There are a lot of trees on the planet. When you drive into the wilderness, all you see are trees. Even approaching major cities, you can see a ton of trees.
According to the Internet, there are over 3 trillion trees (https://www.geographyrealm.com/how-many-trees-are-there-in-the-world/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20latest%20research,estimate%20of%20400%20billion%20trees.)
When you consider the weight of a tree, compared to a human, the “mass” of trees is far greater than the numbers.
Perhaps this is why we have so much oil under the ground. Most of the fossil fuels had to be made from plant matter, not fossilized bones of animals like dinosaurs.
This Boston Globe article covers the recent storm, which took down lots of trees. And of course the Globe interjects the climate-change narrative to explain that we are losing trees faster because of climate change. What bunk.
The article then says that the winds were topping off at 70 mph. Hmm, could that be the reason we’ve lost a few trees?
If trees have shallow roots and they get toppled over in high winds, and these patterns are changing due to “climate change” so that we are going to see more high winds and too much (or is it too little?) rain, then the trees with “shallow roots” will be upended. And in their place we are likely to see trees with stronger roots.
Because this is how evolution works. The weak trees, the ones that are not adapted towards our impending warming planet, will be knocked over and stronger trees will take their place. This is actually a good thing because it means that the planet will adopt to higher temperatures. Maybe we don’t need to ban fossil fuels after all.
We don’t really know what is happening or why with storms, but it seems that the media will suggest that anything out of the ordinary is due to “climate change.” More water or less water are both because of climate change. That doesn’t sound right, does it? It is extremely rare to ever read about any positive developments due to a very slightly warmer planet, but logic tells me that the positive effects are likely to be as plentiful as the negative effects. Yet we almost always read about just the negative ones.
But don’t worry. Despite the dire predictions of losing thousands of trees in the most recent storm, the planet still has 3,040,000,000,000 left, give or take a billion.
Allen Nitschelm is publisher of PublicEditorMA.com. He critiques the Boston Globe, mostly focusing on the bias in their news reporting. News articles are graded for bias, and the website has a listing of the average bias ratings for all reporters reviewed. See our website for more information and the four categories of articles we publish.
NOTE: We have been very active on our Facebook page for Public Editor Press. The page is getting lots of hits and comments, which have been very helpful. I urge readers to go there if you wish to participate or read reactions from others. You will need to “login” to Facebook to post your own comments but you can probably read them without a Facebook account. Here is the direct link to this article’s Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/390560688135747/posts/951342962057514
To reach our Facebook site in general: https://www.facebook.com/publiceditorpress/
*Requires minimim of 5 Ratings to be displayed
Grading articles for bias is subjective. We hope that with widespread participation, we can give the reporters and editors at the Boston Globe valuable feedback on their professional work. Here are our suggestions for grading news articles for bias. (We do not rate editorial opinion columns for bias. But we do analyze the Boston Globe for overall editorial balance.)
Consider whether the article is completely free of bias (a grade of 10 or A), has been mostly free of bias (8 or 9, A- or B+), has been biased but not terribly or where the bias did not hurt the integrity of the underlying information (7 or 6, B or B-).
If the article was fairly biased overall, but subtle; or where the bias was particularly prominent but isolated to a single section, give the article a 5 or 4 (C+ or C). If the article was very biased but perhaps not intentionally so, perhaps a C- (3) would be deserved.
If the article was extremely prejudiced with major misstatements of fact, intentionally misleading, or ignored well known facts to advance a false narrative, give the article a D or F (2 or 1).
Reviewers must subscribe to Public Editor and agree to our terms of service to participate. Subscriptions are currently free. We recommend that all readers subscribe to the Boston Globe or the newspaper of their choice to support journalism, and to send the Boston Globe your feedback directly. Thank you for participating in Public Editor’s bias rating project!