GardenBanter.co.uk - View Single Post

17-01-2003, 04:30 AM

wrote in message . com...
(Scott Murphy) wrote in message . com...
wrote in message . com...
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?

Well, I don't know about the U.S., but here are some Canadian stats for you:

True!!!, your ignorance is Global isn't it, don't you think you owe it
to yourself to investigate this purported crises, anyone touting an
environmental cries needs to convince people beyond their screams of
desperation, you do this by providing "evidence" of the problem,
telling me that there is environmental destruction is a mere
platitude, "you" need to provide evidence that you aren't wasting your
life being unemployed.

Where is the reliable "evidence" of a threat of depletion, rather than
evidence of ongoing environmental practices "you" are uncomfortable
with?

Buddy, you need to stay away from the coffee pot after 4 o'clock in
the afternoon. I made no statements with regard to deforestation; I
was simply answering your "simple questions" in a Canadian context. I
merely provided you with nine numbers you were interested in. I gave
no interpretation of them. Simple questions. Simple answers. Relax.

note: 1 hectare(ha)=2.5 acres

Total land: 921.5 million ha
Total forest: 417.6 million ha (67% softwood, 18% mixedwood, 15% hardwood)
Commercial Forest: 234.5 million ha
Managed Forest: 119 million ha
National Parks: 24.5 million ha
Provincial Parks: 32.3 million ha
Harvested Forest: 1 million ha
Area defoliated by insects (1999): 6.3 million ha
Area burned (2001): 629 836 ha

Bravissimo!!!, now where is the Global statistics from a reliable
source?, these stats would be unequivocal as to a "depletion" crises,
not just a global tale of environmental destruction you're
ideologically opposed to.
Do you understand the difference between the threat of depletion and
widespread usage?, until you provide evidence as to the difference,
you've been played like a puppet by your enviromasters.

Stop putting words in peoples mouths. You seem to be the only one
that is pushing this global depletion crisis theory around this NG. I
went to university for five years to earn a bachelors degree in forest
management. I am quite capable of drawing up long-term strategic and
shorter-term operational management plans for mulit-national timber
corporations that have been accused, rightly or wrongly, of some nasty
things. I think that disqualifies me as a "greenie".

You sound as if you are as extreme in your thoughts as the greenies
you disagree with. People like you make it difficult for groups to
sit down and have meaningful debates and conversations. You say that
with proof of this crisis, you would become a believer. I don't think
that's the case. When one's values and viewpoints are something they
believe strongly in, there is no room for compromise; there is no room
for re-evaluating the conclusions they have come to hold.

I don't believe you came here looking for proof of a crisis; you came
here hoping to find no proof of a crisis. If you really wanted proof,
you'd go find it (or not find it) yourself, like any normal
scientifically-minded person motivated by such a question would. Not
wanting a hypothesis to be true is no reason to avoid proving it true.
Happy hunting.

Scott