The Great Global Warming Swindle

[macjoe53]

I doing my part to reduce global warming. I'm eating a belching cow steak tonight.

[JaKaAch]

I think this was on the History Channel or maybe Nat. Geo. the other day during a show.

If you planted 300,000 trees, during their life span how much CO2 will they absorb?

About the same amount that a 500 megawatt coal fired power plant will emit in


One week..

[duhman]

One reason the U.S. has more forest now is because we fight fires and replant. Or is that two reasons? We actively manage the forest lands.

[PadronMe]

Originally Posted by carbonbased_al

Yea, I find that very hard to believe. Anyways, one not need to look further than the Amazon rain forests to see deforestation at it's worst. Brazil is having problems controlling the logging industry there.

But they are definitely helping. For example, look at the price of guitars made of Brazilian Rosewood. Very costly because Brazil has put a halt on the harvesting in 1992.

http://www.fws.gov/permits/faqs/FaqR.shtml

[carbonbased_al]

Originally Posted by duhman

One reason the U.S. has more forest now is because we fight fires and replant. Or is that two reasons? We actively manage the forest lands.

That makes up for all the land we cleared to build, cities, suburbs, farms highways, etc for the 300+ million people who live here today? Sorry, but thats

[leebert]

A lot of thoughtful people can disagree on this topic: http://climatedebatedaily.com/

Science is far messier than most know, or would like to admit.

Lee

[zonedar]

I always wonder where the previous crisis's went. The Coming Ice Age was mentioned. What about Population, Acid Rain, Ozone Hole, to name a few others... Weren't those consensus and the nay sayers equally vilified back then?

[glking]

Originally Posted by carbonbased_al

That makes up for all the land we cleared to build, cities, suburbs, farms highways, etc for the 300+ million people who live here today? Sorry, but thats

This was taken from US Department of Agriculture Forsest Service data:

Data for the Nation as a whole indicate that growth has exceeded removals for both softwoods and hardwoods since the first national
statistics were reported for 1952. In 2001, for the Nation, net growth exceeded removals by 33 percent. That is, the Nation’s forest
inventory accrued more volume than it lost by mortality and harvest by nearly onethird.

In the 1920s, timber growth nationally was about half the rate of harvest. By the 1940s, improving forest growth rates and modestly
declining harvest rates resulted in timber growth and harvest coming into approximate balance.
By 1952, timber growth nationally exceeded harvest by 17 percent. Since the 1950s, timber growth has consistently exceeded harvest.

Net timber growth exceeded harvest by 54 percent in 1976, 36 percent in 1986, and 33 percent in 2001. Net growth rates have not been increasing as rapidly as in the past, while harvest levels have remained relatively stable since 1986. Additional resource demands have been met by
increased imports.

Total timber growth increased by about 72 percent between 1952 and 2001.

[yamaha6000]

Originally Posted by glking

I don't know about other countries, but there is more forested area in the United States today than there was when the country was founded.

Absolutley true. But I don't blame those on here for not believing that, I would find it to be false also If I had not looked into it. It is a little known FACT. But how can that be??? WE are destroying our planet!!

[Corona Gigante]

Originally Posted by glking

I don't know about other countries, but there is more forested area in the United States today than there was when the country was founded.

Originally Posted by yamaha6000

Absolutley true. But I don't blame those on here for not believing that, I would find it to be false also If I had not looked into it. It is a little known FACT. But how can that be??? WE are destroying our planet!!

Reference, please.

[jafount]

Originally Posted by moviewithnotitle

With all the Simpsons talk lately, I can't help but hear Lisa saying "A political debate in my own kitchen, how exciting" (from the episode where Mr Burns wants to become President)

This is a hot issue everywhere, but I personally am not a believer. I don't think we have caused or are causing global warming to anywhere near the extent that is being claimed by the likes of Al Gore and his cohorts. But I can't help but think that reducing Co2 emmissions and cleaning our drinking water would really be a bad thing for anyone. We need fresh/clean oxygen and water to live.

Do I believe Al Gore?...NO. I work in the IT industry!

However, I do give credit, albeit on a marginal basis. He is creating awareness. And sometimes that's all you need to make change. In history, changes have occured in waves, generating new technologies. The awareness creates these wave and spurs new levels of thinking to solve the hot issues. We are beginning to see some of this in our new levels of conservation, renewable resources and etc.

The only real issue I have now is funding all of this. My personal belief is that major corporations should bear the brunt of this. Our Gov't is handy in passing new tax laws that shred us of every available dime to fund their new world-saving programs.

Seriously, I need to know how in the hell Al Gore brought attention to this???

When I was a kid growing up in San Jose, CA my dad and I used to go to take me to the Guadalupe dump. Back then, everyone wandered in, dumped their trash in the big hole, and the tractors buried it. We left that area in 1984, but I returned in 1993. I had occasion to go to that same dump, only now there were these high quality material separators for metal, glass and plastic recycling, methane recapturing, green waste recycling, etc. The place was clean and functioned at an unbelievable level. Al Gore and his stupid movie had nothing to do with that. People just got smarter.

I always find it amazing, that people harp on our impact on the environment, yet we're much cleaner and efficient than we were 30 years ago. I remember then, that water was polluted, the air was dirty, etc. Things are SOOOO much better than they were back then, but again....people's memories are short.

Lemmings.

[glking]

Originally Posted by Corona Gigante

Reference, please.

Here ya go,

[SIZE=2]Forest Land Area from 1630 to 2002[/SIZE]

[Corona Gigante]

Originally Posted by glking

I don't know about other countries, but there is more forested area in the United States today than there was when the country was founded.

Originally Posted by glking

Here ya go,

[SIZE=2]Forest Land Area from 1630 to 2002[/SIZE]

Thanks for the reference. You realize that it contradicts your original statement, right?

About 33 percent of the 2.3 billion acres of land area in the U.S. is forest today as compared to about one-half in 1630 (1.0 billion acres).

1/3 < 1/2.

I admit that it's not as big a difference as I would probably have guessed. One wonders about the definition of "forest" though. The forests that covered this country when the settlers arrived were quite different from monocultural tree farms planted by the timber industry.

[macjoe53]

Originally Posted by Corona Gigante

Thanks for the reference. You realize that it contradicts your original statement, right?

About 33 percent of the 2.3 billion acres of land area in the U.S. is forest today as compared to about one-half in 1630 (1.0 billion acres).

1/3 < 1/2.

I admit that it's not as big a difference as I would probably have guessed. One wonders about the definition of "forest" though. The forests that covered this country when the settlers arrived were quite different from monocultural tree farms planted by the timber industry.

I have to agree with you. From the chart it looks like we have more forested land in the north than we did in the late 1800's and the south is down a little from that point. The Pacific and Rockies are also down from the early 1900's. Nowhere does it look like we have more than we did in 1776.

It also clearly states that only 33 percent of the land acreage in the US is forest today as opposed to 50 percent in 1630.

[glking]

Originally Posted by Corona Gigante

Thanks for the reference. You realize that it contradicts your original statement, right?

About 33 percent of the 2.3 billion acres of land area in the U.S. is forest today as compared to about one-half in 1630 (1.0 billion acres).

1/3 < 1/2.

I admit that it's not as big a difference as I would probably have guessed. One wonders about the definition of "forest" though. The forests that covered this country when the settlers arrived were quite different from monocultural tree farms planted by the timber industry.

I KNEW you wouldn't let your opinions be clouded by the facts!

The 1850's faced a major boom in cutting trees for lumber but still used as much wood for energy and fences as ever. This depletion of the forest continued until 1900 at which time the United States had fewer forests than ever before and less than we have today.

What part of "we have more forests now" don't you understand?