GardenBanter.co.uk - View Single Post

26-01-2003, 04:50 AM

(Scott Murphy) wrote in message om...
It is therefore "logical" to assume that in the absence of
attainable
proof, that NO threat exists,

No it's not. That's the entire point. The leap from 'absence of
proof' to 'no threat existing' is not logical. It's not. Refer to
'Argument from Ignorance'. I'm not making this stuff up... the study
and use of logic is old, these rules have been around for a long time.

Scott you're effectively talking shit, i've said numerous times, that
developing a framework to base projections on and adding empirical
data would be a trump card to eco-groups, especially it was clear cut
that a threat of depletion existed within a generation.
WWF say 50yrs, but provide no evidence, IOW, they're guessing.
Research would reveal the truth, and of coures the truth would be that
there is no depletion threat likely within 100yrs.

GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK HEAD...I have not seen (truthfully, I
haven't bothered to look) any proof on either side of the
deforestation debate. THAT'S WHY I HAVE NO OPINION ON THE SUBJECT.

BUT SCOTT, get the bucket off your head, i've already looked at
Greenpeace, WWF, and two other lesser known brands+ google searches,
NO EVIDENCE EXISTS, you can waffle out as much appeal to this or that,
but GP&WWF would have to be insane to to have the info, IF IT EXISTED.
By all means waste your own time tring to find non-existent evidence.

What I am upset by, is the way that people in the very controversial
field of forest management, use illogical, misleading, and/or false,
information and arguments to try to persuade the general public to
some way of thinking.

Well dang Scott, it could be rectified if proof was offered.
I'm sorry but i'm not interested in the minutiae of forestry, just the
basic facts pertaining to a possible depletion crises, and none
exists{Globally}, there may be some local problems.

..

All the while, the public
is deceived. It's unprofessional and unethical, and foresters who
don't speak up about it should lose their titles.

Well Scott, i'm doing my bit to ascertain the truth, and after my own
research beyond newspaper headlines, i've been forced to conclude that
no depletion threat exists, but assertions of it are popular.
Oh btw, welcome to the real world, as much as you'd like to believe
that all scientists are of the highest moral character, the facts of
history prove otherwise.

. My beef is your implication that global
deforestation is not occuring, because you have not been shown proof
that it is. Not a good enough argument. Period. Please don't try to
convince people with an argument like that, I'm sure you are capable
of a good one, and I can't wait to hear it, because after all of this
I feel like I need a stance on the subject! Can you help?

But global logging is occuring, what isn't occuring is the threat of
global depletion, local depletion may occur, but the total loss of
forests worldwide is being countered by aforestation and conservation.
WHY IS IT ILLOGICAL TO ASSUME THAT MAJOR ECO-GROUPS WOULDN'T COLLATE
EXISTING LOCAL DATA, TO CREATE A SIGNATURE OF GLOBAL DEFORESTATION,
ANSWER, because its a hoax which benefits hysteria leading to
donations to those who perpetuate the hoax.