Printable View
The problem with that is that cows have always been farting, while people have only recently started driving lots of cars and having lots of factories. So while cows may cause a majority of carbon emissions, people are causing the majority of the increase in emissions, which is what's causing the problem.
I agree with you, there is very little possibility of a decrease on the Agriculture side of things. That is why they concentrate on the areas that they can actually reduce.
As long as we have people like pete saying "sure it's only a tiny part of the problem" - without, once again, even bothering to state the actual facts they're supposed to be representing - you'll have rubes out there believing them and continuing to contribute to the problem. By that retarded logic, it's ok to shoot one person in the head, cos, you know, it's only one murder. :rolleyes:
That kind of pre-pubescent mé-féin thinking does more damage than every cow fart in the world.
adam
Well well, it only seemed like yesterday that if a dandelion bloomed a week early in Waterford, our TV screens would be filled with some Global Warming Activist (ex Socialist Worker Student type) in fits of messianic convulsions warning that "evil mankind was boiling the earth with carbon!" (for full effect add Dalkey/Foxrock accent)
Meanwhile 2008 looks to be the coldest and most extreme GLOBAL WINTER in decades and not a peep out of most of the media. Certainly not RTE. Where is the Green Party???? Been kinda quite lately.
Quote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../09/do0902.xml
Last week, virtually unreported in Britain, the extraordinary winter weather of 2008 elsewhere in the world continued. In the USA, there were blizzards as far south as Texas and Arkansas, while in northern states and Canada what they are calling "the winter from hell" has continued to break records going back in some cases to 1873. Meanwhile in Asia more details emerged of the catastrophe caused by the northern hemisphere's greatest snow cover since 1966.
Bohs_So_Good, are you genuinely having trouble with the phrase "climate change" or are you just sh*tstirring at this point? Because I'm seeing sh*tstirring, and I'm not inclined to let it continue.
Im not sure what his point is , Bohs_So_Good what are you saying that global warming / climate change isnt happening ? Do you have a window ?
Yes and no. I'm in the middle of an excellent book, Clive Ponting's re-release of "An Environmental History of the World" and the cow population of the earth has grown exponentially over the last hundred years or so ( the book is at home, I'll look it up and post the actual figures if I think of it). If there is a switch of meat consumption from beef to the meat of non-ruminants the problem can be massively reduced.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
BTW, the methane emissions from cows come mainly from their mouths, not through their arse.
Weather isn't climate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boh_So_Good
Weather extremes are predicted by global warming.
The Green Party's volume of press releases against global average temperature isn't actually going to prove anything.
I have no doubt this has been explained to you before.
Quiet! He's still trying to grasp the birds and the bees concept at the moment and doesn't need unwelcome distractionsQuote:
Originally Posted by John83
The term "Climate Change" was an Owerllian-style Newspeak tactic which the Global Warmers came up when the eh,..."global warming" suddenly stopped. Rather than admit that they were incorrect in their hysterical predictions.
But if some people on this board would rather nitpick terminology rather than deal with the reality that Al Gore and the rest of them whipped up a phoney, groundless crusade then that's their problem. Won't change the fact that the world has suddenly become cold since last October.
and here is why the "global warming" stopped:
Quote:
Up To 69% Of Global Warming Due To Solar Variability
Nicola Scafetta, Bruce J. West
Physics Today
March 2008
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/opinion0308.pdf
So you're telling us that you absolutely don't believe that the climate has changed dramatically in the past 10-20 years, exacerbated by the activities of humans since the industrial revolution? As anto1208 said: Do you have a window?
Jesus, even Helen Keller could tell the difference in temperature in the past 20 years.
adam
if this is true......Quote:
Originally Posted by Boh_So_Good
and this is true........then by your logic, the term 'climate change' should only have been around since last October.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boh_So_Good
But that's not the case. It has been around for years.
The reason the term has been around for years is because people realised something, something which has been pointed out to you repeatedly on this thread, and that something is that climate change doesn't mean that the world becomes a sunny paradise, but is subject to much more drastic and damaging changes in climate than previously.
================================================== ==================================================
EDIT: Boh So Good, I went to that link you posted, and look what I found -
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/Quote:
Sun and Global Warming:
Finally, our study focused on developing a phenomenological multiscale model to estimate the solar contribution to global warming during the last century. Current energy balance climate models seems to underestimate the solar impact on climate by 1.5-3 times. It seems that the increase of solar activity during the 20th century might be responsible of approximately 50% of the global warming, but this contribution was not uniform during the century. The sun might have contributed 75% of the global warming during the first half of the century (1900-1950) but only 30% during the second half of the century (1950-2000). Thus, our findings would confirm that the sun played a dominant role in climate change in the early past, as several empirical studies would suggest. However, anthropogenic-added climatic forcing might have progressively played a dominant role in climate change during the last century and, in particular, during the last decades.
ironic that somebody who complains about "cherrypicking" should be doing it. With you, not surprising though.
...It's called winter. Look it up. Happens every year. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Boh_So_Good
Don't encourage him LR, ffs!
It's surprising how similar this thread is to it's Dumbass counterpart due to Bohs So Good's participation :)
For all the arguments, annoyances and oddities, theres only one person on my foot.ie ignore list. And this thread is thus quite funny to read :DQuote:
Originally Posted by jebus
I don't think the average person in the street links weather changes with use of carbon fuels. Oil hit $111 a barrel today which is more likely to focus the mind as that has an immediate impact on our lives hitting us in the pocket.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
Ah ha, so you're this fabled "the average person." :D
This is a remarkable article and goes to the root of just how politicised the whole global warming hysteria is. We see not one, but two scientists converted in one fell swoop off of the global warming support list. The fact that one had to resign from NASA, and that NASA refused to publish his findings is astounding:
Al Gore needs to come clean about his Generation Investment Management private equity firm. Al Gore needs to be transparent about where GIM gets its funding from, what projects it invests in, and the main stakeholders involved. If Al Gore has nothing to hide, then he should take the initiative to show the world independent proof that all his global warming alarmism isn't tied in to a self-centered profit motive.Quote:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...90213857214322
Climate Change: When new facts emerge, the open-minded tend to alter
their views. This is what has happened to a Hungarian environmental
scholar whose position on global warming has been transformed.
Until his Damascus moment, Miklos Zagoni, a physicist and environmental
researcher, had been touted as his nation's "most outspoken supporter of
the Kyoto Protocol." But then this activist saw the work of a fellow
Hungarian scientist. His world was rocked.
Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist at NASA's Langley Research
Center with three decades of experience, had found that researchers have
been repeating a mistake when calculating the impact of greenhouse gas
emissions on temperatures.
Any sign of that 27 feet rise in sea level he promised in his Hollywood movie yet? Not that he would notice flying everywhere in private jets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
You really don't get that the earth climatic cycles have around longer than MTV do you? How many petrol combustion engines were there in the 12th and 13th century when "global warming" even more severe than predicted for this century took place?
Are you actually suggesting that the industrial revolution and it's subsequent fallout have not had any effect on the warming process?Quote:
Originally Posted by Boh_So_Good