God's Response To The Global Warming Hoax?

[This Vale Of Tears]

I keep getting this unsettling feeling that God is deliberately turning down the global thermostat because of man's arrogance in claiming that we control global climate. Our winters are getting longer and our summers more brief and now we've just had the coldest summer in over a century measured by the least occurrences of temperatures over 100F.

But more to the point, there is no evidence that the globe is warming, much to the embarrassment of the priests of climate change. Over the last 20 years there has been no discernible trend that shows we are warming up, much less that man's technology is causing it. The priests are coming to grips with this by explaining that we got lucky and there's still time to prevent global warming or that the measures we put in place (like automobile CAFE standards) actually worked. They also changed global warming to "climate change" so they can be right no matter what the weather does.

I do imagine that God is offended that we think we can bring about, or prevent, our own apocalypse and that the God who sets the times and seasons is shoved aside by humanist presumptions that there is no God and we control the planet. God promised after the Great Flood that seedtime and harvest (seasons) will never cease but we are sure that we are bringing about the demise of seasons.

3 years ago we had record cold and snowfall and that's when the thought first occurred to me that God was making a fool out of the climate alarmists and reasserting that He alone will bring about the end of this earth. We certainly lack humility and it's time we were put in our place. So the global warming myth will go down in history along with other debunked Leftists myths such as the hole in the ozone layer, the dangers of irradiating food, the dangers of DDT, the Population Bomb, and the coming ice age that they were so worried about in the 1970's.

But those were debunked quietly and the Left was allowed to perpetuate more myths and people forgot how often they were wrong in the past. What if this time God is punctuating how arrogantly foolish we are? Has anyone else had the same thought?

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood [of lies] after the woman [truth], that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood [of lies]. And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood [of lies] which the dragon cast out of his mouth. Revelation 12:15-16

 

[Dodo_David]

It seems to me that global-warming alarmists act as if the fate of the Earth were somehow outside God's control.

 

[Eltanin]

The term Global Warming is obsolete... It was originally coined to describe the warming of the oceans which causes many different climate effects over the globe. Although we still hear the term Global Warming as it had much longer to become standardized, the proper term is Global Climate Change.

Even as a kid in school when the issue first began to be spotlighted, I wondered how people could attribute the environmental changes fully to humanity. I mean, we had just studied how the world was a large chunk of ice on a few occasions and how we were coming out of another cold period, although it was an admittedly mild one. I don't buy into the idea that we are causing the world to met down temperature-wise.

I DO believe that we were given the responsibility to be good stewards of our environment, and I do think we aren't taking that responsibility seriously, especially as Christians. We rail at the exaggerations made by those who place environmentalism as their personal mission. Instead of seeing the truth there is to some of their arguments, we decide to believe that everything they are saying is non-sense, and I think that is a failing on our part.

I say this because I was raised very rurally, I have allot of opportunity to travel, and I have seen how our disposable culture has really messed up some beautiful places. Including the area I was raised in.

I try to encourage people to not get so hung up on terminology so much that they miss the message that they really need to hear... I think our environment is in a sad state, and I think allot of the solutions for that state can be found in solutions offered for the problems that are caught under the umbrella of the term 'Climate Change'.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

It seems to me that global-warming alarmists act as if the fate of the Earth were somehow outside God's control.

Yes. Arrogance is the word. Hollywood has produced movie after movie depicting humanity preventing its own demise from crashing meteors, stalled core rotations, or any number of calamities that threaten human existence. We really think we're all that.

The term Global Warming is obsolete... It was originally coined to describe the warming of the oceans which causes many different climate effects over the globe. Although we still hear the term Global Warming as it had much longer to become standardized, the proper term is Global Climate Change.

Even as a kid in school when the issue first began to be spotlighted, I wondered how people could attribute the environmental changes fully to humanity. I mean, we had just studied how the world was a large chunk of ice on a few occasions and how we were coming out of another cold period, although it was an admittedly mild one. I don't buy into the idea that we are causing the world to met down temperature-wise.

I DO believe that we were given the responsibility to be good stewards of our environment, and I do think we aren't taking that responsibility seriously, especially as Christians. We rail at the exaggerations made by those who place environmentalism as their personal mission. Instead of seeing the truth there is to some of their arguments, we decide to believe that everything they are saying is non-sense, and I think that is a failing on our part.

I say this because I was raised very rurally, I have allot of opportunity to travel, and I have seen how our disposable culture has really messed up some beautiful places. Including the area I was raised in.

I try to encourage people to not get so hung up on terminology so much that they miss the message that they really need to hear... I think our environment is in a sad state, and I think allot of the solutions for that state can be found in solutions offered for the problems that are caught under the umbrella of the term 'Climate Change'.

We've predicated all environmentalism on a hoax. Put in simple terms it means that if the reason we take care of our environment turns out to be mythical, then our efforts become pointless. When I was growing up, cleaning up air pollution and rivers were simple acts with simple rewards; that we had fresh, clean air and clean water as well and we could enjoy our planet more. Now we have children going home to 'instruct' their parents that they need to turn off the lights more or they'll destroy the earth. It's no longer about responsibility for our planet, it's about power, control, taxation, and paving the way for a world government.

Satan has taken over the environmental movement.

 

[Eltanin]

It is not all a hoax...

There are environmental issues that are very real and serious.

I have seen something similar to this in the middle of the USA...
http://www.upworthy.com/people-should-know-about-this-awful-thing-we-do-and-most-of-us-are-simply-unaware

In the Southeast Missouri area I live in, there are rivers that cannot sustain fish because of the runoff of pesticides from fields. Rivers I used to swim and fish in as a kid, now have signs posted along the banks that warn of chemical contamination. The bottom of the river that runs by the house I grew up in is just green algae. As a kid, I could see clearly to the bottom of that river. There are fish, but it is not safe to eat over a certain number of them in a certain period of time.

I have seen other parts of the country, and even other countries, that are dealing with environmental problems. Just last year, I got the displeasure of going to New York and seeing a site that had been 'Frakked' (don't know if that is spelled right)... Frakking hasn't made it to this part of the country yet, but it is apparently trying to get here. Just last week I read an article about how there is a debate getting ready to go down in our state legislature about the benefit and side-effects. The process is for obtaining natural gas, but it causes contamination of water tables, and the sites, when they are done with them, are ugly places that can't be used for anything for years to come.

If you are accusing Satan of taking over the environmental movement, then maybe it is high time to start claiming the movement back in the Name of Jesus, and begin reaffirming the responsibility of stewardship that God gave Adam. Sitting on your hands and claiming it is all a lie is just as much a lie as the environmentalist who claim all of it as the truth.

The ice caps are melting and the sea level is rising, I doubt it has much to do with us, but whether it does or not, there are coastal cities that are going to be affected by it.
Carbon Footprint is a sham, but air quality is not.
Global Warming is a hoax, but pollution is very real and damaging. It is ugly and shameful.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

It is not all a hoax...

There are environmental issues that are very real and serious.

I have seen something similar to this in the middle of the USA...
http://www.upworthy.com/people-should-know-about-this-awful-thing-we-do-and-most-of-us-are-simply-unaware

In the Southeast Missouri area I live in, there are rivers that cannot sustain fish because of the runoff of pesticides from fields. Rivers I used to swim and fish in as a kid, now have signs posted along the banks that warn of chemical contamination. The bottom of the river that runs by the house I grew up in is just green algae. As a kid, I could see clearly to the bottom of that river. There are fish, but it is not safe to eat over a certain number of them in a certain period of time.

I have seen other parts of the country, and even other countries, that are dealing with environmental problems. Just last year, I got the displeasure of going to New York and seeing a site that had been 'Frakked' (don't know if that is spelled right)... Frakking hasn't made it to this part of the country yet, but it is apparently trying to get here. Just last week I read an article about how there is a debate getting ready to go down in our state legislature about the benefit and side-effects. The process is for obtaining natural gas, but it causes contamination of water tables, and the sites, when they are done with them, are ugly places that can't be used for anything for years to come.

If you are accusing Satan of taking over the environmental movement, then maybe it is high time to start claiming the movement back in the Name of Jesus, and begin reaffirming the responsibility of stewardship that God gave Adam. Sitting on your hands and claiming it is all a lie is just as much a lie as the environmentalist who claim all of it as the truth.

The ice caps are melting and the sea level is rising, I doubt it has much to do with us, but whether it does or not, there are coastal cities that are going to be affected by it.
Carbon Footprint is a sham, but air quality is not.
Global Warming is a hoax, but pollution is very real and damaging. It is ugly and shameful.

Actually the ice packs are at record levels for this time of year and continue to gain in mass, not lose. It's one of the many signs that the global warming hoax has been exposed. The truth is, not only is the earth not warming, man caused or not) but there's mounting evidence that it might be on a cooling trend. I'm not dismissing every environmental concern, just the ones predicated on the mythical Manbearpig. We even have automobile CAFE standards that kill 2000 Americans every year to battle this non existent foe. Yes we should take care of our environment, but all concern for the environment has been coopted to serve and ulterior world-wide agenda. Politicians even propose passing carbon tax laws that make "carbon credits" a commodity traded on the markets. Imagine that! We actually make up a commodity by force of law in order to stop the fancies of our imagination.

 

[aspen]

Y2K was a conspiracy theory embraced by militia minded folks and other end of the world types - it was a complete myth. Global warming is a reality - so much so that governments are fighting over fishing lanes in the new ocean under the north pole ice. greenland is melting. antartica is melting........what is it going to take before people open their eyes.

 

[day]

The earth has cycled through warm and cold periods in the past without any evidence of human causality. I do not think humans can cause a change nor can they stop cycles from happening. I believe God created the earth to have cycles as a means of cleansing, a redistributing of necessary nutrients.

I do agree that we have shown ourselves poor stewards of God's gifts of plants, animals, water and air. We need to repent and turn from our greed and unrestrained consumption of resources and our disregard for others, leaving a trail of pollution behind us.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

The earth has cycled through warm and cold periods in the past without any evidence of human causality. I do not think humans can cause a change nor can they stop cycles from happening. I believe God created the earth to have cycles as a means of cleansing, a redistributing of necessary nutrients.

I do agree that we have shown ourselves poor stewards of God's gifts of plants, animals, water and air. We need to repent and turn from our greed and unrestrained consumption of resources and our disregard for others, leaving a trail of pollution behind us.

I agree with you all the way up to "unrestrained consumption of resources and our disregard for others". The Population Bomb myth has been exploded and far from technology depriving people of a better life, it's caused a better life to proliferate throughout the world. More people means more contributors and despite the fact that we have 7 billion people on this planet, our ability to feed ourselves and ship food all over the world has never been greater. Starvation has not been eradicated yet, but even that's within reach.

The problem is how we consume. In South America they are clear cutting forests to make room cattle ranches. Here in America, we plant two trees for every tree we fell and there are more trees in North America today than when Columbus first landed. God gave us the earth for our use and consumption and if we take good care of it, we can continue using it to our benefit. And far from disregarding others, the world market has brought the blessings of Western civilization to every corner of the globe, a rising tide that lifts all boats.

I apologize for NONE of it!

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Y2K was a conspiracy theory embraced by militia minded folks and other end of the world types - it was a complete myth. Global warming is a reality - so much so that governments are fighting over fishing lanes in the new ocean under the north pole ice. greenland is melting. antartica is melting........what is it going to take before people open their eyes.

Right... that's why all the companies spent gazillions of dollars hiring people to inventory and remediate software and equipment that would have been impacted. They're run by conspiracy theorists.

Are you, or have you ever been, an academic?

Did you ever consider the possibility that we didn't see much of a problem because such action was taken?

The problem is how we consume. In South America they are clear cutting forests to make room cattle ranches. Here in America, we plant two trees for every tree we fell and there are more trees in North America today than when Columbus first landed. God gave us the earth for our use and consumption and if we take good care of it, we can continue using it to our benefit. And far from disregarding others, the world market has brought the blessings of Western civilization to every corner of the globe, a rising tide that lifts all boats.

I'd have to see some data before I believed what you said about there being more trees in the US than before Columbus. The entire eastern half of the US was covered with trees before he came. It's certainly not like that now.

You may be relying on data that considers the number of trees rather than forested acreage. Back then the trees were much larger, meaning fewer trees per acre, but the same foliage coverage and more usable wood. Now it's much less forested acreage, but many more smaller trees per acre; same foliage coverage, though, and lesser quality and variety of usable wood.

 

[Eltanin]

Sorry, VoT. I have to disagree with you on the more trees thing. We have lost nearly 2.5 million acres of forests since 1910. From the time Columbus landed until 1910, the East coast lost over 40% of it's forest before 1910, those forests haven't come back. I don't think you can count ornamental trees in people's front yards and still say there are more trees now than before Columbus, but even if you could, more trees does not necessarily make up for the lack of forests.

They might be trying to replant in and around cities, and in Western liberal states where environmentalists groups have a real presence, but here in rural Central USAmerica, trees are considered a nuisance by farmers, along with deer, coyotes, and bobcats. They are clearing trees as fast as they can to make room for more fields. People seem to have forgotten about the Dust Bowl. No one champions taking care of habitat and animal populations. Environmental groups don't lobby here, farmer groups and herbicide companies do. This area was swamp 100 years ago, and now it is plains. There are species we don't have around here that was here when I was a kid (20 years isn't that long ago). There is no replanting of trees. The saw mills are shutting down around here, because there is nothing left for them to cut. Because of deforestation, some varieties of plants are taking over and strangling out others. The system is out of balance now.

I also must disagree about Ice not melting. The Antarctic gained a reprieve in the mass projections this year because of snowfall, but that of itself means that the air is warmer than usual down there. The extremely low temperatures, mean low humidity, but because of record melts last year, and higher humidity levels because of warmer air masses, there was more snowfall than usual this year. So although, the melt continued, the ice actually got a little back this year. This doesn't mean the melt stopped. The melt was about average for this time of year as per averages taken in the last decade, which is still a higher melt rate than the averages of the decade before, with a trend that predicts continually increasing rates of loss. Antarctica may not be experiencing much different air temperature-wise, but its weather patterns, and the ocean currents around it are another story.

Greenland had record glacial melt last year, this year it returned to average with the lowest ice melt rate in 4 years, but not really by much. It is still a rate higher than a decade ago. Greenland didn't gain back anything, it just slowed it's melt compared to the average of the last 4 years.

Now, again I will say, I don't really buy into man-made climate change, but I think we should be aware of the natural cycles of climate change. The changing climate does clash with the things we do. Higher temperatures in the summer cause more damage to rivers full of field run-off... Cities experience an average 10 degrees more heat than forested areas during Summer... There is more dirt and allergens in the air because there are fewer wind-breaks... Animal populations are suffering more outbreaks of disease because they are being forced into closer and more saturated contact with each other, and then non-average temps just make bad situations worse.

As for resources, although it is hard to believe that resources don't replenish (I mean, really, how did they get there in the first place?). Yet, it is true that we are using them faster than it takes the Earth to produce them... At the rate that humanity uses natural gas and oil, it is projected that by 2100, there won't be enough to go around to the common folk. With alternative replenishable means of cleaner energy, why cling to the old ways? What? Just to prove that it can be done? To prove that the big bad environmentalists lied to everyone?

 

[aspen]

also replacing old growth forrests with tree farms that will eventually be processed as paper isnt not helping.

the ice that is melting at the poles which concerns scientists is thousands of years old.

claiming that we are planting lots of trees and that new ice is replacing old ice during a winter is like claiming that global warming must not be happenned because we had more snow fall during a particular winter.

as far as y2k - most of the rest of the developed world did nothing to prepare for it

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

You guys aren't approaching this logically. By U.S. law we have to replace every tree twice over that we fell for wood and paper so at the very least there isn't any net loss occurring today. But the reason that we have more trees today than when Columbus first arrived is because we have the ability to fight forest fires that used to ravage forests for miles all around. There were no tree surveys in the 16th century. so nobody knows for sure how many trees there were when America was "discovered". But the chopping down of trees to create homes and other wooden tools didn't start with the Europeans. The Indians who lived in wooded areas were doing it long before, the Iroquois Indians being a good example of this. Here's an interesting read on this: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bot00/bot00090.htm

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

You guys aren't approaching this logically.

Wanna bet? Go look at Google satellite image of the east coast. Very little acreage in trees compared to cleared acreage. The entire east coast was covered in trees in Columbus' day. How do I know this? Easy. I had 20+ acres of acreage that formerly was entirely cleared for farming, but had reverted back to forest. Tree planting for environmental reasons is largely a joke because land will naturally return to trees. The only people who plant trees on a large scale IMO are timber companies who want to control what grows for future re-harvest, or do-gooder environmentalists who need to feel like they are doing something for the environment. Completely pointless in the latter case because land will return to complete tree cover given enough time. Planting trees doesn't speed things up unless you are planting just pine.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Wanna bet? Go look at Google satellite image of the east coast. Very little acreage in trees compared to cleared acreage. The entire east coast was covered in trees in Columbus' day. How do I know this? Easy. I had 20+ acres of acreage that formerly was entirely cleared for farming, but had reverted back to forest. Tree planting for environmental reasons is largely a joke because land will naturally return to trees. The only people who plant trees on a large scale IMO are timber companies who want to control what grows for future re-harvest, or do-gooder environmentalists who need to feel like they are doing something for the environment. Completely pointless in the latter case because land will return to complete tree cover given enough time. Planting trees doesn't speed things up unless you are planting just pine.

More departure from logic. Timber companies plant trees that can be harvested 20 years later, but even those trees will be replaced. And every tree felled is replaced by two, so do the math. And are you seriously using anecdotal evidence as proof of a larger trend? My whole point is that trees can be a renewable resource and while tree mass is going down in irresponsible nations, it's not going down in America because we're doing it right, replacing what we take to ensure there will be plenty for future generations. Add this to the fact that forest fires are quickly stopped whereas before they wiped out millions of acres before burning out. It's simple math; yes we do have more trees today than when Columbus first arrived.

 

[Eltanin]

The 2 for 1 law you are talking about is not a federal law. It applies only to trees cut for timber, or trees cut on government land... and basically, the majority of states that actually practice this are the Western states. In the states that have passed it, the law still does not require replanting in development land for housing, commercial use, or farming.

The United States lost over 80,000 Square miles from 2000- 2010, and that is a lenient estimate, the number may be, and probably is, higher. Percentage wise, the USA is losing its forests faster than any of the 7 largest first world forested nations (the nations that use their forests for timber). You also talk about wildfires raging unchecked before firefighters, but there are more forest fires now that people are in the equation, because the biggest majority of wildfire are started by people... Lightning was the main cause of wildfires before the west was settled, and lightning as often as not is accompanied by rain. Now there are campfires, tossed cigarette butts, sparks from BBQs, kids playing with lighters, etc...

The USA loses approximately 2% of it's forested land per year. Although the West has instituted replanting of trees, and has experienced a small recovery in the last 15 years, the East has continued to accelerate the rate of deforestation. Because the Eastern US is clearing forest at such a rate, the West's efforts to rehabilitate just slows the overall national percentage, but the results still show this 2% overall loss per year. In the Northeast it is mainly for housing and commercial development, and in the Southeast and Central, it is to make way for more farms. No trees are being replanted, no forests are being rehabilitated.

Even so, two saplings for every tree cut is not an instant forest. We do not have more trees than when Columbus arrived.

Yes, trees are a renewable resource, but the majority of the nation is not renewing.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

The 2 for 1 law you are talking about is not a federal law. It applies only to trees cut for timber, or trees cut on government land... and basically, the majority of states that actually practice this are the Western states. In the states that have passed it, the law still does not require replanting in development land for housing, commercial use, or farming.

None of this contradicts what I said.


The United States lost over 80,000 Square miles from 2000- 2010, and that is a lenient estimate, the number may be, and probably is, higher. Percentage wise, the USA is losing its forests faster than any of the 7 largest first world forested nations (the nations that use their forests for timber).

Wrong. "More trees are growing in the nation's forests than at any time since the early 1900's. In 1900, forest growth rates were a small fraction of harvest. Today, annual forest growth exceeds harvest by 33%. Net annual growth has increased 55% since 1952, and growth per acre has increased 62%. Nationally, standing timber volume per acre in US forests is 33% greater than in 1952. In national forests, annual growth now exceeds harvest by more than 100%." http://www.oregonloggers.org/Forest_facts_SimpleFacts.aspx




You also talk about wildfires raging unchecked before firefighters, but there are more forest fires now that people are in the equation, because the biggest majority of wildfire are started by people... Lightning was the main cause of wildfires before the west was settled, and lightning as often as not is accompanied by rain. Now there are campfires, tossed cigarette butts, sparks from BBQs, kids playing with lighters, etc...

Wrong again. Indians used fire quite regularly and because they didn't have cities, these fires were more often closer to wooded areas. Oh, and don't believe the silly stories about the noble Indians...Indian kids played with fire just as much as white kids.



The USA loses approximately 2% of it's forested land per year. Although the West has instituted replanting of trees, and has experienced a small recovery in the last 15 years, the East has continued to accelerate the rate of deforestation. Because the Eastern US is clearing forest at such a rate, the West's efforts to rehabilitate just slows the overall national percentage, but the results still show this 2% overall loss per year. In the Northeast it is mainly for housing and commercial development, and in the Southeast and Central, it is to make way for more farms. No trees are being replanted, no forests are being rehabilitated.

Every bit of that is absolutely false. But it would be entertaining to see you try to substantiate it.

Even so, two saplings for every tree cut is not an instant forest. We do not have more trees than when Columbus arrived.

Yes we do.


Yes, trees are a renewable resource, but the majority of the nation is not renewing.

What "majority of the nation" is not renewing? Timber companies? Don't throw ignorance at me behind vague generalities. So far you've demonstrated nothing more than you don't want to believe we can replenish our own forests and more than make up what we consume in wood products. You went to public schools, didn't you?

 

[Eltanin]

I find it ironic that you are going to an industry study for your facts. The Oregon Logging association runs numbers for Oregon. Oregon is a Western state. This study does not take into account the whole of the United States, it takes into account the figures for the Western US where the figures justify their agenda. If you think tree hugging hippies have an agenda, then you better bet your wallet that industry has just as much of one (like trying to make the tree-huggers shut up).

I got my internet info from the US Forest Service, NASA, National Academy of Sciences, and Statistics and Analysis site that I can't remember the name of. I got a couple of brochures from my local conservationist because I was looking into planting native plants on my land, and there is a program here in Missouri that people can be a part of. The booklet has the 2% loss per year in it, and the estimates of 80,000 square miles of loss for the entirety of the USA.

Indians starting wildfires is weak. That just sounds desperate. I didn't say there were no other causes (I said lightning was the main cause), I just pointed out there are more causes for wildfires now than there were before the West became developed, and there are definitely more people now to mess things up, than there were when it was just a few tribes here and there.

The majority of the USA meaning any state that is not a western state. Everything to the East of the Rockies. All of the states being converted from tree saturated lands into farms and cities. I thought I made it clear. Farmers and city planners in the East far outnumber lumber companies in the West. Farmers and developers do not renew forest, it goes against everything they are trying to accomplish. I never said timber companies were to blame (I have tried to be clear that land developers are).

And no. I went to a private Christian school.

To justify you a little, if only the Western states were taken into account(Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Montana, Colorado, and Utah), then yes there are more trees, more rehabilitation efforts, and an actual improving slant in the numbers. There are more trees because for the giants they take they plant two saplings. There are still issues regarding dislocated wildlife , but even those numbers have greatly improved since the 90's. If the Eastern US would just learn a thing or two from the West, we might be alright.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

More departure from logic. Timber companies plant trees that can be harvested 20 years later, but even those trees will be replaced. And every tree felled is replaced by two, so do the math. And are you seriously using anecdotal evidence as proof of a larger trend? My whole point is that trees can be a renewable resource and while tree mass is going down in irresponsible nations, it's not going down in America because we're doing it right, replacing what we take to ensure there will be plenty for future generations. Add this to the fact that forest fires are quickly stopped whereas before they wiped out millions of acres before burning out. It's simple math; yes we do have more trees today than when Columbus first arrived.

Right... more departure from logic. Maybe from your perspective in Idaho, but take a look at the east coast (click >) starting from Charlotte, NC and tell me what percentage of land is covered with forest (my guess is 20-30%). Make sure you zoom and pan all across the south and east coast. The only places where there is 100% tree cover is state and national parks. Take a look at Illinois, Indiana and Ohio. Almost no tree cover, yet virtually everything east of the Mississippi River was forested in Columbus' day.