Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Back To The Future
- “records going back to 1961”
- Analyzing Rainfall At Asheville
- Historical Weather Analysis With Visitech
- “American Summers Are Starting to Feel Like Winter”
- Joker And Midnight Toker
- Cheering Crowds
- Understanding Flood Mechanisms
- Extreme Weather
- 70C At Lisbon
- Grok Defending The Climate Scam
- “Earlier Than Usual”
- Perfect Correlation
- Elon’s Hockey Stick
- Latest Climate News
- “Climate dread is everywhere”
- “The Atmosphere Is ‘Thirstier.’”
- Skynet Becomes Self Aware
- “We Have To Vote For It So That You Can See What’s In It”
- Diversity Is Our Strength
- “even within the lifetime of our children”
- 60 Years Of Progress in London
- The Anti-Greta
- “a persistent concern”
- Deadliest US Tornado Days
Recent Comments
- arn on Back To The Future
- Walter on Joker And Midnight Toker
- Bob G on Back To The Future
- Disillusioned on Analyzing Rainfall At Asheville
- Disillusioned on Analyzing Rainfall At Asheville
- conrad ziefle on Back To The Future
- Brodirt on Back To The Future
- conrad ziefle on Back To The Future
- John Francis on Back To The Future
- John Francis on Back To The Future
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!