Topic: Is Global Warming a Myth?
Evidence presented by Thi Chi in this argument was partial (applying to North America) in a direct answer to a question about global systems.
Thi Chi then provided data which backed claim of overall levels of forestation being the same as 100 years ago, as it was a global study.
I then pointed out (as the topic was "Is Global Warming a Myth?"), in view of 47% of all carbon released by human deforestation was in the past 154 years AND we we releasing fives times as much in terms of fossil fuels as in terms of deforestation, it might be best to be prudent.
I don't know what discussion you were having, but there you go.
I suppose that even the most conservative estimates of species loss (some are a bit high), much of which is due to destruction of habitat, are just another coincidence then? Funny how you miss the largest concentration of climax vegetation, which would of course undermine your "move along here, nothing to see" approach.
Whilst I don't think doom is neigh, as some would have it (as I said eariler), I think you're equally likekly to be wrong, as it beggers belief to think we're having no influence on climate.
Whether that global warming (if taking place) would cause major problems (after a raise in sea level) is moot.
Both the doom mongers and the nay-sayers are guessing, as indeed am I. I distinctly remember a feared ice age in the 70's, and then nuclear winter, then global warming. Now we have the failure of the Gulf Stream and asteroidal impacts. We're still here. And I never saw no Armagedon either.
But even the 'smallest' things we do (the switch to unleaded petrol lead to massive drop in numbers of predatory birds preying on small mammals by highways in the UK, DDT, the sparrow population in the UK is 5% it was twenty year ago and no one knows why, Chernobyl) have an impact.
Millions of years of stored carbon being burnt in a few decades has got to be a silly idea.
The data is inconclusive. Which is why prudence is wise.