Replies

LOL, You triggered Captain Pedantic to keep responding to your one post multiples of times. Poor guy is desperate for attention.

On purpose, to teach the idiot a lesson he probably won't learn. I haven't seen such obdurate stupidity in all my born days.

Celtic Conservative said, “Carbon dioxide is plant food. “

We'll start with a broad definition of "food". From Webster's Dictionary:

whatever supplies nourishment to organisms One reason (among others) we have multiple definitions in dictionary listings is because words vary in meaning depending upon context. I doubt seriously Celtic Conservative's belief is that carbon dioxide is ALL that is necessary to keep a plant alive, but was instead stating that carbon dioxide is a substance the plant takes in that becomes part of the plant's physical structure, supplies energy, etc., the implication being it should therefore be considered "food' and therefore its production should not be vilified. I don't think he (she) meant any more than that and the post was by no means meant to get technical.

My opinion is different; i.e., that the anthropogenic addition of carbon dioxide has its benefits for plant growth but it also has its drawbacks for the plant kingdom, just like any other change in background conditions. But that's beside the point beyond showing that my comment to you was not in Celtic Conservative's defense.

You said, Nope. Plants use the sun and carbon dioxide to generate their food.

The grammatical and logical implication of this post is that the poster was WRONG in sating that “Carbon dioxide is plant food,“ "food" being a term so broad that one must define a context, which you didn't do in citing its role in photosynthesis which of course has NOTHING to do with the point of the original post. Is carbon dioxide not necessary for plant growth (not including fungi if one wishes to include them in plants)? Of course it is. Does the plant intake carbon dioxide to produce energy and does carbon become part of the plant's physical structure? Yes it does, but other secondary processes are involved after tearing apart the molecule.

The distinction upon which you rely is like saying a cow doesn't eat grass as food because it has to be incubated in the gut by bacteria before becoming food.

So what? Cows eat grass, therefore grass is cow food.

Hence, "Nope" was a contortion of Celtic Conservative's intent in order to disparage, and sound off with supposedly superior knowledge and wisdom. There simply MUST be something else that is plant food, by your "logic" NOT to include carbon dioxide or the products therefrom. So you reached into your deep whiz-dumb and added the sun, as if that was all there was needed in addition to carbon dioxide for plants to generate food (sugars and such), thus contradicting your "Nope." After all, Celtic Conservative was WRONG.

Noting your characteristic abuse of the forum, I added a list (by no means meant to be exhaustive) suggesting there are many more chemical and biological constituents necessary for plant growth, most of which one can buy in bags labeled 'plant food' at any nursery or garden center.

See? Definitions can and do vary by context. So, off you went, completely misconstructing what was said, thinking you finally had me because I've shown you to be an such a twit so many times before, going off to list a raft of truisms having NOTHING to do with what was originally posted.

Worse, you have done NO HOMEWORK to learn with whom you are dealing. You, just like a liberal, presume superior knowledge. Well, I've been doing native plant habitat restoration for 35 years to a world class level. I study plant physiology in response to the advanced control processes I develop. I have to know enough about plant development and physiology to understand when or whether seed will be destroyed and/or if the plant will regenerate subsequent to treatment or removal, whether burning, weeding, or herbicides. I have to know about the biochemical action of herbicides with respect to delivery method or application conditions. I've studied soils and have proposed new hypotheses re aboriginal burning and how charcoal retains otherwise mobile mineral salts in soils once they've been complexed onto organic molecules, particularly retaining atmospheric deposition of molybdenum necessary for the function of diazotrophic bacteria. I've proposed the mechanics of how those soil bacteria adapt genetically in the animal rumen in cases where the symbiotic relationship is strain specific.

Yet even though what Celtic Conservative said had NOTHING to do with plant physiology and a lot more about politics, off you went taking that statement out of context to prove what a stud you are. So go to a hardware store, check out the garden section and there you will find "plant food" with some of the constituents I listed. That was the trap I set for you and you waltzed right in.

Truly pathetic. You PO a lot of people here to no benefit for conservatism. Get a clue.