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
    +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.