Robert Sturgeon wrote:
On 9 Aug 2006 18:36:24 -0700,
wrote:

pipedope wrote:
Robert Sturgeon wrote:

The same is true of the U.S., where we have more forested
land now than in 1900.
But how does it compare to, say, 1400?
You tell us...

On top of that how much is actual forest and how much is mono culture
tree farm land.

michael
You have a problem with trees being replanted for future cuts?

If he gets to define the terms any way he likes, he can
prove anything -- anything at all.

Forests are forests, regardless of whether they are tree
farms or "virgin" forests.

--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

Looks like the pot calling the kettle black.

Start with how bad I am for simply asking a question by implying that I
am defining terms to fit my argument and the you make a strange
definition to support your own argument.

There are major differences between virgin forests and tree farms. Not
even all virgin forests are the same.

There is lots of good science on the subject, far more than will fit
into net news sound bites.