ddebernardy

Per the linked article, the problem is misdiagnosed. Forestry research shows that a) patches of tree stumps emit on the order of 10 tons of CO2 per acre, and b) these emissions go away when loggers thin forests instead of clearing them. Why are we not hearing about such huge yet trivially avoidable emissions? They are an order of magnitude larger than fossil fuels.

There are plenty of good reasons to not like fossil fuels, mind you. But the carbon hockey stick is not one of them.

Author here.

TL;DR for those who don't click links:

- Corporate green solutions are shams

- Promote gardening if you care about fossil fuels

- An accounting chicanery keeps natural emissions out of view

- The hockey stick is actually about canopy loss

- Switching to alley cropping would reverse it

Happy to answer questions.

Author here.

This is a TL;DR version for readers who only read discussions. The link is a summary of my short book, which you can read online at the same address.

What the book does is expose an accounting chicanery that underpins the fossil fuel narrative for climate change. In a nutshell, the carbon accounting framework separates land-based emissions from other emissions like fossil fuel, and builds on the idea that you can't do much about the former. This is actually false, as evidenced by forestry research, and it provides cover for land theft and ecofascism in developing countries. The book goes on to provide a soil-based explanation for the carbon hockey stick and its global desertification ramifications. Lastly, it puts bottom-up solutions in front of the problem that communities can implement now without depending on governments.

> Can someone help me understand why the broader stock market is actually up compared to six months ago despite all these dire numbers being thrown around? Heck, Boeing stock is up today!

Dumb money is pouring in, and institutional investors are riding the dead cat bounce.

For Boeing specifically, it's because they fired thousands of workers to cut their costs. And to their credit, they're actually expecting a long slump. Many businesses are still deluding themselves.

> I kind of assume the virus grows exponentially inside the body and would dwarf the initial constant.

That assumes your immune system wouldn't kick in during the asymptomatic phase or a time close to exiting the latter. But your immune system would actually kick in as soon as it detects the infection, which would plausibly be much earlier. That would effectively buying you time to figure out which antibodies to produce before things become out of control.