Originally Posted by C.B.
I'm actually a forestry student at a very liberal college, and anything but a "republitard" nothing I ever said was politically motivated. I was simply providing some information about things that I study every day that is mostly missunderstood by the general public.
Sorry, your statement set me off because it sounded too much like the old denialist canard about how global warming is a myth because the population of polar bears has actually doubled in historical times.
Anyway, my objection is still valid. If there are more trees now than there were a hundred years ago, and if there are more clearcuts now, and if there are more developed areas, then the supposed additional trees have to also make up for the clearcuts and developed areas. So where are these new trees?
I suspect the answer is similar to the polar bear claim -- a cherry picked statistic designed to imply a conclusion that simply isn't true.