"global warming is a natural cycle"


Cyclical variations in climate are well-known to the public; we all studied the ice ages in school. However, climate isn't inherently cyclical.

A common misunderstanding of the climate system characterizes it like a pendulum. The planet will warm up to "cancel out" a previous period of cooling, spurred by some internal equilibrium. This view of the climate is incorrect. Internal variability will move energy between the ocean and the atmosphere, causing short-term warming and cooling of the surface in events such as El Nino and La Nina, and longer-term changes when similar cycles operate on decadal scales. However, internal forces do not cause climate change. Appreciable changes in climate are the result of changes in the energy balance of the Earth, which requires "external" forcings, such as changes in solar output, albedo, and atmospheric greenhouse gases. These forcings can be cyclical, as they are in the ice ages, but they can come in different shapes entirely.

For this reason, "it's just a natural cycle" is a bit of a cop-out argument. The Earth doesn't warm up because it feels like it. It warms up because something forces it to. Scientists keep track of natural forcings, but the observed warming of the planet over the second half of the 20th century can only be explained by adding in anthropogenic radiative forcings, namely increases in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htm

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 20^th, 2016 at 10:13pm:

Cyclical variations in climate are well-known to the public; we all studied the ice ages in school. However, climate isn't inherently cyclical.

Citation needed. Skeptical Science? DeSmogBlog?


Pho Huc wrote on Dec 20^th, 2016 at 10:13pm:

Appreciable changes in climate are the result of changes in the energy balance of the Earth, which requires "external" forcings, such as changes in solar output, albedo, and atmospheric greenhouse gases.

Roman Warming period? MWP? Minoan Warming?

What were the external "forcings" which caused these and warming since the LIA? The retreat of glaciers since 1850?

lee wrote on Dec 20^th, 2016 at 10:20pm:

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 20th, 2016 at 10:13pm: Cyclical variations in climate are well-known to the public; we all studied the ice ages in school. However, climate isn't inherently cyclical. Citation needed. Skeptical Science? DeSmogBlog? Pho Huc wrote on Dec 20th, 2016 at 10:13pm: Appreciable changes in climate are the result of changes in the energy balance of the Earth, which requires "external" forcings, such as changes in solar output, albedo, and atmospheric greenhouse gases. Roman Warming period? MWP? Minoan Warming? What were the external "forcings" which caused these and warming since the LIA? The retreat of glaciers since 1850?

All you can do is question legitimate research.
Stop Obfuscating.

If you have a genuine problem with the explanation for why natural variation is not accepted by the scientific establishment then go right ahead, explain in detail what is wrong with it and post the credible research that supports your statement.

' Scientists keep track of natural forcings, but the observed warming of the planet over the second half of the 20th century can only be explained by adding in anthropogenic radiative forcings, namely increases in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. '

Climate Science is still in its infancy. They can't even determine what effects the interactions between various elements will be.

Have a look at IPCC AR5 Chapter 9 final pdf page 818 or 78 of 128 in your browser to see what is excluded from most models.

Planck Feedback, Water Vapour Feedback, Lapse rate Feedback, Surface Albedo, Cloud Feedback.

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

And tell us how much the scientists know.

Ok

So what your saying is, your not happy with the quality of their models, therefore all the data pointing to to AGW is invalid.

Again, your trying to cherry pick from the mass of data supporting AGW, and as a result you can't explain your points clearly.

You don't have a credible alternate explanation for global warming.
After losing every point in a previous thread you were reduced to admitting that CO2 increase is anthropogenic and the Climate is getting hotter.

You ended up palming it off as "natural variation" and now that your running out of ground to retreat on your trying to escape into one on the massive IPCC reports(which flat out contradicts your opinion).

 

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 20^th, 2016 at 10:53pm:

So what your saying is, your not happy with the quality of their models, therefore all the data pointing to to AGW is invalid. Again, your trying to cherry pick from the mass of data supporting AGW, and as a result you can't explain your points clearly.

Please explain how you can reasonably use climate models that don't hindcast well, that don't predict at all as proof of AGW. It is the models in their various forms that are claimed to show AGW. The output of the models is not DATA.


Pho Huc wrote on Dec 20^th, 2016 at 10:53pm:

After losing every point in a previous thread you were reduced to admitting that CO2 increase is anthropogenic and the Climate is getting hotter.

Your too funny. I have always said that some of the CO2 increase is anthropogenic. And the climate is getting Warmer.

Apparently 287Kelvin to 287.9Kelvin. Scary stuff.


Pho Huc wrote on Dec 20^th, 2016 at 10:53pm:

You ended up palming it off as "natural variation" and now that your running out of ground to retreat on your trying to escape into one on the massive IPCC reports(which flat out contradicts your opinion).

I see you have not tried to disprove the null hypothesis. And you obviously haven't read the report, as to what it actually says. Not my problem.

Bye.

And a stunning rebuttal from Lee.

No new information provided.

Continues to harp on about climate models not being data (even though climate models form the basis for his opposition to AGW in this thread ::) )

Selects part of in IPCC report which he believes allows him to discount the other 99% of it (fairly standard really practice for him really)

So, other than the IPCC report which states that climate change is anthropomorphic and the pro AGW paper you uploaded on another thread you have nothing to back up your opinions other than obfuscation and hearsay.

I guess that would give you even less than zero credibility?

-2 credibility?

I'm actually surprised you havn't been able to find any peer review publications that support your position, but I must admit I looked around a lot and couldn't find anything I wouldn't be ashamed to associated with.

Keep digging, the truth is out there!

There is also the child like belief we are “still warming up after the little ice age. . .” as if the earth was covered in ice and we are recovering from that. LIA was caused by more than usual volcanic activity spewing aerosols into the upper atmosphere, reflecting sunlight back into space. Temperatures have long recovered from the LIA. Just have a look at the pathetic rubbish posted by Booby in his NEW LIA threads.

The other childlike belief is that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than now. This is based on one paper discussing the MWP that deniers claimed to show the MWP had very high temperatures, this now gets repeated as a desperate mantra by deniers. Yet the paper relied on did not mention temperatures.

The only sensible conclusion, amply supported by spectrophotometry and carbon dating is that:

1. The extra CO2 in the atmosphere is from anthropogenic origins: burning fossil fuels

2. The extra CO2 in the atmosphere is blocking the escape of longer wave, heat, radiation back into space, warming the planet, acidifying oceans etc

Therefor the only sensible thing to do is;

3. To act to reduce GHG emissions. This can be done with energy efficiency, turning away from coal to nuclear and renewables. 100% renewable energy is a pipedream.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 21^st, 2016 at 12:31am:

Selects part of in IPCC report which he believes allows him to discount the other 99% of it (fairly standard really practice for him really)

yes. That is the state of climate science. The climate models are the basis for the AGW claims. You want to disavow the UPCC AR5?

You keep repeating the alarmist mantra. It is the proponents of AGW that have to DISPROVE the null hypothesis, aka Natural Variability,

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 21^st, 2016 at 9:42am:

1. The extra CO2 in the atmosphere is from anthropogenic origins: burning fossil fuels

Wow. you got something right.


Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 21^st, 2016 at 9:42am:

2. The extra CO2 in the atmosphere is blocking the escape of longer wave, heat, radiation back into space, warming the planet, acidifying oceans etc

Wow. CO2 may block some heat escaping the atmosphere, so does water vapour which is by far he major source of retaining heat. Just think if that water vapour hadn't been available during the LIA. Snowball earth.

The ocean is not acidifying. That is alarmist claptrap. pH levels vary by the hour, they are not static.

Oceans are acidifying. Denier!

CO2 and H2O between them block a lot of heat from escaping back out to space. As a result the globe is warming.

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 21^st, 2016 at 11:36am:

Oceans are acidifying. Denier! CO2 and H2O between them block a lot of heat from escaping back out to space. As a result the globe is warming.

Is pH above or below 7? If below 7 they would be acidifying. Above 7 they may be wandering towards neutrality, but with all the buffering in the ocean, unlikely to get there.

increasing H20 indeed is causing warming. ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 21^st, 2016 at 11:36am:

Oceans are acidifying. Denier! CO2 and H2O between them block a lot of heat from escaping back out to space. As a result the globe is warming.

Don't bother trying to argue with Lee. He relies on his debaters providing all the evidence. He is the one making all the baseless assertions.

What you do is say

Lee, please provide a credible peer reviewed publication that supports your assertion that the oceans are not becoming acidic.
He wont have anything, but will continue to demand proof from you.

He is the one making the outlandish statements with no backing.
The onus to provide evidence is on him.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 21^st, 2016 at 1:27pm:

Lee, please provide a credible peer reviewed publication that supports your assertion that the oceans are not becoming acidic.

'The ocean is not acidic, and model projections say the oceans won’t ever become acidic.'


http://www.epoca-project.eu/index.php/what-is-ocean-acidification/faq.html

So it is NOT becoming "acidic". Acidification is a term used to frighten the numpties, it has nothing to do with the ocean becoming acidic.

lee wrote on Dec 21^st, 2016 at 2:05pm:

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 21st, 2016 at 1:27pm: Lee, please provide a credible peer reviewed publication that supports your assertion that the oceans are not becoming acidic. 'The ocean is not acidic, and model projections say the oceans won’t ever become acidic.' http://www.epoca-project.eu/index.php/what-is-ocean-acidification/faq.html So it is NOT becoming "acidic". Acidification is a term used to frighten the numpties, it has nothing to do with the ocean becoming acidic.

Not so according to NOAA.

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F


Quote:

... Estimates of future carbon dioxide levels, based on business as usual emission scenarios, indicate that by the end of this century the surface waters of the ocean could be nearly 150 percent more acidic, resulting in a pH that the oceans haven’t experienced for more than 20 million years. The Biological Impacts Ocean acidification is expected to impact ocean species to varying degrees. Photosynthetic algae and seagrasses may benefit from higher CO2 conditions in the ocean, as they require CO2 to live just like plants on land. On the other hand, studies have shown that a more acidic environment has a dramatic effect on some calcifying species, including oysters, clams, sea urchins, shallow water corals, deep sea corals, and calcareous plankton. When shelled organisms are at risk, the entire food web may also be at risk. Today, more than a billion people worldwide rely on food from the ocean as their primary source of protein. Many jobs and economies in the U.S. and around the world depend on the fish and shellfish in our oceans. Pteropods The pteropod, or “sea butterfly”, is a tiny sea creature about the size of a small pea. Pteropods are eaten by organisms ranging in size from tiny krill to whales and are a major food source for North Pacific juvenile salmon. The photos below show what happens to a pteropod’s shell when placed in sea water with pH and carbonate levels projected for the year 2100. The shell slowly dissolves after 45 days.  Photo credit: David Liittschwager/National Geographic Stock. Used with permission. All rights reserved. National Geographic Images. Pteropod image showing acidification results Shellfish

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/files/pteropodpics1_med.jpg

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/files/pmel-oa-imageee_med.jpg

Unforgiven wrote on Dec 21^st, 2016 at 2:16pm:

Not so according to NOAA. http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F Quote: ... Estimates of future carbon dioxide levels, based on business as usual emission scenarios, indicate that by the end of this century the surface waters of the ocean could be nearly 150 percent more acidic, resulting in a pH that the oceans haven’t experienced for more than 20 million years.

'Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units. Since the pH scale, like the Richter scale, is logarithmic, this change represents approximately a 30 percent increase in acidity. '

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F

'The oceans are naturally alkaline, with an average pH of around 8.2, although this can vary up to 0.3 units depending on location and season. '
http://www.grida.no/publications/rr/in-dead-water/page/1247.aspx

So the lower bounds would be pH of 7.9, in a worst case scenario. Take out a further 0.1 reduction per NOAA. And voila- Ocean PH of 7.8.

Far and away above pH 7.0 for neutrality.

BTW- a lovely picture of pteropods. Fancy giving them no time to acclimatise them to the differing pH levels. Someone should call the RSPCA or Blue Cross. ;)

I'm going to give you a free hit here lee, because I know you've been struggling recently.

When you say "Natural Climate variation" you realize its a meaningless term right.

What your actually saying is "the effect of all forces on the climate in a non-homeodynamic ecology" (I feel like I just gave birth)

Basically It's the fact the environment isn't static. Its a complex system, affected by many factors.

No-one disputes that earth's climate is variable. Even those irritating scientist's acknowledge in passing that earths climate has changed in many ways through history( if you know that, its because of research published by those same scientists.)

Because they systematically collect and compare data they are able to analyse and understand the way the earth climate has behaved in the past.

I hope that nothing I have said so far is too controversial.

Now, because they understand what happened in the past, they can compare it to whats happening now.
In other words they can compare what was happening before human (Non anthropogenic climate change) and after human (anthropogenic climate change).

Again, nice and easy, nothing to complex. 

Now scientists have observed that there is a difference between the way the climate behaved when humans were non-extant and how it behaves presently.

After comparing ALL the possible factors which could be changing the way the climate is currently behaving they are unable to come up with any other plausible explanation than GHG's are the key component.   

If you want a paper proving any of the statements I have made, please highlight it and I shall provide ASAP.

If you have any credible information which disputes and of the points i have made, Please post it.


And if you just going obfuscate then...........

I'm sure you show me in your next post-Its not like your ever going to post a clear, reasoned, justified, statement explaining your position.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 21^st, 2016 at 9:21pm:

If you want a paper proving any of the statements I have made, please highlight it and I shall provide ASAP.

You haven't backed up promises to date. You kep[ whinging "I want you to prove it is not CO2".

But back up your promise if you can.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 21^st, 2016 at 9:21pm:

If you want a paper proving any of the statements I have made, please highlight it and I shall provide ASAP. If you have any credible information which disputes and of the points i have made, Please post it. And if you just going obfuscate then........... I'm sure you show me in your next post-Its not like your ever going to post a clear, reasoned, justified, statement explaining your position.

I'm giving you the opportunity to request credible data for any of the statements I have made in the post above.

If you don't want me to justify them can I assume that you agree with them?

lee loves children: like malware

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 1:11am:

I'm giving you the opportunity to request credible data for any of the statements I have made in the post above. If you don't want me to justify them can I assume that you agree with them?

lee wrote on Dec 21^st, 2016 at 10:56pm:

You haven't backed up promises to date. You kep[ whinging "I want you to prove it is not CO2". But back up your promise if you can.

And yet you still haven't backed up your promise.

Oh, Pleaease, Pretty Pleaease, provide something to prove any one of your assertions.

Please post where I promised you anything.

Hell, if you cant justify your opinion on AGW surely you can quote the post where I promise you something.

Just make sure its not another post where your just getting burnt-
I'm getting sick of explaining to you that your actually embarrassing yourself, not justifying your position.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 2:21pm:

Please post where I promised you anything.

Yoy are right, you didn]t promise anything. You merely said-
Pho Huc wrote on Dec 21^st, 2016 at 9:21pm:

If you want a paper proving any of the statements I have made, please highlight it and I shall provide ASAP.

.
No promise.

So just provide some DATA that actually supports your position. Which I have asked for.

lee wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 2:49pm:

Yoy are right, you didn]t promise anything. You merely said-Pho Huc wrote Yesterday at 9:21pm: If you want a paper proving any of the statements I have made, please highlight it and I shall provide ASAP. . No promise. So just provide some DATA that actually supports your position. Which I have asked for.

Im still happy to.
Just quote my post and highlight any of the assertions I made and I will provide evidence.

I don't know why you didn't just highlight them like I asked you too, but its was a fairly complex message I suppose.

That probably would have been too easy to understand, and obviously clarity of discourse is hardly your main objective when running a campaign of obfuscation.

Quote:

For this reason, "it's just a natural cycle" is a bit of a cop-out argument. The Earth doesn't warm up because it feels like it. It warms up because something forces it to.

That is a very important point.
Past natural climate changes have all been due to natural forcings such as, changes in the earths orbit, changes in the sun's output, continental drift, changes in the atmosphere etc

The warming since the start of the industrial revolution can not be accounted for by any natural forcings. Instead it is 7 billion people emitting CO2 into the atmosphere   

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 24^th, 2016 at 10:42am:

The warming since the start of the industrial revolution can not be accounted for by any natural forcings. Instead it is 7 billion people emitting CO2 into the atmosphere

Yes. A burgeoning population through respiration will increase CO2.

1.2 billion in 1850, currently 7.4 billion - 600% increase.

And you lecture me on mathematical conflation!   ::)

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 24^th, 2016 at 7:10pm:

And you lecture me on mathematical conflation!   ::)

Yep because you can't add. ;)

But let us know what you don't understand.

lee wrote on Dec 24^th, 2016 at 3:03pm:

Yes. A burgeoning population through respiration will increase CO2. 1.2 billion in 1850, currently 7.4 billion - 600% increase.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
That is priceless.
Lee is so desperate to protect the fossil fuel industry that he is trying to blame global warming on human respiration.
Clearly he is choosing to be ignorant of the carbon cycle


Quote:

But, in reality, the CO2 we’re breathing out is part of a natural cycle, by which our bodies convert carbohydrates from CO2-absorbing plants into energy, plus water and CO2. As such, we’re not adding any extra CO2. In contrast, burning fossil fuels like coal releases CO2 which has been locked up for millions of years, producing a net contribution to global warming. http://www.sciencefocus.com/qa/how-much-does-human-breathing-contribute-climate-change

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 25^th, 2016 at 9:56am:

But, in reality, the CO2 we’re breathing out is part of a natural cycle, by which our bodies convert carbohydrates from CO2-absorbing plants into energy, plus water and CO2. As such, we’re not adding any extra CO2.

Is it exact? Is there a peer-review study confirming this?

Or is it an urban myth - like salt being bad for you?

lee wrote on Dec 25^th, 2016 at 11:15am:

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 25th, 2016 at 9:56am: But, in reality, the CO2 we’re breathing out is part of a natural cycle, by which our bodies convert carbohydrates from CO2-absorbing plants into energy, plus water and CO2. As such, we’re not adding any extra CO2. Is it exact? Is there a peer-review study confirming this? Or is it an urban myth - like salt being bad for you?

Also noted as another example of you expecting OTHER people to provide peer review literature that supports their assertions.

Still waiting for you to post anything credible that supports your position.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 25^th, 2016 at 6:02pm:

Also noted as another example of you expecting OTHER people to provide peer review literature that supports their assertions.

They are the ones making the claims.


Pho Huc wrote on Dec 25^th, 2016 at 6:02pm:

Still waiting for you to post anything credible that supports your position.

Still don't understand the concept of null hypothesis, I see. ;)

lee wrote on Dec 25^th, 2016 at 6:10pm:

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 25th, 2016 at 6:02pm: Also noted as another example of you expecting OTHER people to provide peer review literature that supports their assertions. They are the ones making the claims.

So you understand that claims without evidence are meaningless?


* Warning, I have a bank of quotes of you making definitive statements(you must have been drunk) and refusing to provide proof so either retract your statement that assertions should be proved or prepare to be shamed.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 25^th, 2016 at 6:31pm:

* Warning, I have a bank of quotes of you making definitive statements(you must have been drunk) and refusing to provide proof so either retract your statement that assertions should be proved or prepare to be shamed.

Feel free.

lee wrote on Dec 25^th, 2016 at 11:15am:

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 25th, 2016 at 9:56am: But, in reality, the CO2 we’re breathing out is part of a natural cycle, by which our bodies convert carbohydrates from CO2-absorbing plants into energy, plus water and CO2. As such, we’re not adding any extra CO2. Is it exact? Is there a peer-review study confirming this?

Notice how when lee realises he has been caught out he resorts to asking rhetorical questions?



lee wrote on Dec 25^th, 2016 at 11:15am:

Or is it an urban myth - like salt being bad for you?

And then tries to deflect by changing the subject....

No lee, the carbon cycle is not an urban myth. But even if you wanted to include human respiration as part of our CO2 emissions it still is insignificant compared to the those emitted by your employers in the fossil fuel industry


Quote:

In one day, the average person breathes out around 500 litres of the greenhouse gas CO2 – which amounts to around 1kg in mass. This doesn’t sound much until you take into account the fact that the world’s population is around 6.8 billion, collectively breathing out around 2500 million tonnes of the stuff each year – which is around 7 per cent of the annual CO2 tonnage churned out by the burning of fossil fuel around the world. http://www.sciencefocus.com/qa/how-much-does-human-breathing-contribute-climate-change

 

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 26^th, 2016 at 11:01am:

Notice how when lee realises he has been caught out he resorts to asking rhetorical questions?

Do you even understand what a rhetorical question is? I wanted an answer. Can you provide it?


The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 26^th, 2016 at 11:01am:

And then tries to deflect by changing the subject....

It is a follow on from the first. Where is the peer reviewed paper for the CO2 already being accounted for?


The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 26^th, 2016 at 11:01am:

But even if you wanted to include human respiration as part of our CO2 emissions it still is insignificant compared to the those emitted by your employers in the fossil fuel industry

So another 7% not from burning fossil fuels. The figure keeps going down.

But that 7% was originally fixed by plants— a cycle, you see? So we don’t count human respiration.

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 26^th, 2016 at 1:07pm:

But that 7% was originally fixed by plants— a cycle, you see? So we don’t count human respiration.

You still haven't cited the peer-reviewed paper that says that the CO2 exhaled by humans was "originally fixed by plants".

So you live exclusively off minerals?

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 26^th, 2016 at 8:31pm:

So you live exclusively off minerals?

nope. I need CO2 an O2.

CO2 and O2 are minerals as is H2O, minerals are not being plants or animals or fungi.

So—you live off pulverised rocks, O2 and CO2?

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 29^th, 2016 at 1:04pm:

CO2 and O2 are minerals as is H2O, minerals are not being plants or animals or fungi. So—you live off pulverised rocks, O2 and CO2?

You really should stop reading and quoting alarmist blog sites like Skeptical science which is run by a cartoonist and fraudster called John Cook.

You really are starting to sound silly.

CO2, O2 are gases and therefore are not minerals.

H20 is a fluid therefore not a mineral.

FAIL...................... ;D

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 29^th, 2016 at 1:04pm:

CO2 and O2 are minerals as is H2O, minerals are not being plants or animals or fungi. So—you live off pulverised rocks, O2 and CO2?

"A mineral, then, must be solid under ordinary conditions of pressure and temperature."

http://www.scienceclarified.com/everyday/Real-Life-Earth-Science-Vol-2/Minerals-How-it-works.html#ixzz4UD43SWeS

lee wrote on Dec 29^th, 2016 at 5:27pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 29th, 2016 at 1:04pm: CO2 and O2 are minerals as is H2O, minerals are not being plants or animals or fungi. So—you live off pulverised rocks, O2 and CO2? "A mineral, then, must be solid under ordinary conditions of pressure and temperature." http://www.scienceclarified.com/everyday/Real-Life-Earth-Science-Vol-2/Minerals-How-it-works.html#ixzz4UD43SWeS

lee can't stop: like a friggin neurotic liberal staffer who can't retire or give up waking at 3am in the morning to buzz around doing sweet f all  :D

"I know: I'll catch up with my daughter and go tell her some shite that might add to the mass castration of all men becoz becoz becoz.... I just can't figure out why i need to spend my life waking up at 3am etc yadda yadda yadda  ::) ::) " (The daughters of said neurotic lib staffer of course gave up listening to mummy at the approximate age of 12 like their mum did to her mum etc yadda yadda yadda.... all fake conservatives of course that pretend they know what class is etc yadda yadda yadda  :) )

Hey, and they all love Christmas and the fake invitations and salutations etc.... yadda yadda-.. you get the picture methinks  ::)

Oil and gas are minerals too.

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 30^th, 2016 at 12:16pm:

Oil and gas are minerals too.

I presume he took that quote out of context to make no sense for some inexplicable reason  :o

( :-? I said what ? )

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 30^th, 2016 at 12:16pm:

Oil and gas are minerals too.

"Minerals are inorganic
They have never been alive and are not made up from plants or animals"

http://www.oum.ox.ac.uk/thezone/minerals/define/

Carbon - from trees and other carboniferous  beings (humans) are by definition organic.

"An organic compound is virtually any chemical compound that contains carbon, although a consensus definition remains elusive and likely arbitrary."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_compound

Only wiki I know, but knock yourself out trying to prove otherwise.

Of course there is a legal definition, so that governments can tax extraction. ;)

Non living material is mineral.

We have mineral, fungi, flora and fauna.

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 30^th, 2016 at 10:13pm:

Non living material is mineral.

Like nylon? ;)

if it has ever lived it is not mineral. It is organic.

"Minerals are solids
They are not liquids (like water), or gases (like the air around you)"

http://www.oum.ox.ac.uk/thezone/minerals/define/

I hope I am not going to fast for you.

If you took speed and were flying a military jet you could not go too fast for me.

Good ole JM. He doesn't lie; he just uses primary school definitions. ;)

So Lees doesn’t live of O2 and powdered rock.

He lives off O2 and plant material, maybe meat that is plant material processed by animals.

Can’t live off minerals—no amino acids!

No peer reviewed paper needed to prove Lee eats plants, just reason, something Lees lacks.

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 31^st, 2016 at 12:16pm:

No peer reviewed paper needed to prove Lee eats plants, just reason, something Lees lacks.

You would know about lack of reason. Don't you eat plants?

Speaking of meat being plant material processed by animals; wouldn't that include methane from cows? Wouldn't that be included in the fabled carbon cycle? Why all the fuss from those opposed to cattle then?

So you accept we eat plants and breathe out CO2?

That is all I was trying to get out of you.

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 31^st, 2016 at 1:18pm:

So you accept we eat plants and breathe out CO2? That is all I was trying to get out of you.

Nope. You have been rabbiting on about gases and fluids being minerals.


Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 30^th, 2016 at 12:16pm:

Oil and gas are minerals too.

Yup, no peer reviewed article needed. Lees eats plants.

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 31^st, 2016 at 5:14pm:

Yup, no peer reviewed article needed. Lees eats plants.

Of course I do. You seem to smoke them.

I smoke feral boar ribs, chicken wings, corned beef etc.

No plants apart from the odd corn cob.