how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[IanC]

Here we go... See... Plants don't build themselves fromCO2. That is laughable. CO2 doesn't get gobbled up by plants. It is broken down into oxygen and carbon. Soil carbon.

BTW ifitzpmz, quote my posts you respond to it's the decent way to debate..


LOL, so plant's build themselves from CO2? how very scientific.. ROFL.. Please get that published I can't wait to see the response...

I got something for ya... How about this, maybe CARBON is the basis of CARBON based life forms? MORON...

Dude you're an idiot... Carbon is the basis of carbon-based life forms. Not CO2 CARBON.. CO2 is a naturally occurring gas created from many natural processes on the planet. Processes like volcanic activity, and many others. The gas didn't create the life forms that use it as fuel, the life form evolved to feed on it. Carbon-based life remember? Not CO2 based, but carbon based.*

The planets eco-system adapts to the environment not the other way around...

Some scientist...LOL

CARBON numbnuts. There's no "new" carbon cycle, it's the same as it always was. The fact you don't know this shows how full of shit you are...heres a nice picture...Notice the part about "soil carbon" Yeah it's even in the soil silly socko...

A nice article on it...From wikkipedia no less,again shows what you know...

Carbon cycle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Another? Sure...From the NOAA no less...

ESRL Integrating Research and Technology Theme: Carbon Cycle Science

What is the Carbon Cycle?
Carbon is exchanged, or "cycled" among Earth's oceans, atmosphere, ecosystem, and geosphere. All living organisms are built of carbon compounds. It is the fundamental building block of life and an important component of many chemical processes. It is present in the atmosphere primarily as carbon dioxide (CO2), but also as other less abundant but climatically significant gases, such as methane (CH4).

Sources and Sinks
Because life processes are fueled by carbon compounds which are oxidized to CO2, the latter is exhaled by all animals and plants. Conversely, CO2 is assimilated by plants during photosynthesis to build new carbon compounds. CO2 is produced by the burning of fossil fuels, which derive from the preserved products of ancient photosynthesis. The atmophere exchanges CO2 continuously with the oceans. Regions or processes that predominately produce CO2 are called sources of atmospheric CO2, while those that absorb CO2 are called sinks.

LOL, I can literally source and cite links on it all day dumbass...so do you want to explain your theory about CO2 that *doesn't break down, or is it just your tweaker intellect at work talking in circles?

CO2 breaks down into carbon and oxygen respectively. It doesn't wait to be gobbled up by a plant, and if it's not, it doesn't just hang around as CO2 forever. It breaks down,kind of like your scientist BS does everytime you speak..

Fake scientists, seems like it's the norm here anymore... Do any "scientists" have jobs or are they all trolling web forums? LOL

The scientists speaks. I learn. Boy, am I learning alot.

Soil carbon. Plants don't gobble it up. That's laughable. It doesn't just hang around forever. It breaks down into oxygen and carbon. Soil carbon. Not plants. Plants don't gobble it up. So not complex carbohydrates .Carbon. Just Carbon. That leaves pencil lead (graphite), diamonds, coal, buckyballs, and carbon nano-tubes. He hasn't explained which ones. I'm waiting for that.

Oh, almost forgot. I'm a fake scientist tweaker numbnuts idiot.

Thank you very much, fitz, for taking the time to reference the relevant post. I appreciate it.

 

[itfitzme]

Could you bump up the post where gslack says plants get thru carbon from pencil lead, diamonds and buckyballs? That sounds hilarious.

It follows logically. He says plants don't get it from CO2. And if you make the effort, you'll find comments of soil carbon. Of course, plants aren't absorbing complex carbohydrates, like dead plants, bacteria do that. And, it wouldn't make for much of a carbon cycle, now would it? So I looked for the forms of carbon in the ground that are CARBON. That logically leaves pencil lead, diamonds, coal, buckminster fullerenes and carbon nanotubes. He can't be refering to anything else because there isn't anything else. He's very instructional. If I've got his theory down right, bacteria break down the plant matter into soil carbon. Perhaps he only meant on of them, pencil lead, diamonds, coal, buckminster fullerenes OR carbon nanotubes... But I presented pictures too, and he never said it was one and not the others. I can only go on what he says.

So it was you who said it? And then attributed it to gslack?

How is tthat different than what gslack does?

No one said, implied, suggestes or infered, CO2 is an element.

No one even used "elememt" on a more general sense in such a manner that it might mistakenly be taken as refering to CO2 as a chemical element. Element, after all, is derived from the same root as elementary and used in the context of "elentary particles". So it could be used in such a manner. It seems it wasn't, at least Siagon seems to have taken the time to look and report no reference.

 

[IanC]

It follows logically. He says plants don't get it from CO2. And if you make the effort, you'll find comments of soil carbon. Of course, plants aren't absorbing complex carbohydrates, like dead plants, bacteria do that. And, it wouldn't make for much of a carbon cycle, now would it? So I looked for the forms of carbon in the ground that are CARBON. That logically leaves pencil lead, diamonds, coal, buckminster fullerenes and carbon nanotubes. He can't be refering to anything else because there isn't anything else. He's very instructional. If I've got his theory down right, bacteria break down the plant matter into soil carbon. Perhaps he only meant on of them, pencil lead, diamonds, coal, buckminster fullerenes OR carbon nanotubes... But I presented pictures too, and he never said it was one and not the others. I can only go on what he says.

So it was you who said it? And then attributed it to gslack?

How is tthat different than what gslack does?

No one said, implied, suggestes or infered, CO2 is an element.

No one even used "elememt" on a more general sense in such a manner that it might mistakenly be taken as refering to CO2 as a chemical element. Element, after all, is derived from the same root as elementary and used in the context of "elentary particles". So it could be used in such a manner. It seems it wasn't, at least Siagon seems to have taken the time to look and report no reference.

I understand your frustration with gslack, I feel it too. Just be careful of putting words in his mouth that he didn't say or you stoop to his level.

 

[flacaltenn]

Yep, par for the course. Completely out of touch with reality. Can't remember what he says. Just makes it up. Can't remember what other's say, just makes that up. Won't bother proving it, referencing a post. Can't remember what the science says, just makes it up.

By his theory, plants get carbon from pencil lead, coal, diamonds, nano-tubes, and buckyballs. I have told him repeatedly to learn about photosynthsis and leave the advanced biology and physics to the grownups.

IN ALL FAIRNESS... BOSS did change his mind, later. And, it really is an insult to him to say he's a "buddy" of SlackSack. But it is the oy direct reference to CO2 as an element. So either they are remembering that or remembering themselves. Probably themselves.... So my apologies to BOSS, in retrospect. He was getting hammered in starting a thread, so he got all testy and it stuck out in my mind. He's way smarter that SlackSack....

But he's a denier

Could you bump up the post where gslack says plants get thru carbon from pencil lead, diamonds and buckyballs? That sounds hilarious.

It follows logically. He says plants don't get it from CO2. And if you make the effort, you'll find comments of soil carbon. Of course, plants aren't absorbing complex carbohydrates, like dead plants, bacteria do that. And, it wouldn't make for much of a carbon cycle, now would it? So I looked for the forms of carbon in the ground that are CARBON. That logically leaves pencil lead, diamonds, coal, buckminster fullerenes and carbon nanotubes. He can't be refering to anything else because there isn't anything else. He's very instructional. If I've got his theory down right, bacteria break down the plant matter into soil carbon. Perhaps he only meant on of them, pencil lead, diamonds, coal, buckminster fullerenes OR carbon nanotubes... But I presented pictures too, and he never said it was one and not the others. I can only go on what he says.

Don't worry guys.. The EPA has problems confusing carbon with carbon compounds too...

That's why we are litigating CO2 as a pollutant..

Carbon is pretty reactive, so even with all the elemental decomposition going on in the soil, it would be rare.. Think Jurassic Park and the 6 ft pile of dino dung (or this thread).. Plenty of POTENTIAL carbon in that for sure...

 

[itfitzme]

So it was you who said it? And then attributed it to gslack?

How is tthat different than what gslack does?

No one said, implied, suggestes or infered, CO2 is an element.

No one even used "elememt" on a more general sense in such a manner that it might mistakenly be taken as refering to CO2 as a chemical element. Element, after all, is derived from the same root as elementary and used in the context of "elentary particles". So it could be used in such a manner. It seems it wasn't, at least Siagon seems to have taken the time to look and report no reference.

I understand your frustration with gslack, I feel it too. Just be careful of putting words in his mouth that he didn't say or you stoop to his level.

I gave him considerable opportunity to pick on or more of the list of allotropes. I even gave him "Carbonite", which he did reject. I figured that seeing he is so hung up on the word "carbon", he might go with "Carbonite". That he spat out. He was quite happy, didn't reject the allotropes. I didn't "put them in his mouth", as you put it. I put it on his plate, pictures and everything. He then detailed his carbon cycle hypothesis and, in doing so, accepted the allotropes as being "soil carbon".

If you say, "Go to the backyard and take one of the geese, ducks or chickens" and I return saying "I didn't take a duck or chicken", you may appropriately infer that I took a goose.

I had a long convo with SlackSack, of which that referenced post is just part of. There is no "putting words in his mouth". He made it perfectly clear, in no uncertain terms, he means that plants get carbon from carbon allotropes in the soil. And given every opportunity, he rejected none of them, not even diamonds.

So, while I do have every right to "stoop to his level", in fact it is a logical requirement to do so, I, in fact, did not.

And, at this point, having gone through the effort to show his exact reasoning which leads to the undeniable conclusion that he considers carbon allotropes as being the form of carbon in soil that plants use, I am of no obligation to further demonstrate the remainder of my real and precise understanding of his insanity.

At this point, as he first attributed a false statememt regarding "CO2 is an element" to PMZ, was corrected by someone else, then proceeded to attribute it to me, I have every right to attribute anything I want to him. When it comes to him, I need only meet his standards. I am, in fact, obligated to treat him by his standards, as you say, "stoop to his level."

He sets his standards to which he is treated. FauxFire set the standards by which Fauxfire is treated. When it come to you, you set the standards by which you are treated.

 

[Foxfyre]

As for breaking down CO2, I doubt that occurs automatically without some process forcing it to happen. However. . . .

Mar. 10, 2010 — A recent discovery in understanding how to chemically break down the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide into a useful form opens the doors for scientists to wonder what organism is out there -- or could be created -- to accomplish the task.

University of Michigan biological chemist Steve Ragsdale, along with research assistant Elizabeth Pierce and scientists led by Fraser Armstrong from the University of Oxford in the U.K., have figured out a way to efficiently turn carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide using visible light, like sunlight.

The results are reported in the recent online edition of the Journal of the American Chemical Society.
Learning from nature: Scientists break down carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide using visible light

The article goes on to explain that while carbon monoxide, in fairly small quantities, is toxic to humans and animals, which CO2 is not, and therefore must be carefully managed, there are enormous practical industrial uses for carbon monoxide. It logically follows that instead of trying to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere just to get rid of it, why not develop ways to extract the excess and convert it into something that is practical and useful? Even if CO2 is the hazard the warmers seem desperate to prove that it is, that solution would require no infringement of human liberties whatsoever.

There are so many possibilities out there that the warmers don't even want to discuss, much less consider, in this whole equation. But then, there is the pesky possibility that the purpose of global warming politics has been to give more control and power to opportunists all along.

 

[gslack]

Could you bump up the post where gslack says plants get thru carbon from pencil lead, diamonds and buckyballs? That sounds hilarious.

It follows logically. He says plants don't get it from CO2. And if you make the effort, you'll find comments of soil carbon. Of course, plants aren't absorbing complex carbohydrates, like dead plants, bacteria do that. And, it wouldn't make for much of a carbon cycle, now would it? So I looked for the forms of carbon in the ground that are CARBON. That logically leaves pencil lead, diamonds, coal, buckminster fullerenes and carbon nanotubes. He can't be refering to anything else because there isn't anything else. He's very instructional. If I've got his theory down right, bacteria break down the plant matter into soil carbon. Perhaps he only meant on of them, pencil lead, diamonds, coal, buckminster fullerenes OR carbon nanotubes... But I presented pictures too, and he never said it was one and not the others. I can only go on what he says.

So it was you who said it? And then attributed it to gslack?

How is tthat different than what gslack does?

Let's see, how about the fact I don't do that? As we just saw, he made the crap up and has tried to sell the lie every time he get's embarrassed by his own stupidity.

LOL, he's so high he keeps forgetting what happened and what the posts show.. Thanks for showing SOME character Ian...

 

[gslack]

Thanks for sharing your breakdown Ian.. LOL it was truly good to see. You just confirmed everything I said about you here.. You not only got busted talking in a circle, but you just embraced the most anti-scientific poster on the board all to save yourself having to actually stand up...

ROFL

What an odd little man you are.

I asked Fitz the same question as you, in the same words.

It appears that you really don't understand the circle of life. Plants use sunlight to build sugar from low energy H2O and CO2. Animals use that sugar for energy, releasing H2O and CO2.

Posting up links that you either don't read or understand is a waste of time.

LOL, and there we see your true nature again.. Rather lie about what I said and posted than have to eat crow... One post you call him the liar, and the next you call me the liar... LOL can't make up your mind? Pathetic..... A true save-ass..

 

[gslack]

So it was you who said it? And then attributed it to gslack?

How is tthat different than what gslack does?

No one said, implied, suggestes or infered, CO2 is an element.

No one even used "elememt" on a more general sense in such a manner that it might mistakenly be taken as refering to CO2 as a chemical element. Element, after all, is derived from the same root as elementary and used in the context of "elentary particles". So it could be used in such a manner. It seems it wasn't, at least Siagon seems to have taken the time to look and report no reference.

EDIT; The crybabies were upset by my misplaced decimal point.. I meant 1.000 ..ROFL..

I understand your frustration with gslack, I feel it too. Just be careful of putting words in his mouth that he didn't say or you stoop to his level.

Yes, yes, you would rather kiss the ass of a liar and known troll, than actually man up and defend your position.. We all see what kind of save-ass you are Ian.

Just as I said before no less...LOL I am batting .1000 about you so far... ROFL

 

[gslack]

No one said, implied, suggestes or infered, CO2 is an element.

No one even used "elememt" on a more general sense in such a manner that it might mistakenly be taken as refering to CO2 as a chemical element. Element, after all, is derived from the same root as elementary and used in the context of "elentary particles". So it could be used in such a manner. It seems it wasn't, at least Siagon seems to have taken the time to look and report no reference.

I understand your frustration with gslack, I feel it too. Just be careful of putting words in his mouth that he didn't say or you stoop to his level.

I gave him considerable opportunity to pick on or more of the list of allotropes. I even gave him "Carbonite", which he did reject. I figured that seeing he is so hung up on the word "carbon", he might go with "Carbonite". That he spat out. He was quite happy, didn't reject the allotropes. I didn't "put them in his mouth", as you put it. I put it on his plate, pictures and everything. He then detailed his carbon cycle hypothesis and, in doing so, accepted the allotropes as being "soil carbon".

If you say, "Go to the backyard and take one of the geese, ducks or chickens" and I return saying "I didn't take a duck or chicken", you may appropriately infer that I took a goose.

I had a long convo with SlackSack, of which that referenced post is just part of. There is no "putting words in his mouth". He made it perfectly clear, in no uncertain terms, he means that plants get carbon from carbon allotropes in the soil. And given every opportunity, he rejected none of them, not even diamonds.

So, while I do have every right to "stoop to his level", in fact it is a logical requirement to do so, I, in fact, did not.

And, at this point, having gone through the effort to show his exact reasoning which leads to the undeniable conclusion that he considers carbon allotropes as being the form of carbon in soil that plants use, I am of no obligation to further demonstrate the remainder of my real and precise understanding of his insanity.

At this point, as he first attributed a false statememt regarding "CO2 is an element" to PMZ, was corrected by someone else, then proceeded to attribute it to me, I have every right to attribute anything I want to him. When it comes to him, I need only meet his standards. I am, in fact, obligated to treat him by his standards, as you say, "stoop to his level."

He sets his standards to which he is treated. FauxFire set the standards by which Fauxfire is treated. When it come to you, you set the standards by which you are treated.

LOL, you stated that CO2 was sequestered into fossil fuels socko. Not carbon CO2. WHen we told you that CO2 breaks down into carbon and oxygen and does not remain CO2 forever you went on trying to prove it.

ROFL,so please... We all know you are an idiot and a liar...

 

[IanC]

It follows logically. He says plants don't get it from CO2. And if you make the effort, you'll find comments of soil carbon. Of course, plants aren't absorbing complex carbohydrates, like dead plants, bacteria do that. And, it wouldn't make for much of a carbon cycle, now would it? So I looked for the forms of carbon in the ground that are CARBON. That logically leaves pencil lead, diamonds, coal, buckminster fullerenes and carbon nanotubes. He can't be refering to anything else because there isn't anything else. He's very instructional. If I've got his theory down right, bacteria break down the plant matter into soil carbon. Perhaps he only meant on of them, pencil lead, diamonds, coal, buckminster fullerenes OR carbon nanotubes... But I presented pictures too, and he never said it was one and not the others. I can only go on what he says.

So it was you who said it? And then attributed it to gslack?

How is tthat different than what gslack does?

Let's see, how about the fact I don't do that? As we just saw, he made the crap up and has tried to sell the lie every time he get's embarrassed by his own stupidity.

LOL, he's so high he keeps forgetting what happened and what the posts show.. Thanks for showing SOME character Ian...

I know from abundant personal experiences with you that you misscharachterize other people' statements and refuse to quote the pertinent sentences. I don't know how you rationalize your boorish behsviour to yourself but it is inexcusable.

 

[flacaltenn]

No one said, implied, suggestes or infered, CO2 is an element.

No one even used "elememt" on a more general sense in such a manner that it might mistakenly be taken as refering to CO2 as a chemical element. Element, after all, is derived from the same root as elementary and used in the context of "elentary particles". So it could be used in such a manner. It seems it wasn't, at least Siagon seems to have taken the time to look and report no reference.

I understand your frustration with gslack, I feel it too. Just be careful of putting words in his mouth that he didn't say or you stoop to his level.

Yes, yes, you would rather kiss the ass of a liar and known troll, than actually man up and defend your position.. We all see what kind of save-ass you are Ian.

Just as I said before no less...LOL I am batting .1000 about you so far... ROFL

Funnier than watching Duck Dynasty...

You sho is battin about 0.1000 on most everything...

 

[PMZ]

B]"Infrared absorbing gases reduce the rate at which the Earth loses infrared energy to space."[/B]-Roy Spencer

All of the photons emitted from earth that strike GHG molecules in the atmosphere are absorbed, adding energy to the molecule. The molecule then returns to its stable state by emitting the energy it just acquired. Half of the energy goes down, half up.

With zero GHG, all of those photons would escape into space. With some GHG, any photon that happens to strike a GHG molecule, half is remitted up, half down. Whatever doesn't go up goes down to warm the earth, which then emits more energetic photons, until energy balance is re-achieved with incoming energy.

AGW is a necessary and unavoidable consequence to higher concentrations of atmospheric GHGs. The only other consideration are the temporary dynamics of systems earth leading up to the new steady state.

 

[IanC]

I understand your frustration with gslack, I feel it too. Just be careful of putting words in his mouth that he didn't say or you stoop to his level.

I gave him considerable opportunity to pick on or more of the list of allotropes. I even gave him "Carbonite", which he did reject. I figured that seeing he is so hung up on the word "carbon", he might go with "Carbonite". That he spat out. He was quite happy, didn't reject the allotropes. I didn't "put them in his mouth", as you put it. I put it on his plate, pictures and everything. He then detailed his carbon cycle hypothesis and, in doing so, accepted the allotropes as being "soil carbon".

If you say, "Go to the backyard and take one of the geese, ducks or chickens" and I return saying "I didn't take a duck or chicken", you may appropriately infer that I took a goose.

I had a long convo with SlackSack, of which that referenced post is just part of. There is no "putting words in his mouth". He made it perfectly clear, in no uncertain terms, he means that plants get carbon from carbon allotropes in the soil. And given every opportunity, he rejected none of them, not even diamonds.

So, while I do have every right to "stoop to his level", in fact it is a logical requirement to do so, I, in fact, did not.

And, at this point, having gone through the effort to show his exact reasoning which leads to the undeniable conclusion that he considers carbon allotropes as being the form of carbon in soil that plants use, I am of no obligation to further demonstrate the remainder of my real and precise understanding of his insanity.

At this point, as he first attributed a false statememt regarding "CO2 is an element" to PMZ, was corrected by someone else, then proceeded to attribute it to me, I have every right to attribute anything I want to him. When it comes to him, I need only meet his standards. I am, in fact, obligated to treat him by his standards, as you say, "stoop to his level."

He sets his standards to which he is treated. FauxFire set the standards by which Fauxfire is treated. When it come to you, you set the standards by which you are treated.

LOL, you stated that CO2 was sequestered into fossil fuels socko. Not carbon CO2. WHen we told you that CO2 breaks down into carbon and oxygen and does not remain CO2 forever you went on trying to prove it.

ROFL,so please... We all know you are an idiot and a liar...

Hahaha. You actually think coal or oil is only made up of carbon? The CO2 loses the O2 in the live plant, to make sugars. Burn the plant with the same O2 and you get CO2 and energy. Perhaps I should add water into the mix as well but you should already know that from your links.


You are as foolish as you are arrogant.

 

[Foxfyre]

Hmmm. It seems that at least one of the guadruplets is also operating under the illusion that carbon comes from pencil lead, diamonds, coal, et al or from CO2 rather than carbon existing before all those other things.

That probably happens when somebody hasn't even taken a basic introduction to science class in school, much less chemistry

 

[itfitzme]

I gave him considerable opportunity to pick on or more of the list of allotropes. I even gave him "Carbonite", which he did reject. I figured that seeing he is so hung up on the word "carbon", he might go with "Carbonite". That he spat out. He was quite happy, didn't reject the allotropes. I didn't "put them in his mouth", as you put it. I put it on his plate, pictures and everything. He then detailed his carbon cycle hypothesis and, in doing so, accepted the allotropes as being "soil carbon".

If you say, "Go to the backyard and take one of the geese, ducks or chickens" and I return saying "I didn't take a duck or chicken", you may appropriately infer that I took a goose.

I had a long convo with SlackSack, of which that referenced post is just part of. There is no "putting words in his mouth". He made it perfectly clear, in no uncertain terms, he means that plants get carbon from carbon allotropes in the soil. And given every opportunity, he rejected none of them, not even diamonds.

So, while I do have every right to "stoop to his level", in fact it is a logical requirement to do so, I, in fact, did not.

And, at this point, having gone through the effort to show his exact reasoning which leads to the undeniable conclusion that he considers carbon allotropes as being the form of carbon in soil that plants use, I am of no obligation to further demonstrate the remainder of my real and precise understanding of his insanity.

At this point, as he first attributed a false statememt regarding "CO2 is an element" to PMZ, was corrected by someone else, then proceeded to attribute it to me, I have every right to attribute anything I want to him. When it comes to him, I need only meet his standards. I am, in fact, obligated to treat him by his standards, as you say, "stoop to his level."

He sets his standards to which he is treated. FauxFire set the standards by which Fauxfire is treated. When it come to you, you set the standards by which you are treated.

LOL, you stated that CO2 was sequestered into fossil fuels socko. Not carbon CO2. WHen we told you that CO2 breaks down into carbon and oxygen and does not remain CO2 forever you went on trying to prove it.

ROFL,so please... We all know you are an idiot and a liar...

Hahaha. You actually think coal or oil is only made up of carbon? The CO2 loses the O2 in the live plant, to make sugars. Burn the plant with the same O2 and you get CO2 and energy. Perhaps I should add water into the mix as well but you should already know that from your links.


You are as foolish as you are arrogant.

"you stated that CO2 was sequestered into fossil fuels sock"

He lives in his own imaginary world as I have never spoke of CO2, the carbon cycle, sequestration of CO2, or anything remotely like it.

He is quite psychotic which is why I have him on ignore and only become aware of his ranting when someone else, of sane mind, responds to him.

 

[IanC]

B]"Infrared absorbing gases reduce the rate at which the Earth loses infrared energy to space."[/B]-Roy Spencer

All of the photons emitted from earth that strike GHG molecules in the atmosphere are absorbed, adding energy to the molecule. The molecule then returns to its stable state by emitting the energy it just acquired. Half of the energy goes down, half up.

With zero GHG, all of those photons would escape into space. With some GHG, any photon that happens to strike a GHG molecule, half is remitted up, half down. Whatever doesn't go up goes down to warm the earth, which then emits more energetic photons, until energy balance is re-achieved with incoming energy.

AGW is a necessary and unavoidable consequence to higher concentrations of atmospheric GHGs. The only other consideration are the temporary dynamics of systems earth leading up to the new steady state.

That's okay as far as it goes. The Earth also has heat pump mechanisms. What happens when you turn on the heater and air conditioer at the dame time? Your energy bill goes up with nothing to show for it.

 

[gslack]

So it was you who said it? And then attributed it to gslack?

How is tthat different than what gslack does?

Let's see, how about the fact I don't do that? As we just saw, he made the crap up and has tried to sell the lie every time he get's embarrassed by his own stupidity.

LOL, he's so high he keeps forgetting what happened and what the posts show.. Thanks for showing SOME character Ian...

I know from abundant personal experiences with you that you misscharachterize other people' statements and refuse to quote the pertinent sentences. I don't know how you rationalize your boorish behsviour to yourself but it is inexcusable.

You're a liar Ian, you got any proof of that claim? NO? of course not...
LOL so much for character..

 

[gslack]

I understand your frustration with gslack, I feel it too. Just be careful of putting words in his mouth that he didn't say or you stoop to his level.

Yes, yes, you would rather kiss the ass of a liar and known troll, than actually man up and defend your position.. We all see what kind of save-ass you are Ian.

Just as I said before no less...LOL I am batting .1000 about you so far... ROFL

Funnier than watching Duck Dynasty...

You sho is battin about 0.1000 on most everything...

Only an immature ass would really bother over a misplaced decimal point.. LOL, really? That's all you have? All of your High handed nonsense and down talking to me and anybody who disagrees with your claim, and since your obvious screw up a few posts ago you have resorted to fussing over a decimal point?

LOL..Oaky I'm batting 1.000 ,or actually more like .9999 because nobodies perfect. Happy?

 

[gslack]

I gave him considerable opportunity to pick on or more of the list of allotropes. I even gave him "Carbonite", which he did reject. I figured that seeing he is so hung up on the word "carbon", he might go with "Carbonite". That he spat out. He was quite happy, didn't reject the allotropes. I didn't "put them in his mouth", as you put it. I put it on his plate, pictures and everything. He then detailed his carbon cycle hypothesis and, in doing so, accepted the allotropes as being "soil carbon".

If you say, "Go to the backyard and take one of the geese, ducks or chickens" and I return saying "I didn't take a duck or chicken", you may appropriately infer that I took a goose.

I had a long convo with SlackSack, of which that referenced post is just part of. There is no "putting words in his mouth". He made it perfectly clear, in no uncertain terms, he means that plants get carbon from carbon allotropes in the soil. And given every opportunity, he rejected none of them, not even diamonds.

So, while I do have every right to "stoop to his level", in fact it is a logical requirement to do so, I, in fact, did not.

And, at this point, having gone through the effort to show his exact reasoning which leads to the undeniable conclusion that he considers carbon allotropes as being the form of carbon in soil that plants use, I am of no obligation to further demonstrate the remainder of my real and precise understanding of his insanity.

At this point, as he first attributed a false statememt regarding "CO2 is an element" to PMZ, was corrected by someone else, then proceeded to attribute it to me, I have every right to attribute anything I want to him. When it comes to him, I need only meet his standards. I am, in fact, obligated to treat him by his standards, as you say, "stoop to his level."

He sets his standards to which he is treated. FauxFire set the standards by which Fauxfire is treated. When it come to you, you set the standards by which you are treated.

LOL, you stated that CO2 was sequestered into fossil fuels socko. Not carbon CO2. WHen we told you that CO2 breaks down into carbon and oxygen and does not remain CO2 forever you went on trying to prove it.

ROFL,so please... We all know you are an idiot and a liar...

Hahaha. You actually think coal or oil is only made up of carbon? The CO2 loses the O2 in the live plant, to make sugars. Burn the plant with the same O2 and you get CO2 and energy. Perhaps I should add water into the mix as well but you should already know that from your links.


You are as foolish as you are arrogant.

And there we see you do exactly what you just tried to tell the sock not to do..

You just lied about my position Ian. My post was explaining the socks claim.. Might want to put aside your desire to save face and read something before making a fool of yourself again... Schmuck..LOL