http://www.cbmjournal.com/content/3/1/1/comments The latest comments on the article 'Carbon sequestration via wood burial' 2008-01-09T05:54:30Z http://www.cbmjournal.com/content/3/1/1/comments#290591 <p>Re: Befort W: Has CBM been taken in?</p><p>It is not unusual that results of a scientific research, written in plain language, looks like a hoax of the <i>reductio ad absurdum</i> variety. That is why scientists are prone to a scientific jargon that only their peers can understand. However, an interdisciplinary journal cannot follow with flow for it is intended to convey research results across disciplinary boundaries. This research is quite understandable when considered in the context of geo-engineering approaches to CO₂ capture and storage (see also: IPCC special report on this issue and the commentary published in CBM [http://www.cbmjournal.com/content/1/1/4]). The results of this research can be also considered in the context of wildfire management, which is essential for protecting carbon stocks in managed forests (see also: comments to the article on CO₂ from fires in the United States [http://www.cbmjournal.com/content/2/1/10/comments]).</p> Georgii Alexandrov 2008-01-09T05:54:30Z http://www.cbmjournal.com/content/3/1/1 Zeng Carbon Balance and Management 3 1 Thu Jan 03 17:11:48 GMT 2008 http://www.cbmjournal.com/content/3/1/1/comments#291601 <p>I've read only the abstract, but I suspect a hoax of the reductio ad absurdum variety. Surely the traditional and comparatively profitable idea of making trees into durable wood products must be nearly as effective in terms of carbon sequestration? </p> William Befort 2008-01-09T01:43:23Z http://www.cbmjournal.com/content/3/1/1 Zeng Carbon Balance and Management 3 1 Thu Jan 03 17:11:48 GMT 2008