On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 14:52:51 UTC, (Scott Murphy) wrote:

SNIP
Your argument from ignorance is no better than the other poster's
strawman, and you ripped them apart for that.

It wasn't a strawman, or at least not intended as such. It was an
example of similar tactics, I guess a poorly worded one. Kabana (or
she) is convicned that deforestation isn't occuring, so he keeps
saying, in essence, no one has proved it is occuring, so that means it
isn't. He *appears*, to me, to believe that if he repeats that enough,
those who think it is a problem, or could be a problem, will change
their minds and believe it's not a problem.

That reminded me of Ronald Regan. There are many other examples I
could have chosen, perhaps better, but it was a famous environmental
one. It seemed appropriate to me.

--
Tom Rowe
Remove the anti-spam chaff to contact me

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


snip



My argument is based on logic, it is illogical that eco-groups "won't"
research and collate data, or interpret existing data, leading to a
statistical projection of possible depletion within x amount of years.

It is therefore "logical" to assume that in the absence of attainable
proof, that NO threat exists, what does exist is the anger of Greenies
that "logging" occurs, this anger being misplaced as most of them are
financially supported by the result of logging practices.


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.




As for idiot and unemployed, well...

That would fall under the general fallacy of Changing the Subject,
more precisely, Attacking the Person.


No it would be trying to determine your current ideology, being
unemployed when you are capable of working means you've adopted an
ideology that feels good, but is shattered as soon as proof is needed
to support it.


Well, I'm not sure what you're getting at, but if it makes you feel
better, I drug a Husqvarna chainsaw through the woods for 7 of the
last 10 months, and dropped many a tree. Is that what you're looking
for?


All you have to do Scott is produce proof, that's all any reasonable
person would ask.

Oh boy...not an appeal to motives in place of support! gasp

Prejudicial language (def.): Loaded or emotive terms are used to
attach value or moral goodness to believing the proposition.

Examples:

(i) A reasonable person would agree that our income statement is too
low.
(ii) Right thinking Canadians will agree with me that we should have
another free vote on capital punishment.
(iii) Senator Turner claims that the new tax rate will reduce the
deficit. (Here, the use of "claims" implies that what Turner says is
false.)


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.
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. For example, in this province right now, there
is a debate over the AAC on Crown Land, and the amount of public input
in to the management of Crown Lands. Industry says they need to
double the AAC to remain competitive in the global market. A
third-party report(http://www.gnb.ca/0078/reports/jpmc.asp) from a
Finnish consulting company has drawn a "worthy blueprint", in the
words of the provincial forest products association. The Conservation
Council of NB (an NGO) is not in agreement. Since the report came out,
there have been articles and editorials written by stakeholders on
both sides. Both sides are guilty of using use illogical, misleading,
and/or false, information and arguments to try and persuade the
general public that they are right, and the other side is off their
rocker.

Examples:

from the NGO - "New Brunswickers are the proud owners of 50% of the
forest land in our province. You may not know this because since the
early 1980s when the Crown Lands and Forests Act was enacted our
public forest has been managed by the handful of corporations who own
pulp mills. The land is divided up into licences and each company
holds one or more licences. Access is denied everyone else, except
those who get sub-licences from the corportate licensees."

WRONG. Corporate licensees don't grant the sub-licences; the Minister
of Natural Resources and Energy does. Access isn't denied everyone
else. Fishing, hunting, hiking, canoeing, firewood harvests, are all
the publics right. No harvesting for industrial use by the public,
yes. But they make it sound like you can't even walk onto Crown land.

The NGO states that 21 percent of Crown land is in plantations.

WRONG. DNRE records show that 7 percent of the landbase is planted.

"Because insects love monocultures, insecticides often have to be
sprayed to control infestations."

The problem here is the use of the word "often". Check with DNRE
again, and you will find that on all the plantations in NB, since
1993, there hasn't been a drop of pesticide applied. Herbicide, sure.
Pesticide, not a drop in 10 years. How often is that?

From another NGO -

"Do we want to sacrifice our diverse forest for tree farms to make a
few people from far away wealthy, or do we want a vibrant forest
ecosystem to sustain for generations of New Brunswick people?"

That kind of seems like an obvious choice. It's also a False Dilemma
of False Dichotomy. (def.) A limited number of options (usually two)
is given, while in reality there are more options. One is usually
highly unacceptable, leaving the other as the "obvious choice".

The NGO just supplied a textbook example!

From the Forest Products Association -

"Last month, when the Jaakko Poyry report, a major study into forestry
practices in New Brunswick, was released, we felt that anyone who
objectively looked at what the report said would see the merit in it."

NO. It's the prejudical language again... implying that anyone who
doesn't agree with the report is not 'objective' or reasonable.

In an editorial column that measured 7 inches by 4 inches, they offer
up no argument as to why the report was a good one. They spent the
whole time attacking the conservation council.

This is getting long, so I'll wrap up

People in this NG or those involved in forestry are able to pick out
the lies and misrepresentations of fact because of our direct
experiences in forests and forestry; picking out logical fallacies is
a bit more of an acquired taste. Often enough, the only exposure the
public has to forestry issues is through these news releases and
editorials. The information they gather from the pages of the
newspaper becomes fact for them, and they perhaps do not have the
resources, knowledge, or even inclination, to investigate the validity
of the presented information. Then the groups on either side of the
argument try to use public support of their "facts", be it job losses
or deforestation, to justify their actions. 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.

If you must have an ideology from me, that is mine. Truth into the
mix of public debate. So I hope it is clear now... my beef with your
statements are not because of my stance on global deforestation... I
don't have one... I swear. 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?

cheers,
S.

(ProNews/2 User) wrote in message news:OQ6DsnwHl2l0-pn2-dTtSb7BLR9nP@localhost...
On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 07:56:03 UTC, wrote:

Major SNIP of personal attacts to make up for an inablility of the
person to read

Respond with the evidence of *** off you condescending mule.

ROTFLMAO
I was sure you were trolling, but wanted to give you the benefit of
the doubt. I no longer have any doubts.

LOL, you got nothing chump, except your delusions.
In typical fashion, you look for a "way out", your escape is from the
hoax you've become psychologically attached to.

Anyone who is unsure and reads this thread will...

1..see me asking repeatedly for evidence.
2..see you repeatedly failing to produce any.
3..and conclude that logging is occuring, but NO threat from
depletion.
4..will look much harder into any doomsday scenario's offered by
eco-groups or individual Greenies.


Conclusion.

It is "evidence", not assertion that one must use as a guide, and NO
evidence has been produced, if it was attainable, it is infantile to
assume that the eco-groups have been a bit slack and not got around to
it.

DEFORESTATION IS A HOAX...LOGGING IS A REALITY, and so are the jobs
and supplemental industries.

(ProNews/2 User) wrote in message news:OQ6DsnwHl2l0-pn2-Nr1jM1d2DJcM@localhost...
On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 14:52:51 UTC, (Scott Murphy) wrote:

SNIP

That reminded me of Ronald Regan. There are many other examples I
could have chosen, perhaps better, but it was a famous environmental
one. It seemed appropriate to me.
...................

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?

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. According
to J. Russel Smith's "Tree Crops" published back in the 1930's,
deforestation has been going on for millennia. Where are the once
fabled pines of Rome? What happened to the cedars of Lebanon? The
rainforest that once covered much of the Sahara and sub-Sahara Africa
are now somewhat sparse. Recent indications are the Mayan civilization
also suffered from deforestation, but left enough in outlying areas to
reforest their ruins.

Do you need proof of deforestation? Can you tell the difference
between forests and trees?

Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com

In article ,
wrote:



Anyone who is unsure and reads this thread will...

1..see me asking repeatedly for evidence.
2..see you repeatedly failing to produce any.
3..and conclude that logging is occuring, but NO threat from
depletion.
4..will look much harder into any doomsday scenario's offered by
eco-groups or individual Greenies.


I provided evidence - you dismissed it out of hand. Where is YOUR proof
that FAO is wrong.

Conclusion.

Troll and heading for the killfile.

It is "evidence", not assertion that one must use as a guide, and NO
evidence has been produced, if it was attainable, it is infantile to
assume that the eco-groups have been a bit slack and not got around to
it.

DEFORESTATION IS A HOAX...LOGGING IS A REALITY, and so are the jobs
and supplemental industries.

--
Due to SPAM filtering, please add NOSPAM
to email subject to improve your chances
of an actual reply.

Clear Cut wrote in message ...
In article ,
.


I provided evidence - you dismissed it out of hand. Where is YOUR proof
that FAO is wrong.


Sorry, you provided me with photographs that proved logging existed,
and that certain parts of the planet were being deforested, but NO
EVIDENCE of a global problem.



Conclusion.

Troll and heading for the killfile.


Sorry again chump, i'm after the evidence.
My questioning annoys you as it exposes the hoax you've fallen for.
Wake up.

(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.

(Daniel B. Wheeler) wrote in message

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. According
to J. Russel Smith's "Tree Crops" published back in the 1930's,
deforestation has been going on for millennia. Where are the once
fabled pines of Rome? What happened to the cedars of Lebanon? The
rainforest that once covered much of the Sahara and sub-Sahara Africa
are now somewhat sparse. Recent indications are the Mayan civilization
also suffered from deforestation, but left enough in outlying areas to
reforest their ruins.

Do you need proof of deforestation? Can you tell the difference
between forests and trees?

Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com

Anyone who makes the assertion of a threat of depletion needs to back
it with empirical evidence and the subsequent statistical projections
made based on that data, that is "proof", making an assertion that
forests will be gone by 2050 without proof{which can be attainable},
is an opinion, i don't expect anyone to take my non-empirical opinion
seriously, nor should i take seriously the opinions of econuts.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


wrote in message
om...
Clear Cut wrote in message
...
In article ,
.


I provided evidence - you dismissed it out of hand. Where is YOUR proof
that FAO is wrong.


Sorry, you provided me with photographs that proved logging existed,
and that certain parts of the planet were being deforested, but NO
EVIDENCE of a global problem.



Conclusion.

Troll and heading for the killfile.


Sorry again chump, i'm after the evidence.
My questioning annoys you as it exposes the hoax you've fallen for.
Wake up.
--------------
Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule

Also Known as: Appeal to Mockery, The Horse Laugh.

Description of Appeal to Ridicule
The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is
substituted for evidence in an "argument." This line of "reasoning" has the
following form:


1. X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the
claim).
2. Therefore claim C is false.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show
that it is false. This is especially clear in the following example: "1+1=2!
That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!"

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-ridicule.html

wrote in message . com...
(Daniel B. Wheeler) wrote in message

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. According
to J. Russel Smith's "Tree Crops" published back in the 1930's,
deforestation has been going on for millennia. Where are the once
fabled pines of Rome? What happened to the cedars of Lebanon? The
rainforest that once covered much of the Sahara and sub-Sahara Africa
are now somewhat sparse. Recent indications are the Mayan civilization
also suffered from deforestation, but left enough in outlying areas to
reforest their ruins.

Do you need proof of deforestation? Can you tell the difference
between forests and trees?

Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com

Anyone who makes the assertion of a threat of depletion needs to back
it with empirical evidence and the subsequent statistical projections
made based on that data, that is "proof", making an assertion that
forests will be gone by 2050 without proof{which can be attainable},
is an opinion, i don't expect anyone to take my non-empirical opinion
seriously, nor should i take seriously the opinions of econuts.
Which is why your reply deserves this answer.

Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com

"Baxter" wrote in message ...
--
Sorry, you provided me with photographs that proved logging
existed,
and that certain parts of the planet were being deforested, but NO
EVIDENCE of a global problem.

Sorry again chump, i'm after the evidence.
My questioning annoys you as it exposes the hoax you've fallen for.
Wake up.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-ridicule.html


Stop being ridiculous Baxter, and grow up.
In the absense of obtainable evidence, or any existing evidence, it
follows that there is no threat of depletion, provide evidence that it
does exist, and stop with your silly gander into irrelevant appeals to
this or that.

Proper logic backs my assertion, not yours.

wrote in message . com...
"Baxter" wrote in message ...
--
Sorry, you provided me with photographs that proved logging
existed,
and that certain parts of the planet were being deforested, but NO
EVIDENCE of a global problem.

Sorry again chump, i'm after the evidence.
My questioning annoys you as it exposes the hoax you've fallen for.
Wake up.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-ridicule.html


Stop being ridiculous Baxter, and grow up.
In the absense of obtainable evidence, or any existing evidence, it
follows that there is no threat of depletion, provide evidence that it
does exist, and stop with your silly gander into irrelevant appeals to
this or that.

Proper logic backs my assertion, not yours.

Using that "proper logic" the lack of forests after a nuclear bomb
explosion "proves" forests never existed.

Some of us are actually old enough to have witnessed such
forests...before the great cut-off of the 1970-1995.

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.

Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.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.

Keep on consuming America, there's no reason to stop.

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