Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Deforestation a hoax.
Where is Government research indicating a risk of depletion?
I can't find any answers to my simple questions, it must be a hoax by the Greenie. Simple questions. 1, how much forests left? 2, how many acres per year used? 3, how many acres per year replaced? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Deforestation a hoax.
Why don't you show your intelligence and answer those questions yourself. In
order to prove whatever it is you're trying to prove, but too humble to express. G -- Joe Zorzin wrote in message om... Where is Government research indicating a risk of depletion? I can't find any answers to my simple questions, it must be a hoax by the Greenie. Simple questions. 1, how much forests left? 2, how many acres per year used? 3, how many acres per year replaced? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Deforestation a hoax.
"Joe Zorzin" wrote in message ... Why don't you show your intelligence and answer those questions yourself. In order to prove whatever it is you're trying to prove, but too humble to express. G Ma Boy! Your back and in form! Hibernation over for the year? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Deforestation a hoax.
Don Staples wrote:
"Joe Zorzin" wrote in message ... Why don't you show your intelligence and answer those questions yourself. In order to prove whatever it is you're trying to prove, but too humble to express. G Ma Boy! Your back and in form! Hibernation over for the year? Hey Joe, (high five!) Is it finally too cold to paint trees? Or did switching to Lookout Express crash your computer? To the inital poster: the issue is not deforestation in the US - there are MANY trees, although small. Try GOOGLE for the stats. IMO, the real problem is the urbanization of the countryside and the voting base. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Deforestation a hoax.
To the inital poster: the issue is not deforestation in the US - there are MANY trees, although small. Try GOOGLE for the stats. IMO, the real problem is the urbanization of the countryside and the voting base. Thanks for your NON answer, and lack of proof. The facts are that we have plenty of forests left, otherwise the promoters of depletion would quickly prove it. They haven't, they can't and they won't as it's a propaganda spin designed to legitimize various environ"mental" groups. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Deforestation a hoax.
If you are interested in US statistics, spend some quality time with:
http://fia.fs.fed.us/ The Forest Inventory and Analysis program of the Forest Service has been in continuous operation since 1930 with a mission to "make and keep current a comprehensive inventory and analysis of the present and prospective conditions of and requirements for the renewable resources of the forest and rangelands of the United States." For a world wide perspective, explore the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. You can generate your own tables from thier database: http://apps.fao.org/ They say that between 1964 to 1994 there was a net loss of 376,560,000 Hectares of forest and woodlands. 1994 ws the last year that I could quickly find statistics for. That's 12,552,000 Ha per year Land Use Forests And Woodland*(1000Ha) Year 1994 AGG_COUNTRIES 8,344,870 (Aggregate of all countries) Year 1964 AGG_COUNTRIES 8,721,430 If you would like a more detailed analysis, I would be happy to supply one at my regular consulting rates. I think that you will find the picture changes dramatically depending on where you look. In article , wrote: Where is Government research indicating a risk of depletion? I can't find any answers to my simple questions, it must be a hoax by the Greenie. Simple questions. 1, how much forests left? 2, how many acres per year used? 3, how many acres per year replaced? -- Due to SPAM filtering, please add NOSPAM to email subject to improve your chances of an actual reply. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Deforestation a hoax.
wrote in message om... To the inital poster: the issue is not deforestation in the US - there are MANY trees, although small. Try GOOGLE for the stats. IMO, the real problem is the urbanization of the countryside and the voting base. Thanks for your NON answer, and lack of proof. We're all still waiting for you to prove what you're trying to prove, the burden is on you. The facts are that we have plenty of forests left, You may not be aware of this- but there is a difference between quality and quantity. otherwise the promoters of depletion would quickly prove it. They haven't, they can't and they won't as it's a propaganda spin designed to legitimize various environ"mental" groups. One proof of depletion is the ever continuing rise in price of good wood- faster than the inflation rate- and NOT due to forests being locked up by enviro-MENTAL-ists, but by the too fast destruction of old growth forests, and the most common form of logging- HIGH GRADING- which removes the best trees and leaves the junk. If we really managed forests correctly, we could lock up half the forests and we'd produce more timber, better timber than we do now- resulting in MORE jobs for retards like you. G. After all, where else is a guy like you gonna git a job? G JZ |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Deforestation a hoax.
"Clear Cut" wrote in message ... If you are interested in US statistics, spend some quality time with: http://fia.fs.fed.us/ The Forest Inventory and Analysis program of the Forest Service has been in continuous operation since 1930 with a mission to "make and keep current a comprehensive inventory and analysis of the present and prospective conditions of and requirements for the renewable resources of the forest and rangelands of the United States." And it's been proven to be next to worthless, at least for the Northeast, by Karl Davies, consultant from Mass.- since their inventory methods don't measure tree height, nor tree grade. See www.daviesand.com. For a world wide perspective, explore the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. You can generate your own tables from thier database: http://apps.fao.org/ They say that between 1964 to 1994 there was a net loss of 376,560,000 Hectares of forest and woodlands. 1994 ws the last year that I could quickly find statistics for. That's 12,552,000 Ha per year Land Use Forests And Woodland (1000Ha) Year 1994 AGG_COUNTRIES 8,344,870 (Aggregate of all countries) Year 1964 AGG_COUNTRIES 8,721,430 If you would like a more detailed analysis, I would be happy to supply one at my regular consulting rates. I think that you will find the picture changes dramatically depending on where you look. In article , wrote: Where is Government research indicating a risk of depletion? I can't find any answers to my simple questions, it must be a hoax by the Greenie. Simple questions. 1, how much forests left? 2, how many acres per year used? 3, how many acres per year replaced? -- Due to SPAM filtering, please add NOSPAM to email subject to improve your chances of an actual reply. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Deforestation a hoax.
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Deforestation a hoax.
Clear Cut wrote in message ...
If you are interested in US statistics, spend some quality time with: For a world wide perspective, explore the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. You can generate your own tables from thier database: http://apps.fao.org/ LOL, sorry, "you're" the one who has fallen for the depletion crisis. To rationally decide there is a "depletion" problem, one must have mathematically determined so, to not mathematically produce this evidence means you've just listened to someones end of the world scenario, and bought into it irrationally. They say that between 1964 to 1994 there was a net loss of 376,560,000 Hectares of forest and woodlands. 1994 ws the last year that I could quickly find statistics for. That's 12,552,000 Ha per year Land Use Forests And Woodland*(1000Ha) Year 1994 AGG_COUNTRIES 8,344,870 (Aggregate of all countries) Year 1964 AGG_COUNTRIES 8,721,430 If you would like a more detailed analysis, I would be happy to supply one at my regular consulting rates. A more detailed analysis translates as "more unactionable information, for which the provider of such information benefits finacially", sorry son, but i pay for goods and sevices that i consider worthy of my expenditure. I think that you will find the picture changes dramatically depending on where you look. Doesn't this suggest that the deforestation crisis is a hoax, we all know forests are being harvested, we want to know if there is a depletion threat. You seem to be suggesting that your professional research will not yield any truth, can you see why i'm skeptical, i don't doubt that environmental destruction and devastation are both occuring, but that is being tempered by conservation and aforestation. I've made the assumption that you're touting the hoax, if you're not, and are an advocate of conservation and aforestation, excuse my indulgence. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Deforestation a hoax.
In article ,
"Joe Zorzin" wrote: "Clear Cut" wrote in message ... If you are interested in US statistics, spend some quality time with: http://fia.fs.fed.us/ The Forest Inventory and Analysis program of the Forest Service has been in continuous operation since 1930 with a mission to "make and keep current a comprehensive inventory and analysis of the present and prospective conditions of and requirements for the renewable resources of the forest and rangelands of the United States." And it's been proven to be next to worthless, at least for the Northeast, by Karl Davies, consultant from Mass.- since their inventory methods don't measure tree height, nor tree grade. See www.daviesand.com. Joe, When used inappropriatlely - yes FIA is beyond worthless - it is actually harmful. Karl makes the point that the FIA is inappropiate as the Continuous Forest Inventory system for the managment for Massachusetts forest. I agree. To be usesed in this manner, it would have to have a much larger sample size, more variables (like grade) measured on each plot, and a higher level of quality assurance. That would cost a good chunk of change. FIA does provide a comparison between inventory periods at a resolution that is regional in scope. That is what it is designed to do. The original poster asked a very broad question and FIA is the best (only?) tool we have available to answer that broad question at this time. These data are not perfect. I am convinced there are errors in the data - a data set this large has to have them. The contractors are trained, tested, and subject to a quality assurance program. I have neither the time nor resouces to check if the contractors met their obligation in Massachusetts. -- Due to SPAM filtering, please add NOSPAM to email subject to improve your chances of an actual reply. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Deforestation a hoax.
In article ,
wrote: Clear Cut wrote in message ... If you are interested in US statistics, spend some quality time with: For a world wide perspective, explore the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. You can generate your own tables from thier database: http://apps.fao.org/ LOL, sorry, "you're" the one who has fallen for the depletion crisis. To rationally decide there is a "depletion" problem, one must have mathematically determined so, to not mathematically produce this evidence means you've just listened to someones end of the world scenario, and bought into it irrationally. A more detailed analysis translates as "more unactionable information, for which the provider of such information benefits finacially", sorry son, but i pay for goods and sevices that i consider worthy of my expenditure. FAO is ONE source of information. Their data indicate significant conversion of forest and woodlands over the last 30 years. That is a lot of hectares and a strong indicator of a global problem. The FIA analysis indicates a general loss of forest and woodland acerage in most regions of the US mostly due to conversion to other agricultural uses and development for housing. In my experience there is precious little aforestation - I rarely see housing developments, pastures, or vineyards revert to forest. If you want to set the level of resolution, variables measured, and methodology - that would be fine by me, and we will let the data speak. I think that you will find the picture changes dramatically depending on where you look. Doesn't this suggest that the deforestation crisis is a hoax, we all know forests are being harvested, we want to know if there is a depletion threat. You seem to be suggesting that your professional research will not yield any truth, can you see why i'm skeptical, i don't doubt that environmental destruction and devastation are both occuring, but that is being tempered by conservation and aforestation. I've made the assumption that you're touting the hoax, if you're not, and are an advocate of conservation and aforestation, excuse my indulgence. I am not touting any hoax - I think on a global level conversion of forest and woodland is significant. On a local level - particularily in developing countries - it can be devastating. In much of the US high grading forest stands is seriously depleting forest resources - even if the number of forest acres appears to be relatively stable. Laws and regulations are difficult to develop and enforce. In California, which has a amazing set of forest regulation including requirements for a Registered Professional Forester to develop Timber Harvest Plans, high grading still occurs. Landowners with little vision or education want to maximize income while leaving some trees. Cut the big ones and leave the little onesresulting in a degraded forest stand. Still it's "legal" - the land is "forested". The solution is excellent forest management on public and private forest land. How do we achieve this? Damned if I know. Right now education of landowners, both of private forest lands and public lands is one option. Most landowners that I talk with, when educated about good forest management, will seek out more information and manage their lands responsibly. Any other suggestions? -- Due to SPAM filtering, please add NOSPAM to email subject to improve your chances of an actual reply. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
The Apollo Hoax FAQ | United Kingdom | |||
scientific method is a hoax? | Plant Science | |||
OT virus/NOT A HOAX | Ponds | |||
Hoax? | United Kingdom | |||
Deforestation a hoax | alt.forestry |