[Terrapreta] Fwd: Pure Organics Vs. Biological Agriculture

[Sean K. Barry]

Hi Brian,

You are using my argument!  You tell me, schmart guy. ... "...why is there ANY CO2 in the ATM...wouldnt plants have sucked it all in by now? Obviously they have not...so why would you jump to the conclusion that CO2 will be completely uptaken by plants? There is a balance between all the limiting factors."

I didn't say plants don't grow with CO2 uptake.  I said this supposed increase in plant growth and supposed concurrent increased uptake of CO2 IS NOT HAPPENING, because there are still rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

What the hell difference does it make?  If the excess CO2 in the atmosphere is all going to be taken up by increased plant growth, then why is there any concern over green house gases, or the global warming effect, or global climate change?  Why don't we just keep pumping the CO2 into the atmosphere, because it is going to benefit us all with increased plant growth?!  Why not?

I say NOT, because it is not happening.  You agree.  If the plants could suck up all the atmospheric CO2, then why is it still there?  Why aren't CO2 concentrations going down?

SKB
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Brian Hans<mailto:bhans at earthmimic.com> 
  To: Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 
  Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 8:44 AM
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Fwd: Pure Organics Vs. Biological Agriculture



  Where I stand on this issue is simple.  If the "hypothesis" is that "the increase in global atmospheric CO2 concentrations will increase uptake of CO2 by plants, as evidenced by measurable increases in plant growth", then two things should be predictable; 1) there is actual evidence of plant growth (the smoke), 

  I have given you the 'evidence'. I have seen the 'evidence' with my own 2 eyes and have done the experiments myself. There is no doubt that increased ATM CO2 increases CO2 fixation and thus increased plant growth.



  2) the measurable concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere should not be rising (the fire). 

  This is where you are making a leap. No body said that CO2 is the ONLY limiting factor in plant growth, obviously its not. Im not sure why you are jumping to this conclusion above. Using the same logic you are using...why is there ANY CO2 in the ATM...wouldnt plants have sucked it all in by now? Obviously they have not...so why would you jump to the conclusion that CO2 will be completely uptaken by plants? There is a balance between all the limiting factors. 

    It only takes one person to show that a "hypothesis" is NOT a good "theory".  If the work cannot face the scrutiny of "The Scientific Method", then it is not valid, no matter how many articles get written about it.
  Have you shown the peer reviewed studies that I offered to be invalid? Or have you invalidated the study that Mike offered? Has anyone? I would like to see the data that shows that CO2 does not have a direct impact on plant productivity. A peer reviews study that showed this would be ground-shaking in nature. 

  Brian Hans


  _______________________________________________
  Terrapreta mailing list
  Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
  http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
  http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
  http://info.bioenergylists.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070920/55f28ae7/attachment.html