[at-l] These...

[RoksnRoots at aol.com]

In a message dated 2/28/2007 11:18:44 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
greyowl at rcn.com writes:
*
*
*

I know that I am going to make some enemies with this statement, however old 
growth forests have a lot less diversity than a mixed aged forest.  A climax 
forest has the lowest diversity of all and as the trees are not growing very 
fast, they have a lower CO2 uptake rate than a mixed age forest.  Selective 
logging is the answer and yep, get rid of some of those ancient trees. *

*
*
           Boy the Bush roadless invaders would love to hear that. Sorry Grey 
Owl, what you wrote is unscientific, and, as usual, panders to insincere 
right-wing views of the environment - sort of in a Reagan's "trees pollute' way. 
 
           What you wrote is also false in terms of species that only old 
growth can support etc. It is a sign of our arrogant age that we are daring to 
"correct" the climax or old growth form nature took while burning up the planet 
at the same time.
 
            Somehow I think conservative Trail people are people who are 
bugged by their views but can't admit it. So they think of things like the above.
 
 
            
 
   "  By one estimate that i stumbled across a couple of years ago there are 
more tress growing in the United States now then there has been in the last 
2000 years. "
 
 
            Believe that if you want, but the truth is the US is leading the 
world in oil-dependent consumption of open space. We continue to increase the 
record while talking about skewed stats like the above. Funny how some persons 
who allege to be sensitive to "dishonesty" stay dumb on this.
 
            This IS the topic of the AT - by the way (thank you Rafe). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
*
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free 
email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at 
http://www.aol.com.