In to the woods

[Assault (CAN) 1]

I know, I love how the DOR makes ignorant arguments in not just one, but several threads, and refuses to back them up with any shred of evidence when faced with a real argument. He just posts more ignorant opinions, again and again.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Placebo, consider this a warning. If you make inflamatory statements attempting to drag DOR into a religious conversation, you'll share in his post restriction should it happen!<span id='postcolor'>

Mods can actually do that to eachother ?!?!........

Interesting.

Tyler

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

Guys! It is hard to argue with somebody when you have common sense and they do not, and I think most of us here do have common sense, but what I think is some people are afriad to admit the truth, so they resort to name calling. This does not bother me all that becuase it is a sign they know the truth, and I am just not talking about the tree situation.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[offtopic]DOR, you remind me of a kid who supplied me with lunch money throughout junior high, only a little less intelligent[/offtopic]

<span id='postcolor'>

Must have been less intelligent to give somebody money for being a moronic jerk to them.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know, I love how the DOR makes ignorant arguments in not just one, but several threads, and refuses to back them up with any shred of evidence when faced with a real argument. He just posts more ignorant opinions, again and again.<span id='postcolor'>

Ok, uhhhhhh.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote

Oh but I do have common sense, and probably alot more sense than most people here, no offense intended.

AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA *gasp* HAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!! This guy is killing me !!!!!!<span id='postcolor'>

What is really funny is that your responses donot suprese

me.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Former germanic tribes believed that there is a ghost in every tree and every river and every whatever. I guess those people were much smarter in a sense than us Urban morons.<span id='postcolor'>

May have been smarter than some, but they still where not that smart.

[Guest]

Ok, people, this is a discussion about deforrestation and not about Duke of Ray. It serves no purpose to try to convince him that he is wrong or that his arguments have no logic. This should be no news to anybody, so why waste your time and energy?

Let's drop it, shall we?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

It's very simple DOR: you are wrong when you say that there are too many trees and that we should cut down even more. We've showed you why you are wrong. It is your loss if you impose ignorance on yourself.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Let's drop it, shall we?<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah, it's no use beating a dead horse.

I found a good source for satellite photos of environmental change at the USGS: Earthshots page.

Tyler

[Frisbee 0]

Three major reasons for rain forest deforestation :

-Lumber for furniture,etc... Cheaper to get than native(for us) wood,but there's massive enviromental damage.

-Space for cattle to graze,supplying the us(mainly) with cheap beef (hello golden m),mainly in south america.

-Space for crops to use as food for cattle,mainly done in southeast asia (thailand,etc...) to supply for the west's too large cattle population.

Well I think this is fairly obvious to most of us,but some might not exactly know this...

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Duke_of_Ray @ Oct. 21 2002,23:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Former germanic tribes believed that there is a ghost in every tree and every river and every whatever. I guess those people were much smarter in a sense than us Urban morons.<span id='postcolor'>

May have been smarter than some, but they still where not that smart.<span id='postcolor'>

hey wait, they brought the roman empire down to their knees and dont forget that king carl (or however you call him) was germanic and owned more land in europe than the romans ever did! Not to mention the fact that he lived in my city!

A little history lesson: he divided his empire for his sons and this later on ended up as france and germany. funny eh!

[Sam Samson 0]

I find a lot of replies here hysterical.

we have mods threatening to ban one another, everybody tripping over their own smart replies...

especially where you guys hit on da duke.

pardon me while I chuckle

*chuckles*

what the kid is trying to say is that the people won't cut down all trees on the planet and that your fluffy hysteria is actually uncalled for. (it is entertaining though).

even in 500 years, - duke, if the Lord tarries -, people will figure that they will need a certain amount of trees to be able to live, and won't cut them down.

I see the real problem with cutting so deeply into the jungles with the virus reservoir humans are working themselves into now.

in those dense jungles, - and I have been in some of them -, you find sicknesses no man is accustomed to. think of hiv, ebola, hanta, lassa or marburg. they all came right out of the rainforest.

the problems stemming from that are much more far-reaching than meets the eye.

I wouldn't worry about them trees too much.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

And the problem is not that you have trees missing that cant produce oxygen but desertification makes it impossible to EVER replant those areas...they become deserts and deserts accelerates destruction since its got the bad habit to spread pretty quickly.Then rain comes, then sun comes and bakes wet earth to stonelike cakes, the next time it rains the water cant get into the ground. You get terrible devastations from water-streams and floods but the soil doesnt suck up the water it should. The lack of trees harbouring water increases the speed of earth-transpiration so water-periods get shorter. You get climate turbulance (el nino) that not only destroy little beach resorts but also confuse fish swarms and direct them into bad waters.

But here come good news: The ozon-hole is closing again. THis has even been confirmed by green peace. They assume it is due to the reduced use of FCKW (the stuff once used to sprays and refrigerators)

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sam Samson @ Oct. 22 2002,00:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I find a lot of replies here hysterical.

we have mods threatening to ban one another, everybody tripping over their own smart replies...

especially where you guys hit on da duke.

pardon me while I chuckle

*chuckles*

what the kid is trying to say is that the people won't cut down all trees on the planet and that your fluffy hysteria is actually uncalled for. (it is entertaining though).<span id='postcolor'>

Hmm. What a surprise

Duke of Ray - Sam Samson - SirLions the OFP forum axis of Evil

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">even in 500 years, - duke, if the Lord tarries -, people will figure that they will need a certain amount of trees to be able to live, and won't cut them down.<span id='postcolor'>

We need to face the problem now so that we can adapt to an sustainable development. We can't continue doing like this for 500 years since we will then be in big trouble. No point in sweeping it all under the carpet when we have to face the problem sooner or later. Especially since a lot of those rain forrests are cut down without any good reason - to create farm land that is usable for no more then a year.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Sam, those are valid points, except they weren't the points DOR were making. Read over his posts again, and admit that 90% percent of the stuff he writes is just really, really dumb, no matter what your political orientation is.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

500 years! Well howdy this is optimistic. Here comes my question and you will be surprised: With the current speed of deforestation, in how many years will the rainforrest dissapear, or better, how much has already been gone during the last decades of mechanic catepillars?

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Well eat this and show some astonishment:

In 1950, 15% of the earth's land surface was covered by rainforest. Today, more than half has already gone up in smoke. A century ago, half of India and a third of Ethiopia were covered by forest, now only fourteen percent in India remains and only one-third is left in Ethiopia. Eight out of ten trees in Ghana have been cut down. Three quarters of the trees of the Ivory Coast are gone. More than twenty percent of the Amazon Rainforest is already gone and much more is severely threatened as destruction continues to escalate. Statistics reported in 1996 reported the Amazon showed a 34 percent increase in deforestation since 1992. A new report by a congressional committee says the Amazon is vanishing at a rate of 20,000 square miles a year. That's more than three times the rate of 1994, the last year for which official figures are available. "If nothing is done, the entire Amazon will be gone within 50 years," said the 110-page report's author, Rep. Gilney Vianna of the leftist Worker's Party in the Amazon state of Mato Grosso. Yet another recent report said new figures showed that in the Brazilian Amazon, forest fires increased by more than 50 percent over 1996.

In less than 50 years, more than half of the world's tropical rainforests have fallen victim to fire and the chain saw and the rate of destruction is still accelerating. Unbelievably, over 200,000 acres of rainforest are burned every day. That is over 150 acres lost every minute of every day, and 78 million acres are lost every year! More tropical forest burned around the world in 1997 than at any other time in recorded history, a report by the World Wide Fund for Nature. The fund said "1997 will be remembered as the year the world caught fire," said Jean-Paul Jeanrenaud, head of its forest program.

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Duke of Ray - Sam Samson - SirLions the OFP forum axis of Evil

<span id='postcolor'>

More like the Angels sent to help you all.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sam, those are valid points, except they weren't the points DOR were making. Read over his posts again, and admit that 90% percent of the stuff he writes is just really, really dumb, no matter what your political orientation is.<span id='postcolor'>

Not sure that my stuff is the really dumb stuff.

Also the point sam said I was trying to make is the point I was trying to make, there will always be plent of trees, and we need to cut soem more down, atleast where I live and the places I have been to.:)

[Col. Kurtz 0]

I have lived in a valley completely sorrounded by Native Forest, and I wouldn not want for a single tree to be lopped down.

Of All the posts made here, Albert Schweizer's last post made the most sense and told the best story. Can you seriously read that and say that we should go ahead lopping down trees for another 500 years before stopping?

At the rate of deforesteration, most of us here in this forum will probably be around to witness the enviromental effects caused by the lack of trees.

[doc1011 0]

First off I didn't read every post on this topic...That would take hours but refering to the conversation around pages 3-4 fires are not caused by man's negligence. As you can see, I'm from canada and frequently visit northern canada which i'm sure you all know is quite forested. Anyway, fires are a part of a forests life cycle.

For aguments sake let's start the cycle right after a fire.

-Small shubs and the beginnings of trees grow...This is perfect feeding for numerous animals i.e moose.

-Trees become larger and start to compete with other trees while at the same time shading out and killing most shubs.

- If this is a conifer forrest they being to pole out and concentrate thier follage on the top of thier trunks. Desidous does the same but to a lesser extent.

-Once trees start to get old some of them fallover or begine to rot.

-this inturn creates wonderful kindling for fires. which start the forest life cycle over again.

The problem is that more and more urban centers are coming to close to forests and when fire breaks out...we have to put them out halting the forrest life cycle. This makes the forrest more prone to infection or paracites, i.e the creeping vine explosion in NC. Without fires forrests die, plain and simple. But we can't have fires buring down homes right? so the only real solution is to have responsible clear-cut operations, where after the forrest is cleared...Similar to a fire, small trees are planted and the beginng of a new forrest begins! Also some trees need fire to reproduce...I can't remeber the exact name of the tree but the pinecone with only crack and spread the seed at a certain temperature that only fires can reach. Also...if a forrest is left to rot and rot without fire or deforrestation the kindling becomes too much and the fire burns so hot that the seeds are destroyed and the forrest is killed. There is a perfect balance and we can't have it both ways. If we can't have fires near urban centers (which we can't) we have to do it ourselves via clear-cutting.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

refer to my posts on the subject of fires. Yes fires are a natural part of the cycle, but when humans tamper with that cycle it creates the conditions for huge fires that do serious damage to the ecosystem.

[doc1011 0]

Exactly proving my point that responsible clear-cutting is our only alternative...because putting out the fires breaks the cycle and causes larger fires which wipeout ecosystems instead of recycling them. And if by tampering with the cycle you mean putting out the fires then i agree with you, but sadly it's our only choice because no one wants to see a house in flames.

[ralphwiggum 6]

ok....i think we are going no where with arguments now.