RWer mythology: More trees now than pre-Columbus

[BigBigBigBear]

This is silly. Anyone encountered this Rush-ism and shot it down effectively?

[CafeToad]

1. The statement is so vague as to be meaningless

It could easily be true.

For example, 3 billion years pre-Columbus trees had not yet evolved, so there are indeed more trees now.

Another example, a few thousand years ago during the ice age (which was also pre-Columbus) much of North America was buried under ice, and presumably tree-less.

Etc.

[CafeToad]

2. The statement is so vague as to be meaningless

D'oh! (multiple post deleted)

[northzax]

3. actually, they may be right

but the trees are smaller. old growth forest actually has fewer trees per acre than a new forest, but the trees are much larger, and therefore use more CO2.

[sandnsea]

5. Pathetic isn't it?

The very thing that's causing wildfires and is the problem of the forests is now used as evidence that there's no problem in the forests. Kind of like when my local forester said they have to clear cut because that's the only way to get economic value from our skinny trees. Uh, but, they're skinny because they're managed that way!

Old growth, only 4% left. I think that should be branded on every person's forehead.

[Jeebo]

8. Re: "Pathetic isn't it?"

"The very thing that's causing wildfires and is the problem of the forests is now used as evidence that there's no problem in the forests. Kind of like when my local forester said they have to clear cut because that's the only way to get economic value from our skinny trees. Uh, but, they're skinny because they're managed that way!"

There's a name for that kind of fallacious logic. It's called "circular reasoning." It's when you reason in circles like this: A is so because B is so, and B is so because A is so.

I hear examples of circular reasoning coming from the right wing all the time. And to be fair, I have to admit that I hear it once in a great while coming from the left, too, but WAY more often from the right. Which is one more way of illustrating that there's something fundamentally wrong with the way conservatives think.

Ron

[roguevalley]

4. I heard it. It's despicable retardation.

Tell them that once a squirrel could go from California
to Maine without touching the ground. Tell them they are
totally and completely retarded.

[patdem]

6. Who counted the trees before we arrived?

:shrug:

[wuushew]

7. don't forget old Ronnie Raygun

Pollution and Trees
"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do." Reagan '81

"A tree is a tree. How many more do you have to look at?"
Reagan '66

"I have flown twice over Mt St Helens out on our west coast.
I'm not a scientist and I don't know the figures, but I have a suspicion
that one little mountain has probably released more sulphur dioxide
into the atmosphere of the world than has been released in the last ten
years of automobile driving or things of that kind that people are so
concerned about." Reagan '80. (Actually, Mount St. Helens, at its
peak activity, emitted about 2,000 tons of sulphur dioxide per day,
compared with 81,000 tons per day by cars.)



http://home.att.net/~howingtons/gop/rr/rr.htm