Global Warming Debate

[poopdeckpappy]

Anyone who thinks that Climate Change is not a normal is an idiot. We have been a state of glacial melting for 10,000 years.

Anyone who thinks man is to blame for the current change in climate is ignorant and uninformed.

Anyone who thinks man can alter or control it has a God complex.

The issue is - its here - live with it.

I agree with you but, with the exception above

[JohnRPollard]

An intersting study....

NASA Study Finds Atlantic 'Conveyor Belt' Not Slowing

[xort]

Originally Posted by JohnRPollard

An intersting study....

NASA Study Finds Atlantic 'Conveyor Belt' Not Slowing

Damn, I was counting on GW to make crossing to the bahamas easier plus deeper water once there for better anchoring access.

I think I'll go run my 454 big block for a few hours to help things along.

[radovix]

Originally Posted by NICHOLSON58

Anyone who thinks that global warming is not real is an idiot. We have been a state of glacial melting for 10,000 years.
Anyone who thinks man is to blame is ignorant and uninformed.
Anyone who thinks man can alter or control it has a God complex.
The issue is - its here - deal with it.

I am a paleontologist and, obviously, I agree with you.

But in Europe the global warming is now a substitute of the communism and move a lot of biz to steal gov funds for aeolian or "eco-housing".

Sad and frustrating for a scientist.

[SW329xl]

Of course "Global Warming" is a hoax manufactured by those liberals in an effort to take over our lives. Just like those liberal bastards Galileo and Darwin.

[Architeuthis]

And now we have COWGATE!

Turns out they may have overstated the cows ability to control the global climate. The shocking thing is people actually believed in Bovine Climate Control.

http://www.globalclimatescam.com/201...ing-are-false/

[xort]

Originally Posted by Architeuthis

And now we have COWGATE!

Turns out they may have overstated the cows ability to control the global climate. The shocking thing is people actually believed in Bovine Climate Control.

http://www.globalclimatescam.com/201...ing-are-false/

"Mitloehner also makes the deadly serious point: “Producing less meat and milk will only mean more hunger in poor countries.” Precisely. The demonising of cows and pigs is just another example of global warmists’ callous indifference to starvation in the developing world, as in the case of the unbelievably immoral and reckless drive for biofuels – pouring Third World resources for subsistence into Western liberals’ fuel tanks – and, notoriously, carbon trading."

[SW329xl]

Originally Posted by xort

"Mitloehner also makes the deadly serious point: “Producing less meat and milk will only mean more hunger in poor countries.” Precisely. The demonising of cows and pigs is just another example of global warmists’ callous indifference to starvation in the developing world, as in the case of the unbelievably immoral and reckless drive for biofuels – pouring Third World resources for subsistence into Western liberals’ fuel tanks – and, notoriously, carbon trading."

Look Cows are delicious. I prefer mine extra rare. But you have to be kidding to think that cattle farms are the most efficient way to solve world hunger. Beef is not a particularly good food. It clogs up your arteries, and the amount of nutrition you get for the amount of energy expended to get it, makes it a not so great food for solving world hunger. Part of the problem that the Chesapeake faces is from run off from farms. I know that you can't resist any opportunity to needle liberals, but it sounds stupid to say that liberals are trying to starve third world countries by passing environmental regulations on cattle farms. I know I make a lot of comments that are over the top and stupid, but that is on purpose, for effect, and I think most people realize that.

As far as the article, it is on a hyper anti-gw site, so take it with a grain of salt. It seems like one group used a more inclusive method of calculating the cost, while the second only included cow burps. The cost of growing the cattle feed, transportation, and running the farm still have to be accounted for somewhere. I know you don't believe in gw to begin with, but this is not the smoking gun you think it is.

[Architeuthis]

Originally Posted by SW329xl

..I make a lot of comments that are over the top and stupid, but that is on purpose, for effect, and I think most people realize that.

As far as the article, it is on a hyper anti-gw site, so take it with a grain of salt. It seems like one group used a more inclusive method of calculating the cost, while the second only included cow burps. The cost of growing the cattle feed, transportation, and running the farm still have to be accounted for somewhere. I know you don't believe in gw to begin with, but this is not the smoking gun you think it is.

Realize? No I just thought that was just you....LOL just jokes.

Not the smoking gun because it is on an Anti-AGW site..Not that I'm defending that site but you have GW and AGW confused though it is possible you meant AGW when you use terms like GW and Climate Change as those terms are being co-opted to confuse the public. Even I get them mixed up at times.

If you do not like rational sites then the same story can be found at the telegraph and even the BBC. BBC News - UN body to look at meat and climate link and it comes from the UN.

The smoking gun is now almost every over the top claim made by every AGW supporter over the last 3 decades. Claims which are now being discredited so quickly that only the devoted are holding dear the belief that man is controling the climate with CO2 or that CO2 is a major climate driver.

But the real lesson from this story, which I guess was missed is shown in the last paragraph:

Dr Mitloehner contends that in developed societies such as the US - where transport emissions account for about 26% of the national total, compared with 3% for pig- and cattle-rearing - meat is the wrong target in efforts to reduce carbon emissions.

Rather than meat being a much greater contributor it is a tiny fraction. There is the suggestion that the top scientists in the world are unaware that similar analysis must be done if one wants to do a proper comparison but is anyone really accepting that explanation for the over the top claim?

The correct explanation is more likely that Climate Science is being driven by political beliefs, not science. Is it not clear in this story, as well as so many others, that science is being abused to advance political agendas?

Is this not clear now that we know CO2 is not driving the climate? That all the models claiming so have been wrong and others manipulated to produce desired results?

That is what Cowgate is about.

Like Glaciergate, Hurricanegate, Sealevelgate, and the many other gates we have been flooded with since Climategate.

Cowgate shows yet again that science has not been behind Man Made Global Warming claims.

[xort]

Add in flue-gate

Independent experts to review pandemic handling - WHO - Yahoo! Asia News

Seems the WHO overplayed their hand regarding the swine flue pandemic. More hits to science.