Culchie Aspirant wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2008 19:06:53 +0100, "Falcon"
wrote:



"Culchie Aspirant" wrote in
message ...
[...]
The building of the Spanish Armada itself deforested Spain and Spain
is significantly larger than Ireland and Britain added together.

God almighty. Just when I thought things couldn't get sillier, we
have a debate in which a 'scientist' actually claims to explain
deforestation by blaming hundreds of years of ecological damage on
the building a couple of hundred ships.

We're all doomed, I tell you.

No, you're an ignorant ignorant man...fortunately that fact alone does
not mean that we're doomed...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation

"The large-scale building of wooden sailing ships by European
(coastal) naval owners since the 15th century for exploration,
colonization, slave and other trade on the high seas and (often
related) naval warfare (the failed invasion of England by the Spanish
Armada in 1559 and the battle of Lepanto 1577 are early cases of huge
waste of prime timber; each of Nelson's Royal navy war ships at
Trafalgar had required 6000 mature oaks) and piracy meant that whole
woody regions were over-harvested, as in Spain, where this
contributed to the paradoxical weakening of the domestic economy since
Columbus' discovery of America made the colonial activities
(plundering, mining, cattle, plantations, trade ...) predominant.

Tell me Falcon, since you're such a clever *******, where do you think
the 162,000* Oaks that Nelson used to make his fleet came from?

* For the mathematically challenged i.e. Falcon, (27 x 6000 = 162,000)

Furthermore, to nail the point home to all my critics in SCI, on this
matter:

I note from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation

"Djouce Mountain, along with most of the island of Ireland, was
systematically clear-felled during the 17th and 18th centuries, in
order to obtain wood mainly for shipbuilding.[1]"

"Initially, deforestation was practiced by local farmers in order to
clear land for crops, but later Ireland was systematically deforested
in order to obtain wood for shipbuilding."

[1]
http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/special_...reland_7.lasso

Game, set, match.


Nobody said the forests weren't depleted for the building of ships. But
where does it say that the largest offender was the British? The Irish built
ships as well I am sure. England had vast forests of Oak planted
specifically for building navy ships. Your articles all state quite clearly
that the whole of Europe was involved, your own quote:

""The large-scale building of wooden sailing ships by European
(coastal) naval owners since the 15th century for exploration,
colonization, slave and other trade on the high seas and (often
related) naval warfare (the failed invasion of England by the Spanish
Armada in 1559 and the battle of Lepanto 1577 are early cases of huge
waste of prime timber; each of Nelson's Royal navy war ships at
Trafalgar had required 6000 mature oaks) and piracy meant that whole
woody regions were over-harvested, as in Spain, where this
contributed to the paradoxical weakening of the domestic economy since
Columbus' discovery of America made the colonial activities
(plundering, mining, cattle, plantations, trade ...) predominant."

So, who is contradicting themselves now, eh? Warrenson!

--
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.