medicineman
New Member
Hey, don't forget the cow farts!
On Global Warming - 16,000 scientistS agree ...
- Thread starter ViRedd
- Start date
Dankdude
Well-Known Member
Yup cattle farts account for I think about 5% of the methane emissions in the world, Well shit I think we need to do one or two things to lower the methane emissions produced in the United States.
Personally I belong to:
People
Eating
Tasty
Animals
We need to increase the beef intake to a point that it brings cattle to the point of extinction. Or
With this countries plans of world domination, We should take over India and Pakistan and force feed beef to otherwise starving vegetarians to do their part to eliminate methane emissions.
We must not forget that other animals on this earth secrete methane gas.
Think about it, a full grown elephant is ten times the size as a cow, Elephant steaks anyone?
- put all other mammals on an island and let them eat themselves into extinction. And the rest of the world becomes vegetarian.
Personally I belong to:
People
Eating
Tasty
Animals
skunkushybrid
New Member
True about the water vapour... but with the world getting hotter, this is hardly surprising.
Heard about the cows too... they're thinking of putting things in the food to cut down their emissions. Termites are a new one on me, but then they are not really a problem in my country.
It is cause and effect.
If we had nuclear power, everything would be cheaper.
My country is not so good with it's co2 emissions as it claims. We only claim the emissions in our own country... yet our businesses abroad are supposed to be the worst offenders and they don't show up on the reports. Even without the businesses abroad, we are still the 5th biggest producers of co2 in the world. You guys come in at number one of course, as is your wont.
Slowly we are suffocating this earth, and nature will not take it for much longer. An old theory with the dinosaurs was that there wasn't enough food to feed them all, they were simply too big... nature wiped them out to allow room for others to evolve.
It is ego that says we are stronger than nature, can withstand her ire. If you want a god then look no further than her for she could wipe us from this earth with a tiny rumbling from her stomach.
Heard about the cows too... they're thinking of putting things in the food to cut down their emissions. Termites are a new one on me, but then they are not really a problem in my country.
It is cause and effect.
If we had nuclear power, everything would be cheaper.
My country is not so good with it's co2 emissions as it claims. We only claim the emissions in our own country... yet our businesses abroad are supposed to be the worst offenders and they don't show up on the reports. Even without the businesses abroad, we are still the 5th biggest producers of co2 in the world. You guys come in at number one of course, as is your wont.
Slowly we are suffocating this earth, and nature will not take it for much longer. An old theory with the dinosaurs was that there wasn't enough food to feed them all, they were simply too big... nature wiped them out to allow room for others to evolve.
It is ego that says we are stronger than nature, can withstand her ire. If you want a god then look no further than her for she could wipe us from this earth with a tiny rumbling from her stomach.
skunkushybrid
New Member
It's not just termites either. many insects are producing more and more carbon emissions.
We are helping to speed it up with our own emissions. It is thought that termite farts, done regularly could contribute the same amount of co2 as our own emissions. I suppose this all depends on how regularly they fart.
Anyways, back to my theory on ants taking over the world...
We are helping to speed it up with our own emissions. It is thought that termite farts, done regularly could contribute the same amount of co2 as our own emissions. I suppose this all depends on how regularly they fart.
Anyways, back to my theory on ants taking over the world...
ViRedd
New Member
I have confidence in the free market. As world-wide demand for oil increases, and prices continue to escalate, alternative energy sources will be discovered, produced, and brought to market at competitive prices. Delaying the process by price controls, and other methods of artificially controlling the market will do nothing but delay the process and cause shortages and more of the upward spiral of prices.
Vi
Vi
skunkushybrid
New Member
When does anything ever happen quickly? We should at least make a start now. Our governments are... we should too.
medicineman
New Member
Geeze, how about eating termites instead, I hear they've got a lot of protien
Wavels
Well-Known Member
Med, that's a great idea....termite burgers, sauteed termites....yummy!
Bad science is looking to screw us humans again with the global warming hysteria!
.........
[FONT=Verdana, Times]Sometimes the consequences of bad science can be serious. In a 2000 issue of Nature Medicine magazine, four international scientists observed that "in less than two decades, spraying of houses with DDT reduced Sri Lanka's malaria burden from 2.8 million cases and 7,000 deaths [in 1948] to 17 cases and no deaths" in 1963. Then came Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring," invigorating environmentalism and leading to outright bans of DDT in some countries. When Sri Lanka ended the use of DDT in 1968, instead of 17 malaria cases it had 480,000.[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Times]Yet the Sierra Club in 1971 demanded "a ban, not just a curb," on the use of DDT "even in the tropical countries where DDT has kept malaria under control." International environmental controls were more important than the lives of human beings. For more than three decades this view prevailed, until the restrictions were finally lifted last September.[/FONT]
OpinionJournal - Outside the Box
[FONT=Verdana, Times]Holy Cow!
[/FONT]
Bad science is looking to screw us humans again with the global warming hysteria!
.........
[FONT=Verdana, Times]Sometimes the consequences of bad science can be serious. In a 2000 issue of Nature Medicine magazine, four international scientists observed that "in less than two decades, spraying of houses with DDT reduced Sri Lanka's malaria burden from 2.8 million cases and 7,000 deaths [in 1948] to 17 cases and no deaths" in 1963. Then came Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring," invigorating environmentalism and leading to outright bans of DDT in some countries. When Sri Lanka ended the use of DDT in 1968, instead of 17 malaria cases it had 480,000.[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Times]Yet the Sierra Club in 1971 demanded "a ban, not just a curb," on the use of DDT "even in the tropical countries where DDT has kept malaria under control." International environmental controls were more important than the lives of human beings. For more than three decades this view prevailed, until the restrictions were finally lifted last September.[/FONT]
OpinionJournal - Outside the Box
[FONT=Verdana, Times]Holy Cow!
[/FONT]
skunkushybrid
New Member
global warming is not bad science. It is a fact.
The debate rests on whether we are making it worse.
The ban on ddt happened through a scare, much like when our edwina curry told everybody not to eat eggs (salmonella).
I think the world just wants to change, live cleaner, healthier lives. It may well bump mankind's life expectancy up another 20 years.
The debate rests on whether we are making it worse.
The ban on ddt happened through a scare, much like when our edwina curry told everybody not to eat eggs (salmonella).
I think the world just wants to change, live cleaner, healthier lives. It may well bump mankind's life expectancy up another 20 years.
Wavels
Well-Known Member
I respectfully disagree, the science used by the alarmists is far worse than bad....it is intentionally misleading...hence, atrocious is a more apt description of this "science"....
A skeptic's take on man-made global warming
Q: What is your strongest or best argument that GW is not “very likely” to be caused by SUVs and Al Gore's private planes?
A: I guess the best argument is that global warming has occurred, but it began in 1680, if you want to take the latest long-term warming, and the climate changes all the time. It began in 1680, in the middle of what's called “The Little Ice Age” when there was three feet of ice on the Thames River in London. And the demand for furs of course drove the fur trade. The world has warmed up until recently, and that warming trend doesn't fit with the CO2 record at all; it fits with the sun-spot data. Of course they are ignoring the sun because they want to focus on CO2.
The other thing that you are seeing going on is that they have switched from talking about global warming to talking about climate change. The reason for that is since 1998 the global temperature has gone down -- only marginally, but it has gone down. In the meantime, of course, CO2 has increased in the atmosphere and human production has increased. So you've got what Huxley called the great bane of science -- “a lovely hypothesis destroyed by an ugly fact.” So by switching to climate change, it allows them to point at any weather event -- whether it's warming, cooling, hotter, dryer, wetter, windier, whatever -- and say it is due to humans. Of course, it's absolutely rubbish.
Also...
Q: If someone asked you where he should go to get a good antidote on the mainstream media's spin on global warming, where should he go?
A: There are three Web sites I have some respect for. One is the one I helped set up by a group of very frustrated professional scientists who are retired. That's called Friendsofscience.org. It has deliberately tried to focus on the science only. The second site that I think provides the science side of it very, very well is CO2Science.org, and that's run by Sherwood Idso, who is the world expert on the relationship between plant growth and CO2. The third, which is a little more irreverent and maybe still slightly on the technical side for the general public, is JunkScience.com.
Excerpts from:
The Ely Times - elynews.com :: News: A skeptic's take on man-made global warming
Also:
"If back in the mid-nineties, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would not exist because we would have concluded it was not necessary" Dr. Tim Patterson - Professor of Geology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University
"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits...climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world" Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister
"Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen" Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC
Friends of Science
skunkushybrid
New Member
Wavels, I agree that gw happens on a cycle, I agree mankind isn't wholly responsible for the co2 in our atmosphere.
The thinking now is that man is helping to speed things up, which really can't be denied. Imagine being able to walk the streets and breathe clean air, no cars pumping out toxic shit from exhausts. We can do it, we want to do it. the oil companies will endeavour to change our minds.
We need to start taking care of our earth. If you want something to worship, try her (this comment a generalisation, not aimed particularly at you wavels).
The thinking now is that man is helping to speed things up, which really can't be denied. Imagine being able to walk the streets and breathe clean air, no cars pumping out toxic shit from exhausts. We can do it, we want to do it. the oil companies will endeavour to change our minds.
We need to start taking care of our earth. If you want something to worship, try her (this comment a generalisation, not aimed particularly at you wavels).
Garden Knowm
The Love Doctor
Wavels, I would be interested to hear some your thoughts on HOW "the global warming scare" is bad or will lead to deaths..
And...can't you just look around the world and see that consumption is out of control? I just came back from the dominican republic, it is just one of 30 third world countries I have been to. The air quality is so bad that your throat hurts and your eyes burn.. just like Beruit, Mombasa, Nairobi, Calcutta, San Pedrosula, Damascus, Istanbul etc...
Doesn't it make sense that draining the entire Earth supply of OIL may be a bad idea... What role does that oil play? Is it good to drain the earth of any ONE natural resource... Why not use this as a time to go full steam ahead on renewable resources.. like solar power?
And just because science or naturalists were wrong ONCE or even 1000 times.. does not mean they are wrong this time... not even close.. that argument is...
iloveyou
And...can't you just look around the world and see that consumption is out of control? I just came back from the dominican republic, it is just one of 30 third world countries I have been to. The air quality is so bad that your throat hurts and your eyes burn.. just like Beruit, Mombasa, Nairobi, Calcutta, San Pedrosula, Damascus, Istanbul etc...
Doesn't it make sense that draining the entire Earth supply of OIL may be a bad idea... What role does that oil play? Is it good to drain the earth of any ONE natural resource... Why not use this as a time to go full steam ahead on renewable resources.. like solar power?
And just because science or naturalists were wrong ONCE or even 1000 times.. does not mean they are wrong this time... not even close.. that argument is...
iloveyou
skunkushybrid
New Member
The oil scientists will have you believe that the oil renews itself.
Garden Knowm
The Love Doctor
LOL ... well.. it does right.. it just takes billions of years... LOL
skunkushybrid
New Member
Sorry knowm, I'm getting confused with the natural gas in the ocean. It is thought that this replenishes itself regularly enough for us to take as much as we like.
Don't be surprised though, if this isn't said about the oil. Where it is collected in one place the scientists could claim it is collecting in another.
Don't be surprised though, if this isn't said about the oil. Where it is collected in one place the scientists could claim it is collecting in another.