quote:
But of most significance to the subject of forests, WWF claimed that the main cause of species extinction was "commercial logging", that is, the forest industry. They provided absolutely no evidence for this so-called fact about logging and the media asked no hard questions. The next day newspapers around the world proclaimed the forest industry to be the main destroyer of species.
Well yes obviously. Its well established, and has been since the 1970's. The most biologically diversity-dense region of the world is the Amazon rainforest, and it is being logged, and there have been multiple appeals about the dangers iof the loss of this doiversity - not least becuase we stand to gain many medical treatements from the highly developed chemistires of such a dense biomass.
Simply because logging goes on in areas of the rainforest does not make them the main cause of species extinction, the main cause of species extinction now is overpopulation, and the combined over hunting of certain types of animals and systematic clearing of the rainforest for agricultural use. Foreign influences are still responsible in that much of this agricultural use is grassing land for cattle, but that is a different problem.
And whay would you, or whoever wrote this piece, expect all evidence to be produced at a press conference? Thats what the scientific peer-reviewed journals are for. Probably, as is usually the case, the press would have been given a package with relevant statisticis and refernces to papers and whatnot.
If he expected that, then you are correct in your comment. I think he said it more to point out that there was no evidence, and he did so improperly.
All of that is elided in this snide and unfair criticism. If whoever wrote this is so ignorant that this is the first time they have enountered the idea, then they should be slapped around the head and told to wake up and smell the coffee. This is old news.
I highly doubt this is the first time he encountered this idea, he was merely using it as a reference to show that major organizations are using these claims, and that its damaging an industry which he supports in his later claim
quote:
Despite the WWF’s failure to support its accusations, the myth that forestry causes widespread species extinction lives on. How can a largely urban public be convinced that this is not the case? The challenge is a daunting one for an industry that has been cast in the role of Darth Vadar when it should be recognized for growing trees and providing wood, the most renewable material used in human civilization.
I can attest to his claim, as I come from a suburban area, and many people do think that American + Canadian logging practices are a far larger threat to the environment than they really are. So much so that students in my school’s ecology club circulated a petition to prevent selective logging on what I later found out was a privately owned section of forest taht was deemed at high risk for forest fires due to the fact that it was over dense.
quote:
Since that announcement I have asked on numerous occasions for the name of a single species that has been rendered extinct due to forestry, particularly in my home country, Canada. Not one Latin name has been provided.
An appeal to personal incrdulity; 2 minutes on Google produces the Caribou dawsoni subspecies and the Sea Mink, see
Statistics Canada - We couldn't find that Web page (Error 404) / Statistique Canada - Nous ne pouvons trouver cette page Web (Erreur 404)
Yep those 2 are extinct all right, but 2 more mins on google would tell you that the Caribou dawsoni subspecies disappeared after introduction of firearms for sport and food hunting to a small island, and went extinct between 1908 and 1935(at the latest)
And the Sea Mink disappeared after intensive fur hunting in 1894
neither are from modern North American logging practices, or even the unregulated logging of early settlers.
quote:
Today, the main cause of species extinction is deforestation, over 90% of which is caused by agriculture and urban development. Why is WWF telling the public that logging is the main cause of species extinction?
Maybe because logging is, by definition, deforestation? Duh.
Commercial logging in Modern NA practice is logging done for making wood products. It’s Deforestation if that land is then used for agriculture and urban development because it is not thereafter forest.
Commerical logging, especially in NA, either only selectively logs, or replants after they harvest.
quote:
This wasn’t written by some outcast of the scientific community, it was written by Patrick Moore, one of the original founders of Greenpeace.
Irrelevant - thats an appeal to Moore's presumed authority. For all I know, Moore has since aquired Alzheimers, or a very large estate courtesy of the logging industry. Moore's personal authority is simply not comparable with the consensus of the scientific world.
For more info on Moore please visit
Just a moment....
You said that I would "produce discredited "evidence" from a narrow sect of global warming deniers who have zero credibility in the big bad world. But by all means, bring it on."
Patrick Moore is not some kind of wacky conspiricy theroist, hes simply an enviormentalist that wants to work with industry by creating solutions, not just creating conflict between the two.
And I highly doubt the consensus of the scientific world is that commercial logging (especially when practiced right) causes more species to go extinct than overpopulation, deforestation for agriculture, and hunting.
quote:
The teacher was one of the liberal radicals that I was talking about and the WWF was at least in part one of the sets of propaganda and yes men to which I originally refered.
And as far as I am concerned thats about as well informed as accusing them of being vampires and sucking your blood. And you know, I do understand your response to your teacher - if nothing else, it does look like she abused her authority in an unethical way. But come on - people are people with all their frailties, and to presume that becuase of this single experience, all, or even a substantial number, of environmentalists are ill-informed or fanatical is simply not reasonable. You need to account for the fact that there are going to be stupid people on both sides of every debate; thats the way humanity works.
Ok, but I never said that all or even a substantial number of environmentalists are ill-informed or fanatical. I merely stated that they exist. To state that they don’t is the same as stating that religious radicals don’t exist. I think this is where we are having our misunderstanding.
The problem is not that these people exist, its that they are the ones that shape political movements because they are the most dedicated and outspoken, and when uninformed people hear extremist arguements, many people will ethier accept them in their entiraty, and forge their beliefs on inncorrect facts, or disregard them completely, and miss the positive aspects of the arguement.
This message has been edited by StormWolfx2x, 04-17-2005 12:26 AM
™ Version 4.2
