On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 22:50:10 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


But we weren't doing that. Nor is anyone here qualified to do it. We were
just dealing with the simple question of whether you have to consider
human
respiration when you're looking at the total additions of CO2 to the
atmosphere, versus additions that are the result of burning fossil fuel.
And
the answer is no, you don't.

... while actually refusing to consider "total additions of CO2 to the
atmosphere" but only "the core issue in comparing
human respiration with running engines on fossil fuel".

Don, I'm not "considering" it because it has nothing to do with human
respiration. It *does* have a lot to do with running engines on fossil fuel.

I'm merely illustrating, with quotes, inconsistency in your
statements. Not an attack, just an observation.

But you've been trying to lump the two together, even making a point that
you think it doesn't matter where the CO2 comes from.

I have indeed, in the context of a system-level view. I now understand
that I was thinking beyond the scope in which you'd like to confine
this thread.

This is the second time I've given you that. If you'd like me to shut
up and shoot myself, let's talk about calibers. G