Beef has a much greater environmental burden...

denverpilot said:
a8y5eve3.jpg
Click to expand...

It's what we call "crap" around here...

-Rich
 
You're going to have trouble convincing some folks from India, who revere the cow (which is your mother) that cows are bad. They don't eat them, but they have a lot of them and they roam and fart and eat freely. Cows are good.
 
Mason said:
You're going to have trouble convincing some folks from India, who revere the cow (which is your mother) that cows are bad. They don't eat them, but they have a lot of them and they roam and fart and eat freely. Cows are good.
Click to expand...

That could make for an interesting and amusing argument. You could pit the anti-meat wackos, the AGW wackos, and the anti-religion wackos against the pro-developing-nations wackos, and let them all duke it out. The fact that all four groups tend to also be leftists should make that much more amusing.

-Rich
 
RJM62 said:
That could make for an interesting and amusing argument. You could pit the anti-meat wackos, the AGW wackos, and the anti-religion wackos against the pro-developing-nations wackos, and let them all duke it out. The fact that all four groups tend to also be leftists should make that much more amusing.

-Rich
Click to expand...

They could have a drum circle.
 
Love it when hippies fight
RJM62 said:
That could make for an interesting and amusing argument. You could pit the anti-meat wackos, the AGW wackos, and the anti-religion wackos against the pro-developing-nations wackos, and let them all duke it out. The fact that all four groups tend to also be leftists should make that much more amusing.

-Rich
Click to expand...
 
Geico266 said:
First you have to believe that CO2 is bad. It is not, water is more of a green house gas than CO2. It is plant food. :dunno:
Click to expand...

Good lord, is that really what people believe?

Plants do not consume CO2. They convert it into other carbon forms to grow, and then when they die the carbon is released back into the environment. It's a closed-cycle, and neither increases nor reduces the atmospheric CO2 over time.

The problem we have with carbon is that we're releasing enormous amount of it which have been sequestered under ground as oil for millions of years, and doing it all at once. That throws the cycle out of balance completely, and is already changing the climate drastically. Higher CO2 levels may increase plant growth, but that plant life will not somehow reduce the levels back to what they should be. In the meantime the Earth will continue to get hotter and the oceans will continue to get more acidic.

There are legitimate discussions to be had about climate change and ecological impacts, but dismissing it because you know CO2 to be "plant food" is absurd.
 
dukeblue219 said:
Good lord, is that really what people believe?

Plants do not consume CO2. They convert it into other carbon forms to grow, and then when they die the carbon is released back into the environment. It's a closed-cycle, and neither increases nor reduces the atmospheric CO2 over time.

The problem we have with carbon is that we're releasing enormous amount of it which have been sequestered under ground as oil for millions of years, and doing it all at once. That throws the cycle out of balance completely, and is already changing the climate drastically. Higher CO2 levels may increase plant growth, but that plant life will not somehow reduce the levels back to what they should be. In the meantime the Earth will continue to get hotter and the oceans will continue to get more acidic.

There are legitimate discussions to be had about climate change and ecological impacts, but dismissing it because you know CO2 to be "plant food" is absurd.
Click to expand...

Your scaring me man! Can you point at an example that I can see with my own eyes of us already changing the climate drastically?
 
CharlieTango said:
Your scaring me man! Can you point at an example that I can see with my own eyes of us already changing the climate drastically?
Click to expand...

http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/#ft7

http://news.discovery.com/earth/glo...limate-change-is-already-happening-130422.htm

http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/aboutcc/problems/rising_temperatures/scientific_proof/

Perhaps I don't consider "drastic" in the same way that you do. But I think it is appalling how casually people treat the topic of climate change, as if it's something we can just brush under the rug and continue to live our lives the same way indefinitely. What worked on a planet of 1 billion people isn't going to work on a planet of 7 billion people, especially if they're all driving gas-powered cars and eating red meat.

I'm not even an environmentalist really -- I'm not some hippie green vegetarian. But I am an engineer. I can't just ignore cause and effect of what we're doing to our own planet without trying to figure out ways we can at least slow down the damage, and I really can't figure out why people in a developed, educated country are so convinced that 97% of scientists are wrong, and not for any reason, but simply because they don't like their conclusions. Meanwhile we have idiots like the guy at my office who left his car running all day on Earth Day to "prove a point." Sometimes it's just frustrating.
 
Earth's balance will be maintained, we just won't be around to see it, doesn't matter if caused by a change in solar cycles, asteroid, or man induced.

Variables in solar activity is something no one ever seems to talk about.
 
bnt83 said:
Earth's balance will be maintained, we just won't be around to see it, doesn't matter if caused by a change in solar cycles, asteroid, or man induced.
Click to expand...
Yep. And just because the Earth has natural cycles of life doesn't mean we shouldn't prevent ourselves from making the planet less pleasant while we're around.

Variables in solar activity is something no one ever seems to talk about.
Click to expand...
Sure they do. It's not a secret factor that explains global warming (though it may contribute).
Solar_vs_temp_500.jpg

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-basic.htm
 
Last edited:
PaulS said:
It's the 6th lowest in the 33 years they have been able to check it, wtf does that matter???? Talk about an agenda.
Click to expand...

It matters because you implied that the first graphic wasn't significant because 2013 had tons of ice when it didn't. My post was only to refute your (apparent) assertion that arctic ice was doing well when in fact the larger trend is very negative.

Anyway, why does everyone have to have an agenda? Do you think I sit around trying to come up with ways to fake global warming? :dunno: I'm just in favor of not trashing our planet -- that's my agenda -- what is your agenda of being a global warming (or global climate change, I don't care what you call it) denier?
 
flyingriki said:
One volcanic eruption does more "environmental damage" than all the cows ever living on earth. Why these left wing wacks want to cherry pick their issues is hard to understand.....
Click to expand...

Dude (dudette:dunno:), you can't do anything about volcanic explosions, and they can cause extinction level events as well if they are big enough and the tipping point is met, it's happened. The more we load the atmosphere, the smaller the volcanic event needs to be to reach the tipping point. It's really hard to believe that some people can't work this stuff out, but then I hear our elected officials talk...:nonod:
 
dukeblue219 said:
It matters because you implied that the first graphic wasn't significant because 2013 had tons of ice when it didn't. My post was only to refute your (apparent) assertion that arctic ice was doing well when in fact the larger trend is very negative.

Anyway, why does everyone have to have an agenda? Do you think I sit around trying to come up with ways to fake global warming? :dunno: I'm just in favor of not trashing our planet -- that's my agenda -- what is your agenda of being a global warming (or global climate change, I don't care what you call it) denier?
Click to expand...

My agenda is not to get taxed into oblivion by GW zealots...... From the article you posted, it was described that the ice recovered substantially from 2012, mainly due to the weather, go figure. Think about it, 33 years worth of data, 6th lowest, it means nothing.
 
Henning said:
Dude (dudette:dunno:), you can't do anything about volcanic explosions, and they can cause extinction level events as well if they are big enough and the tipping point is met, it's happened. The more we load the atmosphere, the smaller the volcanic event needs to be to reach the tipping point. It's really hard to believe that some people can't work this stuff out, but then I hear our elected officials talk...:nonod:
Click to expand...

This is a mantra we hear over and over, we need to do something, but it always, always involves forcing someone else to do something.

To all the MMGW believers, lead by example, reduce your CO2 output to 10% of what it is now for a few years and let's see what happens. Put up or shut up.
 
P.T. Barnum said "There's a sucker born every minute". Al Gore is proving that theory true. :yes:
 
dukeblue219 said:
Good lord, is that really what people believe?

Plants do not consume CO2. They convert it into other carbon forms to grow, and then when they die the carbon is released back into the environment. It's a closed-cycle, and neither increases nor reduces the atmospheric CO2 over time.

The problem we have with carbon is that we're releasing enormous amount of it which have been sequestered under ground as oil for millions of years, and doing it all at once. That throws the cycle out of balance completely, and is already changing the climate drastically. Higher CO2 levels may increase plant growth, but that plant life will not somehow reduce the levels back to what they should be. In the meantime the Earth will continue to get hotter and the oceans will continue to get more acidic.

There are legitimate discussions to be had about climate change and ecological impacts, but dismissing it because you know CO2 to be "plant food" is absurd.
Click to expand...


What is absurd if your continued belief in the MMGW hoax. Complete liberal nonsense. There has been no warming in 12 years. That is due to MMGW right? :rofl:

http://www.plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?menuitemid=416
 
Last edited:
PaulS said:
My agenda is not to get taxed into oblivion by GW zealots...... From the article you posted, it was described that the ice recovered substantially from 2012, mainly due to the weather, go figure. Think about it, 33 years worth of data, 6th lowest, it means nothing.
Click to expand...

Easy way to avoid the taxation, switch to different energy.
 
PaulS said:
My agenda is not to get taxed into oblivion by GW zealots...... From the article you posted, it was described that the ice recovered substantially from 2012, mainly due to the weather, go figure. Think about it, 33 years worth of data, 6th lowest, it means nothing.
Click to expand...

6th lowest out of 33 is not much of a "recovery." Unless we're just having a confusion of terms and you're not realizing that lowest means "worst" in this context.

I don't want to tax you into oblivion or anyone. I do want to stop subsidizing oil and coal. I do want to protect wildlife and the natural beauty (and the natural resources!) of our country. I do want to stop big corporations from pouring money into political campaigns under the guise of "freedom." I want people to realize that drilling in national parks won't put much of a dent in global oil markets. I want to encourage clean energy and conservation instead of "drill baby drill". I'm not anti-capitalist or anti-technology. I'm just pro-science, pro-long term thinking, and pro-informed decisions.

I want my unborn kids to grow old in a cleaner world than we inherited, not a world where we've continued to pump pollution and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere for another couple generations. If that means my taxes go up a bit and Exxon doesn't make as much profit this year, so be it. There's more to life than corporate profits.
 
Geico266 said:
What is absurd if your continued belief in the MMGW hoax. Complete liberal nonsense. There has been no warming in 12 years.
Click to expand...

Explain how it is a hoax. You're suggesting the vast majority of scientists are working together to intentionally perpetuate this hoax?

Also (this is animated, tap to play it if you're on a phone or something):
Escalator_2012_500.gif
 
Last edited:
dukeblue219 said:
6th lowest out of 33 is not much of a "recovery." Unless we're just having a confusion of terms and you're not realizing that lowest means "worst" in this context.

I don't want to tax you into oblivion or anyone. I do want to stop subsidizing oil and coal. I do want to protect wildlife and the natural beauty (and the natural resources!) of our country. I do want to stop big corporations from pouring money into political campaigns under the guise of "freedom." I want people to realize that drilling in national parks won't put much of a dent in global oil markets. I want to encourage clean energy and conservation instead of "drill baby drill". I'm not anti-capitalist or anti-technology. I'm just pro-science, pro-long term thinking, and pro-informed decisions.

I want my unborn kids to grow old in a cleaner world than we inherited, not a world where we've continued to pump pollution and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere for another couple generations. If that means my taxes go up a bit and Exxon doesn't make as much profit this year, so be it. There's more to life than corporate profits.
Click to expand...

I'm not confused, I'm saying that 33 datapoints out of 6,000 (just kidding) out of millions mean nothing in the grand scheme of things and certainly are not enough to establish a trend.

You obviously believe CO2 emissions are a problem, you can easily eliminate most of your emissions by giving up your car(s), disconnecting from the grid(s), growing your own food, heat with wood...... there are many things you can do personally and encourage everyone else to do without forcing this on the rest of us....
 
dukeblue219 said:
Explain how it is a hoax. You're suggesting the vast majority of scientists are working together to intentionally perpetuate this hoax?

Also (this is animated, tap to play it if you're on a phone or something):
Escalator_2012_500.gif
Click to expand...

You just committed the big foo-pah when you said 'vast majority of scientists' which is simply not true.

The 'science' is contentious. And lately it's looking like the climate change crowd don't have any on their side. And that's why the majority of Americans say it's a hoax, and they are right.

Btw. there is real effort to harness cow farts. Ag schools are working on devices to capture the methane while the cows are in a barn and using it to power the farm.
 
dukeblue219 said:
Explain how it is a hoax. You're suggesting the vast majority of scientists are working together to intentionally perpetuate this hoax?

Also (this is animated, tap to play it if you're on a phone or something):
Escalator_2012_500.gif
Click to expand...

I think it's more they know better than everyone else, so they feel they have to adjust the data that doesn't fit their agenda. There is certainly enough hanky panky that should make even the most ardent GW activist wary...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...e-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html
 
PaulS said:
I'm not confused, I'm saying that 33 datapoints out of 6,000 (just kidding) out of millions mean nothing in the grand scheme of things and certainly are not enough to establish a trend.

You obviously believe CO2 emissions are a problem, you can easily eliminate most of your emissions by giving up your car(s), disconnecting from the grid(s), growing your own food, heat with wood...... there are many things you can do personally and encourage everyone else to do without forcing this on the rest of us....
Click to expand...



...but...but...but... that would mean actually doing something of substance. MMGW activists NEVER do anything, just whine, twist the facts, and make stuff up.
 
CTLSi said:
The 'science' is contentious. And lately it's looking like the climate change crowd don't have any on their side.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. I hear this all the time -- that the science isn't settled and it's still up for debate. Shoot, people still say that about evolution.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

There are plenty of scientists who disagree about climate change -- but for every one there's dozens who don't.

Of course, there's still plenty of room for genuine scientific debate about the rate of climate change, the specific effects, and how to mitigate them. I am not at all trying to stop debate based on science. But what there isn't room for is lies and gross misrepresentations of the truth based on people's hunches, feelings, and what big oil tells them to think.

And that's why the majority of Americans say it's a hoax, and they are right.
Click to expand...
A) How on Earth is a poll of the average American more trustworthy than what well-educated scientists can show us is happening?

B ) This isn't even true. 63% of Americans believe global warming is happening right now. I'm a little disappointed that number is trending down, but regardless, it's hardly a rejection of scientific reality. http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/Climate-Beliefs-April-2013
 
Last edited:
PaulS said:
Why didn't you post the pic from 2013????
Click to expand...

I'm quite lazy. I put in a really simple Google search and took the first thing I saw. Honestly. You could have done likewise but I guess your Google-Fu just isn't up to it.
 
steingar said:
I'm quite lazy. I put in a really simple Google search and took the first thing I saw. Honestly. You could have done likewise but I guess your Google-Fu just isn't up to it.
Click to expand...

My google fu is fine, I found a picture, it's my POA fu that sucks.......
 
dukeblue219 said:
No, it isn't. I hear this all the time -- that the science isn't settled and it's still up for debate. Shoot, people still say that about evolution.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

There are plenty of scientists who disagree about climate change -- but for every one there's dozens who don't.

Of course, there's still plenty of room for genuine scientific debate about the rate of climate change, the specific effects, and how to mitigate them. I am not at all trying to stop debate based on science. But what there isn't room for is lies and gross misrepresentations of the truth based on people's hunches, feelings, and what big oil tells them to think.


A) How on Earth is a poll of the average American more trustworthy than what well-educated scientists can show us is happening?

B ) This isn't even true. 63% of Americans believe global warming is happening right now. I'm a little disappointed that number is trending down, but regardless, it's hardly a rejection of scientific reality. http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/Climate-Beliefs-April-2013
Click to expand...

Well, Ted, I thank that statement is debatable.
 
Been with cows all my life and I agree they are evil despicable creatures that will drain your wallet and your soul.

There should be a bounty on them.

Bovines are o.k. :goofy:
 
Last edited:
dukeblue219 said:
No, it isn't. I hear this all the time -- that the science isn't settled and it's still up for debate. Shoot, people still say that about evolution.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

There are plenty of scientists who disagree about climate change -- but for every one there's dozens who don't.

Of course, there's still plenty of room for genuine scientific debate about the rate of climate change, the specific effects, and how to mitigate them. I am not at all trying to stop debate based on science. But what there isn't room for is lies and gross misrepresentations of the truth based on people's hunches, feelings, and what big oil tells them to think.


A) How on Earth is a poll of the average American more trustworthy than what well-educated scientists can show us is happening?

B ) This isn't even true. 63% of Americans believe global warming is happening right now. I'm a little disappointed that number is trending down, but regardless, it's hardly a rejection of scientific reality. http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/Climate-Beliefs-April-2013
Click to expand...

So in your world of science majority rules? If the majority of citizens believe in something it must be so? That's science right there! :mad2:
 
What majority says the Earth is warming? We continue to get that crazy generalization that is not true: all the scientists, or the majority of the scientists.

What is a fact is the climate change goofs have been caught gaming the data, and rigging their models and missing their arm-waving, doomesday predictions for 25 years.

Everyone is tired of it, esp considering the Earth has been COOLING for the past 10 years, not warming.

Global Cooling? Ice Coverage Growing in Antarctica

NOAA: 28,504 Cold Records Set in U.S. in Last 365 Days

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/07/24/noaa-28504-low-max-records-set-in-u-s-in-last-365-days/
 
Last edited:
CTLSi said:
You just committed the big foo-pah when you said 'vast majority of scientists' which is simply not true.

The 'science' is contentious. And lately it's looking like the climate change crowd don't have any on their side. And that's why the majority of Americans say it's a hoax, and they are right.

Btw. there is real effort to harness cow farts. Ag schools are working on devices to capture the methane while the cows are in a barn and using it to power the farm.
Click to expand...

A barn!?!?!? No can do! The free-range crowd will never allow it.

I had a young lady in the supermarket trying to talk me into buying organic, cage-free, hormone-free, antibiotic-free, free-range eggs a few weeks ago. They were about twice the price of the "regular" eggs I've been eating all my life, which haven't killed me yet, which I politely pointed out to the young lady.

One would have hoped that she'd get the message and find someone else to preach at, but she persisted, this time taking the guilt approach -- trying to make me feel guilty for the terrible living conditions that layers have to endure. I pretty much ignored her at that point, looking for the Omega-3 eggs that were on sale. I don't know about the chickens' housing situation, but my doctor told me to eat Omega-3 eggs, and the ones I was looking for were on sale.

When the young girl actually grabbed my arm to try to get my attention back, I turned, faced her, and told her that I couldn't care less if the chickens had been raised in the back seat of a mini-van in Hoboken, shackled to each other by the legs, fed with antibiotics and steroids through an IV line, and forced to lay eggs at gunpoint while listening to Rick Astley music.

The poor young thing actually turned pale. The blood ran from her face, her legs got wobbly, and she began to tremble. Then she slowly backed away from me, turned and nearly ran away. I think she may have been crying.

Oh, well. I found my eggs and moved on.

-Rich
 
Last edited:
dukeblue219 said:
The problem we have with carbon is that we're releasing enormous amount of it which have been sequestered under ground as oil for millions of years, and doing it all at once. That throws the cycle out of balance completely, and is already changing the climate drastically.
Click to expand...


The statement starts with an assumption. A "problem"? What problem would that be?
 
Geico266 said:
So in your world of science majority rules? If the majority of citizens believe in something it must be so? That's science right there! :mad2:
Click to expand...

Whoa, that's the opposite of my point:yes:

I was responding to the assertion that the majority of Americans rightly believe global warming to be a hoax -- to which I responded that that doesn't make it so AND that it wasn't even true in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top