Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
- Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Spoiled Children
- Great Lakes Storm Of November 11, 1835
- Harris To Win Iowa
- Angry Democrats
- November 9, 1913 Storm
- Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- Obliterating Bill Gates
- Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- The End Of Everything
- Harris To Win In A Blowout
- Election Results
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
Recent Comments
- czechlist on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Disillusioned on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- arn on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- conrad ziefle on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- arn on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Billyjack on COP29 Preview
- dm on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- dm on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Tel on COP29 Preview
- Robertvd on Making Themselves Irrelevant
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!