Nick Palmer wrote: > >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! <snip> >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?
Another good reason to move to vertical farming, which I hope will be made affordable by CF technology. Harry
