In NOS’s defense, there was a big push to suppress voting. It was done by the Republican parties in several states.

Trump was such a terrible president that people voted him out anyway, in spite of Republican interference and lies. I realize this must really be frustrating to the cult.

More people got to vote in 2020.

Trump wins? Democracy in action.
Biden wins? Fraud! Election interference.

Hey I just like to meet the person on their level.

Changing election laws to allow more people to vote during a pandemic. Election fraud. Why? It favored one party— and we know that because Biden won.

:up:

Yeah, I figured that one would irritate you. Must be frustrating times for the Trump cult.

Sorry for piling on. But it’s just so hilarious.

His countless efforts to root out fraud — NOS4A2

:rofl:

I couldn’t write better jokes.

But I am cynical and don't believe that people will do what is required. The reasons include […] ignorance, — Agree to Disagree

Without any awareness of irony.

Methane emissions do accumulate and are accumulating. The graph is pretty easy to understand.

We don’t want them staying the same— we want them to decrease. Same as CO2.

The rest is just talking out our asses.

methane emissions do NOT accumulate].

Yes they do, and are.



Even staying at a constant level for “12 years” is hugely problematic. We need to decrease emissions, not keep them the same and not increase them.

Try reading something other than one guy from the meat industry.

A constant number of cows produces a constant amount of methane each year. Because methane has a finite lifetime (about 12 years) this means that the total amount of methane in the atmosphere from cows is constant. — Agree to Disagree

No it doesn’t.

The 2022 methane increase was 14.0 ppb, the fourth-largest annual increase recorded since NOAA's systematic measurements began in 1983, and follows record …

Emissions are going up. Cows and livestock contribute emissions. They contribute about 15% globally.

We need more sustainable agricultural and livestock production, which includes less production.

In 12 years, all the methane will be gone, since this year we’ve completely eliminated cows. Problem solved.

—

Cows— livestock, agriculture, etc., emit greenhouse gases. That contributes to warming the planet. It’s that simple.

It doesn’t matter if the methane disappears in 12 years— it doesn’t matter if the CO2 will disappear in 100 years.

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

It absolutely does.

This is why we should be making major efforts to reduce non-biogenic carbon (this will be effective), — Agree to Disagree

But there are no solutions, remember?

“Tell me a solution and I’ll shoot it down.”

Well with Trump not at the debate, the candidates can talk about REAL issues. The big ones. Like wokeness, critical race theory, trans people, our “depleted” military, and “open borders.”

One tries to engage, but eventually one reaches the outer limits of denialism. 12 years too short, 12 million years too long, but if you look at it just so - no worries. Have a great death! — unenlightened

But…Biogenic carbon cycle?

Or do you still have something stupid to say? — Mikie

Are you saying that young people (with little life experience) usually have more intelligence, wisdom, and knowledge than older people? — Agree to Disagree

I guess you did have something stupid left to say. Cool.

Intelligence, wisdom, knowledge doesn’t correlate with age, nor degrees. You’re a prime example.

Like I said, let the adults talk. Go back to reading meat industry propaganda. Or do you still have something stupid to say?

If you have nothing left to add, let the adults talk.

I look forward to your next climate denial trope, as myself and several others repeat the “propaganda” from…checking notes… 99% of the climate scientists.

For those playing the bingo:

- climate science is propaganda

- scientists have “cried wolf” for decades

- scientists were warning about a coming “ice age” in the 70s, so…you know, why take them seriously now?

- there’s nothing that can be done about climate change. Name a solution and I’ll shoot it down with cheap skepticism.

- livestock aren’t a problem because…” biogenic carbon cycle.”

- scientists have “hidden” data on temperatures

Etc.

But I’m not a denier.

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. — EricH

:up:

True, but I have more sympathy for those who have been deliberately and systematically brainwashed. Our latest foil is a bit of both, but generally an average climate denier. Nothing special.

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.)