Rain Forest Myths
karl at daviesand.com
Mon Oct 9 17:31:09 EST 2000
> Karl Davies wrote in message
> <39DDB9F5.D37610C5 at daviesand.com>...
> What data??? I didn't see any data in that rant you
> copied. When Moore and Stott did their thing earlier this
> year, they didn't gather any data. They didn't reference
> any data by others either. These guys are CORPORATE
> PROPAGANDISTS, pure and simple. They're running
> interference for corporate clearcutters and high-graders who
> want to cut more rainforest timber. Here's what they were
> trying to counteract (copied from
> Why is it that you expect of others what you don't provide?
> Researchers are entitled to make general statements via
> articles, based on their research. It isn't necessary to
> always include the data itself. Data is available upon
> request. Your own observations are deficient in data,
> appearing purely subjective and un-founded "rantings" as you
> put it. You make a charge here that is unfounded
> speculation out of inner fears. Find data and be objective.
> Otherwise, increase your respectability by either agreeing
> or disagreeing with statements, and offering your own
> thoughts based on something besides your fears.
OK. Go to http://www.whrc.org/news/newsnature.htm where you can
download the entire Nature paper entitled "Cryptic Deforestation" by
Nepsted et al. You'll find all the data you want, and if you think
about it a little, you'll find the reason for the Stott and Moore
> [KD Note: This is called HIGH-GRADING, ie, cutting the best
> and leaving the rest.]
> Have you seen the statistics on that? Without data I would
> assume the choices are
> mostly species and minimum stump diameter.
Exactly. That's called high-grading. Or would you call it
> Karl Davies, Practicing Forester
> I tried to email this address and get consistent failures of
It's not an email address, it's a web site.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ag-forst