As far as I know, most of the CO2 in plants goes to respiration for energy production. Not saying it doesn't go to mass, as well, but it's the energy side of things that people learn in elementary school.
We're not stupid, and this man needs to think about his accusations before he blogs about them...
Are you aware that cellulose is just interlinked glucose molecules? A tree is basically a giant hunk of hydrated sugar byproducts with some minor mineral and other components.
Yes, very. I could tell you all about the glycosidic linkages.
Some observations: Polysaccharides are not sugars. Mono- and di-saccharides made of carbohydrates are. Glucose has other uses than becoming cellulose or starch or glycogen. The life cycle of a plant is not linear or simplistic. CO2 is not only used as a substrate in anabolism.
And what does a tree do with this energy? It's not a light bulb.
It uses the energy to split the oxygen off of the CO2, splits the oxygen of off water, and makes hydrocarbons from the C in CO2 and the H in water. The oxygen is released as waste (a small amount is used).
So all the energy used in a tree is devoted to making its mass.
My point again is not that CO2 doesn't become cell mass. It is that in elementary/high school, kids are not taught that. Kids do learn the concept of photosynthesis. They just learn the energy side and not the big picture. So the author's assertion that people use "photosynthesis" without knowing what it means is false.
I don't think his premise is true. He says we were all taught photosynthesis in elementary and high schools and now all we know is a phrase that has no meaning for us. In fact, no one teaches the whole story of anything in biology before college, and not everyone takes college bio. Those of us that did knew the answer. It's a question of how far into biology you've studied...
We're not stupid, and this man needs to think about his accusations before he blogs about them...