LOUNGE all new asksnapzu ideasforsnapzu newtribes interesting pics videos funny technology science technews gaming health history worldnews business web research entertainment food living internet socialmedia mobile space sports photography nature animals movies culture travel television finance music celebrities gadgets environment usa crime politics law money justice psychology security cars wtf art google books lifetips bigbrother women apple kids recipes whoa military privacy education facebook medicine computing wildlife design war drugs middleeast diet toplists economy fail violence humor africa microsoft parenting dogs canada neuroscience architecture religion advertising infographics sex journalism disaster software aviation relationships energy booze life japan ukraine newmovies nsa cannabis name Name of the tribe humanrights nasa cute weather gifs discoveries cops futurism football earth dataviz pets guns entrepreneurship fitness android extremeweather fashion insects india northamerica
+52 52 0
Published 2 years ago with 20 Comments

Join the Discussion

  • Auto Tier
  • All
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Post Comment
  • NomadiChris
    +6

    It's good to focus on a positive aspect for once, however we should still keep in mind that deforestation (being one of the numerous factors) is still advancing at an alarming rate, day by day and while this study focuses on Coastal British Columbia forests as an example, the global rate at which forests are being cut down is alarming. Here's a map showing deforestation advancing up to the year 2006 (source)

    • Boethius (edited 2 years ago)
      +3

      That map is terrible, and you linked the tertiary source instead of the original source. First of all, "original"? Original according to when? 3 billion years ago before trees existed? You will note, also, how they conveniently don't link to their actual source directly and simply suggest the map is "modified" and from Global Forest Watch.

      The only dataset I can compare with the one they've presented is by this resource: http://gis-treecover.wri.org/arcgis/rest/services/ForestCover_lossyear_density/ImageServer via http://data.globalforestwatch.org/datasets?keyword=forest%20change

      In other words, from 2001-2014. If climate scientists and ecologists plead "more time is needed for certain observations", then I see no reason why we should accept this data as meaningful if we don't also have the ability to compare it with older data. On its own, this data means nothing, because it could mean anything.

      • NomadiChris
        +3

        Do you feel you still need data to accept that human beings are directly affecting the environment and predominantly in a negative way? Or are you the kind of person that would build a house near an active volcano and gasp when there's lava in the living room?

        • Boethius
          +5

          I didn't mention what I think, quite on purpose, because it's irrelevant to the map. All I will say is the map is awful, the article misrepresents what the map shows, and it doesn't prove anything on its own. I will also say they deliberately modified the map to mislead people by deliberately excluding the years the data was collected in. Do you disagree with this?

  • leweb
    +6

    By "people" they mean Native Americans, and by "The Environment" they mean "British Columbia". Little bit of over generalization there.

    • Boethius
      +4

      You mean those same "Native Americans" who practiced slash and burn hunting and land clearing, a practice that caused such drastically bad fires it has left ecological records thousands of square kilometers in size? And by "British Columbia" do you mean the 28% Federal holdings of unoccupied lands in the United States? Or the near equal amount of "owned" and unoccupied land? Oh, and those same "Native Americans" who are technically responsible for the comparative absence of biodiversity in North America? I suppose not, that'd question the narrative of "wild man good, civilization bad".

      The article may be referring to BC only, but the fact is it's also true of the United States.

      • NomadiChris
        +1

        Lol. You are literally so full of it that it's coming out of your mouth. Are you seriously comparing the effects of large scale industrialization to the land clearing done by some Native Americans? You know what? Their fires might have wiped out any living thing from the land that they burned but the smoke from your fucking car (along with factories, industrialized agriculture etc.) is slowly and surely turning this planet into a barren fucking wasteland. Take some time to travel the world a bit. Maybe try opening your eyes?

        • Boethius (edited 2 years ago)
          +2

          I only mentioned North America on purpose. I made no comment, and will make no comment, on the rest of the world. I have no control whatsoever on the rest of the world, only my own country. In my own country, we have more forests now than at any other point that I know of. Also because there aren't "Native Americans" in India.

          If I am wrong about that, please give me a source showing at what time period North America had more forests. Admittedly at some point millions of years ago it looked like a rainforest, last I knew, but I refer to "comparatively recent" times.

          • NomadiChris
            +5

            But if you spill waste in a river that goes through your land and continues to your neighbour's land, where he's got a reservoir, would you comment then? After all, all you did was spill in your part of the river and then water magically took the waste away while vegetation growing on your side of the river bed continued to flourish, your neighbour's kids are now developing new eyes and ears one their backs.

            • Boethius
              +3

              Where's your source showing we don't have more forests in recent times than at a prior time as asked above?

            • NomadiChris (edited 2 years ago)
              +3
              @Boethius -

              http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/landsat/news/40th-top10-amazon.html

              http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=82076

              http://landsat.gsfc.nasa.gov/?p=2824

              Dude, if you're bent on denying that if you cut down a tree, it stays cut, who am to argue with you. A German programmer once consented to being eaten by another human being so you know, whatever you believe in, whatever bubble you want to live inside of, hell knows, you've already made up your mind. I mean this guy died because he was obsessed with being eaten. So the chances that you are going to see things differently are probably 0, next to the German's dude volition.

            • Boethius
              +3
              @NomadiChris -

              These are in south America, not North America. These are not relevant to the source I requested. I have made no comment about rain-forests.

            • NomadiChris
              +3
              @Boethius -

              Take another look at this one: http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/style...mage/public/670091main_west.jpg?itok=QHZQA11k

              Also, what you "request" cannot be delivered, not until future generations won't be able stay in the sun for more than 5 minutes. Like I said, no point in arguing.

            • Boethius
              +3
              @NomadiChris -

              If you do not have evidence to contradict my point about North America having more forests than it did prior to western colonization, then you have no argument. I have not, and will not, discuss any other matter because it is irrelevant to the original post I made. I have not, and will not, comment on my opinions regarding any other matter. North America is the topic, North America is my topic, and forestation by westerners and deforestation by slash and burn hunting / clearing were my arguments. About North America. And nothing else.

            • NomadiChris
              +4
              @Boethius -

              Amen, buddy. Like I said, it doesn't matter. I just sent you a satellite image taken by NASA highlighting in red forest cover loss in NORTH AMERICA between 2000 and 2005 ALONE. The first article is focused on South America yet the satellite images included North America. Wait for your proof, served exactly as you requested while global temperatures continue to rise every year. But hey, nothing's going on, everything is fine. Good luck with that. Cheers.

            • Boethius (edited 2 years ago)
              +4
              @NomadiChris -

              And compared to forest cover a hundred years ago? Six hundred years ago? Maybe you don't understand my point, but I can certainly say it is not what you think it is.

          • AdelleChattre (edited 2 years ago)
            +4

            I see what you mean. People get a little bit twitchy about climate change deniers. Try not to take it personally if you get mistaken for one. You can't shake a stick without knocking one out of a tree. To your point though, current thinking is that even with the impressive replenishment of very young forests, North America still has about two thirds to three quarters of the forests it had when it was "discovered."

  • MAGISTERLUDI
    +1

    LOL

    • AdelleChattre
      +3

      Howdy. So, how's the weather where you've been lately? Notice anything a mite bit peculiar yet?

      • MAGISTERLUDI (edited 2 years ago)
        +1

        Should have I?

        It's hot, summer ya know, and somewhat rainy. Had a couple tornados, nuttin unusual.

        How about yourself?

Here are some other snaps you may like...