Dear Sir,

I do not wish to enter into a polemic on the matter. In the first instance simply because of my limited knowledge of chemistry. So it is not distorted . It simply does not have any pretension .

Perhaps where my points have been insufficiently or inadequately presented, is that whether you use :

1.Iron ores, bauxite, copper, nickel, limestone or whatever other mineral given to man on this earth chemistry, or not chemistry , in the ultimate processes of : aggregating ,drying,pelletizing , smelting, ingots,carburising ( with carbon monoxide or hydrocarbon gases ) or refining you have allowed yourself the luxury of reducing the original mass to some extent directly or indirectly

2.Consider then coal with mostly underground extraction. There the : energy requirement that makes that coal available after maritime transport to other parts of the world with corresponding losses . Admitedly you are right in saying that 1000 kilo of raw coal ( and coking coal which is an important requirement of : steel making ) can be reconstituted to ( possibly ) 1000 kilos of physical weight. That is by you reintroducing the various gaseous transformations. Again assuming that CO2 is by and large the major ones are we not back to the crux of our problem ?

In respect to : coal for use in power production ( or for smelting ) you would have to add ( or deduct ) the not inconsequential losses in the form of : transmission losses whether through power lines or whether the physical losses in the land ( or seas )transportation, washeries and even the extraction cost in term of : energy. In the latter one has to consider ( what you have not commented on ) is the loss of weight resulting from : fossil fuels such as: oil and gases .

The important function of what CR4 does is to achieve , in my mind , a consensus . This elevates the debates on any given serious matter. It is evident that the majority accepts that winning arguments is not the: issue. It is accurate conclusions of the post's original goal being beneficial to : all.

What was initially recorded was an observation albeit not precise as yours . It was ( and remains ) prompted by the fact that we, all , have to become accutely concerned of these : side , important , but often ignored or glossed over ,side issues of : some of man's depredation and its resultants on this planet.

Labor Omnia Vincit.

I think what you are trying to say, is not that mass is lost (it isn't) but that the matter is now in a different, and less accessible, form.

Eventually, resources run down because to extract we now need to use lower quality ores, or recycle from a source where it is harder to extract what we want.

Not unfortunate just the way it is, you may consider yourself flexible or not.

Change is the most prevalent condition I'm aware of what's the rub?

Interesting dialogue...

I'm not a climate sceptic...I believe in climate and I think the earth is warming and greenhouse gas levels are increasing and there's insufficient data to show this is a bad thing.

There is evidence showing that in the planets past these greenhouse gas concentrations were ten times greater than computer model projections of increase indicate.

Why the hysteria? The planet systems equalized those greenhouse gas concentrations enabling us to marvel instead of shiver in fear.

A little knowledge is dangerous and the proponents of the GW climate change debate are proving the point.

The other point which is being widely applied is that of manipulation of ideas and interdictions during a perceived crisis which would not otherwise hold water.

As Garthh has stated these conditions of resource depletion are market driven, surely this should pose an example of how not to conduct resource management.

Errors using inadequate data are much less than those using no data at all.
Charles Babbage

On two occasions I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
Charles Babbage

Likewise I'll not argue concerning your data which being so proud you'll not let anyone see anyway

"...the earth is warming and greenhouse gas levels are increasing and there's insufficient data to show this is a bad thing."

Exactly the point I and many others are making. So why do they call us "denyers"? Perhaps because this is more a question of "belief", not science?

"There is evidence showing that in the planets past these greenhouse gas concentrations were ten times greater than computer model projections of increase indicate."

As has been repeatedly posted here and elsewhere on the net- but not allowed in "peer-reviewed" literature, and pretty much toned down and ignored in later versions of the UN documentation. Who is burying data?

"Why the hysteria? The planet systems equalized those greenhouse gas concentrations enabling us to marvel instead of shiver in fear."

Absolutely.

Who is burying data?

Those with a belief or point of view but no data, it's a demonstration of power, they like it...and they've forgotten the rules but chickens always come home to roust.