rstuart,

You condescend from a great height considering that you haven't articulated your own arguments at all well.

Your rehabilitation may start by accurately contrasting for us the evolution and ecology of closed tropical forests with that of fire subclimax tall wet forests that occur in SE Australia, yes, including "Tasi".

@hugoagogo: Your rehabilitation may start by accurately contrasting for us the evolution and ecology of closed tropical forests with that of fire subclimax tall wet forests that occur in SE Australia

Maybe you would be so kind as to get me started with a few links?

@rstuart if you want to claim that Tasmania's forests are one homogenous unit that if untouched by human hand will not have any stored carbon variation for tens of thousands of years then go right ahead, I'll keep laughing!

Australia's forests have changed from the Eocene, just in case you hadn't noticed.

And as for senescence, I'm sure if you are in Victoria or Tasmania you could find an old single-aged Eucalypt stand to visit.

What a pity the Green movement and all associated with it have not come to realise that not ALL Tasmanians are opposed to a native forest industry or a pulp mill. It's time we had some decent numbers in relation to just how many people are against it. It's been suggested that 80% of 2077 people surveyed is against the industry. That is not even 1% of the population of Tasmania! There's more people than that involved in the industry either directly or indirectly!

It's also time the mining industry woke up. If the 500,000+ hectares is locked up under the Statement of Principles it will be locked up as National Park. Where will that leave them?

Our State needs the forest industry! Our State needs a pulp mill!

@gippy: Australia's forests have changed from the Eocene, just in case you hadn't noticed.

I did notice. My problem is I also notice there aren't any of man's homes left around from the Eocene. Did I miss some?

You see the problem I'm sure. Your argument is that because man made constructions hold the carbon better than forests, and lots of forests have disappeared since the Eocene. So if you just point in the direction of some wooden man made artefact that was around in the Eocene and still exists today, then I guess your point is made, because in that case they obviously they outlasted the forests.

I am hoping hugoagogo can come back with some helpful links. I am sure he is going to came back with illustrations of legions of forests that have sprung up out of nowhere, then simply vanished through, err, senescence, all within 100 years or so without a single solitary finger from mankind helping the process along.

There are other good arguments you can make. But this "forests naturally disappear at the same rate man's paper and buildings do" isn't one of them. Nosily pointing to the fact that forests do change evolve over thousands of years only makes you look silly.

Actully rstuart, I don't spoonfeed links.

Do a search in a research data base, the keywords are in my previous post. Let us know what you learn.

You'll find plenty of rope there.