Logical Inconsistencies in Some Selected Positions Taken by those Who Oppose Sound Forest Management

Position 1: Management by foresters has a consistently negative impact on the global environment and is therefore an unacceptable alternative to letting nature take its course.

Logical Inconsistencies:

– Management of endangered/threatened species by biologists is necessary to save them in spite of the evolutionary process of survival of the fittest.

– Management of non endangered/threatened wildlife through hunting and fishing is perfectly acceptable as is the use of formerly forested areas for managing the production of most food sources.

– Destruction of seed source, destruction of endangered species, sterilization and increased erosion potential from baked soil; all resulting from catastrophic wildfires is preferable to scientifically sound forest management activities that can significantly reduce the risk and extent of such catastrophic wildfires.

 

Position 2: Corporate greed and lust is destroying our nations forests.

Logical Inconsistency: ‘The total forest area in the US is within one percent of what it was 100 years ago. During the last 60 years, per acre production of forest resources have increased by more than 50% in the US and 94% in the Southeast’

– Page 5 – http://www.watreefarm.org/Dovetail2012.pdf as cited in – http://www.envivabiomass.com/faq-wood-pellet-demand-in-europe/

 

Position 3: Alternative Energy sources like solar and windfarms are far superior to fossil fuels including nuclear energy. Even non-renewable fossil fuels that introduce new carbon into the atmosphere are superior to renewable biofuels which simply recycle the existing above ground carbon.

Logical Inconsistencies:

– Forest clearcuts are unacceptable even though they mimic the natural process of death and regeneration but it’s ok to permanently clear the large acreages required to produce significant quantities of wind and solar energy.

– Don’t place wind and solar energy farms anywhere that they would interfere with aesthetics like they would if they were placed on ridges along the west coast where sufficient wind power is fairly common and especially not in any forests in my favorite recreation area like a state park or national forest.

– Don’t sweat the loss of endangered/threatened raptors, migratory and other birds and bats due to windfarms but one dead skink in a clearcut is a national tragedy. Windfarms supply only 3% of US grid electricity yet they already kill a significant but arguable quantity of birds and bats. What will the mortality be and what will the aesthetics look like when 20 to 30% of our energy comes from windfarms? What will the aesthetics look like when Solar Power production rises to a significant level from its current 0.1% of production? What environmental impact will occur in providing all of the rare earth elements necessary for a significant portion of our energy production to come from solar power?

—- http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-many-birds-do-wind-turbines-really-kill-180948154/?no-ist

—- http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/01/birds-bats-wind-turbines-deadly-collisions

—- http://www.windenergyfoundation.org/about-wind-energy/faqs

—- http://www.c2es.org/technology/factsheet/solar

 

Beware of logical inconsistencies (AKA think before you leap).

6 Comments

  1. Can anyone provide actual documented evidence that Position 1, 2 or 3, or the half dozen “logical inconsistencies” – as written and presented here – actually represents a true and honest portrayal of a position or the logic of any person or any organization?

    See also: Logical Fallacy: Straw Man.

    “Straw man” is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched.

    Straw Man is one of the commonest of fallacies. It is endemic in public debates on politics, ethics, and religion. A straw man argument occurs in the context of a debate―formal or informal―when one side attacks a position―the “straw man”―not held by the other side, then acts as though the other side’s position has been refuted.

    This fallacy is a type of Red Herring because the arguer is attempting to refute the other side’s position, and in the context is required to do so, but instead attacks a position not held by the other side. The arguer argues to a conclusion that denies the “straw man”, but misses the target. There may be nothing wrong with the argument presented by the arguer when it is taken out of context, that is, it may be a perfectly good argument against the straw man. It is only because the burden of proof is on the arguer to argue against the opponent’s position that a Straw Man fallacy is committed. So, the fallacy is not simply the argument, but the entire situation of the argument occurring in such a context.

  2. Thanks for the lecture on straw men and red herrings. I think that you need to rethink your knee jerk reactions.

    Re Matthews comment: “Can anyone provide actual documented evidence that Position 1, 2 or 3, or the half dozen “logical inconsistencies” – as written and presented here – actually represents a true and honest portrayal of a position or the logic of any person or any organization?”
    1) Read the title – it specifically says “Positions Taken by those Who Oppose Sound Forest Management” so it doesn’t apply to anyone who doesn’t oppose sound forest management.
    2) Gentlemen, talk about straw men, after your many posts/comments and linked to articles against sound forest management are your memories so short that you have forgotten all of your claims made here on NCFP? You have very convenient selective memory loss or you are being less than honest in an attempt to intimidate the opposition. You don’t know me very well if you think that you can intimidate me into silence. Consider the following:
    — Consider Matthew’s most recent redundant posts on The DWA – DWA certainly qualifies as an organization with a long established position against sound forest management.
    — Consider the Sierra Club’s one size fits all no clearcuts policy – definitely not sound forest management.
    — Remember a guy with a screen name of Chaparralian, how about Ms. Law, and there are a couple others who come to mind immediately whose positions I would have to review but feel quite certain that they are going to fit Matthews criterion.
    — How much work do you think it will take to check out various organization websites and find organizations that fit your criteria?
    — Do you really want me to do a word search on each of your names and certain keywords in this blog and give you a link to your plentiful statements meeting Matthews criteria. Where do you think I got these points from? A great many come from years of monitoring the news as a member of the forestry and wood products industry. Then there are plenty of links that you have provided here on NCFP from court cases and statements by many that you linked to. The internet will prove you wrong.

    Enough of your bluster – I’m calling your bluff.

    Do you really want me to put my research skills to work to embarrass you as you have attempted to do to me? So, if you want me to find even more examples than I have pointed out above, I don’t want to hear any complaints from you that I went out of my way to embarrass you – no running to Sharon to call foul. It’s your call gentlemen.

  3. The intent of the opening post was to initiate a point by point discussion and leave the documentation for that followup point by point discussion.

    I have even offered to have a point by point discussion of Matthew’s request for documentation of my opening post. As of yet, no one has been willing to make a commitment to such a discussion.

    Are you unwilling to put your money where your mouth is as to your straw man claims that I have constructed straw men in my opening post. Silence is admission of guilt.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *