Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems

Im a BM wrote:
If the only approach employed by humans to address climate change is the reduction of fossil fuel combustion, it is doomed to fail.

Im a BM wrote:
First, it will fail because it will never happen. Short of a humanity extinction event, there is no realistic way to get everyone to stop using the stuff.

Im a BM wrote:
Second, it will fail because even if it happens, it won't be enough.

There are too many other new sources of greenhouse gas entering the atmosphere.

Im a BM wrote:
Climate change itself is causing the Earth to increase its natural emissions of carbon dioxide and methane. The warming of the tundra. The increased frequency and severity of wildfires. The loss of soil carbon to the atmosphere as ecosystems dry out. The decreased capacity of coral reefs to act as a carbon "sink".

Im a BM wrote:
Human activity other than fossil fuel combustion results in carbon dioxide emissions that rival those from fossil fuel. Poor land management provoking loss of soil organic matter to be released as carbon dioxide. Drainage of wetlands for agriculture, exposing the enormous reservoir of organic carbon to oxidation and emission of carbon dioxide. The list goes on of all the things we do beyond fossil fuel to cause more greenhouse gases to warm the planet.

Im a BM wrote:
So, the only real hope is to somehow significantly increase the amount of carbon dioxide that gets sequestered from the atmosphere.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
If the only approach employed by humans to address climate change is the reduction of fossil fuel combustion, it is doomed to fail.

Climate cannot change. Fossils aren't used as fuel.

Im a BM wrote:
First, it will fail because it will never happen. Short of a humanity extinction event, there is no realistic way to get everyone to stop using the stuff.

Fossils aren't used as fuel.

Im a BM wrote:
Second, it will fail because even if it happens, it won't be enough.

There are too many other new sources of greenhouse gas entering the atmosphere.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

Im a BM wrote:
Climate change itself is causing the Earth to increase its natural emissions of carbon dioxide and methane. The warming of the tundra. The increased frequency and severity of wildfires. The loss of soil carbon to the atmosphere as ecosystems dry out. The decreased capacity of coral reefs to act as a carbon "sink".

Climate cannot change. The tundra warms every summer. Arson is the cause of increased wildfires in the SDTC. The SDTC has no tundra. Carbon is not water. Carbon is not a sink.

Im a BM wrote:
Human activity other than fossil fuel combustion results in carbon dioxide emissions that rival those from fossil fuel. Poor land management provoking loss of soil organic matter to be released as carbon dioxide. Drainage of wetlands for agriculture, exposing the enormous reservoir of organic carbon to oxidation and emission of carbon dioxide. The list goes on of all the things we do beyond fossil fuel to cause more greenhouse gases to warm the planet.

Fossils aren't used as fuel. Carbon dioxide is not organic. Carbon is not organic. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Im a BM wrote:
So, the only real hope is to somehow significantly increase the amount of carbon dioxide that gets sequestered from the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide is not a problem. It is an absolutely essential naturally occurring gas.

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted spam...
It is highly gratifying to see this finally reach the point where the application to address climate change is being so explicitly identified in the title of a new paper.

The most relevant posts of this thread are all compiled, beginning about 1/3 way down page 22

Im a BM wrote:
If the only approach employed by humans to address climate change is the reduction of fossil fuel combustion, it is doomed to fail.
...deleted remaining spam...

sealover wrote:
Full Focus on Fossil Fuel Fails

sealover wrote:
If the only approach employed by humans to address climate change is the reduction of fossil fuel combustion, it is doomed to fail.

sealover wrote:
First, it will fail because it will never happen. Short of a humanity extinction event, there is no realistic way to get everyone to stop using the stuff.

sealover wrote:
Second, it will fail because even if it happens, it won't be enough.

There are too many other new sources of greenhouse gas entering the atmosphere.

sealover wrote:
Climate change itself is causing the Earth to increase its natural emissions of carbon dioxide and methane.

sealover wrote:
The warming of the tundra.

sealover wrote:
The increased frequency and severity of wildfires.

sealover wrote:
The loss of soil carbon to the atmosphere as ecosystems dry out.

sealover wrote:
The decreased capacity of coral reefs to act as a carbon "sink".

sealover wrote:
Human activity other than fossil fuel combustion results in carbon dioxide emissions that rival those from fossil fuel.

sealover wrote:
Poor land management provoking loss of soil organic matter to be released as carbon dioxide.

sealover wrote:
Drainage of wetlands for agriculture, exposing the enormous reservoir of organic carbon to oxidation and emission of carbon dioxide.

sealover wrote:
The list goes on of all the things we do beyond fossil fuel to cause more greenhouse gases to warm the planet.

sealover wrote:
So, the only real hope is to somehow significantly increase the amount of carbon dioxide that gets sequestered from the atmosphere.

sealover wrote:
...deleted spam...

sealover wrote:
A few of the newest thread-topic-relevant relevant papers to cite sealover...

June 20, 2025 C Buchmann et al. 2025. From winery by-product to soil improver? - A comprehensive review of grape pomice in agriculture and its effects on soil properties and functions. Science of the Total Environment volume 982 (June 20, 2025)


This new paper by Buchmann cites my 1995 paper in the journal Plant and Soil, "Intraspecific variation of conifer phenolic concentration on a marine terrace soil acidity gradient: a new interpretation". Among other things, it discusses how plant polyphenols regulate carbon and nitrogen cycling.



June 12, 2025 RR Waghmare and K Velmourougane. 2025. Wild and cultivated cotton species: comparative studies on plant biochemistry, soil biology, and soil nutrient status. Crop and Pasture June 12 2025

This new paper by Waghmare cites my 1998 paper in Biogeochemistry
"Polyphenols as regulators of plant-litter-soil interactions: examples from northern California's pygmy forest".


April 24, 2025 J Wu et al. 2025 Nitrogen addition shifts fine root nutrient acquisition differently in ectomycorrhizal and arbuscular mycorrhizal plantations: a case study of Pinus massonia and Cunninghamia lanceolata. Plant and Soil April 24, 2025

This new paper by Wu cites my 1995 paper in Nature "Polyphenol control of nitrogen release from pine litter" Of particular interest is how different kinds of mycorrhizal fungi acquire nitrogen from protein-tannin complexes.

Any questions? I'm happy to see that this thread picked up an additional few thousand views since last time I checked. Unlike the deceptive "Online guests" figures displayed, "views" represent actual human beings opening up the thread. And there were 191 "Online guests" just a few minutes ago! LIVELY website!

Spongy Iris wrote:

sealover wrote:
A few of the newest thread-topic-relevant relevant papers to cite sealover...

June 20, 2025 C Buchmann et al. 2025. From winery by-product to soil improver? - A comprehensive review of grape pomice in agriculture and its effects on soil properties and functions. Science of the Total Environment volume 982 (June 20, 2025)


This new paper by Buchmann cites my 1995 paper in the journal Plant and Soil, "Intraspecific variation of conifer phenolic concentration on a marine terrace soil acidity gradient: a new interpretation". Among other things, it discusses how plant polyphenols regulate carbon and nitrogen cycling.



June 12, 2025 RR Waghmare and K Velmourougane. 2025. Wild and cultivated cotton species: comparative studies on plant biochemistry, soil biology, and soil nutrient status. Crop and Pasture June 12 2025

This new paper by Waghmare cites my 1998 paper in Biogeochemistry
"Polyphenols as regulators of plant-litter-soil interactions: examples from northern California's pygmy forest".


April 24, 2025 J Wu et al. 2025 Nitrogen addition shifts fine root nutrient acquisition differently in ectomycorrhizal and arbuscular mycorrhizal plantations: a case study of Pinus massonia and Cunninghamia lanceolata. Plant and Soil April 24, 2025

This new paper by Wu cites my 1995 paper in Nature "Polyphenol control of nitrogen release from pine litter" Of particular interest is how different kinds of mycorrhizal fungi acquire nitrogen from protein-tannin complexes.

Any questions? I'm happy to see that this thread picked up an additional few thousand views since last time I checked. Unlike the deceptive "Online guests" figures displayed, "views" represent actual human beings opening up the thread. And there were 191 "Online guests" just a few minutes ago! LIVELY website!

I like to observe soil changes, have just been doing so casually in the past 3 years at my residence.

I think the soil around perennial plants starts to degrade a lot more, than around annual plants.

The worst example I experimented with was letting a gigantic succulent take root for about 3 years. Those suckers grow pretty fast, the branches spread out wide, then invasive roots grow from the branches and dig into the soil. They also grow lots of pollen sacks every year.

The blueberry tree next to it put out a weak crop this year. Maybe it was being overwhelmed by succulent pollen, so I figured it was time for the succulent to go. I broke off its branches, and have replanted them as hedges much further away from the blueberry plant.

The spot where the old massive succulent was now looks like scorched earth. The soil there must be the most deficient in the yard.

Most of the yard I had grown annual plants, and saved some seeds. So that must have depleted the nutrients too. This season I think I'm just gonna spread some ash and nitrogen based fertilizer to try to replenish what I took. It seems like the ant population in the annual part of my yard has taken quite a hit, and I wonder if the clover mite population has expanded.

sealover wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

sealover wrote:
A few of the newest thread-topic-relevant relevant papers to cite sealover...

June 20, 2025 C Buchmann et al. 2025. From winery by-product to soil improver? - A comprehensive review of grape pomice in agriculture and its effects on soil properties and functions. Science of the Total Environment volume 982 (June 20, 2025)


This new paper by Buchmann cites my 1995 paper in the journal Plant and Soil, "Intraspecific variation of conifer phenolic concentration on a marine terrace soil acidity gradient: a new interpretation". Among other things, it discusses how plant polyphenols regulate carbon and nitrogen cycling.



June 12, 2025 RR Waghmare and K Velmourougane. 2025. Wild and cultivated cotton species: comparative studies on plant biochemistry, soil biology, and soil nutrient status. Crop and Pasture June 12 2025

This new paper by Waghmare cites my 1998 paper in Biogeochemistry
"Polyphenols as regulators of plant-litter-soil interactions: examples from northern California's pygmy forest".


April 24, 2025 J Wu et al. 2025 Nitrogen addition shifts fine root nutrient acquisition differently in ectomycorrhizal and arbuscular mycorrhizal plantations: a case study of Pinus massonia and Cunninghamia lanceolata. Plant and Soil April 24, 2025

This new paper by Wu cites my 1995 paper in Nature "Polyphenol control of nitrogen release from pine litter" Of particular interest is how different kinds of mycorrhizal fungi acquire nitrogen from protein-tannin complexes.

Any questions? I'm happy to see that this thread picked up an additional few thousand views since last time I checked. Unlike the deceptive "Online guests" figures displayed, "views" represent actual human beings opening up the thread. And there were 191 "Online guests" just a few minutes ago! LIVELY website!

I like to observe soil changes, have just been doing so casually in the past 3 years at my residence.

I think the soil around perennial plants starts to degrade a lot more, than around annual plants.

The worst example I experimented with was letting a gigantic succulent take root for about 3 years. Those suckers grow pretty fast, the branches spread out wide, then invasive roots grow from the branches and dig into the soil. They also grow lots of pollen sacks every year.

The blueberry tree next to it put out a weak crop this year. Maybe it was being overwhelmed by succulent pollen, so I figured it was time for the succulent to go. I broke off its branches, and have replanted them as hedges much further away from the blueberry plant.

The spot where the old massive succulent was now looks like scorched earth. The soil there must be the most deficient in the yard.

Most of the yard I had grown annual plants, and saved some seeds. So that must have depleted the nutrients too. This season I think I'm just gonna spread some ash and nitrogen based fertilizer to try to replenish what I took. It seems like the ant population in the annual part of my yard has taken quite a hit, and I wonder if the clover mite population has expanded.

Spongy Iris, you point out that your perennial plants appear to "degrade" the soil they grow in.

Germans were among the major pioneers of forestry, and they observed that some trees were "soil improvers", while others were "soil degraders".

However, "degrading" or "improving" something is relative to the previous condition.

A "soil degrader" type tree, according to the old school German foresters, was one that produced "mor" type humus. Its leaf litter decomposed very slowly and accumulated above the mineral soil surface in varying states of decomposition as a layer of "mor" type humus.

In contrast, as per German forestry thinking, a "soil improver" tree produced leaf litter that rapidly decomposed, getting incorporated into the mineral soil through the action of burrowing detritivores such as earthworms.

The biggest difference between the "degraders" and the "improvers" was the polyphenol (tannin) content of their foliage. There was also a difference between whether they concentrated roots at the surface or went deep, and whether they retained foliage year after year or constantly dumped and replaced their leaves.

And there were even switch hitters. Beech trees growing on calcareous soils behaved as soil "improvers". They produced low concentrations of tannins, and their leaf litter degraded easily into mull type humus. But when growing on acidic, silica-rich soils, those same beech trees turned into soil "degraders". They produced high concentrations of polyphenols and formed a mor type humus litter layer on the soil surface.

Before Darwin's ideas of natural selection and evolution came along... A plant that goes around "degrading" all the soil poisons the well for everyone, including its own offspring. No, you have to account for what the soil was BEFORE the tree got there.

A soil "degrading" tree such as a typical pine could be planted on a highly fertile soil, in which case you could say that the pine "degrades" it. Fast growing plants that depend on high concentrations of mineral nutrients in soil solution get screwed up by what the pines do to the soil. The nitrogen, for example, gets tied up in recalcitrant forms that are difficult to release.

A pine would not be naturally competitive on a fertile soil. In a free and fair competition, pines would always get shaded out by faster growing plants and would never get to "degrade" their soil. On the other hand, where the pines are king, those faster growing plants would have never had a chance anyway. The soil was inherently too infertile, with or without the pines there "degrading" it.

SOOO... your back yard soil is more fertile than some perennials are adapted to. They don't need it to be so fertile, and it will be less fertile after they change it. They couldn't even compete there if you weren't keeping the faster growing weeds from shading them out.

On the other hand, if your back yard used to be a natural pine forest, don't waste your time planting soil "improvers" to try to make the soil better. They can't do it that way. There isn't enough calcium, for example, for a soil "improver" tree to grow in the first place. That's why it used to be a pine forest.

Farmers identified "soil sickness" occurring thousands of years ago, if they planted the same crop too many times in a row. Crop rotation of one form or another was discovered long ago to avoid this.

Perhaps my unique contribution in this was to show how being a soil "degrader" is what enabled plants to survive on highly leached, acidic soils. The convergent evolution of tannin rich plant communities occurred on these soils throughout the world. They actually have the impact of being soil "improvers" when they start with a soil that is already too "degraded" to support ANY plant community.

sealover wrote:
July 3, 2025 News story from University of Leeds research paper

"When rainforests died, the planet caught fire: New clues from Earth's greatest Extinction" (article from ScienceDaily, similar article in USA Today)

According to some new theories, the mass extinction 252 million years ago was initially triggered by Siberian vulcanism, but went on to wipe out life on a much larger scale because rainforests were lost as a "sink" for atmospheric carbon dioxide.

The point is that the live ecosystem still has a lot of influence over the composition of the atmosphere. As we continue to directly cut down rainforests with our tools, we also fell them on a large scale with the climate change we have induced. Now prone to devastating wildfires due to drought, "rainforests" aren't what they used to be. Just one wildfire in the Amazon a few years back emitted more CO2 to the atmosphere than all of Europe's vehicles that year.

This new article and research is about the historic role of rainforests as carbon "sinks" to keep atmospheric concentrations of CO2 low enough to prevent over heating the planet. Among other things, the research suggests that the rapid rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide went on to kill most marine life 252 million years ago. Death by acidification - not the sulfuric acid from the initial Siberian vulcanism that triggered the change, but rather the carbonic acid from all that extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, due to the rainforest getting killed off.

I think it was fifteen years ago when I first read about the quantities of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere from the disturbed peatlands of Southeast Asia. An undisturbed peatland is a "sink" for carbon dioxide, taking it out of the atmosphere and accumulating organic carbon in the waterlogged soil. Drained for agriculture, a peatland becomes a huge SOURCE of carbon dioxide being added to the atmosphere. Some estimates fifteen years ago suggested that CO2 emissions from the Southeast Asian peatlands being drained for agriculture ALREADY exceeded CO2 emissions from all human use of fossil fuel.

The point is that our fossil fuel emissions are becoming a minority part of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The quantity of CO2 emitted directly from burning fuel is now exceeded by the quantity of CO2 emitted due to OTHER human activities, such as deforestation and drainage of wetlands for agriculture.

Climate change itself, due primarily to increased CO2, brings about increased CO2 emission as soil organic matter decomposes more rapidly, tundra thaws, wildfires occur more frequently, forests dry out and die, and deserts expand.


Full Focus on Fossil Fuel Fails

If the only approach employed by humans to address climate change is the reduction of fossil fuel combustion, it is doomed to fail.

First, it will fail because it will never happen. Short of a humanity extinction event, there is no realistic way to get everyone to stop using the stuff.

Second, it will fail because even if it happens, it won't be enough.

There are too many other new sources of greenhouse gas entering the atmosphere. Climate change itself is causing the Earth to increase its natural emissions of carbon dioxide and methane. The warming of the tundra. The increased frequency and severity of wildfires. The loss of soil carbon to the atmosphere as ecosystems dry out. The decreased capacity of coral reefs to act as a carbon "sink".

Human activity other than fossil fuel combustion results in carbon dioxide emissions that rival those from fossil fuel. Poor land management provoking loss of soil organic matter to be released as carbon dioxide. Drainage of wetlands for agriculture, exposing the enormous reservoir of organic carbon to oxidation and emission of carbon dioxide. The list goes on of all the things we do beyond fossil fuel to cause more greenhouse gases to warm the planet.

So, the only real hope is to somehow significantly increase the amount of carbon dioxide that gets sequestered from the atmosphere.

Some are inventing technological devices to try to do this. Others are attempting to enable natural ecosystems to sequester more carbon dioxide.

In theory, if we provided enough bioavailable iron to the sea, it would act as fertilizer for a whole lot more marine photosynthesis to sequester CO2.

Natural ecosystems are often very good at sequestering carbon dioxide.

Allowing those natural ecosystems to remain intact, or even restoring them where we have already caused damage, could help a lot to offset the carbon dioxide contribution of fossil fuel combustion.

This thread is about how natural ecosystems use polyphenols to regulate the carbon cycle and maximize sequestration of atmospheric carbon dioxide into stable soil organic matter with a very long residence time.

Peasant agricultural science discovered thousands of years ago how to mimic the nutrient cycling dynamics of natural ecosystems in our food production.

Biogeochemists are rediscovering these ancient agroforestry land management practices as a model for deliberate preservation and enhancement of soil organic carbon.


February 23, 2025 - New paper citing @sealover came out 5 days ago:

Lili Dong et al. 2025. Time-varying associations between absorptive fine roots and leaf litter decomposition across 23 plant species. Soil Biology and Biochemistry Volume 204 109751

gets into how accumulated recalcitrant compounds influence decomposition process. Highly relevant for carbon sequestration in GRASSLANDS, as they compared leaf litter and fine root litter decomposition in 23 different grass species.

---------------------------------------

February 9, 2025 - New paper citing @sealover came out a few days ago:

Bhupinder Singh Jatana. 2025. Short term mineralization dynamics of meat and bone meal as impacted by different natural amendments. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, (published online February 2, 2025)


The basic idea is to add tannin-rich (i.e. polyphenol-rich) vegetable matter to "hot" compost materials such as meat and bone meal. The tannins slow the decomposition to minimize loss of nitrogen, etc, from the material, transforming it into "cool" compost - slow release fertilizer.

The role of polyphenols as regulators of nitrogen cycling certainly has implications for evolutionary biology. But it has gotten far more attention from agronomists and foresters for its practical applications.

--------------------------------

February 6, 2025 - new paper came out eight days ago citing sealover.

Zhenglin Zhang et al. 2025. Introduction of a Fallow Year to Continuous Rice Systems Enhances Crop Soil Nitrogen Uptake. European Journal of Soil Science, 2025: 76e70046

It makes me happy to see that the knowledge acquired in my published scientific research is being applied to enhance soil nitrogen crop uptake in rice.

Not that I discovered "fallowing", just the role of polyphenols in nitrogen cycling.


January 25, 2025 New one cites "sealover" 1995 pub in NATURE

Plants as our teachers: Long-term Responses of Dwarf Shrub and Bryophyte Communities to Nutrient Addition in a Northern Swedish Island System.

By Agnes Blomgren, this is actually a master's thesis just published at Umea University, Sweden.

Like the pygmy forest where I did polyphenol research, dwarf shrubs and bryophytes grow on these Swedish Islands in places where the soil is virtually devoid of nutrients to support plant growth.

Not a ground breaking new paper directly relevant to climate change, but it is fun to know that master's degree students are still reading my work and citing it as the basis for something in their own research.
----

January 8, 2025 Two new thread-related papers citing "sealover"

came out 5 days ago: M. Ishfaq et al. 2025. Nitrogen phosphorus trade-offs in mangroves. Plant and Soil complete citation to follow.

"sealover" just loves to see his name on a paper about those mangroves.
It includes a BEAUTIFUL graphic cross section of the ecosystem and fluxes of carbon, nitrogen, etc.

also came out 5 days ago: P. Yang et al. 2025. Heating-Induced Redox Property Dynamics of Peat Soil Dissolved Organic Matter in a Simulated Peat Fire: Electron Exchange Capacity and Molecular Characteristics. Biogeochemical Cycling complete citation to follow

Love the title of that journal - Biogeochemical Cycling. And it is about PEAT in coastal wetlands. sealover is happy to see his name attached... take THAT you meanie troll bullies! SOMEBODY thinks i'm a for real science guy.

Check out the first sentences of the abstract:

"Peatlands store one-third of the world's soil organic carbon. Globally increased fires altered peat soil organic matter chemistry.."

Because climate change has dramatically increased the frequency and severity of PEAT FIRES. Did they say "organic carbon"? It figures, since the journal is called "Biogeochemical Cycling", something that doesn't even exist.

It's hard enough to keep the peat waterlogged enough that it doesn't just decompose and disappear as land surface elevation sinks. It also gets torched more than ever before, and it puts a lot of toxic partially burned organic matter into soluble state to contaminate water supplies.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This new paper came out 24 days ago (November, 2024).

It actually cites my FIRST paper published about polyphenols. "Intraspecific variation of conifer phenolic concentration on a marine terrace soil acidity gradient...", published in Plant and Soil, volume 171, pages 255-262, in 1995.

This newest paper, just out a few weeks ago, is:

M. Gabriela Mattera, et al. 2024. Intraspecific variation in leaf (poly)phenolic content of a southern hemisphere beech (Nothofagus antarctica) growing under different environmental conditions. Nature, Scientific Reports (2024) 14:20050.

Investigation of intraspecific variation of polyphenol (aka tannin) content in tree leaves as a response to different environmental conditions is something I kind of pioneered in 1995.

Soil properties are a very important environmental condition influencing how much polyphenol a plant will need to make in order to be competitive.

Beech trees growing on acidic, silica-rich soils produce higher concentrations of polyphenols. Consequently they form decomposition-resistant leaf litter that accumulates above the mineral soil surface. (mor type humus)

Beech trees growing on near-neutral pH, calcareous soils produce lower concentrations of polyphenols. Consequently they form easily-decomposed leaf litter that is rapidly incorporated into the mineral soil. (mull type humus)

The capacity of trees to regulate decomposition and accumulation of soil organic matter through alteration of their polyphenol content is of GREAT SIGNIFICANCE for efforts to mitigate climate change.

One goal of the research in this most recent paper (Mattera et al) was to "..also provide some clues about the performance of N. antarctica under future climate scenarios."

Climate change has harmful feedbacks on plant chemistry. It is hoped that conscious management of plant chemistry could have eventually have beneficial feedbacks on climate change. To maximize carbon sequestration in agroecosystems.

-------------------------------
The global environmental crisis will certainly get worse before it gets better.

If it ever does get better.

I am grateful to have lived long enough to see the new scientific paper that came out this April (2024), cited below.

I am grateful that the knowledge I helped to discover about carbon and nitrogen cycling is being applied in the newest research, to help humanity address climate change.

The very first post of this thread gives a broad background on the role of tannins in carbon sequestration and mitigation of nitrous oxide emissions.

This paper was published April 10, 2024

B. Adamczyk. 2024. Tannins and climate change: Are tannins able to stabilize carbon in the soil? Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. Volume 72, Issue 16, pages 8928-8932.


This paper cites my tannin investigations and is highly relevant to the topic of carbon sequestration in agroecosystems.

The author and I are quite familiar with each other's research.

It was 35 years ago when I first became fully immersed in tannin (also known as polyphenol) research as a grad student at UC Berkeley.

At that time, anti herbivore defense was presumed to be the sole adaptive value for plants to make tannins, despite little evidence that they are effective.

Convoluted theories were created to explain why plant communities on highly infertile, acidic soils produced so much more tannin than plants on better soil, as somehow consistent with anti herbivore defense.

At that time, nobody considered how tannin production could benefit the plants that produce them through their impact on carbon and nitrogen cycling.

Tannins slow the decomposition of plant or soil organic matter they come into contact with. Tannins themselves are the substrate from which most soil humic acids are formed, having centuries long mean residence time in soil.

It is highly gratifying to see this finally reach the point where the application to address climate change is being so explicitly identified in the title of a new paper.

The most relevant posts of this thread are all compiled, beginning about 1/3 way down page 22

sealover wrote:
July 3, 2025 News story from University of Leeds research paper

"When rainforests died, the planet caught fire: New clues from Earth's greatest Extinction" (article from ScienceDaily, similar article in USA Today)

According to some new theories, the mass extinction 252 million years ago was initially triggered by Siberian vulcanism, but went on to wipe out life on a much larger scale because rainforests were lost as a "sink" for atmospheric carbon dioxide.

The point is that the live ecosystem still has a lot of influence over the composition of the atmosphere. As we continue to directly cut down rainforests with our tools, we also fell them on a large scale with the climate change we have induced. Now prone to devastating wildfires due to drought, "rainforests" aren't what they used to be. Just one wildfire in the Amazon a few years back emitted more CO2 to the atmosphere than all of Europe's vehicles that year.

This new article and research is about the historic role of rainforests as carbon "sinks" to keep atmospheric concentrations of CO2 low enough to prevent over heating the planet. Among other things, the research suggests that the rapid rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide went on to kill most marine life 252 million years ago. Death by acidification - not the sulfuric acid from the initial Siberian vulcanism that triggered the change, but rather the carbonic acid from all that extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, due to the rainforest getting killed off.

I think it was fifteen years ago when I first read about the quantities of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere from the disturbed peatlands of Southeast Asia. An undisturbed peatland is a "sink" for carbon dioxide, taking it out of the atmosphere and accumulating organic carbon in the waterlogged soil. Drained for agriculture, a peatland becomes a huge SOURCE of carbon dioxide being added to the atmosphere. Some estimates fifteen years ago suggested that CO2 emissions from the Southeast Asian peatlands being drained for agriculture ALREADY exceeded CO2 emissions from all human use of fossil fuel.

The point is that our fossil fuel emissions are becoming a minority part of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The quantity of CO2 emitted directly from burning fuel is now exceeded by the quantity of CO2 emitted due to OTHER human activities, such as deforestation and drainage of wetlands for agriculture.

Climate change itself, due primarily to increased CO2, brings about increased CO2 emission as soil organic matter decomposes more rapidly, tundra thaws, wildfires occur more frequently, forests dry out and die, and deserts expand.


Full Focus on Fossil Fuel Fails

If the only approach employed by humans to address climate change is the reduction of fossil fuel combustion, it is doomed to fail.

First, it will fail because it will never happen. Short of a humanity extinction event, there is no realistic way to get everyone to stop using the stuff.

Second, it will fail because even if it happens, it won't be enough.

There are too many other new sources of greenhouse gas entering the atmosphere. Climate change itself is causing the Earth to increase its natural emissions of carbon dioxide and methane. The warming of the tundra. The increased frequency and severity of wildfires. The loss of soil carbon to the atmosphere as ecosystems dry out. The decreased capacity of coral reefs to act as a carbon "sink".

Human activity other than fossil fuel combustion results in carbon dioxide emissions that rival those from fossil fuel. Poor land management provoking loss of soil organic matter to be released as carbon dioxide. Drainage of wetlands for agriculture, exposing the enormous reservoir of organic carbon to oxidation and emission of carbon dioxide. The list goes on of all the things we do beyond fossil fuel to cause more greenhouse gases to warm the planet.

So, the only real hope is to somehow significantly increase the amount of carbon dioxide that gets sequestered from the atmosphere.

Some are inventing technological devices to try to do this. Others are attempting to enable natural ecosystems to sequester more carbon dioxide.

In theory, if we provided enough bioavailable iron to the sea, it would act as fertilizer for a whole lot more marine photosynthesis to sequester CO2.

Natural ecosystems are often very good at sequestering carbon dioxide.

Allowing those natural ecosystems to remain intact, or even restoring them where we have already caused damage, could help a lot to offset the carbon dioxide contribution of fossil fuel combustion.

This thread is about how natural ecosystems use polyphenols to regulate the carbon cycle and maximize sequestration of atmospheric carbon dioxide into stable soil organic matter with a very long residence time.

Peasant agricultural science discovered thousands of years ago how to mimic the nutrient cycling dynamics of natural ecosystems in our food production.

Biogeochemists are rediscovering these ancient agroforestry land management practices as a model for deliberate preservation and enhancement of soil organic carbon.


February 23, 2025 - New paper citing @sealover came out 5 days ago:

Lili Dong et al. 2025. Time-varying associations between absorptive fine roots and leaf litter decomposition across 23 plant species. Soil Biology and Biochemistry Volume 204 109751

gets into how accumulated recalcitrant compounds influence decomposition process. Highly relevant for carbon sequestration in GRASSLANDS, as they compared leaf litter and fine root litter decomposition in 23 different grass species.

---------------------------------------

February 9, 2025 - New paper citing @sealover came out a few days ago:

Bhupinder Singh Jatana. 2025. Short term mineralization dynamics of meat and bone meal as impacted by different natural amendments. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, (published online February 2, 2025)


The basic idea is to add tannin-rich (i.e. polyphenol-rich) vegetable matter to "hot" compost materials such as meat and bone meal. The tannins slow the decomposition to minimize loss of nitrogen, etc, from the material, transforming it into "cool" compost - slow release fertilizer.

The role of polyphenols as regulators of nitrogen cycling certainly has implications for evolutionary biology. But it has gotten far more attention from agronomists and foresters for its practical applications.

--------------------------------

February 6, 2025 - new paper came out eight days ago citing sealover.

Zhenglin Zhang et al. 2025. Introduction of a Fallow Year to Continuous Rice Systems Enhances Crop Soil Nitrogen Uptake. European Journal of Soil Science, 2025: 76e70046

It makes me happy to see that the knowledge acquired in my published scientific research is being applied to enhance soil nitrogen crop uptake in rice.

Not that I discovered "fallowing", just the role of polyphenols in nitrogen cycling.


January 25, 2025 New one cites "sealover" 1995 pub in NATURE

Plants as our teachers: Long-term Responses of Dwarf Shrub and Bryophyte Communities to Nutrient Addition in a Northern Swedish Island System.

By Agnes Blomgren, this is actually a master's thesis just published at Umea University, Sweden.

Like the pygmy forest where I did polyphenol research, dwarf shrubs and bryophytes grow on these Swedish Islands in places where the soil is virtually devoid of nutrients to support plant growth.

Not a ground breaking new paper directly relevant to climate change, but it is fun to know that master's degree students are still reading my work and citing it as the basis for something in their own research.
----

January 8, 2025 Two new thread-related papers citing "sealover"

came out 5 days ago: M. Ishfaq et al. 2025. Nitrogen phosphorus trade-offs in mangroves. Plant and Soil complete citation to follow.

"sealover" just loves to see his name on a paper about those mangroves.
It includes a BEAUTIFUL graphic cross section of the ecosystem and fluxes of carbon, nitrogen, etc.

also came out 5 days ago: P. Yang et al. 2025. Heating-Induced Redox Property Dynamics of Peat Soil Dissolved Organic Matter in a Simulated Peat Fire: Electron Exchange Capacity and Molecular Characteristics. Biogeochemical Cycling complete citation to follow

Love the title of that journal - Biogeochemical Cycling. And it is about PEAT in coastal wetlands. sealover is happy to see his name attached... take THAT you meanie troll bullies! SOMEBODY thinks i'm a for real science guy.

Check out the first sentences of the abstract:

"Peatlands store one-third of the world's soil organic carbon. Globally increased fires altered peat soil organic matter chemistry.."

Because climate change has dramatically increased the frequency and severity of PEAT FIRES. Did they say "organic carbon"? It figures, since the journal is called "Biogeochemical Cycling", something that doesn't even exist.

It's hard enough to keep the peat waterlogged enough that it doesn't just decompose and disappear as land surface elevation sinks. It also gets torched more than ever before, and it puts a lot of toxic partially burned organic matter into soluble state to contaminate water supplies.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This new paper came out 24 days ago (November, 2024).

It actually cites my FIRST paper published about polyphenols. "Intraspecific variation of conifer phenolic concentration on a marine terrace soil acidity gradient...", published in Plant and Soil, volume 171, pages 255-262, in 1995.

This newest paper, just out a few weeks ago, is:

M. Gabriela Mattera, et al. 2024. Intraspecific variation in leaf (poly)phenolic content of a southern hemisphere beech (Nothofagus antarctica) growing under different environmental conditions. Nature, Scientific Reports (2024) 14:20050.

Investigation of intraspecific variation of polyphenol (aka tannin) content in tree leaves as a response to different environmental conditions is something I kind of pioneered in 1995.

Soil properties are a very important environmental condition influencing how much polyphenol a plant will need to make in order to be competitive.

Beech trees growing on acidic, silica-rich soils produce higher concentrations of polyphenols. Consequently they form decomposition-resistant leaf litter that accumulates above the mineral soil surface. (mor type humus)

Beech trees growing on near-neutral pH, calcareous soils produce lower concentrations of polyphenols. Consequently they form easily-decomposed leaf litter that is rapidly incorporated into the mineral soil. (mull type humus)

The capacity of trees to regulate decomposition and accumulation of soil organic matter through alteration of their polyphenol content is of GREAT SIGNIFICANCE for efforts to mitigate climate change.

One goal of the research in this most recent paper (Mattera et al) was to "..also provide some clues about the performance of N. antarctica under future climate scenarios."

Climate change has harmful feedbacks on plant chemistry. It is hoped that conscious management of plant chemistry could have eventually have beneficial feedbacks on climate change. To maximize carbon sequestration in agroecosystems.

-------------------------------
The global environmental crisis will certainly get worse before it gets better.

If it ever does get better.

I am grateful to have lived long enough to see the new scientific paper that came out this April (2024), cited below.

I am grateful that the knowledge I helped to discover about carbon and nitrogen cycling is being applied in the newest research, to help humanity address climate change.

The very first post of this thread gives a broad background on the role of tannins in carbon sequestration and mitigation of nitrous oxide emissions.

This paper was published April 10, 2024

B. Adamczyk. 2024. Tannins and climate change: Are tannins able to stabilize carbon in the soil? Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. Volume 72, Issue 16, pages 8928-8932.


This paper cites my tannin investigations and is highly relevant to the topic of carbon sequestration in agroecosystems.

The author and I are quite familiar with each other's research.

It was 35 years ago when I first became fully immersed in tannin (also known as polyphenol) research as a grad student at UC Berkeley.

At that time, anti herbivore defense was presumed to be the sole adaptive value for plants to make tannins, despite little evidence that they are effective.

Convoluted theories were created to explain why plant communities on highly infertile, acidic soils produced so much more tannin than plants on better soil, as somehow consistent with anti herbivore defense.

At that time, nobody considered how tannin production could benefit the plants that produce them through their impact on carbon and nitrogen cycling.

Tannins slow the decomposition of plant or soil organic matter they come into contact with. Tannins themselves are the substrate from which most soil humic acids are formed, having centuries long mean residence time in soil.

It is highly gratifying to see this finally reach the point where the application to address climate change is being so explicitly identified in the title of a new paper.

The most relevant posts of this thread are all compiled, beginning about 1/3 way down page 22


Swan: Sorry kid but the theory is wrong because there literally was no Siberia 252 million years ago because Pangea had not even started to break up yet. Too bad the liars at the university of Leeds did not know this, you did not know either, so perhaps go back to school

PS. You may resume choking your chicken as usual

Geologists often refer to present day geographic locations of rock formations to identify the position of an ancient site. There was no "Siberia" 252 million years ago. No Siberian tigers were harmed by the "Siberia" vulcanism referred to. The rocks that prove where it happened are found in what is, for the moment, called "Siberia". Maybe in a few more years they'll call it all "Putinland", and future geologists will refer to the "Putinland" vulcanism of 252 million years ago.

Check it out, Swan! 3300 new "views" of this thread in less than two months. During most of those nearly two months (as of today) this thread was not active and was way down on the list. It was not visible opening the home page.

About 3000 times somebody took the extra step of clicking on "view older threads" in order to be able to open the thread and view it. During two months when the website was mostly "dead", as far as actual posting activity.

I've noticed that when 200 "Guests online" suddenly appear and soon disappear, no additional "views" show up on any active threads.

About fifty times a day, someone opens up this thread to view it.

Who???

Who would want to view a thread about "Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems"?

I'm trusting that somebody, somewhere appreciates my effort.

Even if they don't have a $130 IQ from their genius investment in Apple Stock.

Even if they expose themselves to the FBI by viewing this website!.

Swan wrote:

sealover wrote:

PS. You may resume choking your chicken as usual[/b][/i]

Check it out, Swan! 3300 new "views" of this thread in less than two months. During most of those nearly two months (as of today) this thread was not active and was way down on the list. It was not visible opening the home page.

About 3000 times somebody took the extra step of clicking on "view older threads" in order to be able to open the thread and view it. During two months when the website was mostly "dead", as far as actual posting activity.

I've noticed that when 200 "Guests online" suddenly appear and soon disappear, no additional "views" show up on any active threads.

About fifty times a day, someone opens up this thread to view it.

Who???

Who would want to view a thread about "l my effort.

Even if they don't have a $130 IQ from their genius investment in Apple Stock.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

sealover wrote:

PS. You may resume choking your chicken as usual[/b][/i]

Check it out, Swan! 3300 new "views" of this thread in less than two months. During most of those nearly two months (as of today) this thread was not active and was way down on the list. It was not visible opening the home page.

About 3000 times somebody took the extra step of clicking on "view older threads" in order to be able to open the thread and view it. During two months when the website was mostly "dead", as far as actual posting activity.

I've noticed that when 200 "Guests online" suddenly appear and soon disappear, no additional "views" show up on any active threads.

About fifty times a day, someone opens up this thread to view it.

Who???

Who would want to view a thread about "l my effort.

Even if they don't have a $130 IQ from their genius investment in Apple Stock.

That is pretty impressive, but not as impressive as more than 2.5 billion views of Chicken Song.

https://youtu.be/msSc7Mv0QHY?si=QwT4yLnFuRDlXS4z

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

sealover wrote:

PS. You may resume choking your chicken as usual[/b][/i]

Check it out, Swan! 3300 new "views" of this thread in less than two months. During most of those nearly two months (as of today) this thread was not active and was way down on the list. It was not visible opening the home page.

About 3000 times somebody took the extra step of clicking on "view older threads" in order to be able to open the thread and view it. During two months when the website was mostly "dead", as far as actual posting activity.

I've noticed that when 200 "Guests online" suddenly appear and soon disappear, no additional "views" show up on any active threads.

About fifty times a day, someone opens up this thread to view it.

Who???

Who would want to view a thread about "l my effort.

Even if they don't have a $130 IQ from their genius investment in Apple Stock.

That is pretty impressive, but not as impressive as more than 2.5 billion views of Chicken Song.

https://youtu.be/msSc7Mv0QHY?si=QwT4yLnFuRDlXS4z

Spongy Iris, like myself, you found this website by doing a Google search.

climate-debate.com used to be easy to find with a Google search.

In the past two months, Google wasn't doing this anymore. Or pretty much for the past two years now, Google stopped directing people to this website.

How did the 3300 viewers even find the website to open up the thread?

They weren't just looking for escapist entertainment for a quick laugh.

They were trying to find something.

I did a few Google searches again a few minutes ago.

You can't find this website searching for general climate discussion sites with Google, as you could have done up until about two years ago.

Even the search terms "biogeochemistry and climate-debate.com" or "carbon sequestration and climate-debate.com" with Google won't show this website. I suppose if I had gone through enough pages, it was there. But Google used to show this website on page 1 for searches with the most general climate discussion terms.

Maybe there a whole bunch of still-in-the-closet, biogeochemist wannabes out there.

I'm glad they are able to find my thread.

Whoever they are and however they do it...

I'm guessing they are not the kind of folks who look for chicken dance videos.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

sealover wrote:

PS. You may resume choking your chicken as usual[/b][/i]

Check it out, Swan! 3300 new "views" of this thread in less than two months. During most of those nearly two months (as of today) this thread was not active and was way down on the list. It was not visible opening the home page.

About 3000 times somebody took the extra step of clicking on "view older threads" in order to be able to open the thread and view it. During two months when the website was mostly "dead", as far as actual posting activity.

I've noticed that when 200 "Guests online" suddenly appear and soon disappear, no additional "views" show up on any active threads.

About fifty times a day, someone opens up this thread to view it.

Who???

Who would want to view a thread about "l my effort.

Even if they don't have a $130 IQ from their genius investment in Apple Stock.

That is pretty impressive, but not as impressive as almost 2.6 billion views of Chicken Song.

https://youtu.be/msSc7Mv0QHY?si=QwT4yLnFuRDlXS4z

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

sealover wrote:

PS. You may resume choking your chicken as usual[/b][/i]

Check it out, Swan! 3300 new "views" of this thread in less than two months. During most of those nearly two months (as of today) this thread was not active and was way down on the list. It was not visible opening the home page.

About 3000 times somebody took the extra step of clicking on "view older threads" in order to be able to open the thread and view it. During two months when the website was mostly "dead", as far as actual posting activity.

I've noticed that when 200 "Guests online" suddenly appear and soon disappear, no additional "views" show up on any active threads.

About fifty times a day, someone opens up this thread to view it.

Who???

Who would want to view a thread about "l my effort.

Even if they don't have a $130 IQ from their genius investment in Apple Stock.

That is pretty impressive, but not as impressive as more than 2.5 billion views of Chicken Song.

https://youtu.be/msSc7Mv0QHY?si=QwT4yLnFuRDlXS4z

Spongy Iris, like myself, you found this website by doing a Google search.

climate-debate.com used to be easy to find with a Google search.

In the past two months, Google wasn't doing this anymore. Or pretty much for the past two years now, Google stopped directing people to this website.

How did the 3300 viewers even find the website to open up the thread?

They weren't just looking for escapist entertainment for a quick laugh.

They were trying to find something.

I did a few Google searches again a few minutes ago.

You can't find this website searching for general climate discussion sites with Google, as you could have done up until about two years ago.

Even the search terms "biogeochemistry and climate-debate.com" or "carbon sequestration and climate-debate.com" with Google won't show this website. I suppose if I had gone through enough pages, it was there. But Google used to show this website on page 1 for searches with the most general climate discussion terms.

Maybe there a whole bunch of still-in-the-closet, biogeochemist wannabes out there.

I'm glad they are able to find my thread.

Whoever they are and however they do it...

I'm guessing they are not the kind of folks who look for chicken dance videos.

I have also noticed that climate-debate.com can no longer be found through a Google search, as it could when I first joined in 2019.

Perhaps they are old viewers who have known about this site since a while ago, like us, or perhaps they got referred to the site by someone.

Never the less, when references to choking chickens and getting lots of view are made, that is a perfect invitation for sharing the great music remix masterpiece, Chicken Song.

You may also have noticed the tune is a remix of Old McDonald Had a Farm, and said subject matter is relevant to carbon sequestration if the farm has a lot of plant growth.

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

sealover wrote:

PS. You may resume choking your chicken as usual[/b][/i]

Check it out, Swan! 3300 new "views" of this thread in less than two months. During most of those nearly two months (as of today) this thread was not active and was way down on the list. It was not visible opening the home page.

About 3000 times somebody took the extra step of clicking on "view older threads" in order to be able to open the thread and view it. During two months when the website was mostly "dead", as far as actual posting activity.

I've noticed that when 200 "Guests online" suddenly appear and soon disappear, no additional "views" show up on any active threads.

About fifty times a day, someone opens up this thread to view it.

Who???

Who would want to view a thread about "l my effort.

Even if they don't have a $130 IQ from their genius investment in Apple Stock.

That is pretty impressive, but not as impressive as almost 2.6 billion views of Chicken Song.

https://youtu.be/msSc7Mv0QHY?si=QwT4yLnFuRDlXS4z

5.78 million views for the disco chicken. Sheesh

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

sealover wrote:

PS. You may resume choking your chicken as usual[/b][/i]

Check it out, Swan! 3300 new "views" of this thread in less than two months. During most of those nearly two months (as of today) this thread was not active and was way down on the list. It was not visible opening the home page.

About 3000 times somebody took the extra step of clicking on "view older threads" in order to be able to open the thread and view it. During two months when the website was mostly "dead", as far as actual posting activity.

I've noticed that when 200 "Guests online" suddenly appear and soon disappear, no additional "views" show up on any active threads.

About fifty times a day, someone opens up this thread to view it.

Who???

Who would want to view a thread about "l my effort.

Even if they don't have a $130 IQ from their genius investment in Apple Stock.

That is pretty impressive, but not as impressive as more than 2.5 billion views of Chicken Song.

https://youtu.be/msSc7Mv0QHY?si=QwT4yLnFuRDlXS4z

Spongy Iris, like myself, you found this website by doing a Google search.

climate-debate.com used to be easy to find with a Google search.

In the past two months, Google wasn't doing this anymore. Or pretty much for the past two years now, Google stopped directing people to this website.

How did the 3300 viewers even find the website to open up the thread?

They weren't just looking for escapist entertainment for a quick laugh.

They were trying to find something.

I did a few Google searches again a few minutes ago.

You can't find this website searching for general climate discussion sites with Google, as you could have done up until about two years ago.

Even the search terms "biogeochemistry and climate-debate.com" or "carbon sequestration and climate-debate.com" with Google won't show this website. I suppose if I had gone through enough pages, it was there. But Google used to show this website on page 1 for searches with the most general climate discussion terms.

Maybe there a whole bunch of still-in-the-closet, biogeochemist wannabes out there.

I'm glad they are able to find my thread.

Whoever they are and however they do it...

I'm guessing they are not the kind of folks who look for chicken dance videos.

I have also noticed that climate-debate.com can no longer be found through a Google search, as it could when I first joined in 2019.

Perhaps they are old viewers who have known about this site since a while ago, like us, or perhaps they got referred to the site by someone.

Never the less, when references to choking chickens and getting lots of view are made, that is a perfect invitation for sharing the great music remix masterpiece, Chicken Song.

You may also have noticed the tune is a remix of Old McDonald Had a Farm, and said subject matter is relevant to carbon sequestration if the farm has a lot of plant growth.

Google does not steer suckers to exposed entrapment sites like this one. Why? because exposed sites have no purpose as all the intended entrapeese are aware of the entrappers which negates the entrapment factor.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

sealover wrote:

PS. You may resume choking your chicken as usual[/b][/i]

Check it out, Swan! 3300 new "views" of this thread in less than two months. During most of those nearly two months (as of today) this thread was not active and was way down on the list. It was not visible opening the home page.

About 3000 times somebody took the extra step of clicking on "view older threads" in order to be able to open the thread and view it. During two months when the website was mostly "dead", as far as actual posting activity.

I've noticed that when 200 "Guests online" suddenly appear and soon disappear, no additional "views" show up on any active threads.

About fifty times a day, someone opens up this thread to view it.

Who???

Who would want to view a thread about "l my effort.

Even if they don't have a $130 IQ from their genius investment in Apple Stock.

That is pretty impressive, but not as impressive as more than 2.5 billion views of Chicken Song.

https://youtu.be/msSc7Mv0QHY?si=QwT4yLnFuRDlXS4z

Spongy Iris, like myself, you found this website by doing a Google search.

climate-debate.com used to be easy to find with a Google search.

In the past two months, Google wasn't doing this anymore. Or pretty much for the past two years now, Google stopped directing people to this website.

How did the 3300 viewers even find the website to open up the thread?

They weren't just looking for escapist entertainment for a quick laugh.

They were trying to find something.

I did a few Google searches again a few minutes ago.

You can't find this website searching for general climate discussion sites with Google, as you could have done up until about two years ago.

Even the search terms "biogeochemistry and climate-debate.com" or "carbon sequestration and climate-debate.com" with Google won't show this website. I suppose if I had gone through enough pages, it was there. But Google used to show this website on page 1 for searches with the most general climate discussion terms.

Maybe there a whole bunch of still-in-the-closet, biogeochemist wannabes out there.

I'm glad they are able to find my thread.

Whoever they are and however they do it...

I'm guessing they are not the kind of folks who look for chicken dance videos.

I have also noticed that climate-debate.com can no longer be found through a Google search, as it could when I first joined in 2019.

Perhaps they are old viewers who have known about this site since a while ago, like us, or perhaps they got referred to the site by someone.

Never the less, when references to choking chickens and getting lots of view are made, that is a perfect invitation for sharing the great music remix masterpiece, Chicken Song.

You may also have noticed the tune is a remix of Old McDonald Had a Farm, and said subject matter is relevant to carbon sequestration if the farm has a lot of plant growth.

Google does not steer suckers to exposed entrapment sites like this one. Why? because exposed sites have no purpose as all the intended entrapeese are aware of the entrappers which negates the entrapment factor.

What is climate-debate.com supposed to entrap people into doing? Getting pissed off at annoying comments, then ranting and raving about it?

Well climate-debate.com has provoked me into sharing my positions. Maybe I have been ensnared!

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

sealover wrote:

PS. You may resume choking your chicken as usual[/b][/i]

Check it out, Swan! 3300 new "views" of this thread in less than two months. During most of those nearly two months (as of today) this thread was not active and was way down on the list. It was not visible opening the home page.

About 3000 times somebody took the extra step of clicking on "view older threads" in order to be able to open the thread and view it. During two months when the website was mostly "dead", as far as actual posting activity.

I've noticed that when 200 "Guests online" suddenly appear and soon disappear, no additional "views" show up on any active threads.

About fifty times a day, someone opens up this thread to view it.

Who???

Who would want to view a thread about "l my effort.

Even if they don't have a $130 IQ from their genius investment in Apple Stock.

That is pretty impressive, but not as impressive as more than 2.5 billion views of Chicken Song.

https://youtu.be/msSc7Mv0QHY?si=QwT4yLnFuRDlXS4z

Spongy Iris, like myself, you found this website by doing a Google search.

climate-debate.com used to be easy to find with a Google search.

In the past two months, Google wasn't doing this anymore. Or pretty much for the past two years now, Google stopped directing people to this website.

How did the 3300 viewers even find the website to open up the thread?

They weren't just looking for escapist entertainment for a quick laugh.

They were trying to find something.

I did a few Google searches again a few minutes ago.

You can't find this website searching for general climate discussion sites with Google, as you could have done up until about two years ago.

Even the search terms "biogeochemistry and climate-debate.com" or "carbon sequestration and climate-debate.com" with Google won't show this website. I suppose if I had gone through enough pages, it was there. But Google used to show this website on page 1 for searches with the most general climate discussion terms.

Maybe there a whole bunch of still-in-the-closet, biogeochemist wannabes out there.

I'm glad they are able to find my thread.

Whoever they are and however they do it...

I'm guessing they are not the kind of folks who look for chicken dance videos.

I have also noticed that climate-debate.com can no longer be found through a Google search, as it could when I first joined in 2019.

Perhaps they are old viewers who have known about this site since a while ago, like us, or perhaps they got referred to the site by someone.

Never the less, when references to choking chickens and getting lots of view are made, that is a perfect invitation for sharing the great music remix masterpiece, Chicken Song.

You may also have noticed the tune is a remix of Old McDonald Had a Farm, and said subject matter is relevant to carbon sequestration if the farm has a lot of plant growth.

Google does not steer suckers to exposed entrapment sites like this one. Why? because exposed sites have no purpose as all the intended entrapeese are aware of the entrappers which negates the entrapment factor.

What is climate-debate.com supposed to entrap people into doing? Getting pissed off at annoying comments, then ranting and raving about it?

Well climate-debate.com has provoked me into sharing my positions. Maybe I have been ensnared!

So you actually believe what you see is all what it claims to be. LOL if this were a real climate debate site, it would be getting a post a second and be selling ads for electric cars and solar panels. Thus this place is fake. Get over it, I know and have told everyone else who might be steered here by the selective DOD/NSA/CIA/FBI/QVC Google searches

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

sealover wrote:

PS. You may resume choking your chicken as usual[/b][/i]

Check it out, Swan! 3300 new "views" of this thread in less than two months. During most of those nearly two months (as of today) this thread was not active and was way down on the list. It was not visible opening the home page.

About 3000 times somebody took the extra step of clicking on "view older threads" in order to be able to open the thread and view it. During two months when the website was mostly "dead", as far as actual posting activity.

I've noticed that when 200 "Guests online" suddenly appear and soon disappear, no additional "views" show up on any active threads.

About fifty times a day, someone opens up this thread to view it.

Who???

Who would want to view a thread about "l my effort.

Even if they don't have a $130 IQ from their genius investment in Apple Stock.

That is pretty impressive, but not as impressive as more than 2.5 billion views of Chicken Song.

https://youtu.be/msSc7Mv0QHY?si=QwT4yLnFuRDlXS4z

Spongy Iris, like myself, you found this website by doing a Google search.

climate-debate.com used to be easy to find with a Google search.

In the past two months, Google wasn't doing this anymore. Or pretty much for the past two years now, Google stopped directing people to this website.

How did the 3300 viewers even find the website to open up the thread?

They weren't just looking for escapist entertainment for a quick laugh.

They were trying to find something.

I did a few Google searches again a few minutes ago.

You can't find this website searching for general climate discussion sites with Google, as you could have done up until about two years ago.

Even the search terms "biogeochemistry and climate-debate.com" or "carbon sequestration and climate-debate.com" with Google won't show this website. I suppose if I had gone through enough pages, it was there. But Google used to show this website on page 1 for searches with the most general climate discussion terms.

Maybe there a whole bunch of still-in-the-closet, biogeochemist wannabes out there.

I'm glad they are able to find my thread.

Whoever they are and however they do it...

I'm guessing they are not the kind of folks who look for chicken dance videos.

I have also noticed that climate-debate.com can no longer be found through a Google search, as it could when I first joined in 2019.

Perhaps they are old viewers who have known about this site since a while ago, like us, or perhaps they got referred to the site by someone.

Never the less, when references to choking chickens and getting lots of view are made, that is a perfect invitation for sharing the great music remix masterpiece, Chicken Song.

You may also have noticed the tune is a remix of Old McDonald Had a Farm, and said subject matter is relevant to carbon sequestration if the farm has a lot of plant growth.

Google does not steer suckers to exposed entrapment sites like this one. Why? because exposed sites have no purpose as all the intended entrapeese are aware of the entrappers which negates the entrapment factor.

What is climate-debate.com supposed to entrap people into doing? Getting pissed off at annoying comments, then ranting and raving about it?

Well climate-debate.com has provoked me into sharing my positions. Maybe I have been ensnared!

So you actually believe what you see is all what it claims to be. LOL if this were a real climate debate site, it would be getting a post a second and be selling ads for electric cars and solar panels. Thus this place is fake. Get over it, I know and have told everyone else who might be steered here by the selective DOD/NSA/CIA/FBI/QVC Google searches

I find the engagement amusing.

There is some traffic... perhaps it legacy traffic...

A lot of other discussion boards would ban or drown out comments like mine. I started my own subreddit, but it gets way less traffic than here, and no engagement.

Sometimes I can get a bit of engagement commenting, even occasionally posting, in subreddits such as climate change, semen retention, no fap, gang stalking, and conspiracies. I have never gotten a reply commenting and posting in UFO and paranormal subreddits. I find the engagement here more amusing.

Looks like I finally managed to get Bryan Johnson's attention on X, but I doubt he will take my comments seriously. I will probably consider that mission accomplished and stop bothering him now.

Perhaps I should develop my rock star skills and start putting out more covers.

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

sealover wrote:

PS. You may resume choking your chicken as usual[/b][/i]

Check it out, Swan! 3300 new "views" of this thread in less than two months. During most of those nearly two months (as of today) this thread was not active and was way down on the list. It was not visible opening the home page.

About 3000 times somebody took the extra step of clicking on "view older threads" in order to be able to open the thread and view it. During two months when the website was mostly "dead", as far as actual posting activity.

I've noticed that when 200 "Guests online" suddenly appear and soon disappear, no additional "views" show up on any active threads.

About fifty times a day, someone opens up this thread to view it.

Who???

Who would want to view a thread about "l my effort.

Even if they don't have a $130 IQ from their genius investment in Apple Stock.

That is pretty impressive, but not as impressive as more than 2.5 billion views of Chicken Song.

https://youtu.be/msSc7Mv0QHY?si=QwT4yLnFuRDlXS4z

Spongy Iris, like myself, you found this website by doing a Google search.

climate-debate.com used to be easy to find with a Google search.

In the past two months, Google wasn't doing this anymore. Or pretty much for the past two years now, Google stopped directing people to this website.

How did the 3300 viewers even find the website to open up the thread?

They weren't just looking for escapist entertainment for a quick laugh.

They were trying to find something.

I did a few Google searches again a few minutes ago.

You can't find this website searching for general climate discussion sites with Google, as you could have done up until about two years ago.

Even the search terms "biogeochemistry and climate-debate.com" or "carbon sequestration and climate-debate.com" with Google won't show this website. I suppose if I had gone through enough pages, it was there. But Google used to show this website on page 1 for searches with the most general climate discussion terms.

Maybe there a whole bunch of still-in-the-closet, biogeochemist wannabes out there.

I'm glad they are able to find my thread.

Whoever they are and however they do it...

I'm guessing they are not the kind of folks who look for chicken dance videos.

I have also noticed that climate-debate.com can no longer be found through a Google search, as it could when I first joined in 2019.

Perhaps they are old viewers who have known about this site since a while ago, like us, or perhaps they got referred to the site by someone.

Never the less, when references to choking chickens and getting lots of view are made, that is a perfect invitation for sharing the great music remix masterpiece, Chicken Song.

You may also have noticed the tune is a remix of Old McDonald Had a Farm, and said subject matter is relevant to carbon sequestration if the farm has a lot of plant growth.

Google does not steer suckers to exposed entrapment sites like this one. Why? because exposed sites have no purpose as all the intended entrapeese are aware of the entrappers which negates the entrapment factor.

What is climate-debate.com supposed to entrap people into doing? Getting pissed off at annoying comments, then ranting and raving about it?

Well climate-debate.com has provoked me into sharing my positions. Maybe I have been ensnared!

So you actually believe what you see is all what it claims to be. LOL if this were a real climate debate site, it would be getting a post a second and be selling ads for electric cars and solar panels. Thus this place is fake. Get over it, I know and have told everyone else who might be steered here by the selective DOD/NSA/CIA/FBI/QVC Google searches

I find the engagement amusing.

There is some traffic... perhaps it legacy traffic...

A lot of other discussion boards would ban or drown out comments like mine. I started my own subreddit, but it gets way less traffic than here, and no engagement.

Sometimes I can get a bit of engagement commenting, even occasionally posting, in subreddits such as climate change, semen retention, no fap, gang stalking, and conspiracies. I have never gotten a reply commenting and posting in UFO and paranormal subreddits. I find the engagement here more amusing.

Looks like I finally managed to get Bryan Johnson's attention on X, but I doubt he will take my comments seriously. I will probably consider that mission accomplished and stop bothering him now.

Perhaps I should develop my rock star skills and start putting out more covers.

All social media sites incorporate one or multiple countries secret service data mines. Reddit included, that said reddit apparently exist for IQ less people.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

sealover wrote:

PS. You may resume choking your chicken as usual[/b][/i]

Check it out, Swan! 3300 new "views" of this thread in less than two months. During most of those nearly two months (as of today) this thread was not active and was way down on the list. It was not visible opening the home page.

About 3000 times somebody took the extra step of clicking on "view older threads" in order to be able to open the thread and view it. During two months when the website was mostly "dead", as far as actual posting activity.

I've noticed that when 200 "Guests online" suddenly appear and soon disappear, no additional "views" show up on any active threads.

About fifty times a day, someone opens up this thread to view it.

Who???

Who would want to view a thread about "l my effort.

Even if they don't have a $130 IQ from their genius investment in Apple Stock.

That is pretty impressive, but not as impressive as more than 2.5 billion views of Chicken Song.

https://youtu.be/msSc7Mv0QHY?si=QwT4yLnFuRDlXS4z

Spongy Iris, like myself, you found this website by doing a Google search.

climate-debate.com used to be easy to find with a Google search.

In the past two months, Google wasn't doing this anymore. Or pretty much for the past two years now, Google stopped directing people to this website.

How did the 3300 viewers even find the website to open up the thread?

They weren't just looking for escapist entertainment for a quick laugh.

They were trying to find something.

I did a few Google searches again a few minutes ago.

You can't find this website searching for general climate discussion sites with Google, as you could have done up until about two years ago.

Even the search terms "biogeochemistry and climate-debate.com" or "carbon sequestration and climate-debate.com" with Google won't show this website. I suppose if I had gone through enough pages, it was there. But Google used to show this website on page 1 for searches with the most general climate discussion terms.

Maybe there a whole bunch of still-in-the-closet, biogeochemist wannabes out there.

I'm glad they are able to find my thread.

Whoever they are and however they do it...

I'm guessing they are not the kind of folks who look for chicken dance videos.

I have also noticed that climate-debate.com can no longer be found through a Google search, as it could when I first joined in 2019.

Perhaps they are old viewers who have known about this site since a while ago, like us, or perhaps they got referred to the site by someone.

Never the less, when references to choking chickens and getting lots of view are made, that is a perfect invitation for sharing the great music remix masterpiece, Chicken Song.

You may also have noticed the tune is a remix of Old McDonald Had a Farm, and said subject matter is relevant to carbon sequestration if the farm has a lot of plant growth.

Google does not steer suckers to exposed entrapment sites like this one. Why? because exposed sites have no purpose as all the intended entrapeese are aware of the entrappers which negates the entrapment factor.

What is climate-debate.com supposed to entrap people into doing? Getting pissed off at annoying comments, then ranting and raving about it?

Well climate-debate.com has provoked me into sharing my positions. Maybe I have been ensnared!

So you actually believe what you see is all what it claims to be. LOL if this were a real climate debate site, it would be getting a post a second and be selling ads for electric cars and solar panels. Thus this place is fake. Get over it, I know and have told everyone else who might be steered here by the selective DOD/NSA/CIA/FBI/QVC Google searches

I find the engagement amusing.

There is some traffic... perhaps it legacy traffic...

A lot of other discussion boards would ban or drown out comments like mine. I started my own subreddit, but it gets way less traffic than here, and no engagement.

Sometimes I can get a bit of engagement commenting, even occasionally posting, in subreddits such as climate change, semen retention, no fap, gang stalking, and conspiracies. I have never gotten a reply commenting and posting in UFO and paranormal subreddits. I find the engagement here more amusing.

Looks like I finally managed to get Bryan Johnson's attention on X, but I doubt he will take my comments seriously. I will probably consider that mission accomplished and stop bothering him now.

Perhaps I should develop my rock star skills and start putting out more covers.

All social media sites incorporate one or multiple countries secret service data mines. Reddit included, that said reddit apparently exist for IQ less people.

There is also this website called Deny Ignorance which I visit almost as much as this one.

It might be right up your ULTRA MAGA alley...

It used to be called Above Top Secret, but before ATS got shut down they started DI.

It's basically a conspiracy theory site with a heavy alt right slant.

They are not as loosey goosey about censorship as this site, so it's a better place to practice my politeness than here.

Spongy Iris wrote: It's basically a conspiracy theory site with a heavy alt right slant.

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: It's basically a conspiracy theory site with a heavy alt right slant.

What is an "alt right" slant? This should be good since there is no such thing as an "alt right" in the first place. Then, if you would be so kind, please explain what distinguishes a "heavy" alt-right slant from a medium alt-right slant.

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

sealover wrote:

PS. You may resume choking your chicken as usual[/b][/i]

Check it out, Swan! 3300 new "views" of this thread in less than two months. During most of those nearly two months (as of today) this thread was not active and was way down on the list. It was not visible opening the home page.

About 3000 times somebody took the extra step of clicking on "view older threads" in order to be able to open the thread and view it. During two months when the website was mostly "dead", as far as actual posting activity.

I've noticed that when 200 "Guests online" suddenly appear and soon disappear, no additional "views" show up on any active threads.

About fifty times a day, someone opens up this thread to view it.

Who???

Who would want to view a thread about "l my effort.

Even if they don't have a $130 IQ from their genius investment in Apple Stock.

That is pretty impressive, but not as impressive as more than 2.5 billion views of Chicken Song.

https://youtu.be/msSc7Mv0QHY?si=QwT4yLnFuRDlXS4z

Spongy Iris, like myself, you found this website by doing a Google search.

climate-debate.com used to be easy to find with a Google search.

In the past two months, Google wasn't doing this anymore. Or pretty much for the past two years now, Google stopped directing people to this website.

How did the 3300 viewers even find the website to open up the thread?

They weren't just looking for escapist entertainment for a quick laugh.

They were trying to find something.

I did a few Google searches again a few minutes ago.

You can't find this website searching for general climate discussion sites with Google, as you could have done up until about two years ago.

Even the search terms "biogeochemistry and climate-debate.com" or "carbon sequestration and climate-debate.com" with Google won't show this website. I suppose if I had gone through enough pages, it was there. But Google used to show this website on page 1 for searches with the most general climate discussion terms.

Maybe there a whole bunch of still-in-the-closet, biogeochemist wannabes out there.

I'm glad they are able to find my thread.

Whoever they are and however they do it...

I'm guessing they are not the kind of folks who look for chicken dance videos.

I have also noticed that climate-debate.com can no longer be found through a Google search, as it could when I first joined in 2019.

Perhaps they are old viewers who have known about this site since a while ago, like us, or perhaps they got referred to the site by someone.

Never the less, when references to choking chickens and getting lots of view are made, that is a perfect invitation for sharing the great music remix masterpiece, Chicken Song.

You may also have noticed the tune is a remix of Old McDonald Had a Farm, and said subject matter is relevant to carbon sequestration if the farm has a lot of plant growth.

Google does not steer suckers to exposed entrapment sites like this one. Why? because exposed sites have no purpose as all the intended entrapeese are aware of the entrappers which negates the entrapment factor.

What is climate-debate.com supposed to entrap people into doing? Getting pissed off at annoying comments, then ranting and raving about it?

Well climate-debate.com has provoked me into sharing my positions. Maybe I have been ensnared!

So you actually believe what you see is all what it claims to be. LOL if this were a real climate debate site, it would be getting a post a second and be selling ads for electric cars and solar panels. Thus this place is fake. Get over it, I know and have told everyone else who might be steered here by the selective DOD/NSA/CIA/FBI/QVC Google searches

I find the engagement amusing.

There is some traffic... perhaps it legacy traffic...

A lot of other discussion boards would ban or drown out comments like mine. I started my own subreddit, but it gets way less traffic than here, and no engagement.

Sometimes I can get a bit of engagement commenting, even occasionally posting, in subreddits such as climate change, semen retention, no fap, gang stalking, and conspiracies. I have never gotten a reply commenting and posting in UFO and paranormal subreddits. I find the engagement here more amusing.

Looks like I finally managed to get Bryan Johnson's attention on X, but I doubt he will take my comments seriously. I will probably consider that mission accomplished and stop bothering him now.

Perhaps I should develop my rock star skills and start putting out more covers.

All social media sites incorporate one or multiple countries secret service data mines. Reddit included, that said reddit apparently exist for IQ less people.

There is also this website called Deny Ignorance which I visit almost as much as this one.

It might be right up your ULTRA MAGA alley...

It used to be called Above Top Secret, but before ATS got shut down they started DI.

It's basically a conspiracy theory site with a heavy alt right slant.

They are not as loosey goosey about censorship as this site, so it's a better place to practice my politeness than here.

Everything labeled a conspiracy theory, a CIA term, is real, so the only conspiracy theory that is left, is that there are conspiracy theories, when there are not.

Example, nothing can travel faster than light.
95% of the universe is dark matter and energy.
Chelsea Clinton is biologically related to Bill Clinton.
The JFK files were all released.
Non mentally ill people go to Disney.
John McCain did not blow up the Forrestall aircraft carrier.
The FDA puts limits on tobacco and alcohol that kill 2 million Americans per year to shrink social security payouts.
There are American news anchors that are not part of the CIA media wing.
Joe Biden knew that he was president.

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: It's basically a conspiracy theory site with a heavy alt right slant.

What is an "alt right" slant? This should be good since there is no such thing as an "alt right" in the first place. Then, if you would be so kind, please explain what distinguishes a "heavy" alt-right slant from a medium alt-right slant.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

sealover wrote:

PS. You may resume choking your chicken as usual[/b][/i]

Check it out, Swan! 3300 new "views" of this thread in less than two months. During most of those nearly two months (as of today) this thread was not active and was way down on the list. It was not visible opening the home page.

About 3000 times somebody took the extra step of clicking on "view older threads" in order to be able to open the thread and view it. During two months when the website was mostly "dead", as far as actual posting activity.

I've noticed that when 200 "Guests online" suddenly appear and soon disappear, no additional "views" show up on any active threads.

About fifty times a day, someone opens up this thread to view it.

Who???

Who would want to view a thread about "l my effort.

Even if they don't have a $130 IQ from their genius investment in Apple Stock.

That is pretty impressive, but not as impressive as more than 2.5 billion views of Chicken Song.

https://youtu.be/msSc7Mv0QHY?si=QwT4yLnFuRDlXS4z

Spongy Iris, like myself, you found this website by doing a Google search.

climate-debate.com used to be easy to find with a Google search.

In the past two months, Google wasn't doing this anymore. Or pretty much for the past two years now, Google stopped directing people to this website.

How did the 3300 viewers even find the website to open up the thread?

They weren't just looking for escapist entertainment for a quick laugh.

They were trying to find something.

I did a few Google searches again a few minutes ago.

You can't find this website searching for general climate discussion sites with Google, as you could have done up until about two years ago.

Even the search terms "biogeochemistry and climate-debate.com" or "carbon sequestration and climate-debate.com" with Google won't show this website. I suppose if I had gone through enough pages, it was there. But Google used to show this website on page 1 for searches with the most general climate discussion terms.

Maybe there a whole bunch of still-in-the-closet, biogeochemist wannabes out there.

I'm glad they are able to find my thread.

Whoever they are and however they do it...

I'm guessing they are not the kind of folks who look for chicken dance videos.

I have also noticed that climate-debate.com can no longer be found through a Google search, as it could when I first joined in 2019.

Perhaps they are old viewers who have known about this site since a while ago, like us, or perhaps they got referred to the site by someone.

Never the less, when references to choking chickens and getting lots of view are made, that is a perfect invitation for sharing the great music remix masterpiece, Chicken Song.

You may also have noticed the tune is a remix of Old McDonald Had a Farm, and said subject matter is relevant to carbon sequestration if the farm has a lot of plant growth.

Google does not steer suckers to exposed entrapment sites like this one. Why? because exposed sites have no purpose as all the intended entrapeese are aware of the entrappers which negates the entrapment factor.

What is climate-debate.com supposed to entrap people into doing? Getting pissed off at annoying comments, then ranting and raving about it?

Well climate-debate.com has provoked me into sharing my positions. Maybe I have been ensnared!

So you actually believe what you see is all what it claims to be. LOL if this were a real climate debate site, it would be getting a post a second and be selling ads for electric cars and solar panels. Thus this place is fake. Get over it, I know and have told everyone else who might be steered here by the selective DOD/NSA/CIA/FBI/QVC Google searches

I find the engagement amusing.

There is some traffic... perhaps it legacy traffic...

A lot of other discussion boards would ban or drown out comments like mine. I started my own subreddit, but it gets way less traffic than here, and no engagement.

Sometimes I can get a bit of engagement commenting, even occasionally posting, in subreddits such as climate change, semen retention, no fap, gang stalking, and conspiracies. I have never gotten a reply commenting and posting in UFO and paranormal subreddits. I find the engagement here more amusing.

Looks like I finally managed to get Bryan Johnson's attention on X, but I doubt he will take my comments seriously. I will probably consider that mission accomplished and stop bothering him now.

Perhaps I should develop my rock star skills and start putting out more covers.

All social media sites incorporate one or multiple countries secret service data mines. Reddit included, that said reddit apparently exist for IQ less people.

There is also this website called Deny Ignorance which I visit almost as much as this one.

It might be right up your ULTRA MAGA alley...

It used to be called Above Top Secret, but before ATS got shut down they started DI.

It's basically a conspiracy theory site with a heavy alt right slant.

They are not as loosey goosey about censorship as this site, so it's a better place to practice my politeness than here.

Everything labeled a conspiracy theory, a CIA term, is real, so the only conspiracy theory that is left, is that there are conspiracy theories, when there are not.

Example, nothing can travel faster than light.
95% of the universe is dark matter and energy.
Chelsea Clinton is biologically related to Bill Clinton.
The JFK files were all released.
Non mentally ill people go to Disney.
John McCain did not blow up the Forrestall aircraft carrier.
The FDA puts limits on tobacco and alcohol that kill 2 million Americans per year to shrink social security payouts.
There are American news anchors that are not part of the CIA media wing.
Joe Biden knew that he was president.

I like what you said, something like, the biggest conspiracy is reality.