Global Warming Debate

[Banshi]

There are more trees on planet earth today than there were in the 1950's so don't let the facts get in the way..............

The problem with all the environmental wack jobs is they all approach issues on the environment not from the position of "what is the cause of this" but rather from the position "how has man created this problem" never letting the thought that the problem could simply be a product of natural environmental change get in the way of creating a socialist utopia. Since they start from the predisposed position that man is the cause, all their answers have to incorporate man as the problem, which leads to bad science. In the end this is why all their theories fall flat on their face.

[bwalker42]

Originally Posted by Banshi

There are more trees on planet earth today than there were in the 1950's so don't let the facts get in the way..............

The problem with all the environmental wack jobs is they all approach issues on the environment not from the position of "what is the cause of this" but rather from the position "how has man created this problem" never letting the thought that the problem could simply be a product of natural environmental change get in the way of creating a socialist utopia. Since they start from the predisposed position that man is the cause, all their answers have to incorporate man as the problem, which leads to bad science. In the end this is why all their theories fall flat on their face.

Wow! Banshi, Would like to know the source of your statistics!!!

Also, interestingly enough, I agree with your estimation concerning environmental wack jobs. It's that mentality "Man is the problem" that's the problem.

But I say rather to ask the proper question which IMHO would be along the lines of this;
"What works in the restoration of proper balance in our existance, Galaxy, Solar System, Atmosphere, Planet, continent, countries, states and cities, communities and homes?"

Needless to say...
The waters tested around the local city areas have been showing up with meds in the tap water.
Anti convulsants, sleeping pills, heart medications etc... I wonder if that has any effect on Global Warming.

[PBzeer]

In yet another display of You Can't Make This Stuff Up, the head of the UN Climate Council says, in essence, that we need to kill off all livestock to prevent global warming.

Now, I may not be the sharpest crayon in the box, but without even studying the subject, I can figure out that while not eating meat would lower the need for cattle, that is not the only item of nutritional value derivided from the beasties. Nor, the only useful product.

Perhaps the good Doctor is unfamiliar with MILK, or LEATHER, or even the use of cow hair. True, there are manufactured substitutes, keyword here being MANUFACTURED. Which evidently he forgot that manufacturing is also a culprit.

Nor does he seem to realize, that by making the world vegatarian, you increase the need for farming, which in turn, increases the need for climate unfriendly farm machinery. And will also include, further reduction in the oh so important forestation of the world.

Like I said, ya just can't make this stuff up.
UN says eat less meat to curb global warming | Environment | The Observer

[therapy23]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

Like I said, ya just can't make this stuff up.
UN says eat less meat to curb global warming | Environment | The Observer

Un-Farkin' believable.

Nuke the UN.

[SailorMitch]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

Nor does he seem to realize, that by making the world vegatarian, you increase the need for farming, which in turn, increases the need for climate unfriendly farm machinery. And will also include, further reduction in the oh so important forestation of the world.

Like I said, ya just can't make this stuff up.
UN says eat less meat to curb global warming | Environment | The Observer

PB, unfortunately raising and consuming beef and other animals for food is very inefficient. We alresdy have to increase farming to grow the feed for the animals, which results in a net loss of calories and proteins. the feed takes fertilizer and water. then we have to truck the animals to slaughter houses, (Gasoline/diesel), refrigerate the meat after slaughter, then move the meat to markets in refer trucks--more petroleum. then we have all the dung to handle, plus the methane gas the animals produce. In short, while it seems idiotic, the suggestion has merit. Not that this has changed eating habits, but it's good to be aware is it not?

[PBzeer]

I didn't say it wouldn't be effective. In fact, I would guess it would be far more effective than the Kyoto Protocols. I do though, think it is a rather impractical solution for a problem that doesn't exist to the extent they claim it does.

[camaraderie]

One has to believe the tripe about man/cow global warming to believe not eating meat would have a benefit. We should eat all the meat we like and as "greenhouse gas" levels rise even more rapidly it will be more obvious more quickly that global warming has little to do with man...and that more CO2 is a wonderful thing for plant life and crops.

[erps]

In yet another display of You Can't Make This Stuff Up, the head of the UN Climate Council says, in essence, that we need to kill off all livestock to prevent global warming.

I'm doing my part to fight global warming, one hamburger at a time:

[sailhog]

I just received a UPS package from Al Gore, telling me to do my part to stop global warming. Inside the package was a ball pein hammer and a cork.

[erps]

On behalf of the rest of us on the planet, I beg of you sailhog, use the tools you've been given.