> Too long didn't read Not sure what to say about that other than, if you really want to understand reality reading more than a few sentences is kind of import

> Too long didn't read Not sure what to say about that other than, if you really want to understand reality reading more than a few sentences is kind of important. > it's effectively a closed system that will repeat, meaning it's zero sum This is a commonly repeated great-sounding "fact" that is, in fact, not a fact. First of all, the paper you are calling "climate alarmist" is a report of work conducted at UCLA. If the burn/grow cycle was, as you call it, zero sum, there would be no way for one season of fires to wipe out 18 years of conservation. The growth rate of vegetation is, roughly speaking, a sigmoid function. This means things take a long time to grow and carbon accumulation flattens out at some point. Again, you are arguing against an impossible equation: 12 months >= 18 years. That's math nobody can win.