GardenBanter.co.uk - View Single Post

28-01-2003, 07:24 AM

wrote in message . com...
(Daniel B. Wheeler) wrote in message . com...
Using that "proper logic" the lack of forests after a nuclear bomb
explosion "proves" forests never existed.

Stop with the strawmen already, we have photographic proof of existing
forests.

As for numbers...an area next to I-84 in Cascade Locks (one of the
wetter locations in Oregon btw) produces over 120,000 stems per acre
in reprod. Most of these seedlings are less than a foot tall. Fewer
than 100 would reach 100 years of age. Less than 10% of them would
reach 30 years of age. But counting all of them reveals there are far
more trees today than there were before the land was cleared 15 years
ago.

More trees does not a forest create.

Er Daniel, this is an example of the detail that is needed to convince
me, why is that a proper global report of this nature doesn't exist?

You've understood the distinction between number and quality, why
can't all the Ph.D nuts in the eco-groups?

Until collated and interpreted data+statistical projections are made
of the gloabl scene, you're touting a hoax.

I'm not touting a hoax. I'm simply stating my observations of actual
forestry. This is called field work, even though most of it is done
under trees than in fields.

That's one of the differences between a forest and farmland.

Foresters can already tell the difference. Statisticians only hear
what someone wants them to hear.

Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com