Well, it seems that other things like Christmas and some sort of influenza took my time more than I anticipated so replying into this thread took a bit more time than I suspected
Carryfast:
But what I meant about baffle us with BS was also a joke taken from the the old saying if you can’t blind em with science baffle em with BS 
Those old sayings are quite tricky
Carryfast:
… I just meant the whole non existent issue of global warming and/or any link to any so called large scale increase in C02 is just a load of BS.If it was all true they would by now have stopped all use and production of fossil fuels and we’d be sitting outside in midwinter here enjoying all the warmth which they keep telling us is here now.But then we would’nt need to be burning any of that gas to keep ourselves warm in that case
Well, I think I already replied to this kind of statement in some previous post, but if so, then I say again that no theory under current understanding of atmospheres physics suggests for that kind of temperature increase your statement says. Like I wrote in earlier post, theories say temperature has risen less than 1 degrees Celsius (more precise, about 0.74C) during the last century. Based on this, your statement looks to me like exaggerating what scientist claim until that exaggerated claim become ridiculous hence ridiculing the original claim despite it didn’t say anything near to what your statement says.
Carryfast:
So you can post as much of that government BS as you like but I’m not a believer.
I’m not posting government BS, I’m posting claims from scientific publications. I’m not sure if you really have understood how huge the difference is between a thing which politician says and thing which you read from peer-reviewed scientific publication. It’s something like comparing cargo carrying ability of unicycle and artic or comparing fairy tales ability to deliver daily news to a respectable newspaper.
Government and other groups can use things said in those publications for their own advantage in a ways which may or may not be appropriate. Still that doesn’t make those publications to be government BS and neither does it make government BS to be true just because it’s based on said publications. That same can be said about that Michael Crichton’s book State of Fear, which someone mentioned earlier. It’s just a fictional book based on some superficially good looking science (I must say that Crichton is very good on that).
Carryfast:
Why don’t we all just agree to disagree…
Maybe it would be best thing to do at least in this particular thread 
Before doing that, there’s still couple things from your previous post I’d like to reply:
Carryfast:
But it’s ironic to see how the climate change believers seem to have an understanding of science but they can’t understand the difference which burning long dead fossilised plant life and living plant life has on photosynthesis bearing in mind that dead fossilised trees can’t turn C02 into oxygen whereas living ones can for every day of their natural lives for hundreds of years.Therefore killing living trees by cutting them down for fuel or material causes far more increase in C02 in the long term than burning dead fossilised ones which unlike the living ones have no photosynthesis ability.It looks to me as though you’ve missed that difference.
I should ask what you mean with “in the long term” before answering this, as there is (at least) two different ways of thinking how one can end up to this phrase. Depending on that you can be either right or wrong and knowing the meaning would help in arguing 
I haven’t missed and I understand very well the difference to photosynthesis when comparing cutting living trees for fuel and extraction of fossilized lifeforms for fuel. Former of these reduces amount of photosynthesis and latter doesn’t affect to photosynthesis. When these fuels are burned, both of these cause CO2 emissions and for atmosphere and plants to doing photosynthesis it doesn’t matter if the source of this CO2 is freshly cut or if it’s been dead for millions of years. When deforestation is assumed, burning either of these fuels increases CO2 levels if there isn’t any photosynthesis buffers available to compensate this increase. I assume this no-buffers-situation to keep things simple enough although in reality this quite isn’t the case (majority of these CO2 emission still stay in atmosphere; some numbers for these buffers are easy to found from Wikipedia). With these assumptions cutting down living trees and burning them or burning fossil fuels affect CO2 levels quite the same way except fossils fuels are burned much more than amount of forests decreases therefore creating more CO2 emissions than deforestation. It’s also clear that in reality living plants are the buffer trying to fight off the CO2 increase and hence it’s important to stop deforestation. Apart from the last sentence, I’ve wrote this at least couple times before in this thread, but apparently I’ve failed to express my thoughts.
Btw. cutting wood down for long-living materials is one way to decrease CO2 levels if similar amount of trees are planted as a replacement.
Carryfast:
It’s also difficult to understand how there can be any ‘closed loop’ between human breathing C02 output and photosynthesis and the food which people eat in relation to the C02 which they breath out. … Metabolic respiratory CO2 output has more to do with muscle action than food intake.
First I’d like to address the last of quoted sentences by saying that in this kind of calculations averages must be used and it causes some error, but the error is often negligible. Second, the closed loop is easier to see when you think total carbon amount and not only carbon dioxide. Check Figure 1 and it’s captions from this document and you see quite the same closed loop and explanation why CO2 output by human breath doesn’t affect atmospheres CO2 levels.
