So, if light exists as a wave, which much evidence indicates — Metaphysician Undercover

The behavior of particles at the atomic & sub-atomic levels does not correspond to anything in the macro world (AKA classical physics) - and analogies to the behavior of matter at the macro level (what we can see/fell) fall apart if taken literally.

Light does not "exist as a wave". Light "exists" (and I put exists in quotes) as photons. Photons exhibit the behavior of particles when we measure their "particle" behavior. While photons have no rest mass (since they travel at the speed of light) they have momentum which can be measured and under some situations actually used (think of outer space light sails).

Photons also exhibit properties of a wave - but only when we try to measure their wave properties (wavelength, etc).

We cannot simultaneously measure both the particle & wave behavior of photons at the same time.

So the best analogy I can come up with is that photons are particles which also exhibit wave-like behavior. And particles do not need a medium in which to move.

[edit] Just to emphasize - that is an analogy. The math describes reality.

I hope this helps.

You said that, to your ears, a few statements sounded like threats, and even quoted these threats. — NOS4A2

I'll try one more time. You feel that there is an important distinction between pressure vs threat so I'm conceding the point. So again - T was merely pressuring R, NOT threatening him.

At any rate, I’ve repeatedly said Trump was pressuring him to look at the fraud and to share the data with his team. — NOS4A2

And once again, why would R NOT do these things?

I have already given my answer and shared why I made such a speculation. — NOS4A2

And here is what you said:

Public and political pressure, maybe. — NOS4A2

Who was putting pressure on R at the time of these events to NOT do things that T was asking for? These things could have potentially given the GA electoral votes to Trump? If you want to convince me that you're right you will need far more then speculation.

R has challenged T to publicly debate this issue at a venue of T's choice. What's that all about?

Clearly Trump pressured him — NOS4A2

I'm glad we agree on that.

And if you wouldn’t mind sharing your definition of threat — NOS4A2

You're really hung up on this - so for purposes of this particular discussion I'll go with your distinction. So Trump "pressured" him but did not "threaten" him.

but it’s what act Trump pressured him to do that is the question. — NOS4A2

The exact details of the acts Trump pressured him to do are irrelevant. The relevant question is why Raffensperger - a lifelong Republican and a Trump supporter - did not do any of the things that Trump pressured him to do.

I hope you wouldn’t mind sharing your answer to this specific question. If not, then I suppose I can again chalk it up to propaganda and I’ll quit bothering you about it.

I am speculating in metaphysics and not at all pretending to be doing physics. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't speculate in metaphysics so I can't help you with this. I suggest you take your speculations to a physics forum - they will help you understand this much better than I.

I don’t see anything in here about pressuring Raffensperger to “overturn the GA election results”. Given this, perhaps you can provide evidence that Trump was pressuring the Secretary of State to “overturn the GA election results”. Also, if you wouldn’t mind sharing your definition of threat, since you’re so sure Trump threatened him, it would be helpful since am still unable to see it. — NOS4A2

Raffensperger himself has stated that Trump pressured him. I can't speak for Raffensperger so f you disagree you'll have to take it up with him.

Meanwhile, still you have not explained why Raffensperger - a lifelong Republican and a Trump supporter - would NOT have found those 11 thousand votes that Trump was asking for -assuming there was any legal way to do that.

Raffensperger has challenged Trump to publicly debate about the results of the GA election.

Ha - you beat me to it!

I think you can read this on Wikipedia, — Metaphysician Undercover

I did and it refutes what you are saying.
Per Wikipedia:

"Physics theories of the 19th century assumed that just as surface water waves must have a supporting substance, i.e., a "medium", to move across (in this case water), and audible sound requires a medium to transmit its wave motions (such as air or water), so light must also require a medium, the "luminiferous aether", to transmit its wave motions. Because light can travel through a vacuum, it was assumed that even a vacuum must be filled with aether."

The experiment compared the speed of light in perpendicular directions in an attempt to detect the relative motion of matter through the luminiferous aether ("aether wind"). The result was negative, in that Michelson and Morley found no significant difference between the speed of light in the direction of movement through the presumed aether, and the speed at right angles. This result is generally considered to be the first strong evidenceagainst some aether theories, as well as initiating a line of research that eventually led to special relativity, which rules out motion against an aether.

These results have been repeatedly confirmed.

Yet we know from observation, rainbows, and other refractions, that light must consist of waves, therefore there must be a substance there which is waving. — Metaphysician Undercover

M-M explicitly disproved that notion. If there was a substance, then M-M would have detected it. That's what eventually led to relativity. If I'm misunderstanding it then please explain.

Public and political pressure, maybe. — NOS4A2

Maybe? You're gonna need a lot more than that. Please provide evidence that in January 2021 Raffensperger was being pressured to NOT overturn the GA election results. Who was doing this pressuring?

In fact, Raffensperger has stated repeatedly that it was Trump who was pressuring him.

[edit]
Raffensperger has challenged Trump to a debate about the results of the election

Yet we know from observation, rainbows, and other refractions, that light must consist of waves, therefore there must be a substance there which is waving. — Metaphysician Undercover

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but the Michelson–Morley experiment disproved that idea.

Regarding "spin", here's a good explanation from Scientific American: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/quantum-particles-arent-spinning-so-where-does-their-spin-come-from/

Only if there was a threat. — NOS4A2

This is Trump talking to Raffensperger
"And you are going to find that they are — which is totally illegal — it is more illegal for you than it is for them because, you know, what they did and you’re not reporting it. That’s a criminal, that’s a criminal offense. And you can’t let that happen."

and here:
"But I mean all of this stuff is very dangerous stuff. When you talk about no criminality, I think it’s very dangerous for you to say that."

Maybe you have different criteria for a threat, but to my ears it sounds like one. Trump is saying that if Raffensperger does not do his bidding then he would be committing a criminal offense.

But even beyond that I'll repeat my previous question again. Raffensperger was/is a life long republican and at the time this happened he was a Trump supporter. If there was a legal way that he could have flipped GA to go for Trump - for what possible reason would he have NOT done that?

The notion that Trump is pressuring Reffensperger to “find” votes is just another hoax. — NOS4A2

Trump literally said "So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have. Because we won the state.” Perhaps I'm not following you. Are you using the word "find" (which you put in quotes) differently than when Trump used the same word.

But even beyond that. Raffensperger is a life long Republican and was (at the time) a Trump supporter. Are you seriously suggesting that there was some legal way that Raffensperger could have somehow changed the results of the GA election and that he didn't - because?

Anyone who does not show complete and blind "loyalty" is no longer his own people. Their "disloyalty" is evidence that they cannot be trusted. — Fooloso4

This is too funny. NOS gave that exact reply.

Not everyone is so enamoured [sic] with party as you guys. Trump especially. He’s been thrown under the bus by republicans and Trump supporters at every single turn. — NOS4A2

It makes no difference whether he meant find votes that can be discarded as illegal. There was not and is not evidence they exist. He was repeatedly told by the Justice Department and Georgia officials that they did not exist.

It is one thing to question results, but quite another to reject the evidence. — Fooloso4

Why would someone trust the DOJ and Georgia officials? — NOS4A2

At the time of these events the DOJ was being run by Trump's own people. At the time of these events the "Georgia officials" were all Republicans and Trump supporters.

Are you saying that people who are life long Republicans and Trump supporters could not be trusted to help Trump?

I wasn't even thinking about the equilibrium temp - but yes - I'm glad you finally got it. It takes an exceptionally honest person to admit they were wrong, so kudos to you both. :cheer:

Hey Agree: I hope that you will now review Mitloehner's article from U Cal that you referenced and reconsider your opposition to reducing biogenic methane emissions. Again - it's your source - and Mitloehner makes a pretty convincing case that (apart from anything else) reducing methane emissions from livestock farming is a relatively simple & cost effective way to slow down the rate of global warming.

Of course eliminating all livestock farming would be much better - but that's a separate discussion.

I must be a glutton for punishment to continue this, but I'll try one more time.

Does it refer to "14% of the AMOUNT of global warming" — Agree to Disagree

Jeez! How many times do I have to say this? Yes.

I'll try a slightly different approach. Maybe this time it will sink in.

In pre-industrial times CH4 was at roughly 722 parts per billion (ppb). CH4 is currently at roughly 1900 ppb. This increase is due to human activity. 1900 - 722 = 1178 ppb. I'll round up to 1200 to make numbers simpler. Biogenic CH4 is responsible roughly 1/2 of this = 600 ppb.

Once again, the assumption behind this thought experiment is that biogenic methane stays the same, so the concentration stays at 600 ppb. This 600 ppb is currently causing global temps to increase by 0.0224° F per decade. Divide by 10 and it is causing global temps to increase by 0.00224° F per year. Divide that by 365 to get the daily increase (I'll let you do the math on this one).

Now every day a certain amount of these CH4 molecules decay to CO2 - likely the ones that have been around the longest. Hello plants! Here's some nice CO2 for you. Yummm. No contribution to global warming by those CO2 molecules.

Meanwhile, back in the atmosphere, those CH4 molecules that decay to CO2 are replaced by an equal number of brand new CH4 molecules. How do we know it's equal? That's the assumption behind this thought experiment - the total biogenic methane stays constant. So each day, new CH4 molecules are created courtesy of the cattle industry (among others). And at the end of each 24 hours we still have CH4 at 600 ppb. And each day those nasty CH4 molecules are doing their very best to trap heat and make the earth a little bit warmer.

So after 10 years you add up the daily contributions and - once again assuming that the biogenic methane in the atmosphere stays at 600 ppb - the earth will be 0.0224° F warmer.

Your calculation of 0.0224° F ( 0.012° C) per decade is NOT based on constant emissions of biogenic methane. — Agree to Disagree

It's based on the amount of biogenic CH4 in the atmosphere staying the same, so any CH4 which converts to CO2 is replaced by an equal amount of newly created CH4. That is the plain language meaning of the phrase "biogenic methane stays constant".

Now you are saying this is incorrect, but you have not offered an explanation. If this is wrong, then you need to provide the correct answer. If biogenic methane in the atmosphere stays the same (at 600 ppb) how much warmer will global temps be due to this?

I am working on a "flow diagram" which will show the difference between biogenic methane, fossil methane, biogenic CO2, and fossil CO2. I will post it on this discussion when it is finished. It will probably take me a day or two. — Agree to Disagree

Oh Lord, give me strength. Look, knock yourself out if it makes you happy, but it's irrelevant to this discussion. So one more time. If you cannot provide a coherent answer to this question then it will clear that you simply do not know what you're talking about.

If biogenic CH4 in the atmosphere stays the same, how much warmer will global temps be in 10 years due to this biogenic CH4?

I'm with Tom Storm here - I hope you're right.

I wish I could be that optimistic - and I hope you're right. As it is, the last two presidential elections were decided by about 100K voters in swing states - and this is likely to be the case in 2024..

If the total amount of methane in the atmosphere is constant then how can it be causing additional global warming? — Agree to Disagree

Sigh. I'll try one more time.

The assumption is that the amount of biogenic methane remains constant.

If biogenic methane stays constant over the next decade, then that by itself is going to increase global temp by 0.0224° F ( 0.012° C) per decade - because that's what it is doing today and it's going to continue to do that (the laws of physics are not changing).

I.e., If the current global temp is X and biogenic CH4 remains constant in the atmosphere, then in 10 years (ignoring everything else) the global temp is going to be X + 0.0224° F

Again this is based on the amount of biogenic CH4 being constant. Now if the emission rate were to go down then the contribution to global warming would go down (less than 0.0224° F per decade). And if CH4 emissions were to go up even more (as seems likely) then the contribution to global warming would be even higher than 0.0224° F per decade.

I can't think of a way to make this any simpler or more obvious.

[Edit]
In case it was not clear, the biogenic CO2 is NOT contributing to global warming in this simplified scenario because it is re-cycled by plants.
[Another edit]
Perhaps the confusion here is with the word "additional". Would you agree with this sentence:

If the total amount of biogenic methane in the atmosphere is constant then it will not cause any additional warming above & beyond what it is currently causing - 0.0224° F ( 0.012° C) per decade.

In pre-industrial times methane was at roughly 722 parts per billion (ppb). Methane is currently at 1900 ppb. This increase is due to human activity. This additional methane from human activity contributes 14% of global warming.

The rate of warming since 1981 is 0.32° F (0.18° C) per decade.

0.14 * 0.32° F = 0.0448° F ( 0.025° C)

So methane is currently causing roughly 0.0448 °F ( 0.025° C) increase in global temp per decade.

The energy sector (i.e. fossil methane) is responsible for around 40% of total methane emissions attributable to human activity, second only to agriculture. Biomass burning contributes a small amount. So to make the math easy let's say that biogenic methane is contributing 1/2 of that increase: 0.0224° F ( 0.012° C) per decade.

a constant emission of biogenic methane does not cause any ADDITIONAL global warming because when it breaks down the CO2 is absorbed by plants. — Agree to Disagree

Again to make the math simple, assuming that a constant emission of both biogenic and fossil methane is emitted over the next 12 years, what will the approximate methane concentration be in 2035?

A) less than 1900
B) 1900
C) greater than 1900

[EDIT]
Of course the answer is 1900 ppb. If you are emitting a constant amount of methane then that will replace the methane that is breaking down into CO2.

So a constant emission of biogenic methane between 2023 and 2035 will continue to contribute an ADDITIONAL 0.0224° F ( 0.012° C) (actually a bit more since this is a 12 years not 10). And if we have a constant emission of biogenic methane between 2035 and 2047 then the biogenic methane will contribute YET ANOTHER ADDITIONAL 0.0224° F ( 0.012° C). And so on.

Have I finally made myself clear?

This is silly. Even if I had the time & energy (which I don't) I'm not going to take the bait and engage in this type of discussion.

You asked a question & I answered. If you disagree with me - if you feel that Mitloehne is correct then make the case and I'll respond.

Otherwise I suggest you go out to NOAA web site - they will provide the answers to all these issues.

Thanks.

In 2019, global methane concentrations rose from 722 parts per billion (ppb) in pre-industrial times to 1866 ppb:
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-atmospheric-concentrations-greenhouse-gases
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/methane/

This additional methane is coming from human activity: https://www.globalcarbonproject.org/methanebudget/20/hl-compact.htm

And per the above this additional methane is responsible for at least 14% of global warming (other estimates are higher).

Now consider this statement by Mitloehne - which our friend Agree keeps quoting:

“when a steady amount of methane is emitted for more than 12 years, no additional global warming occurs”

So think this through. The current level of concentration is roughly 1900 ppb and this contributes 14% of global warming. The plain language meaning of the phrase “when a steady amount of methane is emitted for more than 12 years” is that the there is a balance between the methane converting to CO2 and new methane being generated by all sources. I.e., in 12 years the concentration of methane would still be 1900 ppb.

So Mitloehne is saying that in 12 years, even tho the level is still 1900 ppl, somehow these new molecules of methane (which replaced the ones that converted to CO2) will somehow no longer contribute to global warming. Really??? Are the laws of physics going to change in 12 years? Do the new molecules of methane have some special property that the current molecules do not have? I think not.

In a sense my statement “Of course this is false and is contradicted by the evidence from every reliable source” is not quite accurate. It would be really bizarre if a research scientist were to make the statement such as - our predictions are based on methane behaving the same in the future. That would be roughly equivalent to saying our estimates are based on the sun still rising in the east and setting in the west.

So I will re-phrase my statement: “No reliable source has ever stated or even hinted at the possibility that in the future methane may no longer be a greenhouse gas.”

It can be confusing trying to make sense of Agree's multiple claims & evasions. I have been narrow focusing on two of his (I assume that's his preferred pronoun) stated positions - one of which is based on the papers by Mitloehne (who we know is an industry shill) - and the other which contradicts Mitloehne.

1) Provided it does not increase, so called biogenic CH4 is not contributing to global warming
This is a claim made by Mitloehne. Of course this is false and is contradicted by the evidence from every reliable source. I have no illusions that Agree will change his mind on this - my mission here is simply to get him to acknowledge that Mitloehne is all by himself in making this claim. Of course Agree cannot get himself to do this - instead he keeps repeating the quotes from Mitloehne.

As we all know, biogenic CH4 is increasing every year, so this point is mute, but even under the counterfactual assumption of no increase it is still false.

2) We should concentrate on reducing non-biogenic CO2
Agree has repeatedly stated that it is a mistake to try to reduce biogenic CO2 and we should concentrate on reducing non-biogenic CO2. And here he contradicts his own source! Mitloehne's stated mission is to reduce CH4 production from cattle production through various means. Whatever else we may think, reducing CH4 emissions from any source is a good thing. So I am trying to get Agree to acknowledge that he is contradicting his source.

Re this second point: Of course we would be much better off if we stop raising cattle for food altogether. And you could argue the point that such reduction is insufficient AND lulls us into believing that we are doing everything we can - but again that is a separate discussion.

- a constant emission of biogenic methane does not cause any ADDITIONAL global warming because when it breaks down the CO2 is absorbed by plants. — Agree to Disagree

You keep repeating yourself by quoting the same source (which I have already read) and ignoring my questions/responses.

Two key questions that you need to answer

1. ------------
Virtually every source available (NOAA, NASA, IPCC, etc) states that methane is responsible for 14% of the total global warming and that livestock production is a significant part of that. Dr. Mitloehne seems to be denying that. So for the record are you saying that NOAA, IPCC etc are all wrong? Yes or no.

2. -------------

Biogenic carbon (e.g. CO2 and methane) does not make global warming worse.

Non-biogenic carbon (e.g. CO2 from fossil fuels and methane from non-biogenic sources) does make global warming worse.

For global warming it is mainly the biogenic versus non-biogenic issue which is important.

This is why we should be making major efforts to reduce non-biogenic carbon (this will be effective), and stop making major efforts to reduce biogenic carbon (this will not be effective). — Agree to Disagree

YOUR SOURCE states that reducing biogenic carbon is one of the most cost effective ways to reduce global warming and they are actively working on reducing methane production from cattle farming (details in your article). So please choose - do you agree with your source or not?

We have looped around in this back & forth 3 times now - if you have something new or different to say I will continue this conversation. Otherwise I give you the last word.

So with a constant number of cows the amount of global warming that is caused by the methane produced by the cows is constant. — Agree to Disagree

Right - it will continue to contribute 14% of the global warning - which accumulates.

To make the math simple, let's say that the current amount of methane in the atmosphere is causing mean global temp to rise by 0.01 degrees C every 10 years. So in 30 years if the amount of methane stays the same it will have contributed 0.03 degrees C rise.

But maybe I'm totally getting this wrong and Dr. Mitloehner will have an obvious explanation for his assertions. I highly doubt he will answer but you never know.

Apart from that, do you agree that what UC Davis is doing to reduce methane production is a good thing? If nothing else this will slow the rate of global warming, yes?

So first of all you should be aware that the Clear Center at UC Davis, receives almost all its funding from industry donations and coordinates with a major livestock lobby group on messaging campaigns. So we have to be very cautious about anything they might say.

As a result, when a steady amount of methane is emitted for more than 12 years, no additional global warming occurs (Frame et al., 2018).

This contradicts virtually every other source I could locate with a 10 minute search - they all say the same thing - methane emissions (primarily from cattle production) are contribute roughly 14% of total global climate change.

But let's say for the moment that Clear Center is correct and every other source is wrong - and that methane from livestock (provided it is constant) is not contributing to global warming at all.

Even with this counter factual assumption it is still a good thing to reduce methane production - since per your source this is one of the most cost effective ways to slow down global warming. Yes?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Edit: Maybe we are misunderstanding these papers. I email'd Dr. Mitloehner from Clear Center at UC Davis. Let's see what he has to say

Dear Dr. Mitloehner,

I am a lay person who follows climate science - I am hoping you can find the time to answer a question.

I can see from the published reports that CLEAR is doing some good work on reducing CH4 emissions from livestock management.

In this paper it states that when a steady amount of CH4 is emitted for more than 12 years, no additional global warming occurs. However this seems to contradict virtually every other source I can find which says that CH4 production from agriculture (primarily livestock raising for meat or milk) is responsible for roughly 14% of global warming.

I fully understand the biogenic carbon cycle, I get that livestock production is net neutral with respect to CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (apart from associated costs of transportation etc, etc).

However, the CH4 from 1.5 billion or so cattle is always in the atmosphere and this is well above the amount of CH4 that was in the atmosphere before we started mass production of livestock. So isn't that additional CH4 contributing to global warming (even if the concentration does not increase)?

Or put differently, would it be correct to state that when a steady amount of CH4 is emitted for more than 12 years, no additional global warming occurs above and beyond the contribution from the CH4. (My bold)

I am aware of the old adage "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" - so thank you for being patient with these amateur questions.

Yes, but plants and animals (and fungi) are all part of a cycle (the biogenic carbon cycle). So in the long-run the negatives from the animals have the same magnitude as the positives from the plants. It is a zero sum game. — Agree to Disagree

It is a zero sum game with respect to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. But the methane from 1.5 billion cattle that hangs around for 12 years in the atmosphere is contributing 14% of the of the global warming.

If you had actually read the article and watched the video from U Cal that you yourself posted (which BTW is financed by the cattle industry), it's all about reducing the methane emissions from cattle farming. This in of itself is a good thing

It looks like it's saying that cattle farming is not a significant contributor. What am I missing? — frank

He's saying that in cattle production there's an opportunity to go beyond net zero to net negative. I get that. We haven't discussed that up to this point, though. We were just talking about whether or not cattle production is net zero. — frank

Firstly I should have looked a bit more closely at the source of these articles. While they are by University of CA, from what I can gather these studies are funded by our old friends the cattle industry (I could be wrong on this). So we need to be cautious.

Just to sum up, CH4 is a much more potent greenhouse gas than C02 (estimates vary between 20 times to 80 times depending on how it's calculated.) After 12 years, CH4 turns into C02. Even tho the amount of CH4 in the atmosphere is much less than CO2, it has an outsized contribution to total global warming (at least 14%) during those 12 years.

After 12 years there is no difference to the climate whether these CO2 molecules came from tailpipe emissions or from cow burps. However as an accounting issue we can separate that out since the plants that feed the cattle are re-absorbing CO2. So the phrase "net zero" is not referring to the contribution to global warming - rather "net zero" is referring to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Now just to be precise we could quibble about the "net zero-ness" of this cycle since the whole process of raising cattle creates additional CO2 apart from the CH4 - but for purposes of discussion we can ignore that.

What I have not been able to ascertain in my limited free time here is whether the CO2 emitted by 1.5 billion cattle (since they do breath in O2 and emit CO2) is factored into these calculations - but I assume that this is factored into these calculations as well.

So reducing CH4 emissions from cattle raising is a very good thing from 2 perspectives - firstly by sequestering (or reducing CH4 emission) there will be fewer CO2 molecules floating around in 12 years - and secondly by reducing the amount of nasty CH4 floating around during those 12 years we can slow global warming by some measurable amount.

Of course reducing the production of cattle would have an even greater impact.

Amen, brother. Can we please stop discussing the god damned cows! — BC

I mean, the very notion that people would sit around arguing about cows seems crazy to me. — frank

The big problem is that economies and countries and people (farmers, etc) who depend on cows (beef, dairy, etc) are being punished for no good reason. — Agree to Disagree

In a previous post, @Agree to Disagree linked to an article from the University of California that supposedly showed that cattle farming is net-zero. However this article makes the OPPOSITE point (apologies for shouting). The full impact of this article is that reducing methane from cattle farming is a cost effective way to reduce global warming - because reducing methane has a more immediate impact on the environment than reducing CO2. Go to minute 4:00 of the video where the narrator talks about steps that California is taking to reduce methane emissions.

Here is another article from the same source @Agree to Disagree linked to:
https://clear.ucdavis.edu/news/new-report-california-pioneering-pathway-significant-dairy-methane-reduction

My point is just this: his assertion is not illogical. I would need more than a vague principle to accept that cattle farming is net-zero. But if he's correct that it is, then he's right that it's not a contribution to global warming. — frank

But his own source proves that it does contribute.

Just to be clear, it is important to reduce all sources of greenhouse gas emissions - oil, coal, natural gas, etc. But that does not mean that we should ignore a cattle farming as a significant source when there are solutions. These are not mutually exclusive.

I gave you 2 other sources which are NOT meat companies. What don't you like about these 2 sources?

This one is The University of California, Davis
https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/biogenic-carbon-cycle-and-cattle — Agree to Disagree

It appears that you have misinterpreted this source. The full impact of this article is that reducing methane is the best way to reduce global warming - because reducing methane has a more immediate impact on the environment than reducing CO2. Go to minute 4:00 of the video where the narrator talks about steps that California is taking to reduce methane emissions.

If there is still any doubt in your mind, here is another article from the same source you cited:
https://clear.ucdavis.edu/news/new-report-california-pioneering-pathway-significant-dairy-methane-reduction

Atoms of carbon in the atmosphere are taken up by plants.
Cows eat the plants.
The cows release the atoms of carbon back into the atmosphere. — Agree to Disagree

There are so many cows emitting atoms of carbon that there are not enough plants on the planet to consume those additional atoms of carbon.

I was reading some science fiction short stories and there was one where these people are struggling to survive the onset of an ice age, but then the protagonist wakes up and global warming is what's really happening. It was supposed to be about the psychological whiplash related to ice-age to global-warming news. — frank

You may be thinking about this episode of Twilight Zone

joking or not, it's relevant to the argument NOS is making. If NOS thinks that trump can't be guilty here because you can't prove intent without a confession, then that means a lot of crimes that involve intent are also unprovable without a confession. — flannel jesus

Of course - that's what I'm trying (in my own way) to get NOS to understand

I was being sarcastic as a passive-aggressive jab at NOS4A2's defence of Trump. — Michael

Ah - I didn't pick that up

he's specifically talking about crimes where intent matters, I guess. — flannel jesus

He was joking
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/828383

Only a confession by the accused counts as evidence of a crime. — Michael

??? is this a mis-type? Or maybe I'm not following you. You're not seriously suggesting that someone could commit murder but unless they confess then all other evidence does not count and they should be declared innocent by a jury?

It must be a quote from Donald Trump because he is the only one that can speak about his thoughts, intentions, and beliefs. If an eye witness can quote him then that would suffice for me. — NOS4A2

So if Pence testifies in court that Trump said to him “You’re too honest” - and assume for the moment that Trump does not testify - would that suffice? If not, would multiple statements by other witnesses along the same lines suffice?

Still hoping for a response on this:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/826970