[Warrior Monk]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3577031.stm

The world seems to have begun to turn greener, in the strictly literal sense, according to the United Nations Environment Programme (Unep). Satellite data show plant growth has been measurably more vigorous over the last 25 years.

So much for the enviro-wacko theories about things getting worse.

And the rising amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere might have something to do with it. Plants love the stuff.

[democrat-hippie]

yes-that is good and all- but that has nothing to do with the thousands of acers of rainforest being destroyed right know! this just means that the plants that are still alive are just getting greener and a few others are growing....but the important things like the rainforest are not doing good

[Astaroth]

yes-that is good and all- but that has nothing to do with the thousands of acers of rainforest being destroyed right know!

MYTH!!! [Ocker edit: And in future you will explain why it is so, instead of making a one-line, nay, one-word post. Not that you're around anymore anyway ]

[democrat-hippie]

myth? really? right- so can you please prove me that the rainforests are not being torn down for cattle pastures and other stupid reasons?

[Astaroth]

Dr. Patrick Moore was one of the founding members of Greenpeace, and now heads Greenspirit, a group that takes a more pragmatic approach has said that it was Greenpeace that trumped up the 'raindeforestation' myth to acheive its goals.

I wouldn't sit here and tell you that the largest rainforests have not been subject to ANY clearing, but most of what YOU believe is trumped up into lies. I remember being fed the same lie that "20 football fields per minute" were being cleared. First of all, have you stopped to consider this? Maybe we need to go back to high school algebra, but there'd be a LOT less rainforest now then there really is if this were really the case.

American Investigator looked into this and found out that only 12.5% of the Amazon had been deforested. That means 87.5% is still intact, in case you can't work the math. One third to one half of that 12.5% is fallow and in the process of regeneration. That would lead to the same conclusion as Warrior's original post...we're getting greener.

I quote Moore: ""All these save-the-forests arguments are based on bad science. They are quite simply wrong."

Now, I direct you to links, that address this from an objective view and debunk this myth:

http://www.metla.fi/archive/forest/1995 ... 00080.html

http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-publication2pdf?.pdf

As much as I HOPE you will read the last one, I know it's probably too much for you since you are taking most of your talking points from your 10th grade bio textbook and the New York Times...let me boil it down:

Rainforests are extremely resilient. Most logging practices in place do not destroy great swaths of land. In fact, studies have shown that most logging occurs near the edges of the forests and this leads to an INCREASE in forest growth as a result, must like you prune your rose bushes to make it grow better. There is no more robust ecosystem on the planet, very little has been done to destroy their growth.

The "lungs of the earth" is also a myth. 90% of the world's oxygen supply comes from the world's oceans through algae--NOT forests.

Since you are both a democrat and a hippie, I expect you are probably too set in your ways and would seek to discredit any source...but you asked for proof--I give you proof. Roll another and keep walkin'.

Astaroth

[liberalist]

I wouldn't sit here and tell you that the largest rainforests have not been subject to ANY clearing, but most of what YOU believe is trumped up into lies. I remember being fed the same lie that "20 football fields per minute" were being cleared. First of all, have you stopped to consider this? Maybe we need to go back to high school algebra, but there'd be a LOT less rainforest now then there really is if this were really the case.

Whats your point. 20 football fields a minute (assuming US football fields) equals about 22000 square miles a year. At which rate it would take a little over 100 years to detroy the entire forest. Doesnt seem so unreasonable to me.


As for the science of the rainforest issue. The people you quote could be correct Astaroth. As with alot of this kind of science there are some scienists who say one thing, some who say the opposite. I dont know who is right. But I would say that cutting down ancient rainforests seems illogical to me. Weather or not its as bad as we've been told, I dont know. But destoying something as beautiful as a rainforest seems to be the wrong thing to do.

[Astaroth]

But destoying something as beautiful as a rainforest seems to be the wrong thing to do

***cue weeping violins***

oh my...I hope we're not being inseeeeensitive to the beeeeautiful treeeees. My heart bleeds purple p*ss.

dripping sarcasm aside...

At which rate it would take a little over 100 years to detroy the entire forest.

erm...exactly. These rumors have lasted since the 80s or earlier..so let's say 20 years to be conservative. That means we've destroyed over 20% of the forest, rather than 10%, and we are still not mentioning the land that is fallow or regenerating in that 10%. Once again, it's not exactly much.

You seem like the type who would put the survival of the Pallid Sturgeon or the Porcupine Caribou over the livelihood and energy security of humans. People have logged and cleared wood for millenia. As the documents have attempted to show, the destruction of woodlands and forest has been very minimal comparitively and in some cases helpful. It is all part of a balance between mother nature and man. I think you are just taking it way out of context...one man's opinion.

Ast

[democrat-hippie]

that is not much? the rainforest is somthing you shouldent even be destroying!anyways- ihave read sooo many other articles about this subject- and all prove your person or whatever wrong...the rainforest is being destroyed at rapid rates and soon, like with in the next 100 years- it will be gone whether you want to believe it or not

[Slip, Freudian]

American Investigator looked into this and found out that only 12.5% of the Amazon had been deforested. That means 87.5% is still intact, in case you can't work the math. One third to one half of that 12.5% is fallow and in the process of regeneration. That would lead to the same conclusion as Warrior's original post...we're getting greener.

12.5% is still a helluva lot of forest, considering how big the great rainforests are. And the two thirds to a half that is not regenerating is going to stay dead for awhile, since the soil isn't that fertile and is easily washed away without the trees. A rainforest doesn't come about in a day.

[Astaroth]

Let me ask the two of you something. Honestly. Have EITHER of you lived in the tropics?

Yes? No?

Well, maybe you have, but I can say that I have. I've lived in the S. Pacific, due East of the Philippines and due South of Japan. A small little Island called Guam.

I've also lived in Costa Rica. I am planning my retirement there--of course, that will be in 30-40 years...it is the home nation of my wife, it is also where I met her. Costa Rica can brag to the fact that it is the single most bio-diverse country in the world with also the highest bio-DENSITY. It boasts of some of the greatest rainforests the world has to offer...no, not the largest, but that's not the point here.

First of all, if you haven't lived there, you probably don't have any perspective. Secondly, I don't think you read the links I provided, which just proves my prediction. Oh, go ahead and huff and puff and say, "oh yes I did"...if you did, why don't you actually ADDRESS the points made in them? I mean, all you are doing is just repeating the lie you've heard sicne elementary and you haven't brought any valid scientific arguements into play now have you? No, you haven't. Democrat, you did exactly as I said you would, discredited my source by saying you read something different...but you've done nothing to validate YOUR information by providing these sources, nor has your information been addressed scientifically. You, sir, are a sheep, repeating only what you have heard all your life. Secondly, you show your colors by virtue of the fact that you actually believe that in 100 years we will have no rainforests. Oh I wish I would still be around to smack you around in a century to show you are wrong.

Don't you also argue for global warming? How do you look yourself in the mirror every morning knowing that you have so many issues that you aggrandize that they conflict one and another when applied to science. If you believe in global warming, and I suspect that you are the type that does so blindly, how do you equate the 100% loss of tropical rainforest when global warming extends the climate zones that are suitable for such rainforest? hmmm? So while I see that you've set aside this time to humiliate yourself in public, why don't you do some 'highlevel thinking' and actually approach this subject with some level of credibility and actually establish the proof you claim exists? Yes, there are ample articles out there that claim this, I'm sure it won't be hard--the real challenge is to present the facts and be objective about them under scientific scrutiny, rather than some environazi agenda...

Freudian, for you, I reserve more respect as at least you have made a point that can be addressed, but I still assert that you are wrong...

12.5% is still a helluva lot of forest, considering how big the great rainforests are. And the two thirds to a half that is not regenerating is going to stay dead for awhile, since the soil isn't that fertile and is easily washed away without the trees. A rainforest doesn't come about in a day.

For this I will use my experience in the tropics to help you understand. Rainforests grow VERY rapidly. Guam experiences typhoons on a more than regular basis. Yearly they will get a good tropical depression that will cause severe winds and rain, but every few years they get hit with a huge typhoon. Only a few months after I left, Guam was hit by two typhoons within a month of each other...that sucked. Anyways, let me set the scene. Guam is a tropical island in all senses of the term. My house over there was surrounded by jungle: swarming ants, big banana leaves, spiders the size of my hand, and big brown snakes...Now, like many areas like these, the windows have bars on them...not for keeping crooks out, but keeping trees out, as they fly horizontally during a typhoon. One cannot appreciate the destruction of a Typhoon until after it is over and you look around your property and notice that you have 3 neighbours within 20 yards of your house that you never knew were there.

Now, all the vegetation on this island gets cleaned out like a Hoover vacuum...it's a mess. The once all green island is a red-brown clay mess.

But it's green again in a matter of a couple months.

Tropical forests are the fastest growing ecological systems in the world. The climate is conducive to this. Your statement about the soil being infertile and 'washed away' is simply--FALSE. No, a rainforest doesn't grow back in a day, but in under a year, it can be pretty much on its way to 100% recovery. Old growth super trees? No, but the science has shown that these old growth trees in the tropics are not necessary for majority of the life that it serves, as the new growth trees are substantial.

Yes, 12.5% seems like a lot. But this is not 20 football fields per minute, nor is it of any need for great concern either. It's a balancing act between man and nature. Nature isn't losing--it's adjusting. (boy, that almost sounds, well....evolutionary! hmmmm)

Astaroth

[liberalist]

Yes, 12.5% seems like a lot. But this is not 20 football fields per minute

Your right, i think its more like 10 football fields a minute.

[Looter]

All you pseudo leftties are just bourgeoise dupes. Real Communists support Global Warming, The anti CO2 people just want to stifle third world development. The world is still suffering the after effects of the Ice Ages, it should be warmer, and it will be warmer! Glopbal warming will save the Rain forests and the coral reefs, and it will help eliminate a real enviromental disaster- continental glaciation, which can wipe out any ecosystem. So get with the times and support those global warming and make the conservatives fear change and progress.

[Napuljun]

All you pseudo leftties are just bourgeoise dupes. Real Communists support Global Warming, The anti CO2 people just want to stifle third world development. The world is still suffering the after effects of the Ice Ages, it should be warmer, and it will be warmer! Glopbal warming will save the Rain forests and the coral reefs, and it will help eliminate a real enviromental disaster- continental glaciation, which can wipe out any ecosystem. So get with the times and support those global warming and make the conservatives fear change and progress.

It seems you don't know the effects of global warming. If global warming increases more ice in the poles melts, and sea level rises, if sea level rises small islands like Cuba and Malta would have disastrous effects on them.

[Looter]

A rise in sea levels would help the Earth's Enviroment, The shallow seas created by flooding the Continental Shelves are very productive ecosystems. The Earth would be better off if it were warmer. So then the issue changes from should man sacrifice to save the Earth to how are mankinds interests best advanced because I think the Earth's interests are advanced by global warming.

[alaskarebel]

I live in alaska and green is not good it due to globa warming and plants are growing on Artic and not sopose to be there plants that grow on artic is bad and the earth is not geting greener more plants growing in places that there not sopose to be and how can earth get greener if more building are be made and the alasken rainforest is more in danger than tropical and make up less than one percent and get deforested faster sorry about english i dont speak english good

[democrat-hippie]

our earth is just going through a cycle... first we went throught he ice age, and from there on in has been getting warmer. But my point is that us humans are speeding up the prosses that should take hundreds of years. Our enviorments cant handle a huge change in the weather that fast. It needs to go gradualy.....

[Todd D.]

The problem that we have is that as far as direct scientific evidence is concerned, we have maybe 150 years of data at best when it comes to global statistics. In the scope of millions of years, this is a hiccup in history. We can't really tell whether this is man-made or whether this is a cycle, and I think that the evidence supports both. I personally lean more towards the global warming hypothesis, mainly because chemically it makes sense (Ozone gases binding, etc), but as far as actual proof of this? Doesn't exist.

[Ásatrúar]

The problem that we have is that as far as direct scientific evidence is concerned, we have maybe 150 years of data at best when it comes to global statistics. In the scope of millions of years, this is a hiccup in history. We can't really tell whether this is man-made or whether this is a cycle, and I think that the evidence supports both. I personally lean more towards the global warming hypothesis, mainly because chemically it makes sense (Ozone gases binding, etc), but as far as actual proof of this? Doesn't exist.

I agree, but don't forget THE factor for ALL weather... THE SUN. Our star has been in a stage of great activity lately.

[arcis]

"Do you have proof to back up your opinion?"

If you have enough money, you can buy every "proof" you need from the scientists. Correlation of data does not necessarily mean evidence. Correaltion is a formal concept and does not replace logical thinking in terms of cause and effect. Even the source of the "proof" can completely devaluate it.

[Ásatrúar]

"Do you have proof to back up your opinion?"

If you have enough money, you can buy every "proof" you need from the scientists. Correlation of data does not necessarily mean evidence. Correaltion is a formal concept and does not replace logical thinking in terms of cause and effect. Even the source of the "proof" can completely devaluate it.

In other words, you can't prove it and won't even try?