Here is how Rush Limbaugh lied in response to FAIR's documentation of his previous lies about forest acreage:
Limbaugh: "Do you know we have more acreage of forest land in the United States today than we did at the time the Constitution was written?"
Fair: "In what are now the 50 U.S. states, there were 850 million acres of forest land in the late 1700s vs. only 730 million acres today."
Limbaugh's response: "Enormous tracts of trees were destroyed by settlers in this country, without being replanted. Today, reforestation is a critical component of the U.S. lumber industry. Furthermore, with increasingly sophisticated measuring methods, the more sure we are about the rapidly increasing rate of forest growth in the continental United States. These are the current facts: In 1952, the U.S. had 664 million acres of forest land. In 1987 the number had climbed to 731 million acres, according to the most recent numbers available in the U.S. Statistical Abstract, 1993-1994 edition..."
On the surface Limbaugh is statistically correct, but when the actual table he cites is examined, his deception is obvious. Below is the exact table from the American Almanac Statistical Abstract of the U.S., 1993-1994 (comments are added to clarify the point). Anyone can get recent versions of this widely distributed almanac and see the truth for themselves. The data is also available in greater detail from the U.S. Forest Service. This table lists widely spaced years but the trend is very clear and it fits what ecologists have always known about forest destruction. Using a classic disinformation technique, Limbaugh tries to make it seem like forested acreage "climbed to 731 million acres." The truth is entirely different but it escapes the scrutiny of those who accept Rush on faith. He picks a convenient starting point on a bell-shaped curve and completely alters reality. The fact that he knew he was lying says volumes about his character.
YEAR TOTAL U.S. FOREST ACREAGE (contrast with 850 million in 1700's) ---- --------------------------------------------------------------- 1952 664 million acres (initial reference point) 1962 759 million acres (replanting efforts pay off temporarily) 1970 754 million acres (decrease of 5 million acres) 1977 737 million acres (decrease of 17 million acres) 1987 731 million acres (decrease of 6 million acres)Limbaugh uses 1952 as a starting point so that 1987 will look like a gain, but an honest observer would have discussed the losses from 1962 onward. Continuing with another segment of the same table, it's obvious that timber resources in the western U.S. have steadily declined, which explains timber companies' desire to cut virgin forests in the Pacific Northwest.
NET VOLUME OF SAWTIMBER (WEST) NET VOLUME OF GROWING STOCK (WEST)
YEAR (wood suitable for cutting) (live commercial tree species)
---- -------------------------------- ----------------------------------
1952 1,878 bil. board ft. 361 bil. cu. ft.
1962 1,795 bil. board ft. (decrease) 361 bil. cu. ft. (stable)
1970 1,713 bil. board ft. (decrease) 355 bil. cu. ft. (decrease)
1977 1,637 bil. board ft. (decrease) 344 bil. cu. ft. (decrease)
1987 1,601 bil. board ft. (decrease) 327 bil. cu. ft. (decrease)
Total loss of forest acreage between 1962 and 1987 was 28 million acres, although actual volume of timber in certain parts of the country has increased due to denser replanting techniques (a factor that has obvious limits). Trees cannot continue to grow faster and faster on fewer and fewer acres to keep pace with growth-induced demand. The tables above only go to 1987 but the overall losses continue (see this EDF article for more details). People may cite specific regions where forests have been replanted, but the world as a whole is losing forest cover. It's no different than mowing a lawn faster and faster, vainly hoping to get an ever-growing supply of grass clippings. Industry propaganda about "everlasting managed forests" ignores the realities of population growth.
While it is true that forest growth in the eastern and southern U.S. has made a comeback, this is not the real issue. Beginning in the 1930's, the timber industry was forced to shift its operations from the South to the Pacific Northwest for the simple reason that too many trees had been cut in states like Georgia. Limbaugh likes to cite regions that happen to be growing more trees than before, after suffering huge losses in decades past. His statistics are sometimes correct in a purely technical sense, but quoting out of context is no different than lying.
Limbaugh's motives for dispersing misinformation are very simple. Because of his political and religious beliefs, he refuses to accept the fact that perpetual economic growth is not leading us to the promised land, and that Man is capable of making serious mistakes. Almost everything Limbaugh says about ecology is framed in an apologetic context which assumes that anyone who points out problems is a pessimistic "doomsayer," rather than an honest messenger of the truth. People need to realize that TRUE optimism lies in acknowledging and solving our ecological problems, rather than denying their very existence.