A Review of Trees are the Answer, by Patrick Moore
Reviewed by Ty A. Ryen
2/19/2002
Patrick Moore is a former radical environmental activist, who along with other
environmental activists, created the organization known as Greenpeace. But 15 years later,
Moore had a revelation and made a shift to the politics of building general agreement amongst
society on the issues brought to light by the environmental movement. The reader must realize
that Moore is only giving his view of what he has come to realize about the relationship between
forestry and the environment.
First, Moore discussed the public’s perceptions toward the silvicultural tool of
clearcutting. The continuing argument over clearcutting is basically a social issue. As Moore
states, “We tend to link our visual impression of what is beautiful and what is ugly with our
moral judgment of what is right and wrong” (p. 15). Bliss says that “Public perceptions of
clearcutting results from an array of phenomena, including sensory awareness, mental imagery,
personal experience, intuition, and cognition” (p.5). These perceptions, in turn, play a major role
in how the public reacts to policy decisions.
In the circumstances in Moore’s paper, the public reacted by making some very serious
accusations against the timber industry. They charged the forest industry of being the main cause
of species extinction. Moore states, “People making the allegations offered no examples as
evidence to back their claims” (p. 14). At this point it came to my attention that Patrick Moore
may be guilty of using a fallacy called burden of proof. The Nizkor Holocaust Educational
Resource website states “When a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in
cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B; this is known as a fallacy called
burden of proof” (NHER). Just because the people making the allegations offered no examples
1
does not entail that they do not have a legitimate argument. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate
Dictionary Tenth Edition defines “fallacy” as “deceptive appearance…a false or mistaken
idea…an often plausible argument using false or invalid inference” (p. 418). This last definition
is what concerns me in this article: believable arguments or premises that are based on invalid
reasoning.
Moore goes on to explain that humans have caused species extinctions in three main
ways. These three means are the vast clearance of native forests for agriculture, the introduction
of exotic predators and diseases, or to simply killing them all. The reasoning Moore uses to
discount the claim of forestry causing species to become extinct is dispersal. Moore makes the
statement, “Dispersal is an absolute requirement for natural selection and the survival of species.
No species could exist if it were not capable of dispersal” (p. 15). Moore speculates that after
disturbance of the land a forest will recover and all the species will come back. But Mitchell
states, “Dispersal ability can entail costs and carry risks, i.e. the dispersing organism might not
find a suitable habitat” (p. 23).
In his analysis, Moore theorizes that if forests have recovered from glaciations, fires,
pest, and disease disturbances for centuries it should follow that they are just as able to recover
from logging. Here Moore could be guilty of using faulty generalizations by reasoning that
because this or that happens; it just follows that this must also be true. Benjamin states that
“fallacies are dangerous not because they are defective but because they are defective while
appearing to be genuine” (p. 103).
Furthermore, Moore next seems to offer a fallacy called a Red Herring. “A fallacy
committed when someone introduces inappropriate material to the issue being discussed, so that
everyone's attention is diverted away from the points made, towards a different
2
conclusion”(NHER). He shifts the blame of deforestation towards agriculture and feeding a
growing population. Though these may be contributing factors to deforestation his argument
could be better served to defend forestry with scientific facts to the contrary of the accusations.
The paper goes on to state three measures we can take to prevent further loss of our
forests. Consequently, Moore is sure to state that they have nothing to do with forestry. The three
things: population management, intensive agricultural production, and urban densification.
Though these may all be factors contributing to our worlds problems, it just seems that Moore is
looking for scapegoats. The article goes on to ask where the environmentalist’s logic is. Moore
proceeds to accuse the environmental groups of being anti-environmental for calling for
“environmentally appropriate substitutes” and throws out numbers. These numbers relate to
population, wood use, and fossil fuel use. The reader has no idea of whether or not these
numbers are legit or not, due to the fact that Moore offers no scientific evidence to back or
reference his numbers. This could or could not be a fallacy of faulty statistics. Benjamin states
that “Statistics can be every bit as misleading as any other form of persuasion” (p. 106).
In conclusion, the reader must remember that Moore is a former environmental activist
and is only giving his own observation on what he has came to realize about the relationship
between forestry and the environment. I feel Patrick Moore’s argument for forestry would have
been far more convincing and easier to defend had he used scientific evidence and avoided a
number of common pitfalls, known as fallacies, when constructing his deductive argument. By
letting these fallacies creep into the article, a lot of credibility was lost. But when reading my
paper, you need to ask yourself could I also be guilty of some fallacy in my reasoning of this
article’s review, as well.
3
References
Benjamin, James. 1997. Principles, Elements, and Types of Persuasion. New York: Harcourt
Brace College Publishers.
Bliss, John C. 2000. Public Perceptions of Clearcutting. Journal of Forestry 98(12): 4-9.
Mish, Fredrick C., ed., 1993. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th Ed). Springfield,
Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster Inc.
Mitchell, Paul. 2000. 101 Key Ideas: Ecology Berkshire, England: Cox & Wyman Ltd.
Moore, Patrick. 2000. Trees are the answer. Forest Products Journal 50(10): 12-19.
(NHER) The Nizkor Holocaust Educational Resource, 2002. The Nizkor Project. Available:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ burden-of-proof.html
4