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
  • NomadiChris

    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)

      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

        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

          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?