Nice quote. Note the part about "reconciling scientific evidence with common sense". Here's an example. You claim that El Nino could be a contributor to global warming. Well, the scientific evidence concludes that El Nino has no affect whatsoever on global temperature. How about common sense? El Nino is a local shift in wind and sea currents. Does common sense tell you that a shift in wind and sea currents can cause an increase in global temperature? No. Did anybody notice a change in global temperature coincident with El Nino? No.

That's one example of many. Being a critical thinker does not mean you accept any group thinking. However, it does certainly imply being aware of the scientific evidence. You, obviously, are not.

I never stated you were being irresponsible. I stated that it would warm the cockles of my heart of you were to reflect on the meaning of "responsibility" in a wider context. Where in that statement is there any accusation of irresponsibility, or any accusation of groupthink?

Again, scientists of past believed the world was flat and that stars revolved around the earth. Planets had epicycles that explained how they moved across the skys. There was scientific evidence that proved what they stated. Even Aristole's idea of parallax showed "common sense" applied to the current scientific body of evidence.

I did NOT state that El Nino was responsible for global warming, I cited it to state that there are small trends withing the cycles. Trends that people did not understand nor get for many decades and still don't really understand just what it means within the larger scope of things. They think they understand it. El Nino is not just about sea currents, the sea temperature CHANGES and increases thus fish in the souther part of Baja California and Mexico are suddenly found much more north than their normal habitat.

I'm sorry, you're stating that I'm not aware of the scientific items. I admit I'm not a scientist nor propose to be one, but where do I state I don't know or am not aware of the scientific evidence. I again have stated I don't doubt that human factors contribute to what is the larger trend. I just don't agree that humans are the cause of the trend. Which is what I read when someone touts things stating, "CO2 emissions from human beings cause global warming."

Asking me to reflect on responsiblity in a wider context express in some fashion that I'm irresponsible, or there is some irresonsible action going on.

It was hardly scientists that believed this and more just people in general (especially the religious scholars). It was scientists who countered these and said they thought the world was round or not the center of the universe. And many of them were shunned for their claims. Much like you are shunning scientists now. You are trying to place yourself on the side where the world is round but i'd say you are actually arguing from the side where the world is flat.

Where do I state that I shun scientists? I disagree with the BASIS of their hypothesis, wherein it is stated that Humans in some manner CAUSE global warming please read my posts carefully. I have stated that I agree that they can be contributing but not the cause.

Intentionally or not, I think you are misrepresenting the "basis of their hypothesis" which is not that humans CAUSE global warming, but that humans CONTRIBUTE to global warming by causing an increase in the amounts of greenhouse gases.

It is beyond question that human activities result in in emissions of greenhouse gases: C02 - from fossil fuels, heating and cooling, deforestation, etc. Methane - from agricultural and landfill practices, N2O - from fertilizers.

And it is beyond question that there have been significant increases in these greenhouse gases as a result of these human activities.

It is the global warming deniers who misrepresent the science and falsely claim, like you did, that the consensus scientific hypothesis is that human activities CAUSE global warming.

BUt since you agree that human activities contribute to climate change and you support governmental policies and laws to address these human activities, I think we're on the same page :)

I see, so you can be wrong if you are unaware of modern science. Nice point. Maybe you should take it to heart.

If you think there’s some detail that needs correcting in the current consensus, then write a paper defending your position, and get it published. You don’t have to be a practicing scientist to do that, but you do have to be informed and be able to think critically.

You of course can’t do it, so instead you compare modern scientists to people who thought the earth was flat. It is rather comically ironic, you know.

And none of those “small trends” contributes to global warming. The ocean warms in one place, cools in another, and the net effect is zero. You can’t create heat by moving it from one place to another. If that’s the basis of your argument, then you have no idea what you’re talking about.

So ocean currents play no part in the over all global temperature, ice ages etc?

Its just moving heat right?

I've been avoiding this thread because it has the phrase "meat footprint" in the title, and i am mostly still an adolescent.

That being said, we get our meat with all the hippy accoutrements, i.e. free range, antibiotic free, locally produced, etc. That's mainly because we live in a city with a large concentration of places to by such meats. I don't know how that effects my meat footprint, and i guess i don't really care. I do like me some hotdogs, though, i think it's hotdogs for breakfast today.

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

As I understand it, currents do play a notable role in the regulation of climate. As such, if currents change in just such a way in a big enough way, they can effect climate.
http://earth.usc.edu/~stott/Catalina/Oceans.html

Meat footprint?

(whips it out on the desk)

I bet it fills a 10.5 Regular.

Of course they do, which is why claiming Cynthetiq doesn't know what hes talking about seemed rather ludicrous.

The variables involved are far more convoluted than heat in, heat retained, heat out. Its these variables which we don't understand that makes ALL of the current models of 'future' warming not work for any known past conditions.

Since all the evidence for said human caused warming is based on said obviously flawed models, I hope its understandable why I'm skeptical if there is a significant affect. Its not my only reservations with the theory, but its the one big glaring issue which should be self evident.

I think the most important thing to take away from all of these global climate change threads is that we need more conclusive research done by unbiased parties. I don't want any more of this shit and this shit, filling out heads with incorrect information from interested parties.

Of course the oceans have a profound affect on global climate, and have been doing so for the last 3 billion years. But they do so by transferring heat, not by creating heat. The movement per se of currents causes no change in net heat balance for the planet. Currents certainly do respond to global warming, by circulating that extra heat and transferring it toward the poles, but current movement, in and of itself, does not cause global warming.

And this of course explains why models have been accurately predicting the rate of increase in mean global temperature for the last 20 years. That’s because local variations in air and water currents have virtually no effect on the global heat balance.

Citing El Nino as an excuse to deny the consensus is like saying we can’t be sure that Miami’s not going to have a white Christmas this year, because we can’t exactly predict the daily temperature variation.

What's your family's Christmas Dinner carbon footprint looking like this season?
 

So what's your family's Christmas Dinner carbon footprint looking like this season? I'm counting on size 18 to 19 EEE.

I thought this was an interesting article from the UK... and a nice tie-back to the fact that the world meat and food industry (cumulative, as a whole ... see the OP) STILL has the single largest negative impact affecting climate change and the environment.

Is anyone on TFP planning to change their Christmas dinner tradition based on this information?

Did anyone notice if the meat-industry was a major speaking point at the recent UN Global Warming conference in Bali? It's still the 900 lb. gorrilla that nobody wants to seriously talk about.

From BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...er/7137504.stm

And then they came for the cranberries.....

Are you talking about how climate change has ruined the cranberry crop this year?

No, I think this thread got way off-topic discussing climate change. The thread should concentrate on the proportionality of cause, effect and hopefully proposing reasonable solutions to address the negative impact of the meat and livestock industry worldwide regarding climate change and the environment.

The topic just doesn't seem to get the kind of traction that carbon credits, fluorescent light bulbs, and hybrid cars (all of which have little overall impact on reducing anything substantial) get. Transportation, industry, and oil is always the focus. However this topic has a bigger footprint than all combined transportation.

...I'm just sayin'... especially if anyone REALLY takes global warming seriously and not just showing up for the hors devours and open bar.

How I long for the days before global warming when the crops never failed due to bad weather.

I was being facetious. Bad habit, I know.

Heh, you know what's kinda funny? If the globe warms up well above average, Canada will have thousands more hectares of arable land and an insane amount of fresh water.

We should be okay. We could even eat more beef.

Hey now that's positive thinking and ingenuity. Don't forget, oil will be easier to drill for too.

The Bovine Menace

PETA writes a letter to Al Gore regarding Global Warming:

In a letter to Al Gore, PETA nicely explained to him that the single best way for an individual to fight global warming is to become a vegetarian. In fact, according to the United Nations -- an organization that Al Gore is usually quite fond of citing: "raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gases than all the cars and trucks in the world -- combined. That's not from PETA, that's from the U.N. (see the OP)! But it's not just them; university researchers have also determined that switching to a vegan diet has more of an impact on global warming than switching your car from a Camry to a Prius!

How can we ignore "The Bovine Menace" any longer?

http://blog.peta.org/archives/PETA's%20letter%20to%20Al%20Gore%20re%20Global%20Warming.pdf

Well... the benefits of a vegan diet must necessarily include less gas miles accrued in the shipping of the animals/animal secretions, so even before you consider the production itself, we'd be saving on the transport.

Beef need big trucks to ship in.

I'm a little disappointed in PETA's choice of food to help sway Mr. Gore: "since we're trying to persuade you not to eat fried chicken, here's a great alternative... fake fried chicken!" Pretty disingenuous if you ask me. I could make him something better.

Growing veg needs not only the ability to transport the produce around but also massive tractors, fertilizers, etc. to grow on the industrial scale to which we are accustomed.

The only difference with meat is the methane they extrude.

I thought it might get to this.

Hypothetically (because things never end up playing out this way), if all the animal production required for humans stopped and was replaced by plant based food, then wouldn't we save on shipping the vast amounts of soy and corn grown to feed animals?

In other words, we may not need add more to the production to replace, since the animals are already eating it, no?

the carbon offset by maintaining good soil practice and small scale sustainability should meet that created by various livestock.

similarly:

shut up about c02. it's basically the least of our worries.

thirdly:

meat production is a fully sustainable system locally and globally and i subject to stricter health/environmental guidelines than grains, fruits and vegetables.


envirovegans have ALOT to learn, especially when their antioxidant rich pomegranate juice and organic tomatoes come from thousands of miles away.


you can easily lessen your impact on the environment by reducing your meat intake. that's obvious.

but, as an environmental science student, biologist and proponent of sustainable agriculture, you don't need to be an idiot about it and do it for all the wrong, bloated reasons.

eating locally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eating only organically/vegan

of course, if you can maintain a vegan/veg diet AND eat locally, then you're even better off.

but frankly, that is just impossible in many (most) climates.

Hey rune... care to tone down the "shut ups" and "idiot". You can make your point without being so aggressive. In fact, I would say that if your goal is to convince someone of your opinion you are more likely to be successful if you frame your position in a manner that is more likely to be received in a positive frame of mind.

Lure more bees with honey and all that...

Just a thought.

I don't have time to look for the book right now, but I have a very small volume titled "Food for the Future." In the book, it very clearly goes into the environmental impact of raising meat, compared to the environmental impact of raising vegetables/grains/fruits.

There is no denying that livestock produce more greenhouse gas emissions in a year than the cars on the road in the United States. That says a lot.

But one thing to consider is that we often raise livestock and other animals on land that is not arable for crops. But we don't do it enough, and even when we are raising livestock on waste ground we are still creating pollutants via the cow itself--ie the methane gas it releases, and the fecal coliform that gets into streams because of field runoff. Fecal coliform is a nasty, nasty pollutant, and the majority of fecal coliform in watersheds can largely be attributed to cows and runoff, not humans. Fecal coliform leads to less dissolved oxygen in streams, which in turn leads to algae blooms, and dead fish. Yuck.

At any rate, the politics of food are very interesting and complex. Generally, when I eat meat, I attempt to eat meat outside of the industrial meat complex. But I really don't eat that much any more. And on Christmas, we're carpooling. We're also not going far. And most of the meal will be vegetarian--except for the prime rib, which I only eat once a year...on Christmas.

Greenhouse gas from short term carbon cycle =/ greenhouse gas from long term hydrocarbons burning.

First let me start by saying that i have not slept for.. a while. When this happens i tend to get silly.Aaaaaaaaand go:

Shove some tubes into the bums of the cows and be done with it. Yes! That's what we need! More tubes!!

Pros
CO2: Uh... more dry ice for everyone!!
CH4: Kinky source of natural gas.
N2O: Ustwo will be happy cuz the price of nitrous for his office will drop in price
Cows: Sexually satisfied


Cons

¿

I have a new theory about global warming:

Before about 150-200 years ago this continent (at least the central sections) were *packed full* of buffalo, right? Millions of them. Back then there were just a ton more animals around.. bears.. deer.. beavers... uh... bears? Anyway.. man came along and shot the faces off 99% of these animals and took their fur and sometimes the meat reducing the population of these creatures immensely (and in some cases completely.)

Now, obviously, these animals produced "fecal waste". We're talkin' millions upon millions of animals. Massive swarms of buffalo so big you couldn't really see where the swarm stopped.. all poopin' everywhere. One would think, seeing as how these things make such a huge impact on the environment, that taking out 99% of them would plunge this planet into a bit of a cold spell.

So I'm kinda thinking.. this HAD to have had some effect on the planet in terms of global warming. Perhaps the planet would be rapidly cooling right now if not for the industrial revolution saving us and keeping the planet warm. Have we taken it too far? Maybe.. we'll see.. won't we ;)

http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/7929/steakfz9.png

From my cold dead hands....

...just saying.

I'm afraid to trust you ObieX.
Are you now (or have you ever been) affiliated with Evil Steve Milloy (aka "evil Steve") or the hypno-toad?
This is kind of refreshing, independent, and rational thinking here...

Show them you care! ...go green this holiday season and give meat offsets as gifts!

the state of stark raving pseudo environmentalists is really disturbing for me.

what the hell is a meat credit carbon offset etc etc.





polluting by the act of consumption and and then going out and buying something which pollutes a little bit less does not negate anything. consumerism IS NOT an end to consumerism.

some guy somewhere is getting filthy rich off this "green" fad he's sold to everyone and he's only got jackasses like al gore, starbucks' fair trade movement and hybrid cars helping him.

In the future, only lawyers, dentists, and other rich folk will be able to eat this. The cost of beef will go through the roof like oil will. It will be a true luxury soon enough. There is only so much land, and so many people.


Ustwo.... you lucky, lucky man.

Beef is already costly here. Not a lot of room for grazing. All beef has to be imported from Australia. I rarely eat it anymore.

Soylent Green is a healthy alternative, I hear.

I love doom and gloom when its not based on reality.

We have genetically and hormonally enhanced beef already, creating greater and tasty yields per cow.

Try driving from NY to CA, most of the land is empty and fine for grazing. The US is not very heavily populated. The true agricultural potential of the US hasn't been unleashed, mostly because its not profitable to do so at this time .

Prices will go up, ethanol fuel is already starting it (grain to feed cars doesn't feed cattle), but I don't foresee it becoming a rich mans food.

This is not doom nor gloom; it's beef prices. But the reality is another thing.

Yes, and I heard they are lead by the illustrious Diseazus: King of the Funky Beef.

I believe the U.S. is not currently using around 15% of its total land (land that is arable). But it will soon be profitable to grow corn for ethanol as you state here:
Do you know how much of this land is being eyed up for cornfields? And it isn't just the land, other economic factors are at play. Also, as the U.S. population increases, the amount of its arable land decreases. This means food demand is increasing, while the finite capacity to produce it locally is decreasing. America isn't known for being smart about building its urban areas. Sprawl is an issue that will eat up this valuable food-producing land. Farmland is being paved over with urban areas all the time. You can't do this indefinitely, and you cannot expect it won't affect food supply and prices.

Solid gold.

I'll make you a deal. If what you say is true I'll buy you a steak dinner in 5 years.

Really you have your prediction, I have mine, as long as we keep the socialists out of power I'll put the money behind mine.

Now if the socialists get in power prices will go through the roof and production will go down but thats another matter.

Stable, large profit margin, lots of money invested. Not going anywhere.