Cow 'emissions' more damaging to planet than CO2 from cars

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

It's not as intuitively logical as other sorts of emissions, I suppose.
Then again, there are a hell of a lot of cattle producing a lot of methane, and all of this is at the margin of natural processes.

@ Subman - If you post ridiculous claims, nay, any claims, expect to be asked for evidence. How many times it's been discussed before makes little difference, and sounds like an excuse at this stage.

See TDK's post. Says everything you need to know. You might learn something from it.

-S

[Tchocky]

Everything I need to know? That's a rather drastic limit. It may explain your postings, however.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Everything I need to know? That's a rather drastic limit. It may explain your postings, however.

Amazing you can even read what is posted, outside of your own rhetoric of course.

-S

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Current Warming??? Some of these "scientists" are now saying that a reversal and ice age is within the realm of possibilities. There is no "current warming" going on. The warming (and old climate models) you refer to is not going on in 2008.....despite increased CO2 output from humans. And despite the increases from humans, it's still a drop in the bucket. And it's also very amazing that sunspot acitivity has been reduced this winter, and that has directly correlated to lower temperatures. I wouldn't expect the bought and paid for "scientists" to bring attention to it though.

Cow emissions destroying the planet?!?!? And you can't even see how funny and ridiculous the whole notion is.

Funny! I remember showing you last go around reports that said 15% of the world had lower than normal temperatures. I don't think sun spots affects 15% only. I would also say that 3% isn't a drop in the bucket but is enough to change the natural balance. Lets be clear about something else. The only bought and paid for scientists are the ones you use as reference. It would be nice if there actually was a scientist that wasn't financed by Exxon/Mobil with some credible data.

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

@ Subman - If you post ridiculous claims, nay, any claims, expect to be asked for evidence. How many times it's been discussed before makes little difference, and sounds like an excuse at this stage.

I don't believe SUBMAN1 has ever posted anything beside spam links.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Amazing you can even read what is posted, outside of your own rhetoric of course.

What?

I read and responded to TDK's first post in the thread, and I've read and responded to yours, you've even quoted me. What's your point?

[Takeda Shingen]

Let's all relax and step away from the personal attacks.

The Management

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

Funny! I remember showing you last go around reports that said 15% of the world had lower than normal temperatures. I don't think sun spots affects 15% only. I would also say that 3% isn't a drop in the bucket but is enough to change the natural balance. Lets be clear about something else. The only bought and paid for scientists are the ones you use as reference. It would be nice if there actually was a scientist that wasn't financed by Exxon/Mobil with some credible data.

I don't think your data is credible. The "scientists" at IPCC and other groups are paid to show a result. Nothing more than that really. Their funding is directly related to it. It looked to me exactly like the data that you routinely show. The data the highlights CO2(man-made at 3% of 3% of the total greenhouse gases - Not 3% as you suggest), and pretty much ignores every other factor. And the data that looks at 1 century of a 1 degree difference in temperature as alarming. Just absolutely stupid. For someone who claims to be of a grandfatherly age, you sure don't seem to have the wisdom that goes with it, and the ability to understand when your being hoodwinked. It's also funny how you only seem to allow people with opinions of doom form your own opinion.

Here's some more of your global warming:

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/387743.html

"Anchorage digs out after record snow fall." All despite increasing CO2 and cow burps.

And BTW, I'm happy Exxon is funding scientists that are disputing this nonsense. Someone has to do it. If the environmentalists are trying to impede their ability to deliver needed energy to drive our country's economy by pushing junk science, Exxon's doing a great service. I applaud them for it. The bought and paid for "scientists" at IPCC should not be allowed to go unchallenged. Especially since their entire premises have been thrown out the window.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by TDK1044

The Earth will continue its natural environmental cycles, just as it has for millions of years, the sun will continue to do the same, and the politically motivated nonsense about so called 'Global Warming' will also continue.

Truer words have never been spoken.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Truer words have never been spoken.

That is true.

What I find alarming is that anything said against the collective norm if you are a scientist, no matter how true it may be, you lose your funding and your job. Then, just as alarming and no matter if massive amounts of evidence are on your side, to say anything against the collective (maybe we should call them the Borg?) when not a scientist and the mob attacks you to no end. Scary times. Definitely not a healthy democracy anymore.

-S

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

What I find alarming is that anything said against the collective norm if you are a scientist, no matter how true it may be, you lose your funding and your job. Then, just as alarming and no matter if massive amounts of evidence are on your side, to say anything against the collective (maybe we should call them the Borg?) when not a scientist and the mob attacks you to no end. Scary times. Definitely not a healthy democracy anymore.

-S

Well, the alarmists have been doing this for a long time. In this particular fashion since the 60's really. And they have the loud peanut gallery that follows them into believing anything they say. The only cycle that's consistent is, there seems to always be a "scare" theory of some type thnat they push. And their people will believe it no matter how broken their theory is. This "man-made" global warming and the followers of it are becoming like scientologists. They're just as pushy about their beliefs as well.

[STEED]

About time you guys in America started eating more cows.

Toss a cow on the barbie no wait make it two.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by STEED

About time you guys in America started eating more cows.

Toss a cow on the barbie no wait make it two.

Hopefully not UK ones - they are all mad!

I need a new barbie, but I'm picky about gas vs. charcoal. If I have to cook with gas, I might as well cook it on the stove or a George Forman! I was going to buy one last year, but never got around to it.

How about this one? http://www.weber.com/bbq/pub/grill/2...Performer.aspx Got the best of both worlds. Charcoal for cooking, yet propane is used for lighting - eliminating any lighter fluid taste on your good steak, while maintaining the smokey charcoal flavor! Not to mention that it takes the screwing around with lighting charcoal out of the equation. High tech charcoal barbie at its finest!





-S

PS. Besides, you get to burn coal and help slow global cooling!

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

I don't think your data is credible. The "scientists" at IPCC and other groups are paid to show a result. Nothing more than that really. Their funding is directly related to it.

Duh! I don't like it so I'm not going to believe it. Thats a real grown up approach. I shouldn't expect nothing less from you actually. You keep your belief that 15% encompasses the whole planet.

It looked to me exactly like the data that you routinely show. The data the highlights CO2(man-made at 3% of 3% of the total greenhouse gases - Not 3% as you suggest), and pretty much ignores every other factor.

313 ppm (parts per million) in 1960 to about 375 ppm in 2005. I think what your brain can't accept is the word "trace". Even though manmade Co2 is 3.2 percent of the total of Co2 it is an imbalance. If there is an unnatural imbalance it is going to have repurcussions.

And the data that looks at 1 century of a 1 degree difference in temperature as alarming. Just absolutely stupid. For someone who claims to be of a grandfatherly age, you sure don't seem to have the wisdom that goes with it, and the ability to understand when your being hoodwinked. It's also funny how you only seem to allow people with opinions of doom form your own opinion.

Whats the difference between 32% and 33%?

Here's some more of your global warming:

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/387743.html

"Anchorage digs out after record snow fall." All despite increasing CO2 and cow burps.

Let me try and teach you a little something. Snow is precipitation. What that means is that Alaska had a lot of precipitation at that time. That has squat to do with a global cooling temperature. It snows in Alaska every April.

And BTW, I'm happy Exxon is funding scientists that are disputing this nonsense. Someone has to do it. If the environmentalists are trying to impede their ability to deliver needed energy to drive our country's economy by pushing junk science, Exxon's doing a great service. I applaud them for it. The bought and paid for "scientists" at IPCC should not be allowed to go unchallenged. Especially since their entire premises have been thrown out the window.

Okay. Who has bought and paid for these GW scientists? Exxon/Mobil might stop paying these ant-GW scientists because the Getty's are trying to swing share holders into making Exxon do research on alternative fuels seeing as they aren't doing anything in research. No wonder they are paying scientists and gullible people like you suck it all up.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

Duh! I don't like it so I'm not going to believe it. Thats a real grown up approach. I shouldn't expect nothing less from you actually. You keep your belief that 15% encompasses the whole planet.

I think that has been your complete attitude from the get go. That's OK though. You keep believing those broken old theories. I don't buy any of it, because they leave things out of the model that don't produce the results they're paid to show. 15% indeed doesn't encompass the whole planet. That should tell you right there the lack of significance in what they try to show. It's a pittance.

313 ppm (parts per million) in 1960 to about 375 ppm in 2005. I think what your brain can't accept is the word "trace". Even though manmade Co2 is 3.2 percent of the total of Co2 it is an imbalance. If there is an unnatural imbalance it is going to have repurcussions.

Doesn't matter. It's not driving any warming like they said it would. The theories of sustained emissions vs. increased warming are bunk. The imbalance caused by that small fraction of a percent is irrelevant and hardly noticeable.

Whats the difference between 32% and 33%?

1% dummy.

Let me try and teach you a little something. Snow is precipitation. What that means is that Alaska had a lot of precipitation at that time. That has squat to do with a global cooling temperature. It snows in Alaska every April.

You are incapable of teaching anything to anybody. Your information comes from Google articles. You don't even know how to make heads or tails out of any of it, or scrutinize anything within them yourself. It snows in Alaska and freezes over every year. And your false beliefs in man-made global warming will not change any of it. This year set records up there. I don't see how you're making any point here. Snow is precipitation. No kidding. What does it have to do with average global warming temperatures? Where does the increased and sustained droplet of human produced CO2 come into play? I don't think you know what point you're trying to make here.

Okay. Who has bought and paid for these GW scientists? Exxon/Mobil might stop paying these ant-GW scientists because the Getty's are trying to swing share holders into making Exxon do research on alternative fuels seeing as they aren't doing anything in research. No wonder they are paying scientists and gullible people like you suck it all up.

Seems to me they get alot of inter-governmental funding, the UN, and private individuals like Al Gore and George Soros seem to throw alot their way. You seem to have an axe to grind against those who make your life possible brad. Do you depend on oil? Do you drive a car? Does your family depend on food from a grocery store? Do you buy stuff from retailers like Wal-Mart? Please let us know. Gullibility is a funny thing brad. Once you've seen Ice Age scares of the 70's, Soil depletions of the 80's, acid rain scares of the 70's-80's, Ocean depletions of the 90's, Y2K scares, Peak Oil scares, Ozone hole scares etc. etc., and now this man-made globval warming scares where the theories look inconsistent and parsed for content, the boy cried wolf a little too much for me. None of the abov e came true in anyway BTW. For a guy your age, you should have learned somewhere along the line to question these looney sources. I guess some are just incapable of breaking from the chains of gullibility. Despite years of living, some never learn to think and analyze for themselves. Some will always wait for an opinion to be formulated for them.

Get ready to be more lonely in your gloom and doom outlook:

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news...al_warming.php

Even more skepticism.