In article ,
songbird wrote:
Gunner wrote:
...
Oh here ya go on that Biochar thingie for you and your little eco group
here. You boys can surely twist this one as you like. Your good at pseudo
science.
"Ad hominem" is Gunny's middle name. Is English your second language?
YOU'RE not very good at it. What is this pseudo science of which you
speak, or do you even know?
Your fascination with "escape from nature" hydroponics seems to have
blinded you to the eco-system in which your organism lives, just as
surely as your lack of attention must be responsible for your not
recognizing that songbird is of the feminine persuasion.
http://www.re-char.com/2011/07/19/se...on-biochar-aga
in/
reads like a lightweight blog post but it
fairly reflects what i've seen elsewhere.
You are far too generous, songbird, to refer to this blog as lightweight.
Obviously Gunny isn't literate, or he would have noticed that the
article claims bio-char is good. The only real question posed in it is
how good.
Then the article wanders-off looking for a straw man to bash, and comes
up with the red herring of the "emission-free" biomass stove, which
should appeal to Gunny, because it is a no-brainer. What isn't addressed
is the fact that whatever emissions a biomass stove makes is small in
comparison to the amount of carbon sequestered in the char. That the
char from a millennia ago can still be found in the Amazon region (where
decomposition rates for organic materials is very high) seems to have
completely escaped Gunny's fallible powers of observation in his
egregiously weak, partisan attack on "organic" farming/gardening (which
is the motivating force behind most of his posts).
Lastly, the article that Gunny presents rails against the exploitation
of "cap and trade" in carbon credits. Beyond this exploitation is the
question of why these CO2 pollution credits are given freely, instead of
being sold, to polluters. That money could be used for off-sets, instead
of just lining polluters pockets.
frauds and scammers galore, the buyer should
always educate themself.
Hopefully, the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau established by
Elizabeth Warren will help (until corporations co-opt it), but the first
line of defense always needs to be self-defense. Caveat emptor.
songbird
--
- Billy
Both the House and Senate budget plan would cut Social Security and Medicare, while cutting taxes on the wealthy.
Kucinich noted that none of the government programs targeted for
elimination or severe cutback in House Republican spending plans
"appeared on the GAO's list of government programs at high risk of
waste, fraud and abuse."
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/state...is-kucinich/re
p-dennis-kucinich-says-gop-budget-cuts-dont-targ/
[W]e have the situation with the deficit and the debt and spending and jobs. And itıs not that difficult to get out of it. The first thing you do is you get rid of corporate welfare. Thatıs hundreds of billions of dollars a year. The second is you tax corporations so that they donıt get away with no taxation.
- Ralph Nader
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/19/ralph_naders_solution_to_debt_crisis