ABC Wants You to Fight Global Warming One Cow at a Time

[SmithRafe]

Bull

[picklesloveslight]

They just want us to have more cancer

[KnockoffNigeI]

This isn't true cereal crops produce 47% more greenhouse emissions than beef livestock because of the high cellulose content of the stems when they're broken down by bacteria they liberate co2 more efficiently than a cow's gut. digesting grass The percentage rises to 51% if you take the energy used to bake bake bread in to account.

[aarond989]

If the science that you worship is so good, why has it not played out yet. Some of these studies have been out for 10 years and we do not have noticeably warmer temperatures.

How long do we have to wait? What if the next 5 years are cooler? Is the science wrong then or do we just keep waiting.

I am looking for real proof. Not just models and studies, because those haven't proven anything yet. Your scientists get grants, they do studies and give each other awards. Where is the proof?

[ReduceGHGs]

Try clicking on "Reply" if you want a response.

I don't "worship". The predictions have in fact been too conservative.

How long should you wait? Well, some will NEVER accept the fact that humans are altering the climate so YOU and some others in denial may be waiting a LONG time for convincing evidence.

What is "real proof" to a layman? Tell me. Ever complete a proof?

Scientists lie to get grants? A transparent excuse. The studies are international and span decades.

[aarond989]

The predictions have been too conservative? The studies span decades? Every time you post you make yourself sound worse.

Decades ago some in your scientific community were predicting an ice age. Oh but wait, those were non-credible scientists. Right?

That is the problem, we never know who is right. If it were so easy to predict such things, meterologists would always get the weather right. But they don't?

[ReduceGHGs]

Do some research. You lack accurate information.

Google...

AMS Online Journals - The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling "A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales."

American Meteorological Society

Google...

Climate vs Weather - Difference and Comparison

[ReduceGHGs]

Google...

Killing the myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus

The naysayers like to bring up the 70s cooling ploy but its baseless. The above is another debunking of it.

The illogic of the argument is striking. "THEY were wrong about THAT some thirty years ago so they must be wrong about THIS, NOW." By the same token, THEY thought the earth was flat and that it revolved around the sun THEN so today's science is wrong about THIS, NOW.

Silly and sad.

[aarond989]

Google...

Junk Science Greenhouse Effect

I am hardly basing my thoughts on this one site. In fact I am basing my thoughts more on common sense, but I think the above link brings a common sense approach to all the hysteria. And they also site sources of using science to dispel Global Warming ideas.

You asked for a link, so I gave you one. I could give you a lot more sites if you want.

Some of those global cooling studies were peer reviewed. So that was my point of bringing it up.

[ReduceGHGs]

JunkScience. com is a website maintained by Steven J. Milloy, an adjunct scholar the Cato Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute - right wing think tanks with long histories of denying environmental problems at the behest of the corporations which fund them. Milloy is also a columnist for FoxNews. com.

Why do you feel the need to gravitate to these industry supported sites? Why not CREDIBLE scientific institutions?

Maybe try your 70s cooling again. LOL!

good one!

[pimezon]

what is the proof that the pill you are taking is in fact asprin? can you prove to me that you are in fact human and not a monkey typing crap? can you prove to me that atoms electrons and neutrons exist?

prove me that, and I will prove to you how real global warming is.

[dinkaDPB]

really be a human or get out of the fucking room. the world has no place for men with cow like thinking and selfishness and we dont need governments promoting longer lives and more reliance on healthcare creating a world wide popluation problem. populatoin is going up but did any of the governments or scientists think about the future? no they are thinking of their own behinds and their sacred selves...

[dinkaDPB]

i dont use a car or a plane. its easy not too. some people are so thick and narrow minded they want to target animals for causing problems when animals dont think up dumb schemes or plans that destroy the world

[dinkaDPB]

The UN or whoever is targetting developing nations to reduce the number of cattle they have when the cow has always been a part of nature and never caused any problem for the world.

The UN is also trying to stop people eating meat.

Why cant the guilty people realise they are the evil ones of the planet. they want to be cows themselves. they feel they own the earth that they are sacred and cannot give up their cow lifestyles.

[carbednotch]

Climate change is called SEASONS you idiots!

GOREBAL warming is a cigarette science SCAM to tax you.

Climate Change is a plan for you to pay taxes to private banks.

[ReduceGHGs]

Yes, that's right! I learned that back in grade school. We have climate changes through the seasons. But now we're talking about human induced changes.

Try reading a little about global warming before posting something silly. We humans are affecting the climate. All of our historically reliable scientific institutions concur. The only institutions that say otherwise are vested interests like corporate think tanks such as CEI, CATO, and Heartland.

Google FMI...

NAS Global Warming

[carbednotch]

Think for yourself for once you brainwashed O-zombie!

How can paying carbon tax to INTERNATIONAL BANKS going to stop air pollution? Skyrocket energy costs is what it will do.

Hydro(water)-powered cars using NEW technology will stop air pollution but OUR MASTERS do not want us to have free, clean energy and suppress it. Then tell us we need to pay carbon tax because the fuel and energy we buy FROM THEM is pollution?! WHATS NEXT?!!!!

ReduceGHGs is a sham just like his god: ALGORE

[ReduceGHGs]

zombie? What tha? silly kid.

Yes, a carbon tax on polluting activities will discourage them. The funds can then be used encourage sustainable activities. Simple enough?

Water powered cars are a pipe dream. They don't exist and have no REALISTIC hope.

Most that are informed about the crisis appreciate Gore's efforts to raise awareness. He's done a great job. But WE must be the vehicles of change by insisting our policy/law makers commit to sustainability soon!

UCSUSA(dot)org

[jmart550]

It's called corrupted science, and you've fallen victim to it.

[ReduceGHGs]

Corrupted science? What tha?

The science I'm talking about spans the globe and decades of research. Do you really think that they all lie about the data and their conclusions? Come on get real. That's a transparent excuse for ignoring the best science available.

On the other hand we have the vested corporate interests that deceive the gullible (you apparently) into thinking the science corrupt or wrong. Why would they do that? Researching source credibility/bias is essential. Try it!

[aarond989]

Remember the Hockey Stick graph that was heralded at the 2001 IPCC. The scientific community behind that is now backpedaling and many have come out against that theory.

But how can that be? It was the best science and decades of research. Because it was created by a garbage computer program that was programmed by humans who were looking for a specific result.

The truth is we should conserve energy and recycle because it is the right thing to do, but humans are not affecting temperature.

[ReduceGHGs]

Google...

RealClimate: Myth vs. Fact Regarding the "Hockey Stick"

P.S.

The "hockey stick" graph was created well before computers so you are certainly wrong about it being created by a "garbage computer program" aren't you? Do some reading.

[aarond989]

I do read a lot. You can read this excerpt from the TechnologyReview website...

"But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey-stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records."

[ReduceGHGs]

And do you have a point to make?

McIntyre & McKitrick goes back SIX YEARS and I gave you the debunking already. Google...RealClimate: Myth vs. Fact Regarding the "Hockey Stick"

Do you really think the entire case for anthropogenic warming rests on that graph? How about the models? Are they the bases? Hell no.

You're missing the forest for the trees. Why can't you find better support? Old clue ---> because it is a FACT humans are degrading our only habitat.

[aarond989]

Sorry man, I just don't buy it. I am not however naive enough to think that humans don't destroy parts of the earth's natural habitats.

I just don't think humans have that much influence on temperature. This may sound crazy, but I think it has more to do with that giant fireball called the Sun.

Sunspot records do correlate very well with temperature changes. CO2 is a much harder thing to link to temperature fluctuations.

I won't convince you and you probably won't convince me.

[ReduceGHGs]

I have to ask you what the bases for your opinion are. I'm certainly no expert but I have been reading about these sorts of things for many years. I've learned for certain that our climate system is extremely complex. Without many years of education and experience one can't possibly grasp the issue. We are therefore left with reliance on professionals.

All our historically reliable scientific institutions basically agree that humans are contributing. What more do we need?

[aarond989]

There are scientists on both sides of the fence.

I agree that the climate system is complex. Which is why I am skeptical of these studies that usually only look at a couple of variables (ex CO2 and temp)

What about sunspots, water vapor, solar wind, cloud formation..ect. I don't think any one study ever addresses all the factors that play into the climate change process.

They may be well done studies that ultimately don't predict well, because there are too many variables at work.

[ReduceGHGs]

Sorry, but there aren't two CREDIBLE sides of the "fence".

Yes, its complex and clearly you don't have a grasp of it. Like I said, it takes a lot of training and resources to study it. How could you possibly know what a study should or shouldn't involve, or how to determine their reliability?

I still recommend that we rely on the best, most reliable scientific institutions there are. If you have anything more reliable please send me a link. Your opinion on the science is worth... ???

[benfuglie]

"Do you really think that they all lie about the data and their conclusions?"

Sure they do. Why have the scientists been dumping the data in the U.K.???? To cover up their lies.

[ReduceGHGs]

So all the scientific institutions that have studied global warming lie and this is proven, apparently by a few emials?

That's a leap of illogic that no rational person should make.

Have you read one of the first reports about this? Unlikely.

Google... The Charney Report 1979

The many studies that have come subsequently have affirmed the basic conclusions.

Read what the qualified experts have concluded and don't gravitate to the hype and sensationalism.

FMI... UCSUSA(dot)org

[ReduceGHGs]

LOL!

And the NAS lied when they compiled The Charney Report back in 1979. And all the subsequent studies were completed by liars and all the historically reliable institutions are made up of liars.

Wow, you come to these conclusions because you heard about a few emails taken out of context. That's a leap of illogic only someone in denial would make. Enjoy.

[pimezon]

This clearly shows how uninformed you are, in addition to the fact that you haven't even tried to read the mails, let alone understand the nuances of scientific communication.

They didn't hide any thing. They shed data that did not make any sense. see... in science experiments you get good data and bad data... bad data is one that does not make scientific sense and may be due to instrument defects, etc. It is even more broader than just that. in a nut shell, this is beyond you, so please shut up

[waratahNSW]

KnittyGritty

Some facts: Land use in the US

Cropping 20%

Range land & pasture 26%

Forestry 29%

Agriculture in the US uses 75% of the land.

of this less than one third is livestock.

Range land can not and never will be used for cropping, thats why it is used to run animals.

Co2, Methane production:

[MiaZgra]

I have one thing to say about this global warming nonsense - Bull!

[ash4432]

then prove that C02 cant trap the suns energy

[codehead1]

Boy, was that a tasty looking porterhouse or what? Lucky kid.

[ContractedWarFare]

Thats why we have Chick - Fil- A!!

[mojdfiv]

What impact was there when we had huge herds of buffalo, caribo, and other massive herds of animals? People were burning wood and coal at the time these great animals farted their way across the continants. Some of the crap they try to push with global warming just makes the entire subject less creditable. Why has the other planets in our solar system heating up too? It's all propaganda to push through carbon taxes and more government control...

[floydclaptonblues]

Also, everytime we talk, we exhale carbon dioxide, People and animals have been doing this routine for years. The earth should have turned into the sun about 1,000 years factoring in all this eco-commie bull.

[KARStarla]

You got that right, Psuedo Science

[octobermonsters]

Meat is Environmental Pollution. Raising animals for food is the biggest polluter of our water and topsoil. Factory farm animal waste pollutes the ground and groundwater horribly. Destruction of natural habitat- It takes more land to raise animals for food than it does to produce the equivalent nutritional value by raising edible plants. Also, rain forests are being destroyed to make room for huge cattle ranches.

Meat also has made us all fatter therefore we need to EAT MORE too. Eat corn!

[shillyshallyz]

The cows fart, you fart, and that's a lot of greenhouse gas !

[rustandgrease]

Oh yeah, who's going to tell the High Priest of Global Warming (Al Gore)? I'm not, I hear he loves a good steak!:) Mmmm, Mmmm, Mmmm!

[rustandgrease]

I'm hungry for a cheeseburger! "...if we all just reduced our meat consumption..." and turned back our thermostats, and ride a bike, and have a windmill in our back yard, and, and, and. If we try really hard we can throw ourselves back a few hundred years of development! (sarcastic) YIPEE!

[cowinyourface]

Leave us cows alone.

'Global Warming' is a HOAX to brainwash you to believe 'humans are to blame'.

Taken from Club of Rome report in 1991:

'..It would seem that [we]] need a common motivation..adversary, to organize and act together..The need for enemieseither real or one INVENTED..

In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. The real enemy then is humanity itself.

[Dmastaofsexy]

oh and beef is also more important than the climate raising 1/2 to 1 degree!!!!

[Dmastaofsexy]

my opinion on this topic:

I would rather eat high quality, delicious beef than have water levels rise a few inches; this is just a bunch of hippie/vegiterrian propaganda crap. CRAP I SAY!!!

whhho carreesss??!!

oh and thx for posting this i missed it on t.v. :)

[pfriverrat]

and if we just ate the plants, then nothing would take in the CO2. Oh my what to do? Guess i will just live my life the way it has worked for the last 30 years.

[HelpSaveTheEarth2051]

We dont eat forests,we eat plants grown on farms for food.The forests...are burned and cut down to make room for agriculture or to make furniture etc..

[pfriverrat]

you make no point, all plants use CO2. don't matter where it is grown, but those farm foods are harvested,planted using fuel and oil, witch puts CO2 out. so really, your way really don't make a point. My point is, this is getting so bad, i am gonna help out, by eatting the cow.

[1989girl24]

i♥cows!!! i am a vegetarian!!! so i'm all good

[nalkei]

Thanks for posting this!