@logicalheart

Quote:

Anyone can voluntarily advance causes towards a social benefit. But the "Red" way means the Government owns your life, denies your liberty, and will force you to comply.

Yes anything green is good. is good. Anything not green is good. is bad! Look at the path we are going:

Hamburgers are the Hummers of food in global warming: scientists

Quote: When it comes to global warming, hamburgers are the Hummers of food, scientists say.

Simply switching from steak to salad could cut as much carbon as leaving the car at home a couple days a week.

That's because beef is such an incredibly inefficient food to produce and cows release so much harmful methane into the atmosphere, said Nathan Pelletier of Dalhousie University in Canada.

Pelletier is one of a growing number of scientists studying the environmental costs of food from field to plate.

By looking at everything from how much grain a cow eats before it is ready for slaughter to the emissions released by manure, they are getting a clearer idea of the true costs of food.

The livestock sector is estimated to account for 18 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions and beef is the biggest culprit.

Even though beef only accounts for 30 percent of meat consumption in the developed world it's responsible for 78 percent of the emissions, Pelletier said Sunday at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

That's because a single kilogram of beef produces 16 kilograms carbon dioxide equivalent emissions: four times higher than pork and more than ten times as much as a kilogram of poultry, Pelletier said.

If people were to simply switch from beef to chicken, emissions would be cut by 70 percent, Pelletier said.

Another part of the problem is people are eating far more meat than they need to.

"Meat once was a luxury in our diet," Pelletier said. "We used to eat it once a week. Now we eat it every day."
If meat consumption in the developed world was cut from the current level of about 90 kilograms a year to the recommended level of 53 kilograms a year, livestock related emissions would fall by 44 percent.

"Given the projected doubling of (global) meat production by 2050, we're going to have to cut our emissions by half just to maintain current levels," Pelletier said.

"Technical improvements are not going to get us there."

That's why changing the kinds of food people eat is so important, said Chris Weber, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Carnegie Mellon University in Pennsylvania.

Food is the third largest contributor to the average US household's carbon footprint after driving and utilities, and in Europe - where people drive less and have smaller homes - it has an even greater impact.

"Food is of particular importance to a consumer's impact because it's a daily choice that is, at least in theory, easy to change," Weber said.

"You make your choice every day about what to eat, but once you have a house and a car you're locked into that for a while."

The average US household contributes about five tons of carbon dioxide a year by driving and about 3.5 tons of equivalent emissions with what they eat, he said.

"Switching to no red meat and no dairy products is the equivalent of (cutting out) 8,100 miles driven in a car ... that gets 25 miles to the gallon," Weber said in an interview following the symposium.

Buying local meat and produce will not have nearly the same effect, he cautioned.

That's because only five percent of the emissions related to food come from transporting food to market.

"You can have a much bigger impact by shifting just one day a week from meat and dairy to anything else than going local every day of the year," Weber said.

End Quote.

Soylent green is good. is People !

Last edited by Interesting on 18-Feb-2009 at 07:29 PM.

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@tomazkid

Quote:

tomazkid wrote: Seems the Tundra is leaking N2O as well now. N2O is number three amongst the Greenhouse gases.

Actually number 4 in absolute number. H²O is first, then CO² and CH4.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Interesting

How thoughtful they are, recalling us every day that CO² is bad, every month that CH4 is bad, every 6 months that meat is bad.
Why don't they remind us that H²O, as the first greenhouse gas and therefore a dangerous pollutant, is consequently worst than any others?
Why oh! why don't they remind us that because CO² positively drives temperature, temperature are decreasing since a decade while CO² level increase?

Strange. Or is that smelling brain-washing?

Quote:

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."

Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Quote:

It's demonstrating what sort of rationalization is in place

You mean like the proselytism of the current IPCC chairman, the good Dr. Pachauri:Quote:

I’ve become a vegetarian. I try to minimize the use of cars. Where I’ve failed is my impact with regard to air travel. I tell people I was born a Hindu who believes in reincarnation. It will take me the next six lives to neutralize my carbon footprint. There’s no way I can do it in one lifetime.

is putting his religious views forward from his position as IPCC chair? I agree.

The rest of your rambling has no value.

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 17-Feb-2009 at 09:06 AM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

is putting his religious views forward from his position as IPCC chair? I agree.

I don't.

Last edited by umisef on 17-Feb-2009 at 11:57 AM.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

It's demonstrating what sort of rationalization is in place You mean like the proselytism of the current IPCC chairman, the good Dr. Pachauri

So now you're committing the fallacy of 'tu quoque' sprinkled with the strawman. Congrats on branching out... Of course nothing i posted concerning the existence of your promoted Cult of Gaia conspiracy thought has anything to do with IPCC.

Quote:

The rest of your rambling has no value.

Of course not you feel your subterfuge of claiming 'plagerism' is a reason to discard an arguement. I understand it's hard to give up the paranoia supported by contrived conspiracies. How did you like the inside job of 9/11?

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Why oh! why don't they remind us that because CO² positively drives temperature, temperature are decreasing since a decade while CO² level increase? ...Strange. Or is that smelling brain-washing?

In the case of recent cooler temperatures it's either (a) failure to follow the science or (b) attempts to remain ignorant because it supports your cause.

IPCC predicts global cooling until 2015 So it it an anti-agw advocate wearing blinders or simply missing the news?

@umisef

Quote:

I don't.

...care, but fine.

Edit: ensure a positive reply to a negative response.

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 17-Feb-2009 at 02:31 PM.
Last edited by TMTisFree on 17-Feb-2009 at 02:02 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

As you somehow need some education, let refer to some independent arbitrators and professionals in this matter. Read carefully:

Quote:

In recent decades, the Gaia hypothesis has given sustenance to neo-pagan visions of the Earth as a Goddess, as the divine, self-organizing ecosystem in whom all things are born and into which they return at death...Many modern people do not believe that terms like the ‘divine’ and the ‘sacred’ refer to anything. I myself take it for granted, however, that talk about the divine is meaningful talk, and that renewing humanity’s relationship with the divine could play a significant role in resolving or at least in minimizing contemporary environmental and social problems. In this essay, however, I voice my concern about the possible consequences of the fact that such Earth-based religiosity tends to view the divine as wholly contained in or as immanent within the cosmos itself, rather than as transcending the cosmos as well as being somehow present in it. Most neo-pagans and radical environmentalists are insufficiently aware of the potentially dark side of such an immanentistic view of the divine. One such sinister potentiality was realized in National Socialism, which can be understood in part as a perverted religion of nature, which rejected Jewish and Christian otherworldliness as well as progressive political ideologies (communism, socialism, liberalism) that are indebted to Christian ideas about divine purpose actualizing itself in history. Unhappily, National Socialism was in some respects a “green” movement...Furthermore, in the context of a social and ecological crisis in the United States, I can imagine the emergence of proto-fascist forces that might appropriate and redefine ideas that are currently used rather innocently and naively by some radical ecologists, neopagans, and New Agers.

in 'Beneath the Surface: Critical Essays on Deep Ecology, ed. Eric Katz, Andrew J. Light, and David Rothenberg (2000)

Quote:

We may define “ecofascism” as a totalitarian government that requires individuals to sacrifice their interests to the well-being and glory of the “land,” understood as the splendid web of life, or the organic whole of nature, including peoples and their states. The land acquires mystical properties as the sacred source and absolute measure for all things. Polluting the land, either by toxins or by admitting the wrong kind of immigrants, not only threatens the state’s stability and security, but is also affronts the sacred natural order itself. Even though the web of life supposedly admits of no hierarchies, ecofascism requires leaders who enforce “natural” principles against selfish (hence, unnatural) individuals and peoples. Militarism, expansionism, and possibly racism are required to defend the land—Fatherland, Mother Earth, Gaia--from those who disrespect the land, including both industrialized countries and overpopulated “developing” nations.

in 'The Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature (2005) by Michael E. Zimmerman, Professor of Philosophy

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Quote:

How did you like the inside job of 9/11?

In which perspective? In the view of population reduction promoted by Gaians? In the view of the arrogance of human against Gaia? Or?

Edit: removed an unnecessary word.

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 17-Feb-2009 at 02:59 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Quote:

So now you're committing the fallacy of 'tu quoque' sprinkled with the strawman. Congrats on branching out... Of course nothing i posted concerning the existence of your promoted Cult of Gaia conspiracy thought has anything to do with IPCC.

What? My illustrative example does not satisfy you? Too bad...you see me conspire omni potente although I am just pointing some disparate facts and people and linking them together under a possible and common goal. I must add it is my own perverse pleasure to put fire on neopaganist pseudo-religious straw(wo)man.

Quote:

Of course not you feel your subterfuge of claiming 'plagerism' is a reason to discard an arguement. I understand it's hard to give up the paranoia supported by contrived conspiracies.

Refer to the arbitrors in my ex ante post.

Edit: moved a word for better understanding.

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 17-Feb-2009 at 02:54 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @TMTisFree Quote: Why oh! why don't they remind us that because CO² positively drives temperature, temperature are decreasing since a decade while CO² level increase? ...Strange. Or is that smelling brain-washing? In the case of recent cooler temperatures it's either (a) failure to follow the science or (b) attempts to remain ignorant because it supports your cause. IPCC predicts global cooling until 2015 So it it an anti-agw advocate wearing blinders or simply missing the news?

The site you link to offers the following:Quote:

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a group of hundreds of scientists, last year said global warming was “unequivocal” and that manmade greenhouse gas emissions were “very likely” part of the problem.[...]The IPCC predicted global temperature increases this century of 1.8 to 4 degrees Celsius.

and also read
Quote:

A new study suggesting a possible lull in manmade global warming has raised fears of a reduced urgency to battle climate change. And while the study published in the journal Nature last week did not dispute manmade global warming, it did predict a cooling from recent average temperatures through 2015, as a result of a natural and temporary shift in ocean currents.So the Nature paper has sparked worries that briefly cooler temperatures may take the heat out of action to fight the threat of more droughts and floods, while a debate about the article’s findings has also underlined uncertainty about such forecasting.

Nowhere in this article is written that IPCC predicted global cooling.
Rather a paper in Nature by Noel Keenlyside predicts cooling or no warming and former IPCC's head Bob Watson raises doubt on his validity.

You should really first read the article you link to before using it as a proof that just appears to contradict your claim.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Some more illustration about the cult of Gaia (or neopaganism in general): Quote:

...[T]he subject of the present essay is directed at those radical environmentalists, including some deep ecologists and ecofeminists, who believe that only a recovery of archaic and/or archetypal beliefs, including the sacredness of Gaia or Mother Earth, can forestall ecological catastrophe.[...]Today’s ecological problems are in part symptoms of a spiritual crisis, but also holds that spiritually-oriented deep ecology may not provide the understanding of spirit, humankind, and nature necessary for resolving global ecological problems.

and Quote:

Some environmentalists, seeking both to replace atomism with holism and to overcome anthropocentric hierarchalism, overlook the holonic model, which includes both individual holons and social holons. Instead, following systems theory, such environmentalists interpret individual organisms as temporary phenomena arising out of the larger organic whole, the biosphere, or Gaia.

and finally Quote:

[H]olistic approaches typically do not adequately appreciate the difference between a social holon (for example, a human society) and a compound individual holon (for example, an individual person living in that society). If the social holon is considered more comprehensive and important than the individual holon, one can justify sacrificing the well-being of the individual for the sake of the well-being of the whole. In modern political terms, this approach is known as fascism (though state socialism has often behaved in much the same way). Because some radical ecologists suggest that ecosystem are more important than individuals (human or otherwise), modernist critics often label radical environmentalists and spiritually-oriented deep ecologies as ecofascists.

in 'Deep Ecology and World Religions, ed. David Barnhill and Roger Gottlieb (2001), ME. Zimmerman's Ken Wilber’s Critique of Ecological Spirituality

Clearer now, holon, or do you consider these distinguished scientists to be also part of the conspiracy?

PS: holon is not name calling. Holon = image of a real person in the mind of another real person.

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 17-Feb-2009 at 05:39 PM.
Last edited by TMTisFree on 17-Feb-2009 at 04:41 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Quote:

In the case of recent cooler temperatures it's either (a) failure to follow the science or (b) attempts to remain ignorant because it supports your cause.

One mispoint and two logical flaws in your above sentence:

1 mispoint:
=========
my point is that IPCC, mass media and most AGW vocal alarmists like Gore (see its non scientific testimony) and Hansen (see its non scientific letter in recent newspaper) are all silent about the cooling trend. Instead we constantly heard of soon-to-be-produced-prophetical catastrophes.

2 logical flaws:
============
1/ I embed a plot showing the cooling trend in temperature so a) is false.
2/ As I am well aware of the cooling trend (see 1/), b) proves itself wrong.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Quote:

CULT of GAIA is working to over take the world. --- Loony Moonbattery of a false conspiracy.

Conspiracy fantasy was what I had in mind. Apart from the very scary survivalist across the road with his cabinets full of guns, I have had the misfortune to have in my house, very temporarily, several conspiracy theorists: the Roman Catholic Church is the scarlet lady of the book of revelations theory, the American government is the beast theory (with variations - other governments), President Carter is a member of an international conspiracy, the UN is a communist conspiracy, the cult of masonry is an evil plot to take over the world and other fantasies. Their proponents are very loquacios, full of endless quotes to prove their cases, real experts in their obsessions. They are impervious to any arguments to the contrary, and are I suspect projecting their own behaviour, fears, attachments and paranoia. Naturally I have been accused of being a part of the sinister opposition so may times that I listed them all in a poem. You should have seen the horror on the face of a creationist when I managed to slip into the conversation a very serious reference to "the angelic evolution" :)

Of course the entertainment media makes great use of conspiracy paranoia and always has, watch any 007 video. Governments make use of it to cow their own populations with dreadful consequences as the fantasies are made real by subsequent behaviour, from the yelow peril to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Most real conspiracies we see concern insider trading, price cartels, and industry lobbying of governments to protect their interests.

This thread has provided a very good case study of the same type of false thought applied to the latest climate concerns. I thankyou for your carefully researched comments.

Noel

@Interesting

Quote:

Simply switching from steak to salad could cut as much carbon as leaving the car at home a couple days a week.

I suppose I should feel covered in virtue, having been a vegetarian all my adult life. Vegan would be a better description nowadays. Mind you, a dairy farmer I was lunching with gave me an earful when he realised my preferences. One benefit is that I need only half the water intake of a flesh eater. Not mentioned in any analysis is the additional saving in water, time and detergents in having no greasy dishes to deal with!

In hilly New Zealand intensive animal farming is hugely costly in terms of environmental degradation. Our government used to think we were coming out on the plus side with respect to the Kyoto protocol but the agri corps have been felling bush to make more dairy land while other farmers have been converting to dairy with the result it is the single biggest contributer to the NZ carbon emissions and we now fall a very long way short of the very modest kyoto goals.

In spite of my dietary preferences I have until recently carried too much weight. I bought a small outboard motor weighing 12.5 kgm empty to help me in windless places with lots of currents. As I already weighed too much for best performance with my small sailboat the only way to justify it was to lose at least the equivalent weight from my body and then some. I've managed 11 kgm so far simply by eliminating all snacking and compensating for time at the computer with about 30 minutes exercise most days. If I don't do the exercise my vegan diet just keeps me at whatever weight I have got down to and believe me, I enjoy my meals and do not starve myself whatever the meat eaters may imagine. Hmm, my old clothing fits again!

Should vegans get carbon credits? :))

Noel

Last edited by NoelFuller on 17-Feb-2009 at 07:26 PM.

@NoelFuller

Quote:

This thread has provided a very good case study of the same type of false thought applied to the latest climate concerns.

Care to point to any false thought (or anything else btw) you have found so far? Do you have any substantiate and relevant opinion/fact to submit and share or is this just hand-waving that does not add any value to this thread?

Quote:

I thankyou for your carefully researched comments.

This comment costs nothing, and mutual congratulation helps saving face, but is obviously distorted: I fail to see any research in his comment but blatant cut&pastes with poor textual additions that do not match even remotely the plagiarized original text. The level of quality you required is low, if discernible. Not a problem for me anyway.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

The IPCC predicted global temperature increases this century of 1.8 to 4 degrees Celsius.

Misunderstood or misrepresented claim by anti-gw crowd. Saying an increase of 2-4 degrees Celsius this century is different then the expected anti-gw believer line that GW means warming every single consecutive year. The IPCC of course recognizes natural variablities within the system and years of cooler temps.

Quote:

Nowhere in this article is written that IPCC predicted global cooling.

Sorry to be clearer .. IPCC researchers published in Nature predict slight cooling until 2012-2015 and a return to the warming due to natural planetary factors.



Quote:

1) mispoint

Is just a misclaim by you as many IPCC researchers have said things about the cooling trends and it's to be short lived (2012-2015) and warming is to return. Also, in recent news the disclosure of China releasing more CO2 than expected came with comments that this likely would push the end of the cooling trend closer to 2012 and perhaps even before. Again either you refuse to hear them or haven't found them.

Quote:

2) Logical Flaws

Showing a plot of temperatures means you see the temperatures. As I illustrated it does not mean you understood that predictions from IPCC researchers claimed we would be seeing cooler temps. The statement was related to the science related to claims of lower temps, which you failed to recognize, not the lower temp graph.

Last edited by BrianK on 18-Feb-2009 at 04:00 AM.

@NoelFuller

Quote:

They are impervious to any arguments to the contrary, and are I suspect projecting their own behaviour, fears, attachments and paranoia. Naturally I have been accused of being a part of the sinister opposition

I'd agree. Conspiracy Theories such as the evil Illumanti, Gnomes of Zurich, Floridated water, and etc. are a type of paranoia. IMO part of our animal mind is observations of patterns. Likely a throw back to our older part of the brain, reptilian brain, and related to self preservation. However, often we can allow this to create false impressions and form rationalizations where none exist. Pareidolia and apophenia are good examples of tricks our minds play.

Quote:

Governments make use of it to cow their own populations with dreadful consequences as the fantasies are made real by subsequent behaviour

1984 comes to mind as a novell of how societies use these to control the population. In the USA we had the fear of commies for years now it's the fear of terrorists. Yet, statistics show if you live in the USA you are more likely to be killed by someone you know (so should be more fearful) than by a foreign terrorist (yet we let those fears guide policy)....

@BrianK

Quote:

Misunderstood or misrepresented claim by anti-gw crowd. Saying an increase of 2-4 degrees Celsius this century is different then the expected anti-gw believer line that GW means warming every single consecutive year. The IPCC of course recognizes natural variablities within the system and years of cooler temps.

So first you gave a link that did not support your claim, now you try desperately to redeem from nihil your post by focussing on IPCC although I was not referring to it, but, by writing 'they', clearly to the yellowed mass-medium that inundate people with catastrophic predications from prophets of doom (see also Interesting's post I replied to). Moving target is a wrong way to discuss.

Quote:

IPCC researchers published in Nature predict slight cooling until 2012-2015 and a return to the warming due to natural planetary factors.

Are you an insider of IPCC? Because not one of the authors of the Nature's paper officially belong to the AR4 IPCC list of working group I authors, working group II authors, or working group III authors. You once again badly fool yourself here.

Quote:

many IPCC researchers have said things about the cooling trends

Quote:

predictions from IPCC researchers claimed we would be seeing cooler temps

Irrelevant, see above, but read below what the main author of the Nature's paper (not an IPCC scientist) said about his work: Quote:

"One message from our study is that in the short term, you can see changes in the global mean temperature that you might not expect given the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)"

Noel Keenlyside, Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University

His point clearly contradicts your claim.

Edit: added links to IPCC working groups authors

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 18-Feb-2009 at 01:26 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".