No Beef for You
When it comes to global warming, hamburgers are the Hummers of food, scientists say.
Simply switching from steak to salad could cut as much carbon as leaving the car at home a couple days a week.
That’s because beef is such an incredibly inefficient food to produce and cows release so much harmful methane into the atmosphere, said Nathan Pelletier of Dalhousie University in Canada.
[...]
By looking at everything from how much grain a cow eats before it is ready for slaughter to the emissions released by manure, they are getting a clearer idea of the true costs of food.
The livestock sector is estimated to account for 18 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions and beef is the biggest culprit.
Even though beef only accounts for 30 percent of meat consumption in the developed world it’s responsible for 78 percent of the emissions, Pelletier said Sunday at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
So if we stop eating hamburgers, the cows will live to fart some more, creating more “harmful” gases, AND people who eat salads will also contribute to the problem by their own, um, earth-harmful output.
I can’t wait until the global warming fad is over.
Another cause seeking an agenda platform.
So when the global warming thing is over - will we go back to global cooling like in the 70’s?
This damn planet! Can’t it keep a constant temperature? No matter what the solar output is?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 16, 2009 at 0900 hrs
I really don’t understand the hostility to this. The earth has gotten considerably warmer in recent decades. There’s a theory that makes practical and intuitive sense to explain that warming. If the theory holds, then humans engage in activities that exacerbate this condition.
Why is that so difficult to believe? At the very least, why is it so difficult to keep an open mind about when you have no education or experience in the subject? Why come up with these insane conspiracy theories to explain why the majority of scientists on the planet would lie about it? I think it’s fear. But mocking a problem doesn’t make it go away. I sure hope you know what you’re doing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 16, 2009 at 1041 hrs
Why is that so difficult to believe?
Why do I need to believe it; hook, line, and sinker?
Why can’t I look at the data and the sources myself and say BS?
Why am I criticized if I say that I believe the earth moves through cycles and this one will end just like all the other cycles before it?
Why can’t I believe that the sun held a major influence over planetary temps during its “hot” cycle recently?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 16, 2009 at 1106 hrs
You can believe whatever you want. Up is down, day is night, cats are dogs. Whatever. But you can’t get all weepy victim on us just because the majority of people choose to side with scientific consensus. And you should probably examine what motivates you to reject the findings of the vast majority of scientists in favor of your own, presumably untrained, uneducated view of the situation. And, conversly, you should consider what would motivate those scientists to reject their own personal and professional ethics, en masse, all over the planet, to perpetuate such a fraud.
The whole conspiracy theory sounds absurd and arrogant to me, so I start thinking about what would drive people to accept such a premise, and all I can come up with is fear.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 16, 2009 at 1125 hrs
The earth has gotten considerably warmer in recent decades. BS
At the very least, why is it so difficult to keep an open mind about when you have no education or experience in the subject? Are you a some kind of scientist related to the climate? Otherwise, just shut up because you don’t know what you are talking about. (just using your logic)
More and more scientist are coming out and saying that global warming is BS and global warming has been thorughly been debunked. Why else do you think that they changed the terminology from global warming to climate change?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 16, 2009 at 1147 hrs
When you can explain why we’ve had 11+ ice ages in the past and how man made them go away by warming up the planet and then stopped so it cooled off again - then you can talk about global warming.
(big hint - man wasn’t around for most of the ice ages)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 16, 2009 at 1156 hrs
I have looked at scientific evidence. I don’t think it’s a bad thing that the earth’s temperature varies as it has over the centuries. I set the thermostat in my house at 67. If I look at the actual temperature and it’s 70 inside, I don’t turn on the air conditioner and open the windows. When it’s 63, I don’t instantly light the couch on fire to instantly warm things up or call the furnace repair person. I put on a sweater. In the same way, I think it’s silly to go all ape shit because the earth’s temperature fluctuates as it always has. I’m more concerned about the potentially devastating effects of overreaction.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 16, 2009 at 1158 hrs
This is what I’m talking about Dan. The temperature on this planet has increased in a significant way since the industrial revolution. That’s not up for debate. It’s an observable, verifiable phenomenon, not a magic liberal media bias conspiracy. Even your peers accept that as fact, although they explain it as natural fluctuation or solar activity, rather than something caused by our pollution and other activities.
I can appreciate the differences of opinion on the cause, even though I tend to believe scientists rather than amatuers, but to deny the issue entirely, again, smacks of fear to me.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 16, 2009 at 1230 hrs
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html
Interesting perspective on how Al Gore got to be a climate guru and crystal ball reader.
Jason, you say the world is getting warmer. I ask warmer than what, when, where?
You also say scientific consensus. Are you just parroting Al Gore or do you know something the rest of us don’t?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 16, 2009 at 1230 hrs
The number of ice ages that occurred before the planet was inahbited by human beings is irrelevant. I’ll bet there were all kinds of conditions then that, were we to revisit them, would make the planet inhospitable to human life. What does that have to do with anything?
Likewise, the temperature that you keep your thermostat at in your home has no rational relationship to what we’re talking about, unless a fluctuation of one or two degrees in your kitchen gives rise to major weather phenomenon all over the house.
Why can’t we just talk directly about the increase in global temperature, what might have caused it, and what it means for our continued survival, without having to delve into inapt analogies, insane conspiracies and name-calling? Why is there such an irrational, knee-jerk response instead of a measured discussion?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 16, 2009 at 1238 hrs
Um, okay. The increase (and decrease) in global temperature and the planets in our solar system is caused by the sun. Your incapability of comprehending that is none of my concern. My job is to keep people who falsely believe that tiny humans (and cows) on earth are responsible for minor temperature changes elsewhere in the universe from gaining positions of power in our society where they can completely collapse economies because they can’t read history.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 16, 2009 at 1247 hrs
And Al Gore comes out. If it’s not fear that motivates the hostitlity towards global warming, then it always seems to be some kind of bizarre culture war hatred of that man.
I’m not going to spend all day arguing this. If you want to believe that scientists are stupid and corrupt, then that’s fine. Frankly, I don’t care much about global warming. I assume that scientists aren’t incompetent liars, but I also assume that such substantial, long range changes to our climate are like cancer, by the time you see the symptoms, it’s too late. I’ve just always been curious what would drive people to assume the worst about scientists, side with the distinct, and arguably compromised, minority, and scream and call names over a simple scientific question. Nothing I’ve seen here leads me to believe it’s motivated by anything more than fear and culture war angst.
And for the record, I hope you’re all right, and it’s just a big scam designed to do God knows what.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 16, 2009 at 1251 hrs
For crying out loud, what is it you think we’re all afraid of? I think you are afraid that there is something out of human control. It scares you that there is something out there stronger than humanity. Or you’re scared of research. That could be, too.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 16, 2009 at 1256 hrs
Jason - if you say that the prior ice ages were irrelevant - then what is happening today is also irrelevant.
If you don’t understand that - you don’t understand science or logical thought.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 16, 2009 at 1308 hrs
Alright, last one.
Wendy, of course the sun warms the earth through our atmosphere. We have also released tons and tons of gases into our atmosphere through non-natural means, especially in the last 50 years. An atmospheric greenhouse effect has been theorized for almost 200 years. Now we’re seeing a rapid and dramatic increase in temperatures that coincides with the non-natural release of the majority of these gases over a relatively short time. On it’s face, this all seems to make intuitive sense. It would take extremely powerful evidence to the contrary to get me to deny my own intuition, and more importantly, the scientific consensus. For other people, it takes very little evidence, and a lot of conjecture, so I assume that their judgment has been compromised. In this case I think it’s compromised by fear of taking responsibility for causing a global crisis.
Bill, I don’t care what happened on the planet before humans lived here. Whether the current issue is entirely natural, but can be mitigated by limiting human conduct, or entirely due to human conduct, I think we should make an effort. But that assesment has nothing to do with the conditions on the earth during the billions of years before humans existed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 16, 2009 at 1329 hrs
Jason, if you are SOOOOO concerned about anthropogenic global warming, you should try not posting so much. Your inane views are causing us to all respond, and all this internet use is EXTREMELY harmful to the environment. Your so-called scientific consensus said so.
Now, please consider the planet before posting anymore on this blog.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 16, 2009 at 1336 hrs
Jason,
“Approximately 99.72% of the “greenhouse effect” is due to natural causes—mostly water vapor and traces of other gases, which we can do nothing at all about. Eliminating human activity altogether would have little impact on climate change”
Go read this:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
Fact are always so troublesome aren’t they?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 16, 2009 at 1337 hrs
To quibble with a different part of this post: empirical, small-sample evidence suggests excessive meat consumption produces stinkier human output than a balanced or vegetarian diet.
For the record, I’m an omnivore who won’t give up eating burgers without a fight, but I’m just sayin’ the home environment benefits when everyone eats his or her veggies.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 16, 2009 at 1338 hrs
New technologies are emerging to use this methane to create electricity. Not just emerging, it is in use at this moment and working to reduce those gases released to the atmosphere.
Why is this a bad thing?
As time goes on the technology will get cheaper and the environment will be cleaner. Whether or not it will reduce global warming is yet to be seen. Not being a scientist, I will have to wait and see if what we are doing now will help or not but it is better not to take a chance.
I am not a doctor either but when the doctor says that you will die young if you don’t change your ways, we tend to listen to him/her.
Why do we fight the idea that we need to live better in hopes of putting off the death of the planet?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 16, 2009 at 1342 hrs
You are all taking too complicated aview of this. Hamburger tastes good and we should eat it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 16, 2009 at 1401 hrs
This is what I love about the lefty take. Only MY scientists are smart and worth listening to. YOUR scientists are dummy dum dums. Or are in the pocket of oil companies. Makes having a reasonable discussion all but impossible.
I’ll say this, though. If it shuts the door on this whole global hoax, I’ll gladly eat a salad a week to do my part.
Posted by jimi on February 16, 2009 at 1405 hrs
Jason, I applaud the work you’re doing, but you’re talking to know-nothings. Even their “experts” are know-nothings.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 16, 2009 at 1552 hrs
Ah, proof.
Posted by jimi on February 16, 2009 at 1625 hrs
I for one will gladly up my intake of steak to offset Jason and Steve-0. I’m not impressed by their global warming junk science. Furthermore, if I were to agree that there was something to it, even in some small way, why is some arbitrary temperature the right one. Will the world be a better or worse place, when we can farm Greenland again?
Heck I live in Wisconsin, I spend six months of the year hoping for global warming.
At lease this junk science is happier than the last one, where we were going bury Wisconsin under glaciers again, if we didn’t stop driving our cars.
That said, I’m all for conservation of our petroleum products, and trying to develop economically feasible alternatives. But trashing our economy at the feat of the green movement is just plain stupid.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 16, 2009 at 1655 hrs
I’m still not seeing the downside to warmer temps…
More people die from cold than heat. More area of land would be opened to agriculture. Remember - there were farms in Greenland and vineyards in the UK a 1000 years ago. And if the oceans rise - we’d lose New York, DC, LA, and San Francisco. On a personal note - I’d probably have beachfront property.
I’m OK with that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 16, 2009 at 1751 hrs
rashing our economy at the feat of the green movement is just plain stupid.
No Curt, it is par for the course. What do the enviros say about the bacon on my double Whopper that I ordered from the drive thru?
I know what orifice they can use to recycle my left over fries…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 16, 2009 at 1831 hrs
A scientist once told me that ICE was one of the most destructive elements and caused more crop and property damage than fire. I don’t know if this is fact, but the beauty of global warmists is that you can believe whatever you want. Facts be damned.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 16, 2009 at 1839 hrs
This is pretty hilarious. Nate Silver rips George F. Will to shreds.
Oh, and Wendy, little old anaerobic microorganisms completely terraformed the globe almost 3 billion years ago, giving us the oxygen-rich atmosphere we have today. If you don’t think living things can make a huge difference in the climate, think again.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 16, 2009 at 1904 hrs
Owen, if people eat less meat, people will raise less cattle. So there will be less overall methane produced by cow flatulence and dung.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 16, 2009 at 1910 hrs
I find it awful arrogant of environmentalists to assume that mankind is responsible for ‘global warming’. Excuse me, but a volcano belching ash into the atmosphere does a ton lot more damage to the environment than all the exhaust from our automobiles IMO. To the Al Gore types I’ll say; My cow just died, so I don’t need your bull. I know we’ve made some messes with pollution, but we can also clean up our messes and have done so ever since the 1960’s. I’m for clean water and air, but I don’t care to endanger liberty just to save the environment.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 16, 2009 at 2026 hrs
I’m with Jason on this, I don’t understand the overly strong opposition to concerns over greenhouse gases by “conservatives”
Now I do understand opposition to the way some factions of the environmental movement have tried to manipulate the issue. I also understand the resistance to a false choice between our economic viability and the environment. But at the end of the day, I would think this would be a conservative issue. How do we make smart decisions now to minimize the enviro clean-up we may have to do down the road?
I’m no enviro. I think I live in a town that’s gone over board on recycling. While I do support common sense things. (when I see weeds thick enough to walk across the lakes in Madison, I’m fine with a phosphorus ban, my lawn doesn’t need to be THAT green, or grow that fast either) at the same time I’m not about to give up my gas powered lawn mower for a lame electric, or even worse, push mower no matter how many times the unwashed hippie down the street gives me a dirty look.
So with that said, it seems to me a common sense, forward looking, approach to global warming/greenhouse gases/climate change is in order. While there are no doubt questions abound about the impact of man-made gases, there is broad agreement that we are having an impact. And one thing I know is that I wouldn’t sit in my garage with the door shut and the engine running, and anytime I’ve been to LA it looks like a giant garage full of car emissions. So to me car or plant emissions can only be a good thing global warming or no.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 16, 2009 at 2139 hrs
I’m with Jason on this, I don’t understand the overly strong opposition to concerns over greenhouse gases by “conservatives”
Because, should the envirocrats have their way, we will have more policies, like ethanol, shoved down our throats. Solutions, like ethanol (or the stimulus) which will have little to do with actually solving the problem and more to do with raising energy costs, or creating a new set of problems for consumers and businesses.
This notion that there’s undeniable evidence is malarky. If we start at the very basic of algore’s position, that CO2 is to blame, many scientists refute that very notion. Let alone that man is the cause and that we’re headed to our demise.
The envirocrats are doing exactly what they said Bush did with regard to the war and the need for the Patriot Act . . . fear mongering. It’s easy to be on the “better safe than sorry” side. It doesn’t require any real thought. Especially no thought on the consequences of trying to fix something that may not be broken.
Posted by jimi on February 17, 2009 at 0059 hrs
“Many scientists” actually means a handful, the vast majority of whom don’t even study climatology. “Many scientists” also support creationism.
I believe environmentalists are generally skeptical of ethanol, because it still releases a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, especially when you consider the entire manufacturing process.
I think it’s telling that you don’t actually have anything to say about the science behind global warming, but instead you’re worried about things being shoved down your throat. (Telling imagery, by the way.)
Oh and JJ, losing New York, San Francisco, DC, and LA would be horrible for the nation, especially since they generate a large proportion of our economic activity. We’d also lose parts of Texas and also my hometown of Lake Charles, LA.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 17, 2009 at 0811 hrs
Responsible use of our natural resources is and will always be a conservative issue. But so is preserving our freedoms. And too often that is the choice we are being asked to make, based on some greenie’s whim of the week. And way to much of it makes little or no sense. Ethanol is a net loser. Polutes more (when you add the lifecylce to produce it), performs worse, and costs more. Yet we are stuck with that crap. You can’t make the greenie’s happy until we are all living in caves again. Nuclear is somehow evil, wind might hurt a bird, hydro power might hurt a fish…...
I guess now even sitting in caves is out. Probably could not light a fire…and now it is not green to eat meat. (of course next it will be not green to eat veggies either….)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 17, 2009 at 1234 hrs
Um, as I expected, environmentalists do not favor ethanol. http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2009/2/12/17570/4360
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 17, 2009 at 1439 hrs
You asked a question, I answered it. Hardly telling of anything outside the scope of the question. To me, telling of the lib debate strategery.
Anyway, you support my premise. Recent articles seem to show many scientists of various schools related to climate not only oppose the notion of man made seasons, but out number those that support it.
You think all the signatures on the IPCC report were climatologists?
We’ve reached the no “reasonable” discussion phase with you.
Posted by jimi on February 17, 2009 at 1447 hrs
What articles are those?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 17, 2009 at 1624 hrs
jimi, looking back through the thread, you haven’t offered any citation to back up any of your fuzzy claims. I fully admit you probably won’t sway me, but if you showed that more scientists do not believe in man-made global warming than do, that would definitely merit further consideration, to the point where I might actually change my mind.
Now, if you cite a bunch of newspaper articles by local weathermen, policemen moonlighting as climate experts, metallurgists, and so on, that would be less persuasive.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 17, 2009 at 1631 hrs
Well, it’s funny you poo poo the weathermen as many weathermen make up the IPCC panel. Here’s a list of the IPCC authors from 2007. You’ll notice quite a few are not experts in anything, quite a few are weathermen, and some are climate experts. Much of the report was signed by reviewers . . . those who simply reviewed the data and agreed with the conclusions.
Without doing all the work, here’s an article that tells of a number of scientists that disagree with the IPCC findings.
Another interesting article:
I suspect you learned what you did from reading or hearing about it on the internet, and that you’re not an expert yourself. Well, we’re on even ground then.
Posted by jimi on February 17, 2009 at 1740 hrs
Steve-O
First - lighten up - you know the winky face means the person isn’t entirely serious about their previous statement.
Second:
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 17, 2009 at 1754 hrs
Total Entries: 19654
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/10/2012 02:32 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 101
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/11/2012 05:06 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).