Originally Posted by
tmac100
Awww, folks. Can't we co-exist in a less pedantic BF way?
We all have belly-buttons and, we all have opinions. But being less pedantic would be nice IMHO.
Indeed. And wouldn't it be great if "someone" a couple of thousand miles away could refrain from trying to tell another person the belly button they are looking at isn't actually the belly button they are looking at. Or that they could be intellectually honest enough to actually read posts before responding rhetorically.
Stuart tries to say there is no need to "shame" or "make people feel bad" about using a stove. All things I have repeatedly said myself. But by saying that he is
not so cleverly trying an
ad hominem attack because his
appeal to authority strategy is so stridently blatant.
It's the same when he wants to sound like the expert on Al by first suggesting everyone buys steel thinking it can be repaired by the village smitty. Just a negative premise to launch rhetoric from. Argument fallacies 101.
To test the veracity one needs only think a little bit.
If one kind of carbon is "good" and the other is "bad" in should stand to reason that burning a rainforest would be ok but a lump of coal harmful. Of course no one thinks that as the atmosphere does not discriminate as to the source of CO2, just the volume. Fossil fuel is currently the focus because it creates the most volume. If everything ran on wood fuel there would be the same problem.
Nor does the earth discriminate as to which CO2 gas source it sequesters - fossil or wood - it is all the same and gets stored equally. To imagine you can burn wood and consider it carbon neutral because wood sequesters CO2 is a premise based on a basic misunderstanding of science.
Companies plant biomass simply because it is one way to sequester CO2 and by doing so they can balance their output and create a smaller carbon footprint. If they do enough they become carbon neutral. You don't need to use big words to understand that simple concept.