Whatever.
Everyone here "believes" what they post. No reason for you to be condescending to my beliefs.
Surely you see the difference here though? You may have an understanding that there is more forest now than there was x years ago - you "believe" that to be true, but that's not really an opinion that's unknowable, and it *could* be incorrect. Simply because you "believe" it makes it neither correct nor valid.
I can "believe" Donald Trump is a racist. "Racist" is an inherently subjective term, and you and I can point to evidence, debate it, and come to perhaps equally valid conclusions.
On the other hand, I can "believe" that Donald Trump is honest, and doesn't lie incessantly, but that's not really a valid belief, because it's factually and consistently demonstrated otherwise. Just because I "believe" it doesn't make it a correct belief or a belief worthy of respect.
Back to the original contention, it's my understanding as well that total forested ground cover is indeed greater than it has been in the industrialized past. What I also understand though, is that old-growth forests have been replaced by plantings that are not as conducive to biodiversity, and so the claim that we have more forests now comes with a huge caveat. That's my *understanding* and it could be wrong; it's not really a "belief" that's valid simply because I really really think it's true.
Dig?