Beef has a much greater environmental burden...

denverpilot said:
The statement starts with an assumption. A "problem"? What problem would that be?
Click to expand...

The problem is that it is a green house gas and also is absorbed into the ocean where it lowers the PH of the water throwing sensitive ecosystems out of balance. That's the problem with carbon.

Burning a tree is not a problem. It releases carbon back into a closed cycle where it is absorbed by another tree and so on, just like the water cycle. But we happen to have an enormous amount of carbon stuck deep inside the Earth, which in the last couple hundred years we've started pouring back into the atmosphere.

Maybe the planet warming is a coincidence. You know what, I hope it is. I hope I and the rest of the world am wrong about all this. But what's the harm? We end up with clean renewable energy? God forbid.
 
CTLSi said:
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.
Click to expand...

I guess I should just call it a day before this gets out of hand. You guys can say all day long that "scientists" disagree about global warming and that there isn't a conclusive majority, but it simply isn't true. Go read the published literature. Go read a book about it. Go look at NOAA or NASA's websites. There is no substantial scientific doubt that the Earth is warming and that humans are contributing to it. Please show me evidence that there is a large percentage of scientists who are in disagreement about global warming.

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.
Click to expand...
Please show me evidence of this that isn't from a blog or a discredited news story or traceable to some individual idiot's mistake. There have been people claiming for years to have "busted" the global warming conspiracy and they are always debunked. Of course historical data is occasionally adjusted to account for better understanding of how it was collected and how it should be measured. That is not the same as gaming the data. There is no large-scale hoax here.

Everyone is tired of it, esp considering the Earth has been COOLING for the past 10 years, not warming.
Click to expand...
And since the beginning of industrialization the Earth has warmed dramatically. What is your point? I'm not going to do it since I don't know you, but I'd bet a TON of money that 50 years from now the trend will be WAY higher than it is today. Blips happen. Sometimes we have cold weather. Sometimes we have hotter weather. Doesn't mean the long term trend isn't hotter.

Global Cooling? Ice Coverage Growing in Antarctica
Click to expand...
More ice due to a variety of factors, but warmer climate nonetheless: http://www.skepticalscience.com/increasing-Antarctic-Southern-sea-ice-intermediate.htm

NOAA: 28,504 Cold Records Set in U.S. in Last 365 Days[/B]
Click to expand...
So? The stock market has done fabulously the last two years under Obama. Would you argue with me if I took that short term trend and said it proves Obama is great for the economy?

Anyway, I don't think there's much more I can do here. I'm done with this discussion if we're just going to deny reality and deny all of the evidence because Rush, or Drudge, or Breitbart said it was cold last week. I mean, your link to ClimateDepot tells me all I need to know. It's run by an organization called CFACT, which if you Google them, you'll find out is funded by... drumroll please: "According to disclosures, CFACT is funded by at least $542,000 from ExxonMobil, $60,500 from Chevron, and $1,280,000 from Scaife family foundations, which are rooted in wealth from Gulf Oil and steel interests."
 
Last edited:
dukeblue219 said:
The problem is that it is a green house gas and also is absorbed into the ocean where it lowers the PH of the water throwing sensitive ecosystems out of balance. That's the problem with carbon.



Burning a tree is not a problem. It releases carbon back into a closed cycle where it is absorbed by another tree and so on, just like the water cycle. But we happen to have an enormous amount of carbon stuck deep inside the Earth, which in the last couple hundred years we've started pouring back into the atmosphere.



Maybe the planet warming is a coincidence. You know what, I hope it is. I hope I and the rest of the world am wrong about all this. But what's the harm? We end up with clean renewable energy? God forbid.
Click to expand...


You still haven't defined an actual problem. So things are not in the same balance?

So what? Species will adapt or die.

I see no defined problem yet. Want to try again?
 
I think we should limit all legislative sessions to 30 calendar days / year. That would seriously reduce both CO2 and hot air emissions. And possibly farts, as well.

-Rich
 
dukeblue219 said:
The problem is that it is a green house gas and also is absorbed into the ocean where it lowers the PH of the water throwing sensitive ecosystems out of balance. That's the problem with carbon..
Click to expand...

More BS.

You start with an untrue premise. There is no consensus that CO2 is a "green house" gas. There is no consensus that CO2 levels cause warming at all. It is plant food, not a poison.

The largest green house gas is water vapor. Maybe we should ban swimming pools and sprinklers before we ban combustion engines. :dunno:

This is nothing more than propaganda from xxxxxxx to make us feel guilty for our life style. Somehow we, as Americans, shouldn't have what we have because we ripped off other countries. Complete BS.
 
Last edited:
dukeblue219 said:
I guess I should just call it a day before this gets out of hand. You guys can say all day long that "scientists" disagree about global warming and that there isn't a conclusive majority, but it simply isn't true. Go read the published literature. Go read a book about it. Go look at NOAA or NASA's websites. There is no substantial scientific doubt that the Earth is warming and that humans are contributing to it. Please show me evidence that there is a large percentage of scientists who are in disagreement about global warming.
Click to expand...

So you want me to re-read the data that the "climate change experts" falsified? No thanks, I don't like fiction. :nono: :lol:

If you are so concerned about MMGW I suggest you turn in your pilots license and buy a horse for transportation. Wait a minute, horses fart too. Get a bike. Wait a minute, that means you will exhale more CO2. :dunno:
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
More BS.

You start with an untrue premise. There is no consensus that CO2 is a "green house" gas. There is no consensus that CO2 levels cause warming at all. It is plant food, not a poison.

The largest green house gas is water vapor. Maybe we should ban swimming pools and sprinklers before we ban combustion engines. :dunno:

This is nothing more than propaganda from xxxxxxx to make us feel guilty for our life style. Somehow we, as Americans shouldn'thave what we have because we ripped off other countries. Complete BS.

This is not the SZ so I will no longer comment on your misguided lies.
Click to expand...


:yeahthat:
 
Nobody is going to convince these left wing wacks of anything real until their paychecks end or their health care tab triples, which is happening regularly. When they feel the pain of their ignorance maybe things will change. But, given their remarkable reluctance to admit judgement stupidity, I wouldn't hold my breath......:nono:
The idiocy of the last 6 years is growing and doing more damage here and worldwide on a daily basis.
Go fools!
 
PaulS said:
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......
Click to expand...


OOPS. Burning anything at all, even wood, puts out CO2.

Plus wood smoke contains all those nasty particulates, lead, ash...smog producer. Why do you think there is such an increase in rules and limitations on the use of wood-burning fireplaces, and more and more building codes prohibiting them?
 
Btw, C02 is plant food. The more the merrier. Since plants eat it, it's probably why the Earth never got warm from what man makes. Instead, we just have a ton more forest and food from it.
 
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...

The extinction effect of volcanos (or asteroid impacts, for that matter) has more to do
with ash dispersion into the upper atmosphere than it does with CO2. The ash blocks sunlight, sometimes for years, eliminating crops and plant growth upon which all life eventually depends. Dinosaurs (and other life forms) die.
 
Last edited:
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...

I hadn't thought about it at the time, but that is an excellent explanation of why I made that post in the first place.....:wink2:
 
dukeblue219 said:
I don't want to tax you into oblivion or anyone.
Click to expand...

Very well.

What are you, personally, doing? What are you willing to do? How much more are you willing to pay to heat and cool your home? Are you willing to give up your air conditioning? Are you willing to give control of your thermostat to some faceless bureaucrat? How about your car....what do you drive? How much more are you willing to pay for gas? $5 a gallon? $10?

What percentage of your income are you willing to devote to this, considering that at this point, it may not make any difference at all (if China and India don't subscribe) in the long run?

1. There is no real proof the earth is warming, although it looks like it might be, as it has in the past.

2. There is zero evidence that if it is happening, the cause is CO2.
3. There is zero evidence that if it is happening and the cause is CO2, PEOPLE are causing it.
4. There is zero justification for some of the proposed solutions, most of which seem an attempt to cripple the economies of Western countries, most especially the US.
 
Mason said:
OOPS. Burning anything at all, even wood, puts out CO2.

Plus wood smoke contains all those nasty particulates, lead, ash...smog producer. Why do you think there is such an increase in rules and limitations on the use of wood-burning fireplaces, and more and more building codes prohibiting them?
Click to expand...

Supposedly wood is supposedly a wash in mmgw co2 parlance because it wasn't sequestered in the ground. Wood smoke is nasty stuff although catalyst burners clean it up somewhat. Smog would filter sunlight which should help....
 
Mason said:
And I suppose they don't give off oxygen, either.

Or, maybe they do.
Click to expand...

An individual plant over the short term converts CO2 into carbon and oxygen. Over the long term that carbon gets re-released back into the air and the cycle continues. We can plant all the trees we want and it will not allow us to remove CO2 from the environment. The carbon we're sucking out of the ground will be with us for millenia. We can't put it back.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

Look, we can do this all day. Neither one of us is obviously going to convince the other one. It kills me to see people clinging to things they want to believe in the face of what I consider overwhelming evidence, but I also accept when an argument is unwinnable.

I do wish to ask one more question -- what would it take for you to admit global warming is a problem worth addressing? Is there a certain amount of scientific evidence you would like to see? I will answer it likewise: For me to believe global warming / global climate change is not a problem I would need to see multiple volumes of peer-reviewed papers that experimentally show that A) the effects are not happening and B) why they are not happening and why previous science was incorrect. Perhaps there IS something we have overlooked -- but I need to see that and understand it beyond simply saying it can't be true.
 
It's all our fault! :(
We're all gonna die! Ahhhhhhhhhhh! :eek:
Then the earth will be wonderful again!! :goofy:

Discovery
Our species caused 322 animal extinctions over the past 500 years according to a paper published in a special issue of the journal Science this week.

:hairraise:
 
Last edited:
flyingriki said:
It's all our fault!
We're all gonna die!
Then the earth will be wonderful again!!

Discovery
Our species caused 322 animal extinctions over the past 500 years according to a paper published in a special issue of the journal Science this week.

:hairraise:
Click to expand...

How many went extinct in the 500 years before that?
 
dukeblue219 said:
An individual plant over the short term converts CO2 into carbon and oxygen. Over the long term that carbon gets re-released back into the air and the cycle continues. We can plant all the trees we want and it will not allow us to remove CO2 from the environment. The carbon we're sucking out of the ground will be with us for millenia. We can't put it back.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

Look, we can do this all day. Neither one of us is obviously going to convince the other one. It kills me to see people clinging to things they want to believe in the face of what I consider overwhelming evidence, but I also accept when an argument is unwinnable.
Click to expand...

Where is the overwhelming evidence?

The levels of C02 were twice as high prehistoric than now. Lush vegetation and high temps covered the earth, along with dinosaurs. The planet seemed to survive and thrive despite all of this gloom and tax doom the MMGW crowd wants to govern us with.

Wake up son, you have been duped!
I do wish to ask one more question -- what would it take for you to admit global warming is a problem worth addressing? Is there a certain amount of scientific evidence you would like to see? I will answer it likewise: For me to believe global warming / global climate change is not a problem I would need to see multiple volumes of peer-reviewed papers that experimentally show that A) the effects are not happening and B) why they are not happening and why previous science was incorrect. Perhaps there IS something we have overlooked -- but I need to see that and understand it beyond simply saying it can't be true.
Click to expand...

Your premise is wrong, again. You assume there is a problem, that man is doing something wrong. We are a part of nature! Sure we need to be careful with the environment, and we are. Look at China, Russia, India, all of the other "developed countries" we have the cleanest industrialized country on the planet.

No need to feel guilty, you have done nothing wrong. Now go out there and fly your airplane!
 
Last edited:
dukeblue219 said:
An individual plant over the short term converts CO2 into carbon and oxygen. Over the long term that carbon gets re-released back into the air and the cycle continues. We can plant all the trees we want and it will not allow us to remove CO2 from the environment. The carbon we're sucking out of the ground will be with us for millenia. We can't put it back.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

Look, we can do this all day. Neither one of us is obviously going to convince the other one. It kills me to see people clinging to things they want to believe in the face of what I consider overwhelming evidence, but I also accept when an argument is unwinnable.

I do wish to ask one more question -- what would it take for you to admit global warming is a problem worth addressing? Is there a certain amount of scientific evidence you would like to see? I will answer it likewise: For me to believe global warming / global climate change is not a problem I would need to see multiple volumes of peer-reviewed papers that experimentally show that A) the effects are not happening and B) why they are not happening and why previous science was incorrect. Perhaps there IS something we have overlooked -- but I need to see that and understand it beyond simply saying it can't be true.
Click to expand...

And you can fool some of the people all the time. :yes: :D
 
dukeblue219 said:
... what would it take for you to admit global warming is a problem worth addressing? ...
Click to expand...
That's a two-part question.

For myself, I think there is high likelihood that it is a problem.

As for "addressing" that splits again:

If "addressing" means anticipating and adapting to warming, I think that would be smart, but any significant efforts by major nations are unlikely. Lots of near-in cost, ambiguous future benefit. (Exception: Small island nations being affected near-in, whose adaptation options are very limited.)

If "addressing" means efforts by nations to mitigate warming, again that probably would be smart but because of population and development trends such efforts are unlikely to have significant impact. Also the same problem: near-in cost, ambiguous future benefit. (Corollary: Arguing about causes is probably not too important as little will be done anyway.)

If "addressing" means efforts by individuals to reduce their energy consumption, carbon footprint, or whatever, that is a total waste of time and money. Nice hobby for some, I guess, but statistically insignificant.
 
RIGHT AFTER the UN forces Iran, China, North Korea, and India to clean up their emissions, ome back and talk to me about the US.

Otherwise your bs is nothing but anti-American bull****.
 
airdale said:
That's a two-part question.

For myself, I think there is high likelihood that it is a problem.

As for "addressing" that splits again:

If "addressing" means anticipating and adapting to warming, I think that would be smart, but any significant efforts by major nations are unlikely. Lots of near-in cost, ambiguous future benefit. (Exception: Small island nations being affected near-in, whose adaptation options are very limited.)

If "addressing" means efforts by nations to mitigate warming, again that probably would be smart but because of population and development trends such efforts are unlikely to have significant impact. Also the same problem: near-in cost, ambiguous future benefit. (Corollary: Arguing about causes is probably not too important as little will be done anyway.)

If "addressing" means efforts by individuals to reduce their energy consumption, carbon footprint, or whatever, that is a total waste of time and money. Nice hobby for some, I guess, but statistically insignificant.
Click to expand...

Meh. Most of the places that would be underwater are cesspools, anyway.

-Rich
 
Sad the propaganda of the Global Warming cult has infected so many. Like the flat Earthers before them, today's faux science cultists behave the same way, even to the point of violence.
 
CTLSi said:
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/
Click to expand...

Sigh, yes the colds got colder, and the hots got even hotter too, and the temps will continue to diverge with a median air and water trend upwards. Think about this, how much more energy is in the environment now than in 1970?
 
On no - it's getting worse!!!! :yes:

"The summer gets hotter and hotter every year. Traditionally, for the blue agave, it took 8 to 10 years to grow and mature. And now we are looking at the agaves maturing 5, 6, 7-years-old. Less sugar content because the plant is forced to grow and mature faster. And everybody’s talking about it: Calentamiento global, global warming."

“It may seem like more hot weather would be a good thing for a plant that thrives in drought conditions and can be killed by too much rain or too much cold,” Willy Blackmore at Participant Media’s TakePart explained. “But ecologies are delicate things, especially when you’re trying to achieve a predictable, high-quality product.”

And to make your margarita potentially even worse, this year also saw The Great Lime Shortage, brought on by disease, storms, and drug cartels.

There you have it: Global warming is trying to kill your tequila buzz. Climate change leads to global bacon shortages. Oh, and fracking chemicals can easily leak into major water supplies and ruin your beer.

Everything is terrible. Happy National Tequila Day.



Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-sh...mate-change-alarm-bells-tequila#ixzz38Wbx34fP
 
All I know is, I was out prepping the wagon today for OSH, and the heat ran me out of the hangar about 2:00.

I wouldn't give you a plug nickel for summertime in South Texas.

One thing these 'warmers' may not be taking into account is as you get older, you can't stand it as much. It feels hotter.
 
Does anyone else find it fun that pilots worried about global warming in this thread are fine with burning fully leaded gas in their planes and spewing that toxin over those they fly over?

Before someone asks, yes, I only burn 91E10 mogas, unleaded fuel.
 
dukeblue219 said:
I do wish to ask one more question -- what would it take for you to admit global warming is a problem worth addressing?
Click to expand...

Data that isn't doctored to "hide the decline." Data delivered by impartial people not driven by an agenda or whose funding does not depend upon a certain result. Data that is peer-reviewed and can be experimentally duplicated by anyone with the knowledge and equipment.

Data whose predictions have actually been accurate and whose models actually work going backwards and forwards.

Data that isn't fudged to make a pre-conceived conclusion appear to be impartial. Conclusions that are the result of impartial data, and not the driver of what the data needs to be.

Data presented by people whose lifetime goals have not been driven by a hatred of capitalism, western civilization, jealousy or by Marxist or Socialist tendencies.

Proposed solutions that do not penalize the most advanced countries with the cleanest environments. Proposed solutions that do not appear to be thinly veiled attempts at wealth redistribution. Proposed solutions that rely upon market economics and not government dictats and mandates, bureaucracies, red tape, and control, control, control.
 
Last edited:
I'm late to this thread, so I didn't read all the bickering, but it looks like it just fell into the usual climate change head butting rant fest. I skipped it.

However, if you love to eat beef and you love to preserve and restore the environment, you need to watch this TED talk. Conservatives and Progressives alike need to see this. I think most will be inspired like I was. It is common sense, practical, economical and most important, effective.

Please watch.

http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savo...d_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change#t-1587
 
'Time to eat the dog: The real guide to sustainable living' :wink2:
 
CTLSi said:
Does anyone else find it fun that pilots worried about global warming in this thread are fine with burning fully leaded gas in their planes and spewing that toxin over those they fly over?

Before someone asks, yes, I only burn 91E10 mogas, unleaded fuel.
Click to expand...

I'm not at all fine with it, I am a proponent of unleaded AvGas for more than just environmental reasons.
 
Mason said:
Data that isn't doctored to "hide the decline." Data delivered by impartial people not driven by an agenda or whose funding does not depend upon a certain result. Data that is peer-reviewed and can be experimentally duplicated by anyone with the knowledge and equipment.

Data whose predictions have actually been accurate and whose models actually work going backwards and forwards.

Data that isn't fudged to make a pre-conceived conclusion appear to be impartial. Conclusions that are the result of impartial data, and not the driver of what the data needs to be.

Data presented by people whose lifetime goals have not been driven by a hatred of capitalism, western civilization, jealousy or by Marxist or Socialist tendencies.

Proposed solutions that do not penalize the most advanced countries with the cleanest environments. Proposed solutions that do not appear to be thinly veiled attempts at wealth redistribution. Proposed solutions that rely upon market economics and not government dictats and mandates, bureaucracies, red tape, and control, control, control.
Click to expand...

Works for me. :dunno:
 
cold.png


I don't have any belief one way or the other, just a funny and semi-relevant comic panel :yes:
 
steingar said:
…than other sources of protein, including fowl, pork, eggs and dairy. Cows use an order of magnitude more land, water, and consume far more nitrogen and release more CO2, according to a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Click to expand...


Hate to break everyone's heart, but beef and diary are the same. It's COWS!!

Now there are some breeds of cow that are better for dairy (Jersey), but they taste good. Others (Angus) are better for use as beef, but they do give milk also.

<Sigh> city folks!! </Sigh>
 

Attachments

  • screenhunter_1349-jul-26-16-57.gif
    screenhunter_1349-jul-26-16-57.gif
    36 KB · Views: 2
Last edited:
Whether or not any of us believe in global warming is irrelevant. EVERYONE wants to eat what they want, have computers, have nice cars, live in large houses, fly airplanes, take vacations, etc. That will never stop. Even if it isn't possible at some point, we'll all still strive for it; that's why we get up and go to work everyday. We have globally reinforced the idea that humans are "CONSUMERS" and we are ALL living up to that.

Individuals denying themselves things to prevent global warming won't amount to a grain of sand in the Sahara.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top