I open up theGlobeandMail.com and read the headline: "Greenhouse gases a threat to human health, U.S. agency rules". I think to myself, isn't heart disease and the over consumption of meat the greatest threat to our health? Cardiovascular diseases are the leading causes of death in the West. Where is the outrage toward that?
For those lemings who believe in man-made global warming, get upset about meat. The damage done to the environment at the hands of our consumption of meat is monstrous and we don't even need it. You'd kill two birds with one stone if this get-together in Copenhagen was directed toward decreasing the consumption of meat.
Anyway, who trusts any "U.S. Agency"?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
Amen brother. If the experts really believe in global warmng then one of the quickest solutions to lead the charge on is to encourage people to not consume or consume very little animal protein.
Methane is one of the greenhouse gases greatly contributing to the warming. Methane in the atmosphere will last 7-8 years while CO2 will last 75 years or more.
Reduce methane pollution and we start reducing greenhouse gases in a hurry big time.
Eat plants hug your animals.
Stop blathering on with your hippy nonsense about greenhouse gases.
You're validating the policies of those who want to control the world.
Still not going to eliminate the majority of the gas producers: Factory, transport, big machinery.
It doesn't matter considering CO2 only makes up a small fraction of 1% of total gases in the atmosphere (Methane is 1745 parts per billion) and only a small fraction of 1% of CO2 are man made (The rest coming from the much more important forests and oceans).
The more important bird that would get knocked out is the poisoning of our colon.
Your missing my point Josh.
If the experts believe global warming is really a problem then they should look first to the the leading source of greenhouse gases.
No it is not belching factories or even cars and trucks.
It is modern agriculture and primarily the activities of raising livestock for meat that contribute the single largest percentage of green house gas.
So if they beleive that we are in dire danger why is there not a hue and cry to encourage people to stop eating animals!
There should be banners flying and adds in media and a whole world wide public campaign to tell people to stop eating meat.
Oddly no such campaign exists. So are they serious that global warming is a threat?
Hippy blathering?
I validate no ones policies but my own!
"It is modern agriculture and primarily the activities of raising livestock for meat that contribute the single largest percentage of green house gas."
Yep, life releases CO2. Want less CO2? Then you want less life. (Not saying you, Dad, do, just saying, those that got a problem with CO2, got a problem with life.)
"So are they serious that global warming is a threat?"
No. They are manipulating the masses to build a one world government and man-made global warming is their meal ticket.
The number rises to 27% if one takes into account all the gases that contributed to the greenhouse effect. C02 is about 2.8%.
But, alas, the deniers do not understand that it is the culmination of these gases over many years that is the problem. They have upset the balance.
Moreover, increases in the CO2 total causes natural sources of CO2 to release more CO2.
Historically the CO2 ppm was around 180-280 ppm. It is now 280-377 ppm. If you do the math for the modern ppm number, it comes out to be 27% of all carbon dioxide is created or has been created by human sources.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1c/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png/494px-Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm
"But, alas, the deniers do not understand that it is the culmination of these gases over many years that is the problem. They have upset the balance."
Nature is changing the balance constantly and radiation from the sun causing a warming of the oceans would cause a much a larger increase in CO2 than anything man-made.
"Historically the CO2 ppm was around 180-280 ppm. It is now 280-377 ppm. If you do the math for the modern ppm number, it comes out to be 27% of all carbon dioxide is created or has been created by human sources."
I'm not following this math.
The primary green house gas released by agricultural activities is not CO2. It is methane. Methane will deterioriate in the atmosphere much faster than CO2. Thus if governments were serious about global warming they would curtail these activities immediately.
It remains a mystery to me why those who are most alarmed with climate change are not waving the flags for everyone to become vegetarian tomorrow morning!
Those who seriously do support the global warming arguement are not backing their concern with rational actions.
"Nature is changing the balance constantly and radiation from the sun causing a warming of the oceans would cause a much a larger increase in CO2 than anything man-made."
And this is NOT a refutation of my point. Again, over 150 years of CO2 ppm increases is what we are talking about, and the CO2 coming from the oceans is from previous CO2 emissions, including human emissions.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
Read it to erase your ignorance.
"Those who seriously do support the global warming arguement are not backing their concern with rational actions."
They are doing better than the moralizing cynics who think politics has to do with being polite and changing "what I do".
What load of half-baked idealism.
"What load of half-baked idealism."
Dad is full of half-baked idealism, you're full of half-baked idealism, and apparently you all think I'm full of half-baked idealism. We can all agree any middle ground would not be completely true, so what is right?
"Dad is full of half-baked idealism, you're full of half-baked idealism, and apparently you all think I'm full of half-baked idealism. We can all agree any middle ground would not be completely true, so what is right?"
What is right is accepting the best argument. For example, the Double Whammy killed the car industry. They were profiting before the crisis. They may have had lots of debt, they were NOT subsidized by the "The Government" in any way whatsoever.
These are facts. Accept them, or I'll be laughing at you until I die.
Sorry but I cannot follow he who has the best arguement as a method of validation.
The arguement that one can successfully make today may very well rise up and bite you tomorrow.
There is science on both sides of the arguement. Simply saying that one side is wrong and here is my arguement does not make it so! Either way.
Yes my half baked idealism is to listen to everyone and sift through the chaf do determine what fits for my beliefs.
To align oneself to either dogmas means neither of you are thinking for yourselves or expressing your own original thought.
My idealism may be half baked but it seems to me that if we do the right things, only good things will happen.
Taking action to stop messing up the planet just makes good sense to me. Whether there is global warming or global cooling.
I will now bow out of this conversation and allow both of you to continue argueing about the number of angels that are dancing on the head of a needle.
Science is not Scholasticism and there is evidence that is not based on perspective. Your high-minded removal of yourself from this debate just shows how willy-nilly liberals are.
Post a Comment