They have been saying that we only have 10 years left for the past 40 years. — Agree to Disagree

That’s at least 6 canards. Climate denial bingo.

Yes, they (scientists) have been warning about global warming for decades. And what do we see? This summer half of Canada is on fire, smoke plumes made their way all over the US, heat records broken all over, a tropical storm heading to California, deadly heat waves and fires in Europe, India, China — Maui on fire, and the hottest July on record.

But yeah, it’s exactly like “the boy who cried wolf.”

How willfully ignorant does one have to be to deny the evidence all around them? It’s the effect of propaganda…or pure stupidity.

Part of the reason for this is that people don't understand the real situation and are concentrating on the wrong solutions. — Agree to Disagree

Yes, and your assessment of what the “real” situation is should definitely be taken seriously, given your record so far.

It’s not like you’ve been peddling denialist tropes and ignorant statement after ignorant statement or anything.

We’re not only talking about cows— despite your obsession with them.

Anyway, here’s some references if you want to learn:

https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/food-agriculture-environment/livestock-dont-contribute-14-5-of-global-greenhouse-gas-emissions#:~:text=In%20short%2C%20livestock%20production%20appears,land%2C%20or%20land%2Duse%20change

In short, livestock production appears to contribute about 11%–17% of global greenhouse gas emissions, when using the most recent GWP-100 values, though there remains great uncertainty in much of the underlying data such as methane emissions from enteric fermentation, CO2 emissions from grazing land, or land-use change caused by animal agriculture.

https://www.wri.org/insights/6-pressing-questions-about-beef-and-climate-change-answered

1. How does beef production cause greenhouse gas emissions?

The short answer: Through the agricultural production process and through land-use change.

The longer explanation: Cows and other ruminant animals (like goats and sheep) emit methane, a potent greenhouse gas, as they digest grasses and plants. This process is called “enteric fermentation,” and it’s the origin of cows’ burps. Methane is also emitted from manure. Additionally, nitrous oxide, another powerful greenhouse gas, is emitted from ruminant wastes on pastures and chemical fertilizers used on crops produced for cattle feed.

More indirectly but also importantly, rising beef production requires increasing quantities of land. New pastureland is often created by cutting down trees, which releases carbon dioxide stored in forests.

In 2017, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimated that total annual emissions from beef production, including agricultural production emissions plus land-use change, were about 3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2010. That means emissions from beef production in 2010 were roughly on par with those of India, and about 7% of total global greenhouse gas emissions that year. Because FAO only modestly accounted for land-use-change emissions, this is a conservative estimate.

Global demand for beef and other ruminant meats continues to grow, rising by 25% between 2000 and 2019. During the first two decades of this century, pastureland expansion was the leading direct driver of deforestation. Continued demand growth will put pressure on forests, biodiversity and the climate. Even after accounting for improvements in beef production efficiency, pastureland could expand by an estimated 400 million hectares, an area of land larger than the size of India, between 2010 and 2050. The resulting deforestation could increase global emissions enough to put the global goal of limiting temperature rise to 1.5-2 degrees C (2.7-3.6 degrees F) out of reach.

At COP26, global leaders pledged to reduce methane emissions by 30% and end deforestation by 2030. Addressing beef-related emissions could help countries meet both pledges.

3. Why are some people saying beef production is only a small contributor to emissions?

The short answer: Such estimates commonly leave out land-use impacts, such as cutting down forests to establish new pastureland.

The longer explanation: There are a lot of statistics out there that account for emissions from beef production, but not from associated land-use change. For example, here are three common U.S. estimates:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimated total U.S. agricultural emissions in 2019 at only 10% of total U.S. emissions.
A 2019 study in Agricultural Systems estimated emissions from beef production at only 3% of total U.S. emissions.
A 2017 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences estimated that removing all animals from U.S. agriculture would reduce U.S. emissions by only 3%.
While all of these estimates account for emissions from U.S. agricultural production, they leave out a crucial element: emissions associated with devoting land to agriculture. An acre of land devoted to food production is often an acre that could store far more carbon if allowed to grow forest or its native vegetation. And when considering the emissions associated with domestic beef production, estimates must look beyond national borders, especially since global beef demand is on the rise.

Because food is a global commodity, what is consumed in one country can drive land use impacts and emissions in another. An increase in U.S. beef consumption, for example, can result in deforestation to make way for pastureland in Latin America. Conversely, a decrease in U.S. beef consumption can avoid deforestation and land-use-change emissions abroad. As another example, U.S. beef exports to China have been growing rapidly since 2020.

When the land-use effects of beef production are accounted for, the GHG impacts associated with the average American-style diet actually comes close to per capita U.S. energy-related emissions. A related analysis found that the average European’s diet-related emissions, when accounting for land-use impacts, are similar to the per capita emissions typically assigned to each European’s consumption of all goods and services, including energy.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-05/global_emissions_sector_2015.png

So too ignorant to understand. Got it.

whether these emissions are actually a problem. — Agree to Disagree

It does not address the very real problem of emissions from livestock, which is on the order of roughly 15%.

None of your sources once addresses land change, and make the ludicrous assumption that “if” we keep the numbers the same, eventually things would stabilize. Yeah, no shit. Since that isn’t close to reality, why you choose to harp on it is pretty telling.

How amazing it must be pretending that there’s no problem, and further pretending you know why — because you googled “biogenic carbon cycle.” Truly embarrassing. But keep trying…all of these climate denial tropes are a good demonstration of how stupid that position is.

You obviously haven't read it because it is about emissions from livestock — Agree to Disagree

I said it doesn’t address the problem of livestock emissions. It doesn’t address the problem at all, in fact.

It’s also a highly suspect source. Just go to the about section. You’re not getting a full story there.

Here again it’s worth pausing in awe of an individual’s capacity to believe they know something that scientists, who have dedicated their entire lives to studying a topic, don’t know— or have apparently overlooked. Like, for example, maybe if we keep repeating “biogenic carbon cycle” a thousand times, we won’t have to worry about meat production anymore!

Emissions are increasing from livestock? “Biogenic carbon cycle.” Bam. Problem solved. Scientists worried for nothing.

if livestock numbers stay the same, eventually (in about 12 years), the methane produced by livestock will not contribute additional global warming.

From “goodmeats.”

Clue: the keyword here is “if.” (That’s not happening.)

What don't you like about these 2 sources? — Agree to Disagree

That they have nothing whatsoever to do with the problem of emissions from livestock, which is significant.

Emissions from livestock production are expected to continue rising as the global population nears 10 billion by midcentury and diets shift to incorporate more meat. (Consumption of meat from ruminant animals like cattle is expected to increase by about 90% by 2050.) If current trends for food demand and production continue, emissions from the food system alone would likely push global warming beyond 1.5° C, even if all non-food system emissions were immediately eliminated. Consumption of dairy and meat, particularly from cattle, is expected to account for over half of future warming associated with the food system, with emissions from meat production alone contributing 0.2–0.44°C of warming by the end of the century.

The carbon in fossil fuels accumulated over a long time and has been locked away from the atmosphere for a long time. — Agree to Disagree

And forests hold carbon too— some for a long time. Clearing them to make room for livestock adds carbon to the atmosphere. This isn’t hard stuff.

You’ve repeatedly quoted a meat company.

Which points can you prove are wrong? — Agree to Disagree

You mean your point that cows don’t add any emissions because of the “biogenic cycle”? I’ve addressed this now 3 times. I even reposted it. You’ve ignored it. Not a surprise, given that it shows how ludicrous your position is, but still stands.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/831959

But yeah, keep quoting the “good meats” company website. Solid (and apparently only) source.

Try broadening your horizons. It won’t help your denial, but it’ll at least inform you a little more regarding your obsession with cows.

Worth repeating:

It is fossil fuels that are the problem. NOT cows. — Agree to Disagree

Livestock, including cows, are a significant contributor and significant problem. They add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Your embarrassing ignorance notwithstanding.

Point out the fault in this logic:
- 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

You really can’t see it, huh?

Well see if you can point out the fault in this logic (I’ll make it easier):

- “Atoms of carbon” are taken up by plants. Those plants get fossilized.

- We burn those plants.

- We release those atoms of carbon back into the atmosphere.

Thus, it’s a cycle and burning fossil fuels doesn’t add any carbon to the atmosphere.

That still too hard? Alright: more cows, more land is needed to raise cows. Millions of hectares.
———

Still not one response to this.

Agreed. The stupidity, denial, and ignorance displayed on this thread alone is itself indicative of a wider problem.

Propaganda, misinformation, and human unwillingness to face reality may very well destroy the species — from climate change, yes, but also from things like nuclear proliferation.

But I try to stay optimistic. Younger people give me some hope.

Go ask 100 people in Walmart; some of them will say that oil came from dead dinosaurs. — BC

Fair enough. But people also can’t locate the US on a map, so…

I asked Google whether coal is a rock or not and got two answers — BC

Coal is a sedimentary rock. This isn’t controversial.

Coal and oil can be called fossils, but in fact the original tissues of the organisms are present, albeit transformed. — BC

Coal and oil are fossil fuels. Also not controversial.

Not sure why you’re muddying the waters on something pretty well understood. No one claimed oil is made from “dead dinosaurs.”

Correct. And coal is a rock.

Just read this from the denialist WSJ opinion pages, extolling the CEO of a major polluter. Laughed out loud.

Mr. Huntsman first began to entertain doubts about climate orthodoxy in the years after he saw Al Gore’s 2006 documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth.” “His story was so well laid out, so precise,” Mr. Huntsman says. “At certain times, certain events would happen, certain measurements would be reached.” They didn’t and weren’t. [Actually, they have.]

It wasn’t a sudden “Aha” moment, he says, but he began to think about other dire predictions that had people panicked not long ago. “In the ’70s [here it comes…] we were going into an ice age. Then we went to acid rain—in six or seven years that was going to destroy all the oak trees and pine trees, and New England would be this deforested area. Then the ozone was going to disappear. And then we got to global warming, and we were all going to fry to death.”

Here.

:lol:

It is fossil fuels that are the problem. NOT cows. — Agree to Disagree

Livestock, including cows, are a significant contributor and significant problem. They add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Your embarrassing ignorance notwithstanding.

Point out the fault in this logic:
- 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

You really can’t see it, huh?

Well see if you can point out the fault in this logic (I’ll make it easier):

- “Atoms of carbon” are taken up by plants. Those plants get fossilized.

- We burn those plants.

- We release those atoms of carbon back into the atmosphere.

Thus, it’s a cycle and burning fossil fuels doesn’t add any carbon to the atmosphere.

That still too hard? Alright: more cows, more land is needed to raise cows. Millions of hectares.

When are people going to realize that industry and governments will not do anything significant unless forced to do so by the people? — Janus

I think they’ll begin to realize (maybe) as they see more and more destruction. But the propaganda is strong.

It is a cycle. There is no overall gain or loss of carbon atoms in the atmosphere due to cows. — Agree to Disagree

Is this serious? I’ll assume it is.

Yes, there is. There’s an increase in greenhouse gases.

“Rainforests sequester carbon. Logging releases that carbon back into the atmosphere. It’s a cycle. Thus, there is no overall gain or loss in the destruction of the rainforests.”

Your ignorance (and logic) is embarrassing. Try reading about this subject.

For those not interested in bogus climate denial websites:

Cows (primarily, of all livestock) produce 14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, mostly in the form of methane.

It’s a big problem, and one many scientists (and farmers) are addressing. (Aka, People who know something about the subject.)

Not to beat a dead climate denial horse, but to go back to an earlier discussion about “carbon footprints” (the fossil fuel engineered way of shifting blame to the average citizen):

They found those who make enough income to be in the top 10 percent of American households are responsible for 40 percent of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions. The top 1 percent of households accounted for 15 to 17 percent of the nation’s emissions, with investment holdings making up 38 to 42 percent of their emissions.

Then there were “super-emitters” with extremely high overall greenhouse gas emissions, corresponding to about the top 0.1 percent of households. About 15 days of emissions from a super-emitter was equal to a lifetime of emissions for someone in the poorest 10 percent in America.

The team found that the highest emissions linked to income came from White, non-Hispanic homes, and the lowest came from Black households. Emissions peaked until age 45 to 54, and then declined.

The richest Americans account for 40 percent of U.S. climate emissions

But yeah, let’s not blame the fossil industry (“only giving people what they want”) or the wealthiest Americans/Wall Street, let’s focus our attention on individuals and their carbon footprints.

Stupidity knows no bounds on this issue.

Can a centrally planned economy democratically and logically distribute resources, wealth, and labour of the world? — an-salad

Corporations are centrally planned economies, internally. They fail miserably most of the time at distribution. But it can be done.

What are you meaning by capitalism though?

fruits of another’s labor — NOS4A2

Cherries, apples, bananas…the fruits are being stolen.

The second question is the structure of the private ownership, contrasting what we have to co-ops etc. — Judaka

This is a great point.

Good to see this is all you have left to say after a series of absurd claims.

So what’s your next climate denial trope? That the sun is hot? Maybe it’s volcanoes? Water vapor?

Anything else? Or is that the best you have— that a bunch of places on earth haven’t gotten “warm”?

One that I like is this one because each decade is shown in a different color, starting with the 1940's at the bottom and the 2020's at the top as I would expect from a claim of incessant global warming. The very top line is 2023 — magritte

Exactly. But like most climate deniers, he’ll go on believing climate scientists are “hiding” things from the public.

“Look! This place hasn’t gotten that warm this year. Why wouldn’t climate scientists tell us this??”

It’s just so transparent it’s barely worth responding to seriously anymore. But I’m glad you did.

Ha— it’s from A Fish Called Wanda.

Greenwood is underrated.

Have a look at how many locations never even get "warm" — Agree to Disagree

:lol:

Climate change: refuted.

The data that I showed people was compiled by scientists/climate scientists. I didn't compile the data. — Agree to Disagree

Right right— you just discovered that they’re hiding it from the public. Excellent work.

“Why haven't climate scientists told people about this data?".

A second QUESTION: "Is this data an inconvenient truth?". — Agree to Disagree

:lol:

You cracked the case buddy.

The climate scientists aren’t telling people about the data YOU “discovered” because they’re trying to fool people into getting scared about climate change, so that China, George Soros, and the UN can implement more controls and usher in the New World Order.

Thank you for educating us with your groundbreaking work, blowing the lid off the whole thing. I’ll nominate you for a Nobel prize.

Can you link to the second quote?

@Agree to Disagree
Worth reposting, since you completely ignored it:

Global warming isn't about extremes (but could be possible consequence in certain local situations) but global averages. So that data means zilch. Use this instead: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

As to your earlier comment about fears of an ice age. Here's a nice read: https://longreads.com/2017/04/13/in-1975-newsweek-predicted-a-new-ice-age-were-still-living-with-the-consequences/ — Benkei

Both links are worth reading. For anyone truly interested in this topic, as you claim to be, doing so is the bare minimal.

I didn't say what I thought the data means. I just asked, "What do people think that this data means?". — Agree to Disagree

Right— says the guy who uses meat companies’ websites as an authority on methane emissions, blames young people for their “Carbon footprint,” defends oil companies as “just giving people what they demand,” and claims nothing can be done to stop climate change.

“Just asking questions.” How about this: take 10 seconds and ask the following QUESTION: “Have I just discovered something climate scientists the world over have missed, or am I just deluding myself?”

Don’t worry— I’m not arguing. I’m just asking questions.

I believe that people need to take personal responsibility for their own carbon footprint. — Agree to Disagree

British Petroleum, the second largest non-state owned oil company in the world, with 18,700 gas and service stations worldwide, hired the public relations professionals Ogilvy & Mather to promote the slant that climate change is not the fault of an oil giant, but that of individuals. It’s here that British Petroleum, or BP, first promoted and soon successfully popularized the term “carbon footprint” in the early aughts. The company unveiled its “carbon footprint calculator” in 2004 so one could assess how their normal daily life – going to work, buying food, and (gasp) traveling – is largely responsible for heating the globe.

Underlying this is a conflict in how we imagine ourselves, as consumers or as citizens. Consumers define themselves by what they buy, own, watch – or don’t. Citizens see themselves as part of civil society, as actors in the political system (and by citizen I don’t mean people who hold citizenship status, but those who participate, as noncitizens often do quite powerfully). Too, even personal virtue is made more or less possible by the systems that surround us. If you have solar panels on your roof, it’s because there’s a market and manufacturers for solar and installers and maybe an arrangement with your power company to compensate you for energy you’re putting into the grid. — Mikie

Oil companies just supply us with what we demand. — Agree to Disagree

lol. Glad you swallow their propaganda whole. Nice job.

And neither they, nor your mention of XL and IRA counter the claim Biden was worse than Trump on the environment in any way. — Jack Rogozhin

It does exactly that, in fact.

My claim still stands true — Jack Rogozhin

No, it doesn't. It's ridiculously uninformed.

The passing of the IRA alone is better than anything Trump did on the environmental -- which was to dig more coal, pull out of the Paris Accords, and destroy hundreds of regulations. There's plenty of information on it with a google search.

I do lots of political and social work outside voting. — Jack Rogozhin

And yet you want to actively make this work harder.

Your false equivalency of Trump and Biden is your problem, really. But that's yours to solve.

Simply declaring you “showed” things is meaningless. You haven’t once showed that. You’ve made statements that it isn’t true. And I see no serious reason to believe it.
— Mikie

I have showed it and showed I did. — Jack Rogozhin

I guess that proves it.

And I see no serious reason to believe it. — Mikie

I have no reason to believe them. — Jack Rogozhin

That’s insane to me. — Mikie

Your thinking otherwise is insane to me. — Jack Rogozhin

Your assessment is just ridiculous. — Mikie

Your assessments have been ridiclous, not mine — Jack Rogozhin

Forgive me. At first I thought I was communicating with an adult.

I can see you won't last long on this forum. But nice talking to you.

Underlying this is a conflict in how we imagine ourselves, as consumers or as citizens.

It’s clear where some line up.

Of course it is as Biden has proven to be as bad, if not worse than Trump. — Jack Rogozhin

Not on the environment— which is what I was talking about.

But in the last two years, they also passed the IRA and canceled the Keystone XL pipeline, strengthened car emission standards, etc. Actions at the SEC, EPA, energy, and interior have all been much better than under Trump — by any metric.

That’s not to say it’s perfect or satisfactory— just better than the prior administration. I think that’s obvious.
— Mikie

Sorry, but none of those vague, unspecific suppositions counter what I showed above: Biden has been worse on the environment than Trump — Jack Rogozhin

Canceling the XL and passing the IRA is hardly “unspecific suppositions.” They’re facts.

As far as the actions of the departments I mentioned— I can get into that more.

They exactly counter the claim that Biden is worse than Trump on the environment.

Because you just said too much is made about it. And now you are making too much about it, actually worrying about my vote, even — Jack Rogozhin

In the sense that it’s not our only political move. I’ve now repeated that three times. Why is it not clear?

Voting is important. But it’s not the only thing we have.

And as I showed, votes going to West simply do not give a better chance to either Biden or Trump. — Jack Rogozhin

Simply declaring you “showed” things is meaningless. You haven’t once showed that. You’ve made statements that it isn’t true. And I see no serious reason to believe it.

even more anti-progressive than Trump. — Jack Rogozhin

So you’re actually arguing that the Biden administration is worse than the Trump administration in terms of progressive values.

That’s insane to me.

Sorry — I prefer Michael Regan as EPA administrator, not Scott Pruitt. Call me crazy. But you do you.

You clearly don't care enough about the environment as you are fine with Bidens' terrible environmental record, which is worse than Trump's — Jack Rogozhin

You really should educate yourself on the environmental record of the Trump administration. Your assessment is just ridiculous, I’m afraid.

Anyone pretending to care should progressive goals has the minimal moral responsibility to examine the real world impacts of government policy.

Sure, but we also have the choice to vote against both, work towards building a progressive third party — Jack Rogozhin

At the cost of electing Trump, I’m not sure it’s worth it. There’s ways to build a progressive movement beyond just voting. It starts in each state, and builds from there.

While Biden as a man might be repugnant and unacceptable, his appointments aren’t. In fact some are quite good.

We went backwards with Biden as he drilled more than trump, gave out more drilling licenses than Trump, pushed the horrendous Willow Project, and committed the worst act of eco-terrorism by OKing the sabotaging of the Nordstream pipeline — Jack Rogozhin

But in the last two years, they also passed the IRA and canceled the Keystone XL pipeline, strengthened car emission standards, etc. Actions at the SEC, EPA, energy, and interior have all been much better than under Trump — by any metric.

That’s not to say it’s perfect or satisfactory— just better than the prior administration. I think that’s obvious.

If this is true, then you shouldn't worrry about people voting their conscience. — Jack Rogozhin

Why? I didn’t say it isn’t important. It’s just not our sole political action. We should make sure we’re voting against the worst, ensuring the greatest impediment to our goals isn’t in office—then continue on with our work.

It doesn't give Trump a better chance as neither Biden nor Trump own West voters' votes, — Jack Rogozhin

Not owned, but most voting for West will have values and goals that will be much more likely to be obstructed (and in fact actively fought against) under a Trump administration than a Biden one. If we had ranked choice voting, I think Biden would come before Trump, in most cases.

That being said, these votes going to West (or staying home) simply gives Trump a better chance to win — at least in swing states. In Mass, it doesn’t matter much. In NH, it matters a great deal.

So I care about climate change. The IRA will help my neighbors and I get solar panels and heat pumps. That’s a good thing. Trump and the Republicans are literally running on dismantling all of that. If my voting for West just because it makes me feel better, ignoring the reality of a two-party system, comes at the real cost of electing Trump— I’ve shot myself in the foot.