Climate Catastrophe

[pjclarke]

When he says source, he doesn't really mean source.
He means readily identifiable link that has already been ad-homm attacked by his go-to site of dogma.

Sorry for interpreting his posts, but as a dogmatic he is incapable of forming an argument of his own and incapable of using language correctly.
e.g. subsidy
e.g. carbon

but to be fair, he is the pipeline. the sewer rather than the sewage

Some people use carbon rather than carbon dioxide as a metric. The fraction of carbon in carbon dioxide is the ratio of their weights. The atomic weight of carbon is 12 atomic mass units, while the weight of carbon dioxide is 44, because it includes two oxygen atoms that each weigh 16. So, to switch from one to the other, use the formula:*One ton of carbon equals 44/12 = 11/3 = 3.67 tons of carbon dioxide. Thus 11 tons of carbon dioxide equals 3 tons of carbon, and a price of $30 per ton of carbon dioxide equals a price of $110 per ton of carbon.

From <http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2008/03/25/202471/the-biggest-source-of-mistakes-c-vs-co2/>

HTH, but as a simple request for a link gets you so hot under the collar, I doubt it.

[EternalOptimist]

just get the language right pj.
carbon is not carbon dioxide

and a statistical construct is not a subsidy.

[DodgyAgent]

Source?

Mate of mine in the pub

[pjclarke]

just get the language right pj.
carbon is not carbon dioxide

and a statistical construct is not a subsidy.

Burning fossil fuels produces CO2 by the oxidation of hydrocarbons, the post was about the phytoplankton removing CO2 from the atmosphere - they do this by the production of carbohydrates from CO2 (plus lipids and proteins), which in theory get taken to the deep ocean. In both processes carbon is the common factor, thus you can talk either about C or CO2 removal, certainly the usual term is 'carbon sequestration'.

Even economists differ about the definition of a subsidy, so it is important to define one's terms. I did.

[DodgyAgent]

Burning fossil fuels produces CO2 by the oxidation of hydrocarbons, the post was about the phytoplankton removing CO2 from the atmosphere - they do this by the production of carbohydrates from CO2 (plus lipids and proteins), which in theory get taken to the deep ocean. In both processes carbon is the common factor, thus you can talk either about C or CO2 removal, certainly the usual term is 'carbon sequestration'.

Even economists differ about the definition of a subsidy, so it is important to define one's terms. I did.

Bully for you. How do people put up with your smug controlling manner?

[GlenW]

How do people put up with your smug controlling manner?

This from an agent!?!?

[EternalOptimist]

Burning fossil fuels produces CO2 by the oxidation of hydrocarbons, the post was about the phytoplankton removing CO2 from the atmosphere - they do this by the production of carbohydrates from CO2 (plus lipids and proteins), which in theory get taken to the deep ocean. In both processes carbon is the common factor, thus you can talk either about C or CO2 removal, certainly the usual term is 'carbon sequestration'.

Even economists differ about the definition of a subsidy, so it is important to define one's terms. I did.

I get it. you do it because they do it


you are indeed a dedicated follower of fashion.

[DodgyAgent]

This from an agent!?!?

[LondonManc]

This from an agent!?!?

Good agents get the beers in.

[DodgyAgent]

Good agents get the beers in.

I'm tulip