Skepticalscience.com is perhaps the worst quality page on climate science! There is nothing skeptical, but only one, partial truth or even too often, falsified truth accepted. Also I have not read all the articles there, but I would think it odd that there is any relevant articles that deal with deforestation or support the idea that old growth forest conservation is the most cost-effective way to keep carbondioxide levels in control.
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. So my strawdoll was correctly placed here... And doing climate models is not doing math, but just wasting of time, if you do not know even rudimentary details like what is the decaying rate of climate satellite orbit. —Jouni Ps. Nick, you also attacked a strawman, because you did not understand what I was saying, but acted like you could classify my arguments as typical climate skeptic arguments. Pps. If you want real scientific resources do google search at mongabay.orgwith search term "deforestation". http://www.google.com/search?q=site:mongabay.org+deforestation&nomo=1&hl=en On Aug 19, 2011 9:38 AM, "Nick Palmer" <[email protected]> wrote: > Jouni repeated some climate science denier ideas. Have you ever heard of the term "straw man, Jouni? Your comment is completely full of them. Probably the most ludicrous is "For those who are not mathematically orientated (like all climate scientist" . > > Try looking at www.skepticalscience.com where you will find a whole lot of (full of real maths) answers to just about every denialist peice of propaganda out there > > > 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
