Rockin' in the free world since 2005.

[Total: 5    Average: 2.8/5]
52 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 3065
Rating: 2.8
Category: Science
Date: 09/28/13 11:40 AM

52 Responses to Real Truth Behind Global Warming

  1. Profile photo of drawman61
    drawman61 Male 50-59
    7707 posts
    September 28, 2013 at 11:41 am
    Link: Real Truth Behind Global Warming - I knew it wasn`t all our fault
  2. Profile photo of bex753
    bex753 Male 40-49
    221 posts
    September 28, 2013 at 1:18 pm
    We are the ones eating the meat, so still our fat bastard fault
  3. Profile photo of ferdyfred
    ferdyfred Male 40-49
    13596 posts
    September 28, 2013 at 1:33 pm
    Beat me to it bex !!
  4. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36180 posts
    September 28, 2013 at 2:38 pm

    Before the cows got there the plains were covered by American Buffalo {yes, I know they`re really bison}. The buffalo ate grass and farted so what`s the difference?
  5. Profile photo of ferdyfred
    ferdyfred Male 40-49
    13596 posts
    September 28, 2013 at 3:11 pm
    Cows fart more than Bison?
  6. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31764 posts
    September 28, 2013 at 4:46 pm
    I bet dinosaurs farted a LOT! No wonder they`re extinct...

    The point is: AGW "Scientists" include cows as "human pollution" as if there were NO BOVINES before humanity came along... (as @Gerry1 correctly pointed out).

    EAT MORE MEAT! SAVE THE WORLD!!

    Also: termites produce more methane than cows... it`s a fact! (on a global scale I mean!)

    Excellent post @drawman61!
  7. Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    September 28, 2013 at 6:58 pm
    And here we go with the idiotic viewpoints of the denialists who have no idea what they are talking about.

    @5cats - Dinosaurs did not rapidly populate themselves to the extend that we are doing with livestock over such a small timespan. Human population has exploded, and thus our consumption of things such as fuels and livestock and foods have also exploded. Ergo, man has DIRECTLY caused livestock to be a contributor of greenhouse gases.

    Termites produce 15% of the globe`s methane, yes, but their population hasn`t exploded and nature has already adapted to it.

    The key is the rate of grown and time spans. If a population rapidly grows, nature is less able to adapt to it. If it grows more slowly, nature adapts more readily.

    Such scientific illiteracy in this thread. Ugh.
  8. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    September 28, 2013 at 8:06 pm
    mesovortex: I quoted in a previous thread, that we are well under 400ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, and that the 100% saturation rate for most plants is over 1000ppm. We aren`t even close to 50% of what the plants, we have today, can easily absorb.

    There were buffalo herds that dwarfed the cattle herds we have today. We know that we killed over 31,000,000 buffalo and there were likely many millions more uncounted for.

    The average herd of cattle we have today is 44-45 head and they are spread out all over the country. Buffalo herds ranged from a few hundred to over 10,000 in 1800 and created trails so wide and long that the railroads later bought the right-of-ways to them.
  9. Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    September 28, 2013 at 8:13 pm
    @CrakrJak:
    The buffalo herds did not explode in population or consume the same amount of resources that our Livestock production is doing. It`s not only getting more livestock, it`s the electricity to slaughter them, and the fuel to ship them around the country - and the food to feed the livestock. It`s a different ballgame.

    Also, it`s about rates. If the PPM goes to 1000 over a long period of time, then plants and animals may adapt to it, sure. But if it happens over two centuries or less - then nature may not be able to adapt in time.

    Why do you guys not understand this?

  10. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    September 28, 2013 at 8:31 pm
    I can has cheezburger.

    You can go f*** yourself.
  11. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31764 posts
    September 28, 2013 at 8:53 pm
    @mesovortex: "...or consume the same amount of resources that our Livestock production is doing."

    I`m REALLY certain that Bison eat just as much, if not MORE than your average cow! ;-) Just, you know, saying!

    As many human as there are? IT`S NOTHING! Nothing compared to other species! Ants? Termites? Blue-Green Algae??? (It`s the #1 bio-mass on the planet, BY FAR).

    It`s pure hubris to imagine that ONLY humans have caused the MASSIVE Earth to change.

    Yes, over the past 100+ years we`ve done a lot, cleared land, pumped out pollution, laid roads and rails. However? As a % of the Earth`s surface? What have we really done?

    Before humans there were forests, plains, rivers and oceans. Species came & went. The temperature went UP & DOWN without a single human to blame!!!

    Humans have caused SOME environmental change, but to claim we`re utterly destroying the planet in the next 100 years is NONSENSE.
  12. Profile photo of Runemang
    Runemang Male 30-39
    2676 posts
    September 28, 2013 at 8:55 pm
    I`m not giving up meat for your pissy little "environment" thing. Go put your environment somewhere else.
  13. Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    September 28, 2013 at 9:17 pm
    @5cats:
    Most of our livestock isn`t grass fed. It`s corn fed. Corn takes up a lot more water/energy to grow than just letting them wander on a grassland. You need to produce the water to irrigate the crops, the electricity to run the equipment to harvest it, etc.

    The same with livestock, you need to ship the food to the animals. You have to ship the meat to distributors. You have to have people to work it, and they have to use fuel too.

    If you don`t think our food/livestock consumption has no effect, then I have no idea what to tell you.
  14. Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    September 28, 2013 at 9:18 pm
    @Rune:
    Nobody says you have to. It`s about sustainability. Buy local, consume less overall.

    We simply do not have the natural resources for everyone in the world to live at the standard of living you do.
  15. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    September 28, 2013 at 9:24 pm
    The joke is that people actually think that the 1 billion people who are Westerners (N. America, Europe, Japan) could have an impact on all of this just by eat a little less meat.

    What about the other....6 billion people. They want to live like us. In fact, they are clamoring to. We have given our right ball to just stop emissions from growing, imagine how difficult it will be to actually cut them by 50%. But while we`re busy doing that, the other 6 billion will totally surpass us. And the population of Africa will go from the current 1 bil to 3-4 billion in the near future. How`s that going to work out?

    I mean, if apocalypse is truly near, this is the time bomb. And no, lowering the number of cows by 10, 20, or 30% would not impact anything. I can assume this is what the UN will say when it wants to "cull the herd".
  16. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    September 28, 2013 at 9:28 pm
    mesovortex: "The buffalo herds did not explode in population or consume the same amount of resources that our Livestock production is doing."

    The buffalo herds didn`t have to "explode in population", they were indigenous here for thousands of years. They ranged from northern Canada to Mexico and from the mid-Atlantic to Oregon. When they ran, it felt like an earthquake for many miles away. The dust they generated could be seen well beyond the horizon. They were simply a force that was unprecedented anywhere else on earth, even today.

    I`m not romanticizing or exaggerating the buffalo`s effect on the environment. These were direct observances by people of that time.

    Just one, of many, pile(s) of over 100,000 buffalo skulls.

  17. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    September 28, 2013 at 9:31 pm
    Under the conditions we have been given, we are facing apocalypse. An apocalypse that is unavoidable with 7, 8, 9, or 10 billion living like people in developed countries live.

    So under these conditions, the world of the future can`t properly exist. If the current level of cows (of all things) is unbearable, imagine in 2050 when 8-10 billion will be eating like Americans. And even if they cut their meat sharply to malnourishment levels - there will still be a crap ton more cows than now.

    So where does that leave the Central Planners in way of options to fight this "apocalypse"? Depopulation is the only answer to fight the problem proposed in this particular discussion. That is, if you accept the conditions we`ve been given.
  18. Profile photo of Nickel2
    Nickel2 Male 50-59
    5879 posts
    September 29, 2013 at 3:24 am
    I don`t have to worry about causing any of this, all my beef comes from white Styrofoam trays in the supermarket so does not contribute to global yawning.
    Cows, cows and more cows
  19. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31764 posts
    September 29, 2013 at 7:54 am
    @mesovortex: You`ve lost sight of "the point" ok?
    >>14% of "Human AGW" comes from cows METHANE. (specifically!)
    >>Cows have simply replaced other bovines & herd animals in the ecosystem, so THEY ALSO made a similar amount of methane!
    >>NO CHANGE (overall) in the (global) environment!
    ...nature has already adapted to it.
    You said it!

    Corn grows, wheat grows, grass grows, it`s ALL the same! If anything there`s MORE forests & trees than before since humans put out wildfires. Just FYI: fire destroys more forest every year (in North America I mean) than humans cut down.

    @Andrew155: Correct! Human population is our #1 problem, but absolutely nothing is being done about THAT eh?
  20. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    September 29, 2013 at 9:30 am
    Andrew: "Depopulation is the only answer to fight the problem proposed in this particular discussion."

    Eugenicists have been spouting that nonsense since before WWII. It`s been used as their excuse to sterilize and kill tens of millions of people.

    The fact is, our technology has allowed us to increase production to keep up with population. I was told back in grade school that the world could not sustain 6 billion people, here we are at over 7 billion people and there is no mass starvation, except that caused by war.

    Even when people are undergoing starvation, the US through the UN and USAid gives away millions of tons of food, vaccines and resources all over the world.

    Policymakers just need to chill out and let our scientists and humanitarians do their work, they need to quit scaremongering people into detrimental economic situations that cost jobs and raise prices on everything.
  21. Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    September 29, 2013 at 9:58 am
    @5Cats:
    No it`s not. I explained why. Your reading comprehension level is not very high, is it?

    If you think 7 billion people compares to a collection of bison, then you`re woefully ignorant about a great many things.

    @CrakrJak:
    I`m sorry, but if everyone wanted to live at the consumption level of the US, we`d only have resources for 1.5 billion people. The world doesn`t have enough stuff for everyone to live like you do. That`s a fact.

    Whenever a population outnumbers its resources, it stops growing. That`s also a fact.

    Finally, if you want to let the scientists do what they need to do, then why are you against climate scientists and evolutionary biologists?
  22. Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    September 29, 2013 at 9:59 am
    @CrakrJak:
    Your photo is absolutely NOTHING compared to the amount of livestock and how many resources it uses. 100,000 is nothing. There are 40,000,000 cows in the US. Alone.
  23. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 29, 2013 at 1:06 pm
    I was going to stay out of this thread because I`m already in danger of overdosing on climate skeptic dopiness. But I can`t help myself.

    5Cats and CrakrJak, scientists have studied this topic. Exhaustively. You really think that in the past 50 years not one climate scientist has thought to ask "How did the methane emissions of the North American bison herds compare to today`s cattle?"

    Short answer: Today`s cattle produce roughly three times the methane emissions (140 Tg CO2e) compared to the bison that used to roam the Great Plains (46 Tg CO2e).

    References:

    Kelliher & Clark (2010)

    "Cattle Burps and Climate Change." A short article referencing the above.
  24. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31764 posts
    September 29, 2013 at 2:00 pm
    A valid point @Squrlz4 but still not covering why cow farts are fully counted as "Human Caused AGW"... Humanity should get 4.2% CREDIT for wiping out those farting bison... (this is only half-a-joke, half serious!)

    @mesovortex: Blue-Green Algae (whatever it`s technical name may be) is the #1 biomass on the plane: more than ALL OTHER LIFE COMBINED!

    Tell me again how humans can destroy the Earth`s water & atmosphere...

    @Squrlz4: Do you know off-hand what the Earth`s water and atmosphere weigh? I gotta go shop for food, but I could look it up later... if you happen to know :-) save me the brain-strain.
  25. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 29, 2013 at 2:16 pm
    @ 5Cats: It`s cow burps, actually, not cow farts. Cows are foregut fermenters so the methane comes out the front; humans do their fermentation in the gut, so the methane comes out the back.

    I think you all need to keep in mind that when it comes to methane emissions of livestock, we`re talking about a relatively small part (but by no means negligible part) of the GHG problem (~14% or , in fractions, about one-seventh of what we need to be concerned with). If mankind can find a way to reduce GHG emissions in transportation, electricity generation, and industry, those of you who want to can still have a juicy steak or two every week.

    Regarding your research, 5Cats, no, I don`t have those numbers offhand. What you`re looking for is the combined weight of the *hydrosphere* (key term) and the atmosphere. I`m sure Wikipedia will either have the info or its references will be able to point you to it.
  26. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 29, 2013 at 3:23 pm
    @ 5Cats: Sorry, didn`t address one of your questions in my last post. The reason livestock GHG emissions are considered as part of the AGW equation is simply because they are something we have some control over--as opposed to natural sources of GHG. It`s as simple as that.
  27. Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    September 29, 2013 at 3:34 pm
    @5Cats:
    I`ve told you at least a dozen times. If we change the content of the atmosphere, we change climate. The more rapid we change it, the more rapid climate changes.

    Nature can adapt, but not if the changes are catastrophic. If the changes are too quickly, many species will go extinct. Since we`re at the top of the food chain, that`s a big problem.
  28. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31764 posts
    September 29, 2013 at 5:38 pm
    @Squrlz4: "hydrosphere" Ooo! Nifty word! Useful for finding information on Wiki :-)

    All from Wiki:

    1,400,000,000,000,000,000 Tons = Hydrosphere
    5,000,000,000,000,000,000 Tons = Atmosphere Of Earth
    17,500,000,000,000 Tons = CO2 In The Air
    29,000,000,000 Tons = Human CO2
    Humans produce 0.6% of the Earth`s CO2 each year? Did I get my fractions right??

    Humans emit: 29 gigatons of CO2 per year. Apx 8% of that is from breathing = :-) Natural CO2 is 0.035% of the total mass.
    Plant activities? 439 gigs, or 14X as much.

    YES YES! I KNOW! Plants absorb 450 Gigs! Don`t both repeating it! >-(

    My point is: If ALL HUMANS VANISHED the animals they tend would be replaced by wild animals. Forests would not be cut down (true) BUT they`d BURN MORE (also true!) each year!
    The biggest difference would be no more fossil fuels...
  29. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31764 posts
    September 29, 2013 at 5:48 pm
    The absurdity of AGW`s request: The "One Ton Challenge".

    In Canada, the Pro-AGW people asked each Canadian to reduce his "carbon output" by 1 ton each year. Sounds easy? Not really, but lets see how much that would change things:

    Canada emits: 16.5 tons per person
    544,000,000 as a nation.

    China emits?
    6,100,000,000 or over 10X as much.

    Dropping Canada`s emissions by 33,000,000 tons would be about 0.00113% of the Earth`s output...

    An snowball in Hell has more effect...
    Wiki Source
  30. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31764 posts
    September 29, 2013 at 6:04 pm
    Squrlz4: Bison are also "four gut feeders" too: They Are Bovines As Well! :-)
    So they mouth burped methane just as well as cows do! Better! They`re usually bigger you know!

    @mesovortex: Wiki says: apx 60 million Bison in North America before 1492... check those facts Bro!
  31. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 29, 2013 at 6:21 pm
    @ 5Cats: A request and a question:

    (1) Please provide a reference for your figure of 60M bison in North America prior to 1492. All my sources are stating 30M. (For example, see the first three references for the "Cattle Burps and Climate Change" article I linked earlier in this thread.)

    (2) What is the point that you are arguing? Pardon my saying so, but you`re a little all over the place and I`m lost.
  32. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31764 posts
    September 29, 2013 at 6:37 pm
    @Squrlz4:
    Ok: HERE at Wiki Wiki has both Bison AND "American Bison" pages, slightly different! :-)

    My point is: 14% of "AGW" gasses are from animals which, if humans weren`t around, would STILL produce the CO2 (or methane) naturally!
    Cow or bison? Same thing! If there were no humans and no cows? There`d be just as many burping BISON producing the same (as the cows) Green House Gasses!

    Humans cut down trees = yes.
    But if humans vanished? More trees would burn in fires every year!

    It`s not "black & white" ok? It`s complicated! It amazes me that Pro-AGW folks think it`s so absolutely simple. It`s NOT.

    As for "biomass"? Humans are just LITTLE FISH in the biomass of the Earth. Messy? Yes, but still rather small.
  33. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    September 29, 2013 at 6:40 pm
    Squrlz: I know the references you are citing of 30 million buffalo, but that is just the number that we counted in the process of killing them. Much of that slaughter was not accounted for at all. I`ve heard the PBS "Nature" program claim 100 million buffalo were here before colonization and that amount was estimated due to the size of their tracks and Indian folklore about them.
  34. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 29, 2013 at 7:26 pm
    @ CrakrJak: The 30M figure that is most often used by scientists, such as Kelliher & Clark (2010), is based on the available habitat, available foodsources, predation of, lifespan, and breeding habits of the bison. That`s a far better way to arrive at an estimate of peak population than anecdotes from hunting expeditions or from Native American folklore.

    As far as PBS goes, on the PBS.org website, they state:

    [quote">Scientists estimate that there were more than 30 million bison in North America when the first European settlers arrived on the continent...."[/quote">
    PBS article on bison

    I think we can both admit no one really knows exactly how many bison there were. But until you can point me to some information more convincing than Kelliher & Clark (2010), I`m going to go with the number most often used by scientists: 30M.
  35. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 29, 2013 at 7:39 pm
    @ 5Cats: If I`m understanding you correctly, you`re saying that if man weren`t raising livestock in North America, which are producing methane, there would be herds of bison here, which would be producing methane.

    Two points:

    (1) Per Kelliher & Clark (2010), today`s cattle are producting roughly THREE TIMES the GHGs that the bison produced. If you haven`t read the study or the article that cites it already, please do.

    (2) For the sake of argument, let`s say that today`s cattle are producing the exact same amount of methane as the bison herds used to. So what? The key point is this: Atmospheric CO2 has been on a slow but steady rise (it`s known as the Keeling Curve) ever since we`ve been burning fossil fuels. Anything we can do to slow or reverse that trend is a good idea. Ergo, it`s sensible to look at all sources of GHG that we have some control over--including agricultural practices.

  36. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31764 posts
    September 29, 2013 at 8:57 pm
    @Squrlz4: Is that Plains Bison or all 3 kinds :-) Really? Even with "only" 30M? There were as many of them as there are cows now. And bison are 2X as big!

    So if cows are counted AGAINST humans, why aren`t lack of bison counted FOR humans? Just like the trees: some produced, some removed.

    The growing foods the cows (& bison) eat also ABSORB CO2, just like TREES do! Again that`s a "neutral" production.

    To count the oil burned by farm machinery is ridiculous! It`s MICROSCOPIC compared to 1,000 other things!

    Again: demanding humans cut CO2 in farming is like asking Canada to cut CO2... but NOT CHINA!

    It`s NOT a case of "every little bit helps" ok? it`s a case of:
    Plan A - Will cost Millions and do 2%
    Plan B - Will cost Billions and do 4%
    Plan C - Will cost Trillions and do 6% AND will double the prices of ALL foods thus killing billions of humans...

    AGW Supports ONLY Plan C...
  37. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31764 posts
    September 29, 2013 at 9:04 pm
    I`m using "made up numbers" (that should be obvious!) and speaking ONLY of food production, but the overall picture is true.

    Remember the "price shock" when the USA instituted "ethanol laws" and corn, rice, millet and other "staple foods" JUMPED all over the world?
    Good for farmers & BIG Business
    Bad for everyone else
    Fatal for the poor...

    The USA is making Ethanol the WRONG WAY! Don`t use corn! Use corn stalks! And other by-products even the pigs won`t eat. THAT is how to make it! But it costs 3X as much (or more, I forget), so it`s utterly un-economical that way.

    Get it?
    The "cure" is worse than the disease!
    And if the USA used ALL it`s crops to make ethanol? It STILL wouldn`t be enough to replace oil!

    See? Complicated!
  38. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 29, 2013 at 9:55 pm
    @ 5Cats:

    1. BISON VS CATTLE NUMBERS
    You stated: "Even with "only" 30M? There were as many of them as there are cows now."
    RESPONSE: Not even close. As of Jan. 1, 2012, there were over 103M cattle in the U.S. and Canada.

    Source: USDA Ecomic Research Service

    2. FOR AND AGAINST
    You stated: "So if cows are counted AGAINST humans, why aren`t lack of bison counted FOR humans?"
    RESPONSE: In a way, they *are*: If the bison herds somehow were still existing on TOP OF the 103M cattle we`re farming, CO2 emissions would be higher than they are. But again, you are missing the point, 5Cats: CO2 emissions have been climbing steadily ever since we`ve been burning fossil fuels. Finding ways to slow or reverse that trend is a good idea.

    (Cont`d)
  39. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 29, 2013 at 9:56 pm
    (Cont`d)

    3. FARM MACHINERY
    You stated: "To count the oil burned by farm machinery is ridiculous!"
    RESPONSE: When did farm machinery come into this discussion? I`ve never said one word about it. Please keep to the topic at hand.

    4. ON KILLING "BILLIONS" OF HUMANS
    You stated: "(Addressing global warming) will double the prices of ALL foods thus killing billions of humans."
    RESPONSE: ~facepaw~ I find it interesting that you so often rant about the "scare tactics" of those who support AGW science--yet here you are talking about the killing of "billions" of humans.

    (Cont`d)
  40. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 29, 2013 at 9:58 pm
    (Cont`d)

    Contrary to your assertion, many studies have found that if the Earth continues to warm, it is the world`s poor who will most suffer. Why? Because many of the world`s poor are barely suriving now on subsistence level agriculture. Subjecting those millions to more extreme weather, lengthier droughts, and less fresh water for irrigation could make lives that are already difficult even worse.

    If you`d like to read an article that discusses this at more length, here is a good one, published just a couple days ago.

    Time for bed. Goodnight! =^.^=
  41. Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    September 29, 2013 at 11:07 pm
    @5cats:
    One beef/dairy cow has a larger carbon footprint than one bison. No fossil fuels are used for natural grasslands. However, plenty are used for the growing of cornfields (seed transporation, farm equipment, irrigation pumps, etc.). Fossil fuels are used to get the livestock from one farm to another if they are sold for breeding purposes, or to the slaughterhouse (which is not always next to the farms due to waste pollution). Then, there are fossil fuels involved in taking the beef (which is heavy) and transporting it.

    How come you can`t figure this out on your own?
  42. Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    September 29, 2013 at 11:10 pm
    @5cats:
    Also, you have no idea how much fossil fuel is used by agriculture. Fly over the plains of Canada or the Midwestern US some time.

    You also have to deal with fertilization and tilling of the soil every year.

    You know nothing of agriculture.
  43. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    September 30, 2013 at 12:44 am
    Squrlz: Let me quote the Buffalo Field Campaign, a group that helps protect the Yellowstone herd.

    "Although no one will ever know exactly how many bison once inhabited North America, estimates range from twenty-five to seventy million."

    "William Hornaday, a naturalist who spent considerable time in the West, both before and during the most severe years of the slaughter, comments on the seemingly infinite bison population and the impossibility of estimating their quantity: It would have been as easy to count or to estimate the number of leaves in a forest as to calculate the number of buffaloes living at any given time during the history of the species previous to 1870."

    75 to 100 million, doesn`t seem to be an over estimation when writers of the time describe of herds 5-6 miles wide and reaching from beyond each horizon (12 miles in each direction, a total of 24 miles).

    There is nothing in past or present history that can compare
  44. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    September 30, 2013 at 1:23 am
    mesovortex: One weeks commute by people to and from work, uses more fuel then do all the farmers in this country in one month. In fact, the numbers aren`t even close. Farmer`s use 13-15% of refined fuels, commuters use over 60%. The rest is used by semi-trucks 9-10%, airplanes 9-11%, trains & buses 3%, recreation and the military 1-3%.
  45. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    September 30, 2013 at 4:32 am
    @5Cats

    "Humans have caused SOME environmental change, but to claim we`re utterly destroying the planet in the next 100 years is NONSENSE."

    We`re not going to utterly destroy the planet.

    What we WILL do is make it worse for our species in particular to live here.

    This isn`t about putting the planet`s needs ahead of our needs. This is about putting OUR long-term needs ahead of our short-term needs.
  46. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    September 30, 2013 at 4:42 am
    @CrakrJak

    "Correct! Human population is our #1 problem, but absolutely nothing is being done about THAT eh?"

    Yes, human population is our number one problem.
    No, things are being done about it.

    I`m not having any kids. That`s a small contribution.

    And I imagine the same is likely true about you, CrakrJak.

    So we`re helping.
  47. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    September 30, 2013 at 4:47 am
    @5Cats

    "The absurdity of AGW`s request: The "One Ton Challenge"."

    Things like that aren`t meant to be the solution unto themselves. They`re meant to be the first baby step towards getting you and others to think about your lifestyle and see what you can change for the better.

    Kind of like those "walk 5,000 steps a day" things, or "eat 5 fruit and veg a day". Nobody thinks those are the whole answer to living healthily; they`re meant to be a first step.
  48. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    September 30, 2013 at 4:49 am
    @5Cats

    "It`s not "black & white" ok? It`s complicated! It amazes me that Pro-AGW folks think it`s so absolutely simple. It`s NOT."

    It IS complicated.
    We DON`T think it`s simple.
    We LISTEN to those far smarter than you and us who have gone through all those complexities FAR more thoroughly than your Wikipedia flailings ever could.
  49. Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    September 30, 2013 at 5:49 am
    @CrakrJak:
    Your numbers don`t at all add up - which makes me think you made them up.
  50. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31764 posts
    September 30, 2013 at 9:01 am
    agricultural practices
    @Squrlz4: As a prairie person? I include ALL aspects of farming and ranching when I hear that phrase... my assumption! Sorry.
    How else can our "practices" be done in a "greener" way except by less fossil fuel burning? Cow burp reclamation? That wouldn`t come cheaply...

    yet here you are talking about the killing of "billions" of humans.
    It`s a fact...

    Contrary to your assertion... it is the world`s poor who will most suffer.
    Um, NO? I said the OPPOSITE of this! I said the poor will suffer the MOST and the "poorest of the poor" will DIE IF PRO-AGW rules are emplaced.

    Doubling the price of everything = bad!

    Finding ways to slow or reverse that trend is a good idea.
    YES! I agree! But lets find ways that do NOT destroy humanity, OK?
  51. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31764 posts
    September 30, 2013 at 9:09 am
    You know nothing of agriculture.
    @mesovortex: OBVIOUSLY! I mean my extended family has only farmed on the Canadian Prairies for 100 FREAKING YEARS NOW!
    I have NO CLUE!!!!

    I`ve already accurately stated the amount of fuel burned in farming is TRIVIAL compared to other industries! AND farming (growing crops) acts as a CARBON SINK! For F*CKS SAKE.

    Even making those solar panels create MORE greenhouse gasses than farming every year! On a global basis...

    Put your "Medallion Of ESP" away Bro, it seems to be broken...

    Next you`ll say I know nothing about CATS...

  52. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    September 30, 2013 at 9:41 am
    mesovortex: "Your numbers don`t at all add up - which makes me think you made them up."

    They come from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) and the numbers do vary by category according to seasons and the economy.

    For instance there is more jet fuel used during the holidays, less fuel used by farms in the winter, more recreational fuel use in the summer.

Leave a Reply