Re: Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides

Culchie Aspirant wrote:
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 19:06:53 +0100, "Falcon" <falcon@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "Culchie Aspirant" <republican_remove_this_@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>> message news:0rrg245ovj945u2btv6vp83n5sd3ordqjm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [...]
>>> The building of the Spanish Armada itself deforested Spain and Spain
>>> is significantly larger than Ireland and Britain added together.
>>
>> God almighty. Just when I thought things couldn't get sillier, we
>> have a debate in which a 'scientist' actually claims to explain
>> deforestation by blaming hundreds of years of ecological damage on
>> the building a couple of hundred ****ps.
>>
>> We're all doomed, I tell you.
>
> No, you're an ignorant ignorant man...fortunately that fact alone does
> not mean that we're doomed...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation
>
> "The large-scale building of wooden sailing ****ps by European
> (coastal) naval owners since the 15th century for exploration,
> colonization, slave and other trade on the high seas and (often
> related) naval warfare (the failed invasion of England by the Spanish
> Armada in 1559 and the battle of Lepanto 1577 are early cases of huge
> waste of prime timber; each of Nelson's Royal navy war ****ps at
> Trafalgar had required 6000 mature oaks) and piracy meant that whole
> woody regions were over-harvested, as in Spain, where this
> contributed to the paradoxical weakening of the domestic economy since
> Columbus' discovery of America made the colonial activities
> (plundering, mining, cattle, plantations, trade ...) predominant.
>
> Tell me Falcon, since you're such a clever bastard, where do you think
> the 162,000* Oaks that Nelson used to make his fleet came from?
>
> * For the mathematically challenged i.e. Falcon, (27 x 6000 = 162,000)
>
> Furthermore, to nail the point home to all my critics in SCI, on this
> matter:
>
> I note from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation
>
> "Djouce Mountain, along with most of the island of Ireland, was
> systematically clear-felled during the 17th and 18th centuries, in
> order to obtain wood mainly for ****pbuilding.[1]"
>
> "Initially, deforestation was practiced by local farmers in order to
> clear land for crops, but later Ireland was systematically deforested
> in order to obtain wood for ****pbuilding."
>
> [1]
>
http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/special_re****ts/abroad04/ireland/ireland_7.lasso
>
> Game, set, match.
>

Nobody said the forests weren't depleted for the building of ****ps. But 
where does it say that the largest offender was the British? The Irish
built 
****ps as well I am sure. England had vast forests of Oak planted 
specifically for building navy ****ps. Your articles all state quite
clearly 
that the whole of Europe was involved, your own quote:

 ""The large-scale building of wooden sailing ****ps by European
> (coastal) naval owners since the 15th century for exploration,
> colonization, slave and other trade on the high seas and (often
> related) naval warfare (the failed invasion of England by the Spanish
> Armada in 1559 and the battle of Lepanto 1577 are early cases of huge
> waste of prime timber; each of Nelson's Royal navy war ****ps at
> Trafalgar had required 6000 mature oaks) and piracy meant that whole
> woody regions were over-harvested, as in Spain, where this
> contributed to the paradoxical weakening of the domestic economy since
> Columbus' discovery of America made the colonial activities
> (plundering, mining, cattle, plantations, trade ...) predominant."

So, who is contradicting themselves now, eh? Warrenson!

-- 
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.