| > they are very effectively both expressions of the same process. But the effects on global atmospheric composition are not equivalent as has already been explained to you. The fact that you seem to choose to deliberately not understand this does not speak well of you. > The claim is wrong, and hangs only on the ambiguities of what "effectively zero" could be argued to mean that is in reality documented to be very far from zero indeed. There are no ambiguities, the caveats of that statement are quite clearly stated in the article. > Malhi's advisory 9% figure (that is then subsequently reduced to zero?!) is not even necessarily more final or uncontestable as the supposedly terrible global media outbreak of 20% reports. Nobody ever said it was final or uncontestable (that's not how science works). It is a fairly rough estimation, but even as such it is FAR more accurate and its precision is sufficient for popular discussion. > The point of publicity figure is to be defensible and educate the fact that the Amazon has had and can have major effects on the atmospheres important constituents. That whether it is currently in equilibrium or a great carbon sink or grave carbon emitter - is a very grave matter because by its size and history it is capable of all those things. Neither I nor the author dispute the importance of the amazon. What is disputed is the bad science that is being spread by the well-intentioned but misinformed. Atmospheric O2 levels are not a problem, atmospheric CO2 levels are. What do you think you are accomplishing by attacking environmental scientists and spreading misinformation? Are you really trying to help spread accurate knowledge about climate change? How does this help with that? |