Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- The Thing Of The Past
- “‘extremely unlikely’ without climate change, says scientists”
- Holocene Optimum In Alaska
- ‘Two incredible extreme events’
- The End Of Snow
- Google Maps Adds Context
- Thing Of The Past Update
- Expert Government Forecasting
- Thing Of The Past Comes To England
- “far outside the range of observed variability”
- African Desertification
- Grok Explains Polar Bears
- The Climate Denial Money Machine
- President Trump : “decisively defeat the climate hysteria hoax.”
- New Plan To Rob The Citizenry
- “Fifteen days to flatten the curve”
- Warm December 1923
- “Ensure No One Is Above the Law”
- The Best Electric Cars
- Honeybee Collapse Update
- “a live-animal market in Wuhan, China.”
- Fifteen Year Old Children In Australia Control The Weather
- Mission Accomplished
- Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
Recent Comments
- GW on The Thing Of The Past
- Disillusioned on The Thing Of The Past
- Gamecock on The Thing Of The Past
- John McLachlan on The Thing Of The Past
- arn on The Thing Of The Past
- gordon vigurs on The Thing Of The Past
- GW on The Thing Of The Past
- conrad ziefle on The Thing Of The Past
- Gamecock on The Thing Of The Past
- Tel on “‘extremely unlikely’ without climate change, says scientists”
People Eating Tasty Animals … yum, yum!
Pain En The A$$!!!
Can someone explain to me why “meat is the #1 cause of global warming”? I understand that animals can cause an increase in atmospheric CO2 due to respiration, but this is a short-timescale increase. The carbon from the animals comes from the vegetation they eat…the vegetation would die anyway and be consumed by CO2-producing bacteria, so it’s just causing a decrease in the timescale that happens at (and given that it’s probably near steady state right now, continuation of it will not change the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere).
So that leaves two possibilities. First, maybe it’s the transport of animals/animal products/resources for animal and extra fossil fuels (long-timescale CO2) those consume that cause the increase…though I doubt that those amounts top transport etc for humans. Second, maybe the animals produce more non-CO2 GHGs relative to their microbial counterparts. Again though, many hydrocarbons have a relatively short half-life in the atmosphere (getting oxidized to CO2), right?
So can anyone explain this to me?
-Scott
“meat is the #1 cause of global warming”
This is nothing more than a political statement by PETA. They hate the fact that people eat meat, so they jump on the AGW bandwagon because it suits their purpose.
People from the planet Vega also have something against eating meat and use use the fantasy to convince others to give up eating meat.
How’s about this Scott:
“.. 2.8% of all GHG emissions in the US can be attributed to livestock, compared to 26% from transportation.
.. refuted the 18% figure provided in a 2006 UN FAO report.’
http://www.producer.com/News/Article.aspx?aid=37700
“..that methane is a GHG 21 times more effective than CO2 is not right.”
http://www.farmcarbon.co.nz/index.php/2011/06/methane-not-21-times-more-potent-than-co2-after-all/
Scott, I always thought that the argument was land use and methane production…… as the line of reasoning.
Anyone know who Temple Granden is? Only person I know that really works in the true PETA title.
“bestselling author, and consultant to the livestock industry on animal behavior”
“I think using animals for food is an ethical thing to do, but we’ve got to do it right. We’ve got to give those animals a decent life and we’ve got to give them a painless death. We owe the animal respect.”
—Temple Grandin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Grandin
In fact I would be very interested in her thoughts on this subject!