Jouni Valkonen. You didn't understand what I wrote. The main strawman you used was to suggest that climate science somehow ignores or knows nothing about the effects of forests and their potential to mitigate CO2 levels. You even implied a conspiracy to avoid mentioing them. Laughable!
Try looking at the latest (2007) IPCC report on mitigation of climate change http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch9.html - this link destroys your whole case because it includes a LOT about forestry practices, afforestation etc. Read it and then apologise to all those whose intelligence and integrity you have insulted, including me. Clearly you are yet another of the countless people who just assert their opinion without any form of proper checking at all. That you said that www.skepticalscience.com is "perhaps the worst quality page on climate science!" shows that you REALLY don't know what you are talking about. Your maths relating to trees may be OK but mere arithmetic, without a sensible or rational context, is a waste of time. You claim (about me) - "But, you yourself proved that you do not have any mental resources to do the math and calculate how much carbon 3 gigahectares of forest could store" What you think is proof shows exactly how good your judgement is! You haven't though through your ideas about forestry. From the IPCC document paragraph 9.2.1: "The global forest cover is 3952 million ha (Table 9.1), which is about 30 percent of the world’s land area" Your point seemed to be that we could soak up all the excess greenhouse gases by starting to create 3 giga hectares of forest and, for the purposes of this argument, I will temporarily assume that is correct (by ignoring many inconvenient factors you obviously did not consider). Let me just ask you - where will the trees go? Most of the land that we currently use for agriculture (approximately 4.8 giga hectares - about 38% of global land surface area) is cleared forest. Does your oh-so-smart head care not that, although we will have stabilised the climate, we won't have anything to eat because trees will have displaced food crops? Perhaps in future, before you pontificate with your eccentric, impractical and misleading ideas, and insult people who don't deserve it, you ought to re-evaluate just how valid your views are and start by applying maths in a rational fashion. Nick Palmer On the side of the Planet - and the people - because they're worth it Blogspot - Sustainability and stuff according to Nick Palmer http://nickpalmer.blogspot.com
