On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 00:40:15 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

On 7/26/2010 7:10 PM, Don Foreman wrote:


Don, I am curious--do you win many converts with the line of argument
you are using?

Converts?

It is my assumption that you have a viewpoint that you wish others to
accept rather than that you are arguing just for the sake of argument.
Correct me if I am in error on this point.

I'd like for others to understand that the rate of increase in
atmospheric CO2 is proportional to the rate of release by all
processes minus the rate of removal by all processes. I don't see why
that's so hard for some to understand.

So why are you arguing at length with people who essentially hold that
viewpoint but express it in different terms?

Doesn't look to me like they understand or accept that description of
the processes. To wit:

----

I didn't speculate about that at all. To which CO2 do you refer: that
which was added by burning fossil fuel, or that which you insist
wasn't added because it came from respiration? I didn't and don't
differentiate.

Then you have muddled the issue until it's no longer comprehensible,
because
the the CO2 that comes from respiration is 100% from short-term
sequestration, and the CO2 that comes from burning fossil fuels is
100% from
multi-million-year sequestration. So you can distinguish the two, as
you
well know, and would focus on, if you didn't have too much time on
your
hands and weren't engaging in obfuscatory pedantry. d8-) at all.
----


It's not a religious issue with me, I just think we have a better
chance of solving problems if we understand the underlying processes.

The important thing is that we agree that release of CO2 by combustion
of fossil fuels is bound to increase atmospheric CO2 unless somehow
mitigated.

So why are you arguing with people who hold that viewpoint?

I haven't argued against that view. I've made that quite clear
several times.