Taking down the trees removes the wind at ground level, but once your ball is above the trees it still gets hit by the wind. I think any benefit from not having as much wind on your ball while it is below tree level would be easily outweighed by having the winds swirl around and be harder to predict. I prefer stronger winds of a known direction than having light winds of one direction until my ball rises above the treeline where it faces a stronger wind of another direction. It is one more mental difficulty to overcome to allow for a wind from right to left that you know is above the trees when you feel a wind directly in your face while addressing the ball, the less cognitive dissonance I have during a shot the better my chances of success!
I don't know if I buy the argument for trees making targets easier to pick out. I aim at all kinds of stuff: flagsticks, bunkers, trees, hills, houses, barns, clouds, steeples, antennas, carts, signs, and so on. Mostly the flag or some distance offset from the flag on approaches, unless of course I've screwed myself by driving the ball into the trees!
I suppose a blind shot over a hilltop that's totally featureless would be easier if there was a tree or two behind it to give me something to aim at, but that is pretty rare anywhere in the world in the my experience. There's always something to shoot at (and I've learned from experience, don't trust the stones and stakes in the UK to indicate the correct line if your eye or the Strokesaver tells you otherwise, they may have set them down a century ago when 200 yards was a big drive!) Maybe it doesn't bother me since I do the Nicklaus thing and line up from behind at my target and pick a target a few feet ahead of my ball so the fact the target may be blind or indistinct when I take my stance is mostly irrelevant.