95% of my meals are vegetarian.
I eat some meat since it's easier if you go over to somebodies house to eat.
Also if you eat a bit of meat you don't have to worry about balancing amino acids to get whole proteins and vitamin B12 deficiency.
I think it's healthier to eat way less meat than the average Canadian.
I don't think vegan is the greenest diet.
The greenest diet is ...
Baby Canabalism ... as long as you club your own baby, rather than picking up the store bought ones raised from factory farms.
If everyone clubbed and ate babies then we would reduce the carbon footprint of the babies to zero.
I have no babies for sale, and therefore I have nothing to gain financially from advocating this position.
95% of my meals are vegetarian.
I eat some meat since it's easier if you go over to somebodies house to eat.
Also if you eat a bit of meat you don't have to worry about balancing amino acids to get whole proteins and vitamin B12 deficiency.
I think it's healthier to eat way less meat than the average Canadian.
I don't think vegan is the greenest diet.
The greenest diet is ...
Baby Canabalism ... as long as you club your own baby, rather than picking up the store bought ones raised from factory farms.
If everyone clubbed and ate babies then we would reduce the carbon footprint of the babies to zero.
I have no babies for sale, and therefore I have nothing to gain financially from advocating this position.
Don't forget to calculate the reduction in GHG emissions derived from eating babies. They fart A LOT, you know . . .
I have to admit I haven't read all 95 posts in this thread before mine, so please forgive me if any of the points given below are repeats.
At every forum I belong to, there's a recent "global warming is a hoax" thread (not necessarily that title, but to that effect). This has been copied & pasted to save time.
I think the biggest misunderstanding is that it's not "Minnesota warming" or "Alberta warming" or whatever your local case may be; it's global warming. The annual mean global temperature is increasing. The polar ice caps and permafrost are melting. Glaciers that are tens of thousands of years old are receding. Climate change - which involves changes in weather patterns... often exhibited by more, or less, annual precipitation and not just temperature in the month of December - is occurring. Those are facts. And it's also a fact that these types of changes occur over 10,000 year cycles (and longer ones as well); there's plenty of evidence for that in the fossil record.
Is humankind affecting it? That's a good question. There does seem to be a strong correlation between (post industrial age) human activity and mean global temperature. But we are between an ice age and a greenhouse era. The mean global temperature is expected to be rising regardless of human activity. However, it does seem that global temperature is climbing at a rate that's much faster than that predicted for such a point in geological history. There is lots of evidence to suggest that humans are accelerating the process. It's also of important note that large numbers of species (not just lots of animals, but lots of species of animals) tend to go extinct when the earth oscillates between ice age and greenhouse age. We're not doing ourselves - or any other species - a favour by increasing the rate of change of mean globaltemperature . If we expect to survive as a species, and if we want to leave as little footprint as we can on this planet before we go extinct, then we can do ourselves (and the earth itself) a favour and cut back on our consumption of energy and our conversion of fossil fuels to carbon dioxide.
As an aside, before life existed on this planet, the atmosphere was primarily carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4). After plants were here for a few billion years, most of that CO2 and CH4 were converted to solid biomass. Of course, much of that biomass now exists as fossil fuels. Its kind of disturbing (at least to me) when you start to realize that we're undoing billions of years of work (by the thermodynamics definition) by burning those fossil fuels and converting them back to CO2. Humans (and many other aerobic organisms) can only survive when the CO2 concentration in air is less than about 0.1%. If fossil fuel consumption continues to accelerate (not stay the same, but increase like it has over the past 100 years or so), there's a real chance we could be extinct before the current generation sees their great grandchildren. Of course, we're expected to run out of oil long before then, so it shouldn't be an issue.
You know that climate info they use about what the temperature was like hundreds of years ago? They use trees, and the amount of growth a tree had in a year. Lots of growth in a year, good temperatures. Little growth, bad year.
Anyway, as of 1950, the good 'ol tree ring method doesn't appear to work anymore. They have actual temperature readings that don't match the tree ring growth. So what to they do? Well, keep the old data, which obviously has problems tracking actual climate data and then use the actual values measured from the air.
How exactly is that conclusive proof? Why did the scientists involved with ClimateGate send emails that make them look so guilty?
Why did the scientists involved with ClimateGate send emails that make them look so guilty?
Because they represent all of the scientists working worldwide right? Would you argue that because Cigarette company "scientists" hid evidence of the cancer causing properties of smoke that no scientist can be trusted? There will always be the fringe.....one side pulling out all the stops to prevent something and the other to promote it. But when the middle groud is that climate change is happening.....ie a huge majority of scientists say Climate change is real and human related, it's hard to argue. The major force against change is those with an interest in the status quo. Put those idiot scientists who falsified data up against the oil industry and it's not even close who gets more pull.
And we both know that ring growth data is not the only information used. Use your eyes and you'll see changes that are way out of whack with the normal ebb and flow of global heating/cooling. Or we could all just bury our heads in the sand...
You know that climate info they use about what the temperature was like hundreds of years ago? They use trees, and the amount of growth a tree had in a year. Lots of growth in a year, good temperatures. Little growth, bad year.
Anyway, as of 1950, the good 'ol tree ring method doesn't appear to work anymore. They have actual temperature readings that don't match the tree ring growth. So what to they do? Well, keep the old data, which obviously has problems tracking actual climate data and then use the actual values measured from the air.
How exactly is that conclusive proof? Why did the scientists involved with ClimateGate send emails that make them look so guilty?
As far as I know, tree rings are better indicators of annual precipitation than temperature. Besides, they work for maybe 200 years (e.g. tree lifetimes); I'm talking about geological time scales of tens to hundreds of thousands of years. For that, they usually look at oxygen isotope ratios in ice cores.
As another aside, there's a recent issue with methane being released as the polar ice caps melt, both in terms of it being a greenhouse gas and being toxic. But what do I know; I'm just a scientist, so I must be full of b.s.
As another aside, there's a recent issue with methane being released as the polar ice caps melt, both in terms of it being a greenhouse gas and being toxic. But what do I know; I'm just a scientist, so I must be full of b.s.
Pssh, that's not recent..that was the premise for The Day After Tomorrow..
(That's how I like my 'science' pirated over the internet and starring Dennis Quaid, and watered down..lmk when this thread hits the theatres)
Pssh, that's not recent..that was the premise for The Day After Tomorrow..
(That's how I like my 'science' pirated over the internet and starring Dennis Quaid, and watered down..lmk when this thread hits the theatres)
LOL, shows what I know. I somehow missed that flick. But I'd consider 2004 to be recent. I just meant it wasn't considered in some of the early climate models from the '70s and '80s.
LOL, shows what I know. I somehow missed that flick. But I'd consider 2004 to be recent. I just meant it wasn't considered in some of the early climate models from the '70s and '80s.
Speaking of climate models from the '70's, I believe the official line back then was that we were all in danger from global cooling. There is a book still on the shelf at my local library warning me of the coming ice age.
I haven't read much of this thread either, so I will respond only to your longish rant. It will likely come as no surprise to you that I am what some might derisively call a 'denier'
Polar ice caps are melting, in the Arctic. Antarctic ice is actually growing.
There are 10,000 year warming cycles (and longer) but also much shorter. There was a medieval warm period, though from what I have read some people have tried to deny this. I can actually remember reading about it as a child (and about Greenland, English vineyards, etc.), but it's rarely talked about today by Official Climate People.
There is a lot of evidence to show that when the earth is relatively warm, humans enjoy the greatest levels of peace and prosperity. When the earth is cool, people starve and are generally much worse off.
As for the rate of warming being higher, and possibly caused by Humans; are you aware that there is evidence that there has been no warming trend at all for the past 10 years or so?
For there to be any risk of over CO2ing ourselves to death, the rate at which "we" put it in the atmosphere must stay increasing AND plantlife must not become any more abundant/lush in response to it being grown in an environment with a higher CO2 concentration, thereby absorbing more and releasing more oxygen.
And, I know you're a scientist (and I don't consider you full of b.s.), but I'm an (amateur) economist, and we will never run out of oil. That's right I said never.
Everyone should set aside an hour and a half and watch this, imo:
As another aside...... But what do I know; I'm just a scientist, so I must be full of b.s.
My aside....I believe everyone is a scientist, some are just better trained and more educated than others. There are good scientists and bad scientists, education makes it more likely one is the former, but does not guarantee it.
As an example, I think anyone who makes the statement (or promotes the belief that) "the science is settled" is by definition a bad scientist.
I have no reason to doubt that you, sir, are one of the well educated and very good scientists. You are certainly wicked smart at the math (but remember when I thought of split outs....)
Speaking of climate models from the '70's, I believe the official line back then was that we were all in danger from global cooling. There is a book still on the shelf at my local library warning me of the coming ice age.
I haven't read much of this thread either, so I will respond only to your longish rant. It will likely come as no surprise to you that I am what some might derisively call a 'denier'
Polar ice caps are melting, in the Arctic. Antarctic ice is actually growing.
There are 10,000 year warming cycles (and longer) but also much shorter. There was a medieval warm period, though from what I have read some people have tried to deny this. I can actually remember reading about it as a child (and about Greenland, English vineyards, etc.), but it's rarely talked about today by Official Climate People.
There is a lot of evidence to show that when the earth is relatively warm, humans enjoy the greatest levels of peace and prosperity. When the earth is cool, people starve and are generally much worse off.
As for the rate of warming being higher, and possibly caused by Humans; are you aware that there is evidence that there has been no warming trend at all for the past 10 years or so?
For there to be any risk of over CO2ing ourselves to death, the rate at which "we" put it in the atmosphere must stay increasing AND plantlife must not become any more abundant/lush in response to it being grown in an environment with a higher CO2 concentration, thereby absorbing more and releasing more oxygen.
And, I know you're a scientist (and I don't consider you full of b.s.), but I'm an (amateur) economist, and we will never run out of oil. That's right I said never.
Comments
I eat some meat since it's easier if you go over to somebodies house to eat.
Also if you eat a bit of meat you don't have to worry about balancing amino acids to get whole proteins and vitamin B12 deficiency.
I think it's healthier to eat way less meat than the average Canadian.
I don't think vegan is the greenest diet.
The greenest diet is ...
Baby Canabalism ... as long as you club your own baby, rather than picking up the store bought ones raised from factory farms.
If everyone clubbed and ate babies then we would reduce the carbon footprint of the babies to zero.
I have no babies for sale, and therefore I have nothing to gain financially from advocating this position.
Don't forget to calculate the reduction in GHG emissions derived from eating babies. They fart A LOT, you know . . .
:h:
At every forum I belong to, there's a recent "global warming is a hoax" thread (not necessarily that title, but to that effect). This has been copied & pasted to save time.
I think the biggest misunderstanding is that it's not "Minnesota warming" or "Alberta warming" or whatever your local case may be; it's global warming. The annual mean global temperature is increasing. The polar ice caps and permafrost are melting. Glaciers that are tens of thousands of years old are receding. Climate change - which involves changes in weather patterns... often exhibited by more, or less, annual precipitation and not just temperature in the month of December - is occurring. Those are facts. And it's also a fact that these types of changes occur over 10,000 year cycles (and longer ones as well); there's plenty of evidence for that in the fossil record.
Is humankind affecting it? That's a good question. There does seem to be a strong correlation between (post industrial age) human activity and mean global temperature. But we are between an ice age and a greenhouse era. The mean global temperature is expected to be rising regardless of human activity. However, it does seem that global temperature is climbing at a rate that's much faster than that predicted for such a point in geological history. There is lots of evidence to suggest that humans are accelerating the process. It's also of important note that large numbers of species (not just lots of animals, but lots of species of animals) tend to go extinct when the earth oscillates between ice age and greenhouse age. We're not doing ourselves - or any other species - a favour by increasing the rate of change of mean globaltemperature . If we expect to survive as a species, and if we want to leave as little footprint as we can on this planet before we go extinct, then we can do ourselves (and the earth itself) a favour and cut back on our consumption of energy and our conversion of fossil fuels to carbon dioxide.
As an aside, before life existed on this planet, the atmosphere was primarily carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4). After plants were here for a few billion years, most of that CO2 and CH4 were converted to solid biomass. Of course, much of that biomass now exists as fossil fuels. Its kind of disturbing (at least to me) when you start to realize that we're undoing billions of years of work (by the thermodynamics definition) by burning those fossil fuels and converting them back to CO2. Humans (and many other aerobic organisms) can only survive when the CO2 concentration in air is less than about 0.1%. If fossil fuel consumption continues to accelerate (not stay the same, but increase like it has over the past 100 years or so), there's a real chance we could be extinct before the current generation sees their great grandchildren. Of course, we're expected to run out of oil long before then, so it shouldn't be an issue.
[/rant]
As you were.
Anyway, as of 1950, the good 'ol tree ring method doesn't appear to work anymore. They have actual temperature readings that don't match the tree ring growth. So what to they do? Well, keep the old data, which obviously has problems tracking actual climate data and then use the actual values measured from the air.
How exactly is that conclusive proof? Why did the scientists involved with ClimateGate send emails that make them look so guilty?
Because they represent all of the scientists working worldwide right? Would you argue that because Cigarette company "scientists" hid evidence of the cancer causing properties of smoke that no scientist can be trusted? There will always be the fringe.....one side pulling out all the stops to prevent something and the other to promote it. But when the middle groud is that climate change is happening.....ie a huge majority of scientists say Climate change is real and human related, it's hard to argue. The major force against change is those with an interest in the status quo. Put those idiot scientists who falsified data up against the oil industry and it's not even close who gets more pull.
And we both know that ring growth data is not the only information used. Use your eyes and you'll see changes that are way out of whack with the normal ebb and flow of global heating/cooling. Or we could all just bury our heads in the sand...
As far as I know, tree rings are better indicators of annual precipitation than temperature. Besides, they work for maybe 200 years (e.g. tree lifetimes); I'm talking about geological time scales of tens to hundreds of thousands of years. For that, they usually look at oxygen isotope ratios in ice cores.
As another aside, there's a recent issue with methane being released as the polar ice caps melt, both in terms of it being a greenhouse gas and being toxic. But what do I know; I'm just a scientist, so I must be full of b.s.
Pssh, that's not recent..that was the premise for The Day After Tomorrow..
(That's how I like my 'science' pirated over the internet and starring Dennis Quaid, and watered down..lmk when this thread hits the theatres)
Speaking of climate models from the '70's, I believe the official line back then was that we were all in danger from global cooling. There is a book still on the shelf at my local library warning me of the coming ice age.
I haven't read much of this thread either, so I will respond only to your longish rant. It will likely come as no surprise to you that I am what some might derisively call a 'denier'
Polar ice caps are melting, in the Arctic. Antarctic ice is actually growing.
There are 10,000 year warming cycles (and longer) but also much shorter. There was a medieval warm period, though from what I have read some people have tried to deny this. I can actually remember reading about it as a child (and about Greenland, English vineyards, etc.), but it's rarely talked about today by Official Climate People.
There is a lot of evidence to show that when the earth is relatively warm, humans enjoy the greatest levels of peace and prosperity. When the earth is cool, people starve and are generally much worse off.
As for the rate of warming being higher, and possibly caused by Humans; are you aware that there is evidence that there has been no warming trend at all for the past 10 years or so?
For there to be any risk of over CO2ing ourselves to death, the rate at which "we" put it in the atmosphere must stay increasing AND plantlife must not become any more abundant/lush in response to it being grown in an environment with a higher CO2 concentration, thereby absorbing more and releasing more oxygen.
And, I know you're a scientist (and I don't consider you full of b.s.), but I'm an (amateur) economist, and we will never run out of oil. That's right I said never.
Everyone should set aside an hour and a half and watch this, imo:
Catastrophe Denied: A Critique of Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming Theory on Vimeo
The issue isn't whether or not there's global warming/climate change, it's whether or not humans are causing it and if it's catastrophic or not.
I'm at work right now with not much to do but surf the internets, maybe I'll read this whole thread and see what else is interesting......
My aside....I believe everyone is a scientist, some are just better trained and more educated than others. There are good scientists and bad scientists, education makes it more likely one is the former, but does not guarantee it.
As an example, I think anyone who makes the statement (or promotes the belief that) "the science is settled" is by definition a bad scientist.
I have no reason to doubt that you, sir, are one of the well educated and very good scientists. You are certainly wicked smart at the math (but remember when I thought of split outs....)
What the heck?! ??? This thread is all about veganism!