Well, like many people from those areas where the graph shows the worst depletion, the Northeast and the South, have been telling you on this thread, the amount of forest land has been increasing despite the numbers being shown.
When I was back in Mass in 1999 with my wife and youngest son visiting my wife’s brother and his family, we went into Boston and visited the USS Constitution. (On a side note, as a result I have several older documents and histories of that marvelous vessel, and have a 44” wood, museum quality model in my front room of her now). We then took the rest of the day and traveled the battle road out of Boston to Lexington and Concord (which is now a National Park). I was struck by the drawings from the period. Where the ground in that area was mostly open back then and under cultivation with stone walls seperating fields (from which our founders took cover and fired upon the British, or from behind the few trees on the hilokcs at the time), it is now covered with forests.
I take issue with the charts you show because in so many areas, where we have documented evidence of how it looked back then, in colonial times, and how it looks now, there are clearly a lot more trees now.
So you can believe projections made by scientists, many of whom have an agenda (sort of like the Fish Biologist in the Bureau of Reclamation where I worked who told those of us who maintain the dams that she already knew that the endangered trout below the dams were doing badly and she just needed to do her studies in such a way as to collect the data to document own fore-gone conclusions). This happens all the time, and in this case, the Federal “Anglers” they hired were about the worst fishermen I had ever seen. Our electrician had to show them which lures to use and how to cast and where because they couldn’t catch a thing and therefore calculated that the population was low and very distressed. Once they learned how to fish in the area, like our electrician, they pulled them out all the time...upsetting the biologist’s calculations...which she then altered with other data to “prove” her premise anyway. It was quite unbelievable and brazen. As I say, in such cases, you can either believe their reports, or believe your own lieing eyes.
Go to those places in the South and in the Northeast. Look at the old pictures as residents on this very thread have told you, and then look at what you see now. They do not line up with the grpah.
Anyhow, as I said, you can believe what you want...I teach my kids and grandkids the truths as they are and to question projections, theories, and scientific charts that do not line up with reality, or that help push agendas...and to not take them at their face value.
Anyway, as I also said, you can find data on both sides of the isuue and argue it till the cows come home...but I will keep teaching those kids exaclty what I taught them and help counter the indoctrination and propogandizing that is going on from the various sources.
Have a great week...and if you served on the Connie, God bless you for your service to the Republic.
The last time that I went to the battlefield, the growth of the forests was such that it was hard to imagine the actual flow of the battle and lines of sight. The Park Rangers even made mention of the fact that, to recreate the battlefield area to a condition similar to that just prior to the battle would result in wholesale cutting of trees.
If nothing else, that made me think of the image of the East coast after it was cleared for farming (and the cutting of trees for firewood and construction). It was, from all of the photos of that era that I've seen, quite bare when compared to the way that it is now.
Which begs the question, why expose your grandkids to such "indoctrination and propogandizing"? There is no way anyone could enter a theatre showing The Lorax and not know there's an environmental theme to the story. Your lengthy posts prove just how deeply you believe this conspiracy to go. So why expose these poor innocent kids to it?
The question is rhetorical. Please don't waste our time with a response.
"..and if you served on the Connie,"
"IF" I served on the Connie? "If"? Real nice......