I am interested in looking at the possible solutions and working out which ones are likely to be effective and which ones are likely to be ineffective. — Agree to Disagree
Please tell me some of the "plenty of solutions", and I will tell you why they won't work. — Agree to Disagree
Has any of this data been peer-reviewed or published? How are we to judge the truth or falsity of this analysis, which seems at odds with the mainstream consensus? — Quixodian
Anything wrong with the data would stick out like a sore thumb. — Agree to Disagree
I decided that trying to get it peer reviewed would be a huge waste of my time because it is "at odds with the mainstream consensus". — Agree to Disagree
Newtonian mechanics was undisputed (only had one side) for a long time. And then this denier called Einstein came alon — Agree to Disagree
I decided that trying to get it peer reviewed would be a huge waste of my time because it is "at odds with the mainstream consensus".
— Agree to Disagree
Typical conspiracy theorist thinking. — Quixodian
Newtonian mechanics was undisputed (only had one side) for a long time. And then this denier called Einstein came alon
— Agree to Disagree
That was a paradigm shift but neither contested the existence of gravity. So a shitty analogy. — Benkei
In the 17th century Newton concluded that objects fall because they are pulled by Earth's gravity. Einstein's interpretation was that these objects do not fall. According to Einstein, these objects and Earth just freely move in a curved spacetime and this curvature is induced by mass and energy of these objects.
The equations that he presented in 1915 not only led to a completely different interpretation of events around us but also ... — The Conversation
Climate-change/global-warming is a very "emotional" issue. Look at how many times I have called a Denier on this discussion even though I have clearly stated that I don't dispute that climate change is happening. — Agree to Disagree
"Another mistake that climate scientists make is to just use a temperature anomaly" (x2)
"Who was the “genius” who decided that the Little Ice Age (otherwise known as pre-industrial times) was the perfect temperature for the whole Earth? ... It was a Climate Scientist who doesn’t look at actual temperatures."
"Climate scientists almost always only tell the public about temperature anomalies"
"Do you mean the climate scientists who go on all expenses paid holidays each year"
"are you saying that sometimes (climate) scientists get it wrong? That their assessment of the speed of change was not correct.
How do we know that they are not wrong about other things?"
"I think that burning gigatons of fossil fuels causes some problems. ....There are many other important problems that also need our attention" — Agree to Disagree
You challenged climate science and scientists many times in this thread based on data which you claim is valid without any support. It seems to me that your sole aim in posting in this forum is to cast doubt on climate science. — Quixodian
I really don't agree that you're posting in good faith. — Quixodian
Countries need to work together to address it and doing so is going to be extremey challenging. — Quixodian
Isn't my initial example of methane from cows an example of the difficulty of fighting climate-change. — Agree to Disagree
It provokes strong emotions because it's a real danger to civilisation. — Quixodian
But most people seem to refuse to accept personal responsibility for the problem. They claim that it is all the fault of the oil companies. Climate change will not be solved with that attitude. — Agree to Disagree
Unless I'm mistaken, the cow-fart angle is from the 1990s? Or 1980s? This makes me think you've got some age on you?
My question is: do you remember days before people made a big deal out of climate change? Like a few people knew about it, but most people were completely unaware?
If so, what was that shift like: toward a kind of fervor developing around it? — frank
The cow fart angle is still a current concern. Somebody has just developed a food supplement for cows that is meant to reduce methane by about 30%. — Agree to Disagree
have seen (and lived through) many existential threats to humanity.
- All through my childhood the doomsday clock was sitting at 5 minutes to 12 (fears about nuclear war between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R) — Agree to Disagree
fear of the impending ice age — Agree to Disagree
I think that the awareness of global warming grew out of the work of some scientists (e.g. James Hansen) and was picked up by the environmental movement that was already worried about (non-CO2) types of pollution and other environmental disasters (deforestation, mining, loss of habitats, extinction of species, etc). — Agree to Disagree
I didn't know that. So they really think cattle farming is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions? — frank
Methane emitted by ruminants like cattle, sheep and goats is recycled into carbon in plants and soil, in a process known as the biogenic carbon cycle. It’s an important natural cycle that’s been happening since the beginning of life.
Cows (and other ruminant animals like sheep) are often linked to climate change because they emit methane, a powerful greenhouse gas (GHG).
But the fact is, this methane is part of a natural – or biogenic – carbon cycle, in which the methane breaks down into carbon dioxide (CO2) and water after about 12 years. Grass then absorbs the CO2 through photosynthesis, cows eat the grass and the cycle continues.
I remember in 1976 (my first year at university, doing Chemistry Honours, Physics, and Biology) when the news of a possible pending Ice Age came out. — Agree to Disagree
Most people do think that cattle farming is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. — Agree to Disagree
The cow fart angle is still a current concern. — Agree to Disagree
It reminds me of the old trope "I'm not a racist, but..." where whatever follows the 'but' is bound to be something racist. — unenlightened
If cattle are also contributing to global warming, that would be another good reason to just cut back on producing beef. It stop it altogether? — frank
Inedible feed to edible protein
The feedlot sector increasingly uses by-products that humans can’t eat, while still meeting the nutritional requirements of cattle. Examples include spent grain from bio-alcohol, feed-grade grain and cottonseed.
Grass-fed cattle (that may eat very small amounts of grain) produce almost 1600 times the human-edible protein they consume. Cattle that graze only on grass or hay their whole lives don’t eat any human-edible protein at all. Their net protein contribution to the human nutritional supply is so high it's literally off the scale.
Not competing for land
Part of the efficiency equation for Australian beef is that cattle mainly graze on land we can’t grow crops on. This is because of its terrain or soil type. In fact, Australian Bureau of Statistics' land use data show that since 2010 less than four per cent of Australia's agricultural land is used for growing crops.
A cow needs to eat around 25 kilograms of feed to produce one kilogram of beef. But us humans can eat none or only some of that 25 kilograms. So in terms of human-edible protein – one kilogram in and 1.96 kilograms out – the perspective looks quite different.
All up our work suggests that cows can be a good use of agricultural land for contributing valuable protein to our food supply.
The previous link that I gave you shows that cattle don't contribute much to the problem of rising greenhouse gas emissions. — Agree to Disagree
Cattle are the No. 1 agricultural source of greenhouse gases worldwide.
It’s not “cow farts.” Try reading about the subject — Mikie
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.