Is it beavers or squirrels?

Believers want you to think that man is responsible for all carbon in the atmosphere, what they hide from you is that nature adds 97% of all co2 into the air from plant decay, forest fires, and volcanoes.

Frankly I like beavers.

I was reading The Last of the Mohicans a couple of weeks ago. It was written in the 1700s so the language is kind of hard to follow. It talked about this guy that intercourses with a woman and seeing her beaver through a veil. Well the intercourse simply meant talk and the beaver was a brim on her hat, but I digress. I had to Google that to figure it out, at least the beaver part. I'll pick beavers over squirrels every time. Sorry squirrels.

On a purely selfish level, I say squirrels.

We get lots of grey squirrels where I live and they damage the trees. We get no beavers at all.

For any who are not able to click on more than one link per question (Could this just be a way of avoiding the issue, I wonder?) I add these for their convenience.

Beavers: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13280-01...

Squirrels: https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm14/meetingapp.cgi#Pap...

Have they no idea how much CO2 is released by agriculture, farms that grow grains such as wheat, contain slightly less than half the carbon that prairies contain, the tiny amount released by ground squirrels is miniscule compared ploughing up land for agriculture.

Both your links to denier sites are very loosely based on actual science, science which the writers of those sites nor you can even begin to grasp.

The articles are akin to round-earth deniers writing something like" scientists plan to sail around the globe - ha ha ha".

I'll play, "Beavers". I have no idea what that means, because I'm not going to click on your garbage links to find out what in the world you are talking about.

You've been on all the whack-a-doodle websites tonight, haven't you? Well, I wouldn't expect to find you reading any science texts.