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)
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.
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?
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?