/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16117067
I did, that's how I knew you interpreted it as a single variable (tree planting) and dismissed everything else even though the article itself states majority rather than entirely. You could argue rate if you wanted, as that would be a valid discussion given the article, but instead you created a fantasy in your head with one and only one variable.
In the future you should give a bit more thought to both what you read and the context in which is exist before resorting to emotional responses.

>>16031711
Might be an ok analogy if the airplanes only taxied up and down the runways without actually flying anyone anywhere valuable but retained the risk of something going wrong with the airplane harming the passengers.