. Looking at the NASA Landsat satellite images of the deforestation rates in the Amazon rainforest as an example, about 12.5 percent has been cleared. Of the 12.5 percent, one half to one third of that is fallow, or in the process of regeneration, meaning that at any given moment up to 94 percent of the Amazon is left to nature. Even the Environmental Defense Fund and Sting's Rainforest Foundation concede, among the fine print, that the forest is nearly 90 percent intact.
Philip Stott of the University of London and author of the new book, "Tropical Rainforests: Political and Hegemonic Myth-making," maintains that the environmental campaigns have lost perspective.
"One of the simple, but very important, facts is that the rainforests have only been around for between 12,000 and 16,000 years," he says. "That sounds like a very long time, but in terms of the history of the earth, it's hardly a pinprick. The simple point is that there are now still -- despite what humans have done -- more rainforests today than there were 12,000 years ago." ""
TaiChi, dearheart, we agree to disagree.
I don't disagree that there are many who jump on the propaganda band wagon. For BOTH sides.
Same here, I do enjoy your posts.....
Gosh, thanx! I enjoy yours, too. I think we're more alike than different. Too bad you're a Californian (gotta get that jab in ;)-
True wild animals cannot exist on farm land but these people are worried about eating themselves . If it would've worked to clear forests for farm land I think it a necessity to feed people over the impact on forest dwelling animals . The fact it didn't work is a very sad case indeed, they did not account for the environment to deteriorate in the process so now they can only use the land for building living quarters which withour food will be pointless .
ThiChi--- That's some interesting stuff you dug up there . I don't complain about copy and paste I could imagine it easier to get a post together then post it . I think the whole concept of whether or not there were more rainforests 12,000 yrs. ago is one that depends on whether you believe in the creation stories in the bible or scientific speculation .