Well, most conifer forests in my area are growing on tired old farmland, and are dying. It is not too cold here to support deciduous trees, which make up probably 98% of local forests. The only reason I can imagine for these pine forests is their ability to thrive on poor soil (some nearby pines were planted post-logging, and I imagine they may have been the source of seed for these volunteer forests).
I have spent many hours in one of these dying conifer forests, as it is an area of intense karst and the scene of a state-sponsored hydro/speleo-inventory. Many trees are down now, and I expect that at least some of the hardwood saplings present will grow and thrive. As I've said, conifers are relatively uncommon here, and that this forest will eventually revert to hardwoods is absolute. This is true too of the planted pine forests.
It has been a long time since I read it, but didn't Thoreau, writing after his own observations, state that, in New England, succession after the cutting of a hardwood forest was back to hardwood via pine? Interestingly, much of that essay was dedicated to refuting the idea that trees could spring up from nothing, or from seeds that had been in the ground, dormant, for centuries.
Anyway, I haven't been outside since Friday night, and am absolutely stir-crazy. I'm half-motivated to ride out and film one of these conifer forests I've been talking about, to share as a matter of interest (not debate), if you're interested. I'm far from a naturalist, ecologist, or any sort of -ist, and share Mr. Thoreau's weakness for sometimes assuming answers too quickly and presenting them with too much false authority. As in his case, I think this is a matter of passion. Impatiently, we want to understand.