Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Oh and dc_dux you need to drop the consensus line, any serious scientist, even if they believe in the theory that human activity is resulting in a warming trend, wouldn't be caught dead using 'consensus' as validating their position. Science isn't decided by papers for vrs papers against and the winner being decided by a count.
|
Ustwo...I agree that consensus is not a valid scientific methodology.
The consensus is in the fact that a broad cross-section of scientists from around the world who have studied global warming have reached a common conclusion regarding the impact of human activity....based on their individual and/or collective scientific arguments and valid scientific methodologies.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Greg700
Meat-related emissions, are, mostly, just natural emissions of any animal. In order for us to reduce meat-related emissions we would not only have to stop eating meat, but kill off all the cows, chickens, pigs, etc. and not allow any animals to repopulate.
|
The greatest impact is not the natural emissions of the animals, but the agricultural practices, primarily the clearing of the rain forests (and other land management techniques) to support an agricultural export economy in many developing countries.