Conspiracy theories surrounding human influenced climate change, what's up with that?


Off-Topic Discussions

751 to 800 of 3,563 << first < prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | next > last >>
The Exchange

Irontruth wrote:

Significant amounts of agriculture products go to feeding other agriculture products. In the US, less meat production would mean that less soy/corn needs to be grown to feed the cattle/poultry/pork industry. While some land isn't good for growing anything other than grass, there is lots of good growing land that is used for things like poultry/pork.

Less meat production would mean less crops grown to feed those animals, less water usage, less sewage runoff, fewer chemicals and fewer chances to spread disease.

I definitely don't want meat production to go away though. I love me my bacon explosion. I make 1 or 2 a year.

My suddenly salavating mouth makes me so angry about deciding to follow that link.

That thing looks like it can shorten a man's life by a month or two just by looking at it.

Liberty's Edge

Gaberlunzie wrote:
Krensky wrote:

I find the lack of even common sense knowledge about how dairy farming works saddening.

If you choose not to eat meat because you don't want to kill animals but still consume dairy you are doing it wrong. It is an absolute, there's no wiggle room or rationalization of it. Calves, kids, and lambs are useless to a dairy farmer, so they get slaughtered.

Now excuse me, I need to go make some veal scallopini with lemon cream sauce.

I know how it works. But people may have stances that aren't quite as simplistic as not eating animals because you don't want to kill them. For example, my lacto-ovo-vegetarian friend has explained their stance akin to this (we've discussed it a bit, and this is not their exact words but how I understood her):

"Killing animals for food is imposing unnecessary suffering on them; there's no getting away from this. There can't be an animal meat industry that doesn't cause loads and loads of suffering. "Consumer power" is pointless liberal BS though, so not eating animals or using animal products won't directly affect the meat industry. However, eating animals normalizes and entrenches meat-eating as a cultural phenomena, making it harder to fight against the meat industry in other ways.

On the other hand, eggs and dairy don't inherently require animals to suffer, so even in a post-capitalist society without industrialized animal torture having dairy and eggs is possible. Due to this, it's less important to fight against dairy and eggs as a cultural phenomena."

Now, I can find them a bit naive (maybe because I'm a revolutionary defeatist lol), but there's nothing hypocritical about it, and it in itself is not a baseless or unsound analysis. I just find the imagined end of capitalism during our lifetimes to be unnecessarily hopeful.

Whatever postmodern gibberish makes you folks feel better about rationalizing your choices.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:
Gaberlunzie wrote:
Krensky wrote:

I find the lack of even common sense knowledge about how dairy farming works saddening.

If you choose not to eat meat because you don't want to kill animals but still consume dairy you are doing it wrong. It is an absolute, there's no wiggle room or rationalization of it. Calves, kids, and lambs are useless to a dairy farmer, so they get slaughtered.

Now excuse me, I need to go make some veal scallopini with lemon cream sauce.

I know how it works. But people may have stances that aren't quite as simplistic as not eating animals because you don't want to kill them. For example, my lacto-ovo-vegetarian friend has explained their stance akin to this (we've discussed it a bit, and this is not their exact words but how I understood her):

"Killing animals for food is imposing unnecessary suffering on them; there's no getting away from this. There can't be an animal meat industry that doesn't cause loads and loads of suffering. "Consumer power" is pointless liberal BS though, so not eating animals or using animal products won't directly affect the meat industry. However, eating animals normalizes and entrenches meat-eating as a cultural phenomena, making it harder to fight against the meat industry in other ways.

On the other hand, eggs and dairy don't inherently require animals to suffer, so even in a post-capitalist society without industrialized animal torture having dairy and eggs is possible. Due to this, it's less important to fight against dairy and eggs as a cultural phenomena."

Now, I can find them a bit naive (maybe because I'm a revolutionary defeatist lol), but there's nothing hypocritical about it, and it in itself is not a baseless or unsound analysis. I just find the imagined end of capitalism during our lifetimes to be unnecessarily hopeful.

Whatever postmodern gibberish makes you folks feel better about rationalizing your choices.

Let me take a stab at rationalizing half measures:

I can't have a serious impact on any of the various food industries, let alone the milk or meat industries. Without dedicating much more of my life than seems healthy, I can't possibly actually *do* anything about what I feel is immoral.

Therefore, any choice on what I should or shouldn't eat is solely a selfish one to make myself feel better. Essentially, the optimal case is one where I eat exactly the amount of meat and milk and eggs and so on that satisfies my hunger for such things (I love meat, I love cheese, omelettes are nice) and yet doesn't begin to feel unpleasant because of guilt.

My solution: I rarely eat meat. That's enough for me. My frequency is less than once per week. However, if I really feel like it, I'll take a bite out of that bacon even if just yesterday I ate a hamburger.

In other words, I fully recognize that the only one who truly cares what I eat is me, and aim for maximum personal happiness. The symbolism of eating meat - the actual flesh of animals that were killed for that express purpose - weighs more on my conscious than eating cheese. Not rational, but true. So I avoid meat much more than I avoid cheese.

Does this make sense? to me it does. Much more than vegetarianism or pretending to not care at all (some people actually don't and that's fine, but many who do care pretend not to because they don't want to go vegan).


Lord Snow wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Significant amounts of agriculture products go to feeding other agriculture products. In the US, less meat production would mean that less soy/corn needs to be grown to feed the cattle/poultry/pork industry. While some land isn't good for growing anything other than grass, there is lots of good growing land that is used for things like poultry/pork.

Less meat production would mean less crops grown to feed those animals, less water usage, less sewage runoff, fewer chemicals and fewer chances to spread disease.

I definitely don't want meat production to go away though. I love me my bacon explosion. I make 1 or 2 a year.

My suddenly salavating mouth makes me so angry about deciding to follow that link.

That thing looks like it can shorten a man's life by a month or two just by looking at it.

You don't eat a lot of it. I typically cut it in about 3/4 inch medallions. It's usually a side dish type thing, it's just a meat side dish. The last time I made 2 they combined to about 4 lbs total weight, for about 20-25 people. We also had pulled pork, so I combined the two on a pretzel roll for a sandwich. It was delicious.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Meat eaten in moderation is an important part of our diet. People are TOO into extremes these days. It's either gorge on platters of meat or no meat at all... both are unhealthy.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lord Snow wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Significant amounts of agriculture products go to feeding other agriculture products. In the US, less meat production would mean that less soy/corn needs to be grown to feed the cattle/poultry/pork industry. While some land isn't good for growing anything other than grass, there is lots of good growing land that is used for things like poultry/pork.

Less meat production would mean less crops grown to feed those animals, less water usage, less sewage runoff, fewer chemicals and fewer chances to spread disease.

I definitely don't want meat production to go away though. I love me my bacon explosion. I make 1 or 2 a year.

My suddenly salavating mouth makes me so angry about deciding to follow that link.

That thing looks like it can shorten a man's life by a month or two just by looking at it.

I never could understand the irrational fascination the Internet seems to have for fried pork rinds. I've detested the stuff since I was a child. I have nothing against meat, and will actually eat pork every now and then, but I'd have to be at starvation level before I'd touch bacon.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Significant amounts of agriculture products go to feeding other agriculture products. In the US, less meat production would mean that less soy/corn needs to be grown to feed the cattle/poultry/pork industry. While some land isn't good for growing anything other than grass, there is lots of good growing land that is used for things like poultry/pork.

Less meat production would mean less crops grown to feed those animals, less water usage, less sewage runoff, fewer chemicals and fewer chances to spread disease.

I definitely don't want meat production to go away though. I love me my bacon explosion. I make 1 or 2 a year.

My suddenly salavating mouth makes me so angry about deciding to follow that link.

That thing looks like it can shorten a man's life by a month or two just by looking at it.

I never could understand the irrational fascination the Internet seems to have for fried pork rinds. I've detested the stuff since I was a child. I have nothing against meat, and will actually eat pork every now and then, but I'd have to be at starvation level before I'd touch bacon.

Actual fried pork rinds (aka Chicharrónes) are (1) wonderful, and (2) not bacon.

Liberty's Edge

Lord Snow wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Gaberlunzie wrote:
Krensky wrote:

I find the lack of even common sense knowledge about how dairy farming works saddening.

If you choose not to eat meat because you don't want to kill animals but still consume dairy you are doing it wrong. It is an absolute, there's no wiggle room or rationalization of it. Calves, kids, and lambs are useless to a dairy farmer, so they get slaughtered.

Now excuse me, I need to go make some veal scallopini with lemon cream sauce.

I know how it works. But people may have stances that aren't quite as simplistic as not eating animals because you don't want to kill them. For example, my lacto-ovo-vegetarian friend has explained their stance akin to this (we've discussed it a bit, and this is not their exact words but how I understood her):

"Killing animals for food is imposing unnecessary suffering on them; there's no getting away from this. There can't be an animal meat industry that doesn't cause loads and loads of suffering. "Consumer power" is pointless liberal BS though, so not eating animals or using animal products won't directly affect the meat industry. However, eating animals normalizes and entrenches meat-eating as a cultural phenomena, making it harder to fight against the meat industry in other ways.

On the other hand, eggs and dairy don't inherently require animals to suffer, so even in a post-capitalist society without industrialized animal torture having dairy and eggs is possible. Due to this, it's less important to fight against dairy and eggs as a cultural phenomena."

Now, I can find them a bit naive (maybe because I'm a revolutionary defeatist lol), but there's nothing hypocritical about it, and it in itself is not a baseless or unsound analysis. I just find the imagined end of capitalism during our lifetimes to be unnecessarily hopeful.

Whatever postmodern gibberish makes you folks feel better about rationalizing your choices.
Let me take a stab at rationalizing half measures:

If you choose not eat meat but choose to eat dairy there are two explanations:

1. You are a hypocrite.
2. You are ignorant of the realities of dairy farming.

There are no other options.

No matter how much you rationalize it or justify it dairy farming creates just as much pain and suffering as meat farming, largely because they'r essentially the same thing.

But again, whatever makes you feel better about yourself.


To save this endangered breed, eat it

“Every endangered species must have a purpose to survive,” says Henderson.

Why do I eat meat? I want animals to survive.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
pres man wrote:

To save this endangered breed, eat it

“Every endangered species must have a purpose to survive,” says Henderson.

Why do I eat meat? I want animals to survive.

They sound delicious.

The Exchange

Quote:

If you choose not eat meat but choose to eat dairy there are two explanations:

1. You are a hypocrite.
2. You are ignorant of the realities of dairy farming.

There are no other options.

No matter how much you rationalize it or justify it dairy farming creates just as much pain and suffering as meat farming, largely because they'r essentially the same thing.

But again, whatever makes you feel better about yourself.

Exactly - whatever makes me feel better about myself. I state so clearly in the post you quote - I am well aware of the realities of the dairy industry. One is not a hypocrite if he never claims to be anything other than what he is. In my case, that is a person who realized that doing a little good is better than doing no good, and therefore is looking for ways to do good with only acceptable self sacrifices, such as "eat meat a couple of times a month instead of every day." It coule have just as well been "avoid dairy products", but that's not the approach I chose because it suits me less.

Half measures are not hypocrisy, and are always better than no measures.


Quote:

If you choose not eat meat but choose to eat dairy there are two explanations:

1. You are a hypocrite.
2. You are ignorant of the realities of dairy farming.

Or you're a vegetarian for dietary reasons.


People might also not eat meat for health reasons. Or just because they don't like it.

The hypocrisy only applies if you're doing it for ethical reasons.

Liberty's Edge

Except not eating meat has no impact outside of your own self. that jibberish about normalising consumption of meat or whatever is just that, jibberish.

If you don not eat meat because of moral consideration that you can't say that dairy's ok or that it's ok to eat meat occasionally because eating less of it is better than eating a lot.

If you view eating meat as a moral wrong then "but I still eat it occasionally" is the same as 'killing people is wrong, so I only do it once a month'.

At least be consistent.

Liberty's Edge

Trigger Loaded wrote:
Quote:

If you choose not eat meat but choose to eat dairy there are two explanations:

1. You are a hypocrite.
2. You are ignorant of the realities of dairy farming.

Or you're a vegetarian for dietary reasons.
thejeff wrote:

People might also not eat meat for health reasons. Or just because they don't like it.

The hypocrisy only applies if you're doing it for ethical reasons.

Really?

I leave the moral reasons clause out of one post and that's the one you two decide to jump on?

Wow.

I don't know Trigger, but I expected better from you Jeff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:

If you choose not eat meat but choose to eat dairy there are two explanations:

1. You are a hypocrite.
2. You are ignorant of the realities of dairy farming.

There are no other options.

No matter how much you rationalize it or justify it dairy farming creates just as much pain and suffering as meat farming, largely because they'r essentially the same thing.

But again, whatever makes you feel better about yourself.

This is not even remotely true.

If course A caused X suffering and course B cause Y suffering, and X>Y, then it is a consistent utilitarian ethical stance to say that B is more ethical than A.

In this case, so long as your in take of eggs and dairy does not increase beyond in take of your pre-vegetarian diet, then the maths is clear, the vegetarian diet is more ethically sound.

Even if your intake increase, it it entirely possible that your diet is more ethical, upto fairly large intakes of dairy and eggs, because the sum of suffering caused by meat consumption was very high.

Liberty's Edge

Bull crap.

Rationalise it as much as you want but dairy farming arguably causes more animal suffering that meat farming. If you do not eat meat for moral or ethical reasons but eat dairy your ethical system is, at best, inconsistent.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah there are lots of reasons to not or eat less meat. It's not total vegan = hypocrite. That stuff only really applies if you think you shouldn't eat meat or dairy because you think killing animals is wrong. and even on an ethics front you might be against factory farming but okay with free range or legally hunted wild game.

I have one friend who is mostly vegetarian, because as a little kid she found the texture of meat disgusting. She is okay with dairy, and oddly enough bacon, but its not really an ethical issue with her.

Liberty's Edge

And then she has nothing to do with this.

If you are a vegetarian for ethical reasons but still eat dairy your ethics are inconsistent. No amount of ethical calculus, flam flam, rationalization, or goal post moving changes that.

If that fact makes you uncomfortable, either eat meat or stop eating dairy.

If me calling you ethically inconsistent bothers you, then either examine your ethics and resolve the inconsistency (see above) or grow up and stop caring if some random person on the internet likes you or your life choices.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Are all stances from "Eat as much meat and dairy as I possibly can" down to "occasionally eat a little dairy" morally equal?

Is there ethical gain in reducing your consumption, but not eliminating it?


There are significant welfare issues relating to milk cows sure, but the numbers of animals in the dairy industry is relatively small(around 9 million milk cows in the US ). By contrast, the hog farming industry alone has somewhere in the region of 67.8 million pigs the U.S. according to the Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Census(2007).

Even if the suffering of an the average individual dairy cow is three times that of the average pig (which in modern pig units is questionable) the pigs alone have it by a country mile. In fact, an individual milk cow has to suffer seven and a half times as much to make the dairy industry a bigger welfare issue than the hog industry.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:

And then she has nothing to do with this.

If you are a vegetarian for ethical reasons but still eat dairy your ethics are inconsistent. No amount of ethical calculus, flam flam, rationalization, or goal post moving changes that.

If that fact makes you uncomfortable, either eat meat or stop eating dairy.

If me calling you ethically inconsistent bothers you, then either examine your ethics and resolve the inconsistency (see above) or grow up and stop caring if some random person on the internet likes you or your life choices.

They are not inconstant, they are just not absolutist.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:

Except not eating meat has no impact outside of your own self. that jibberish about normalising consumption of meat or whatever is just that, jibberish.

If you don not eat meat because of moral consideration that you can't say that dairy's ok or that it's ok to eat meat occasionally because eating less of it is better than eating a lot.

If you view eating meat as a moral wrong then "but I still eat it occasionally" is the same as 'killing people is wrong, so I only do it once a month'.

At least be consistent.

It's not the same thing at all. Believing that two things are both morally wrong does not mean you believe those two things to be the same level of 'wrong'. I view jumping a queue because you're in a hurry as morally wrong, and I also view killing people as morally wrong. I however feel that the punishment for killing people should be much greater than that for queue jumping.

Fundamentally, if somebody thinks that killing animals for food is morally wrong then they've improved the situation (albeit in a very minor way) by halving the amount of animals killed to feed them personally. Doing something to address a perceived problem is better than doing nothing, even if that falls short of doing everything possible.


Berik wrote:
Fundamentally, if somebody thinks that killing animals for food is morally wrong then they've improved the situation (albeit in a very minor way) by halving the amount of animals killed to feed them personally.

This holds true only in an economy in which meat is sourced locally either from that individual's family, or a neighbor. In our economy, this is not halfing the amount of animals killed to feed that person personally. It only halves the sale of animals that were already killed, for feeding that person personally. The amount of animals killed does not change.


Aniuś the Talewise wrote:
Berik wrote:
Fundamentally, if somebody thinks that killing animals for food is morally wrong then they've improved the situation (albeit in a very minor way) by halving the amount of animals killed to feed them personally.
This holds true only in an economy in which meat is sourced locally either from that individual's family, or a neighbor. In our economy, this is not halfing the amount of animals killed to feed that person personally. It only halves the sale of animals that were already killed, for feeding that person personally. The amount of animals killed does not change.

Well, by that argument, neither does abstaining from meat entirely. But that argument is wrong.

It's not as direct a connection as not killing your own animals, but it is a reduction in demand, which leads to less sales and less production. My individual consumption will have minimal effect on the huge industry, but many people making the same choices will have a noticeable one.


I did say it was a minor effect, but as thejeff says there is an effect. If I personally halved the amount of meat I eat then that wouldn't change demand, but millions of people around the world doing so does.


I'm still not convinced that enough people will ever become vegan to render the meat industry defunct that way, seeing as that diet is simply not for everyone and not everyone has access to it for economic or health reasons even if it's what they want.

I think a more effective way to destroy the meat industry is to attack the structure of the industry itself and the structures that underlie it, but I am not educated in that matter, so don't ask me how that could be done.

Liberty's Edge

And now you are arguing over the number of angels on a pin head.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:

I'm still not convinced that enough people will ever become vegan to render the meat industry defunct that way, seeing as that diet is simply not for everyone and not everyone has access to it for economic or health reasons even if it's what they want.

I think a more effective way to destroy the meat industry is to attack the structure of the industry itself and the structures that underlie it, but I am not educated in that matter, so don't ask me how that could be done.

Altering demand isn't the same as making the meat industry defunct. I haven't said anywhere that I think everybody is going to (or even should) move to a meat-free diet, I'm responding to Krensky's claims of hyposcrisy in vegetarians. And really, even if the meat industry is making the same amount of meat despite the people who reduce their meat intake, that increase can't be blamed on the people who are no longer eating meat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:

And then she has nothing to do with this.

If you are a vegetarian for ethical reasons but still eat dairy your ethics are inconsistent. No amount of ethical calculus, flam flam, rationalization, or goal post moving changes that.

If that fact makes you uncomfortable, either eat meat or stop eating dairy.

If me calling you ethically inconsistent bothers you, then either examine your ethics and resolve the inconsistency (see above) or grow up and stop caring if some random person on the internet likes you or your life choices.

I am really really confused on how the conversation ended up here, especially on a thread on climate change. And exactly why this topic would...aggravate a person to a degree indicated by the above message.


Aniuś the Talewise wrote:

I'm still not convinced that enough people will ever become vegan to render the meat industry defunct that way, seeing as that diet is simply not for everyone and not everyone has access to it for economic or health reasons even if it's what they want.

I think a more effective way to destroy the meat industry is to attack the structure of the industry itself and the structures that underlie it, but I am not educated in that matter, so don't ask me how that could be done.

It doesn't have to, if the aim of the vegan, vegetarian, or person eating less meat is A, reduce their own culpability in the suffering caused, B, to reduce the amount of suffering.

If all those vegans, ect all eat meet like the average american, then the total level of suffering.


MMCJawa wrote:
Krensky wrote:

And then she has nothing to do with this.

If you are a vegetarian for ethical reasons but still eat dairy your ethics are inconsistent. No amount of ethical calculus, flam flam, rationalization, or goal post moving changes that.

If that fact makes you uncomfortable, either eat meat or stop eating dairy.

If me calling you ethically inconsistent bothers you, then either examine your ethics and resolve the inconsistency (see above) or grow up and stop caring if some random person on the internet likes you or your life choices.

I am really really confused on how the conversation ended up here, especially on a thread on climate change. And exactly why this topic would...aggravate a person to a degree indicated by the above message.

Well, it started with methane from cows and degenerated from there.

To wrap back to climate change and reference the current debate, not eating meat, but still eating dairy does reduce your contribution to the part global warming caused by cow methane (however small that is), but doesn't eliminate it. Much getting a more efficient car (and not driving it more) reduces your contribution, but doesn't eliminate it.


A place to continue the meat discussion

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
thejeff wrote:
To wrap back to climate change and reference the current debate, not eating meat, but still eating dairy does reduce your contribution to the part global warming caused by cow methane (however small that is), but doesn't eliminate it.

Actually... it depends on what food source(s) you switch from and to. For example, everyone in the world giving up fish in favor of rice would result in a massive increase in methane emissions.

Indeed, the whole world going to some kind of vegan diet would likely have very little impact on global warming... it might even make things worse. Lower emissions diets are certainly possible... but they could include meats as easily as plants. In any case, the whole question is IMO a waste of time because it is one of those, 'If the human race were not the human race' arguments. That is, the entire human race will not change their eating habits. Not going to happen. Ergo, pointless argument.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
That is, the entire human race will not change their eating habits. Not going to happen. Ergo, pointless argument.

Well, relatively recently I've almost completely purged emmer and einkorn wheat from my diet, and I've given up aurochs 100% cold turkey.

For ethical reasons.


Just posting this for Kirth, in case he comes back to this thread to reply to my last post.

I'm out of the discussion. I've spent how many days on it already? And nothing accomplished with all of that time put into it. I've got better things to do. Like investigate environmentally-friendly paints for when I repaint my house.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:
Gaberlunzie wrote:
Krensky wrote:

I find the lack of even common sense knowledge about how dairy farming works saddening.

If you choose not to eat meat because you don't want to kill animals but still consume dairy you are doing it wrong. It is an absolute, there's no wiggle room or rationalization of it. Calves, kids, and lambs are useless to a dairy farmer, so they get slaughtered.

Now excuse me, I need to go make some veal scallopini with lemon cream sauce.

I know how it works. But people may have stances that aren't quite as simplistic as not eating animals because you don't want to kill them. For example, my lacto-ovo-vegetarian friend has explained their stance akin to this (we've discussed it a bit, and this is not their exact words but how I understood her):

"Killing animals for food is imposing unnecessary suffering on them; there's no getting away from this. There can't be an animal meat industry that doesn't cause loads and loads of suffering. "Consumer power" is pointless liberal BS though, so not eating animals or using animal products won't directly affect the meat industry. However, eating animals normalizes and entrenches meat-eating as a cultural phenomena, making it harder to fight against the meat industry in other ways.

On the other hand, eggs and dairy don't inherently require animals to suffer, so even in a post-capitalist society without industrialized animal torture having dairy and eggs is possible. Due to this, it's less important to fight against dairy and eggs as a cultural phenomena."

Now, I can find them a bit naive (maybe because I'm a revolutionary defeatist lol), but there's nothing hypocritical about it, and it in itself is not a baseless or unsound analysis. I just find the imagined end of capitalism during our lifetimes to be unnecessarily hopeful.

Whatever postmodern gibberish makes you folks feel better about rationalizing your choices.

That analysis is mainly based in marxist thought, not postmodern.

Quote:
If you are a vegetarian for ethical reasons but still eat dairy your ethics are inconsistent. No amount of ethical calculus, flam flam, rationalization, or goal post moving changes that.

You do realize that claiming something many times doesn't make it more correct, right? You also realize that a reasoning not being sound doesn't make it hypocritical, right?


CBDunkerson wrote:
thejeff wrote:
To wrap back to climate change and reference the current debate, not eating meat, but still eating dairy does reduce your contribution to the part global warming caused by cow methane (however small that is), but doesn't eliminate it.
Actually... it depends on what food source(s) you switch from and to. For example, everyone in the world giving up fish in favor of rice would result in a massive increase in methane emissions.

Switching from fish to rice would be an incredibly weird thing to do though. For the whole world to do it would be utterly bizarre. They have very few nutrients in common. Of all common grains, rice is one of the lightest on protein, for instance. Wheat and oat are both far higher.

A more reasonable comparison would be switching from fish to soy or wheat, but I really have no idea how that would affect greenhouse gas emissions. Also, thejeff didn't talk about switching out _just_ fish, so a more fair comparison would be what jeff actually said; stopping eating meat in general, and switching to vegan alternatives.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What if I told you that humans are responsible for climate change, but not in the way you are typically told.


CaptainGemini wrote:

Just posting this for Kirth, in case he comes back to this thread to reply to my last post.

I'm out of the discussion. I've spent how many days on it already? And nothing accomplished with all of that time put into it. I've got better things to do. Like investigate environmentally-friendly paints for when I repaint my house.

Ocre? Crushed and powdered clay rocks of particular colour?


pres man wrote:
What if I told you that humans are responsible for climate change, but not in the way you are typically told.

Fascinating videos!

I think my spouse may love these. The one on wolves actually dealt directly with a research item my spouse was involved with (or something very similar)...which makes it even more interesting.


pres man wrote:
What if I told you that humans are responsible for climate change, but not in the way you are typically told.

also, using fire to remove what was apparently vast swaths of forest from the praries of the us...


Tangentially related... this guy lives in my basement right now.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You have Jon Stewart in your basement?!?


Nope. Guess again. I'll give you a hint, it's also (thankfully) not Lou Dobbs.

Liberty's Edge

You have Matt Walsh in your basement?!?


Lately he's been regaling me with conspiracy theories about how the Pope isn't actually visiting the US, but rather, it's a clone that's coming and it will be assassinated and trigger all these global events.

He was convinced the Earth was flat, but I was able to use the physics of light to convince him that wasn't true. He was a little sad.


Back to the OP, sorta.

So several posts up my position was uncharitably lambasted. Here's some current thinking from scientifically respected others that support my general thesis.

Srsly I could do this all day but the following three links make my point clear enough.

Rise of the Coccolithophores

Quote:
"What is worrisome," he said, "is that our result points out how little we know about how complex ecosystems function."

Antarctic Sea Ice

Quote:

"There hasn’t been one explanation yet that I’d say has become a consensus, where people say, ‘We’ve nailed it, this is why it’s happening,’” Parkinson said. “Our models are improving, but they’re far from perfect. One by one, scientists are figuring out that particular variables are more important than we thought years ago, and one by one those variables are getting incorporated into the models."

"Its really not surprising to people in the climate field that not every location on the face of Earth is acting as expected – it would be amazing if everything did"

"Every location"? Ha! Antarctica is about 14 Million Sq Kilometers. Granted that's roughly 2% of the global total surface are but given that climate models typically use cells of 1 km^3, I'd say misunderstanding what 14 million sq Km are up to is a rather larger error.

We've got garbage patches (mostly plastic) covering comparable areas. Are the climate models accounting for those? Somehow I doubt it.

AMOC

Quote:
"Many of the ideas put forth in this paper will require substantial further scrutiny and testing."

For those of you who missed it. My general thesis is that we are wasting too much effort arguing over climate modeling (let the modelers do their thing) and not enough on cooperation to increase the efficiency of energy consumption. A more efficient global economy means less CO2. Less CO2 means less climate issues. Everybody wins!

Who wouldn't want that?*

* who besides my detractors that is :)

751 to 800 of 3,563 << first < prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Conspiracy theories surrounding human influenced climate change, what's up with that? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.