Beef and Greenhouse gas emissions

Originally posted by DeepThought
What is the point in me doing anything if they allow the opening of the 5th terminal at Heathrow? The problem is a collective one, if you fall for the type of thinking that says that ordinary people have to make changes in their lives - without making it easy for them to make them - all you'll end up doing is moralizing at people while the planet goes t ...[text shortened]... onal average of 7.5. I've already "done my bit" it's time for the government to do theirs.

My point being that you can't expect the government to do everything, you have to something yourself as well.
It has to be a combination of the two.
Well done for doing your part, congratulations.

Originally posted by Bad wolf
I don't take any supplements...

Well perhaps you should! The concept is so silly it's funny.

But even if you really believed this nonsense, why should anyone go out of their way to reduce their so-called "carbon footprint" when hypocrites like Al Gore don't practise what they preach?

http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/2007/03/page/2/

Does any sane person really think such stupidly trivial acts as eating less beef and using fewer plastic shopping bags could somehow alter the earth's climate? God give me strength!

Originally posted by Bad wolf
My point being that you can't expect the government to do everything, you have to something yourself as well.
[b]It has to be a combination of the two.
Well done for doing your part, congratulations.[/b]

It's easy for me - I'm a computer programmer and work from home. But, for example it is harder to get low energy lightbulbs than the filament variety so people don't use low energy bulbs (although the EU is changing that) assuming that the amount of CO_2 generated in making them doesn't wipe out the advantage. Also why are standby power usages so high? Why are office lights left on all night. This stuff is a lot easier to solve at the production/legisation end than the consumer end. Doing your bit is forcing the government to make these changes, not being a hippy.

Incidentally Merk was pulling your leg, I looked Creatine up and it's synthesized in your liver.

Originally posted by SpastiGov
Well perhaps you should! The concept is so silly it's funny.

But even if you really believed this nonsense, why should anyone go out of their way to reduce their so-called "carbon footprint" when hypocrites like Al Gore don't practise what they preach?

http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/2007/03/page/2/

Does any sane person really think such st ...[text shortened]... fewer plastic shopping bags could somehow alter the earth's climate? God give me strength!

The Catholic church preaches many things, and yet it has on many occassions covered up the actions of their priests, when some of them molest children.
They are hypocrites as well.
Why should people not touch children when hypocrites like some Catholic priests don't practice what they preach?

I think what you just said and what I just said are wholly comparable.
Both are wrong to one extent or another.


Trivial things add up, especially if everyone did it.
Dear Christ man, 1 kg of Beef is the equivalent of 250 km in a car, and as we know cars put out lots of CO2, they are a major part of the problem, both transport and agriculture.

Originally posted by DeepThought
It's easy for me - I'm a computer programmer and work from home. But, for example it is harder to get low energy lightbulbs than the filament variety so people don't use low energy bulbs (although the EU is changing that) assuming that the amount of CO_2 generated in making them doesn't wipe out the advantage. Also why are standby power usages so high? ...[text shortened]... entally Merk was pulling your leg, I looked Creatine up and it's synthesized in your liver.

I think we are in agreement.
The government must work on certain areas, that individuals would find difficult to do.

Originally posted by Bad wolf
[b]The Catholic church preaches many things, and yet it has on many occassions covered up the actions of their priests, when some of them molest children.
They are hypocrites as well.
Why should people not touch children when hypocrites like some Catholic priests don't practice what they preach?

What on earth are you going on about?? Who the hell cares what Catholic priests think and preach? Paedophile scumbags most of them! So I'm not sure what your point is on that one.

My point is that while self-proclaimed prophets like Al Gore preach one thing and do another, why should anyone else care? Not that I would care anyway because the whole idea is a bunch of hogwash to begin with. So I go out of my way to increase my so-called "carbon footprint" to make up for all the gullible morons trying to 'reduce' theirs!

By the way, what makes you think I'm Christian?

Originally posted by SpastiGov
What on earth are you going on about?? Who the hell cares what Catholic priests think and preach? Paedophile scumbags most of them! So I'm not sure what your point is on that one.

My point is that while self-proclaimed prophets like Al Gore preach one thing and do another, why should anyone else care? Not that I would care anyway because the whole idea ...[text shortened]... ible morons trying to 'reduce' theirs!

By the way, what makes you think I'm Christian?

Nothing makes me think you're a Christian, I was just using an example to summarise why I think your reasoning is flawed.

Why should we care? Well despite what you think, it is a big problem that needs to be dealt with.

I think the way you go out of your way to increase your own foot print is very irresponsible, sure you think it is hogwash, but you might be wrong, indeed, most seem to think you are wrong. Why does it need to be compensated for?
Why can't you just act normally if you don't believe us? Why be so spiteful?

Originally posted by Bad wolf
Nothing makes me think you're a Christian, I was just using an example to summarise why I think your reasoning is flawed.

Why should we care? Well despite what you think, it is a big problem that needs to be dealt with.

I think the way you go out of your way to increase your own foot print is very irresponsible, sure you think it is hogwash, but you m ...[text shortened]... ompensated for?
Why can't you just act normally if you don't believe us? Why be so spiteful?

Well your 'Christian' argument is a classic non sequitur.

So it's "a big problem that needs to be dealt with"? How many times have I heard that before? I remain sceptical. But to emphasize the point, here's a paragraph from an article I worte recenty for a local newspaper:

"The last few decades saw the passing of many plausible theories, each thought to be the most important issue facing mankind and promulgated by the academic community as irrefutable facts, yet none of which was ever proven to be valid. All of these theories have since faded into obscurity for various reasons, despite their widespread popularity at the time. Interestingly, most were seen as disasters about to happen; iconic theories of impending doom that were unassailable truths held to be the "consensus" view of science; each a sacred cow paraded in the media by concerned politicians, intellectuals and scientists predicting the end of modern society. Each of these impending catastrophes was touted by "experts" as the most significant threat to civilisation since the Ice Age. From the early seventies we have been successively frightened by the spectre of another Ice Age, a nuclear winter, the Jupiter Effect, the China Syndrome, acid rain, the Doomsday Asteroid, the Greenhouse Effect, ozone depletion, Y2K, SARS, anthrax, global warming, climate change and bird flu. Affluent Western societies, fearful of the potentials of obesity epidemics, overpopulation and African killer bees, expect such calamities to overtake them. We live our lives in constant fear of impending disaster as though God had it in for the human race. We are running out of oil and water and soon there will be standing room only. The end is always nigh."

So then. Yet another "big problem that needs to be fixed". Yeah right!

Originally posted by SpastiGov
Well your 'Christian' argument is a classic non sequitur.

So it's "a big problem that needs to be dealt with"? How many times have I heard that before? I remain sceptical. But to emphasize the point, here's a paragraph from an article I worte recenty for a local newspaper:

"The last few decades saw the passing of many plausible theories, each thought ...[text shortened]... s nigh."

So then. Yet another "big problem that needs to be fixed". Yeah right!

Have a look at why these issues have faded into the background and never caused major problems, and then get back to us with a sensible comment. Until then remember the more you write the stupider you look, thanks for the entertainment.

Originally posted by Bad wolf
The Catholic church preaches many things, and yet it has on many occassions covered up the actions of their priests, when some of them molest children.
They are hypocrites as well.
Why should people not touch children when hypocrites like some Catholic priests don't practice what they preach?

I think what you just said and what I just said are wholly c ...[text shortened]... cars put out lots of CO2, they are a major part of the problem, both transport and agriculture.

Yes these are major problems; although you have missed the greatest one, cradle to grave buildings are the worst offenders (IPCC 2007).

Before SpasticGov thinks I'm advocating the non use of buildings, it's really their inefficiences that need to be targetted.

Originally posted by SpastiGov
Well your 'Christian' argument is a classic non sequitur.

So it's "a big problem that needs to be dealt with"? How many times have I heard that before? I remain sceptical. But to emphasize the point, here's a paragraph from an article I worte recenty for a local newspaper:

"The last few decades saw the passing of many plausible theories, each thought ...[text shortened]... s nigh."

So then. Yet another "big problem that needs to be fixed". Yeah right!

I'm sure what to say...you haven't answered my question, but also of the things you mentioned, Ozone depletion was a problem, CFCs were causing it, but now we have phased these out, the problem the hole is slowly closing.
Hence, the problem actually existed, but you use it to show how theories are not valid...

Sounds very silly to me. 😕

Originally posted by DeepThought
I was being fascetious. I don't ride a bike, in London it's just plain too dangerous, and I have no intention of resorting to vegetarianism, except possibly as part of a seduction attempt. In any case vegetables are transported all over the world as well, so what's true for beef is probably true for bananas as well.

The main problem with the questio ...[text shortened]... energy transporting food around the planet so it can go rotten on supermarket shelves.

Your missing the point - Bad Wolf is not saying that vegtables have a lower carbon footprint because they require less transport, he is just using car emissions as a comparison to the "cost" of producing beef (any agricultural meat).

The reason veg production has a lower carbon footprint than meat is because of trophic levels, the loss in inefficiency is ~an order of magnitude at each trophic level.

Originally posted by Bad wolf
I'm sure what to say...you haven't answered my question, but also of the things you mentioned, Ozone depletion was a problem, CFCs were causing it, but now we have phased these out, the problem the hole is slowly closing.
Hence, the problem actually existed, but you use it to show how theories are not valid...

Sounds very silly to me. 😕

No, it was ASSUMED that CFCs were the cause of ozone depletion. It has never been proved and there is still plenty of debate. So the jury is still out. The same goes for anthropogenic global warming theory. It is a fashionable theory. The trouble is everyone makes too many assumptions (often based on nothing more than computer modelling) which then become carved in stone and sold as 'fact'. Then it becomes yet another trendy fashion with everyone jumping on the bandwagon and ignorant government officials knee-jerking to introduce 'corrective' legislation.

So what was your question?

Originally posted by SpastiGov
No, it was ASSUMED that CFCs were the cause of ozone depletion. It has never been proved and there is still plenty of debate. So the jury is still out. The same goes for anthropogenic global warming theory. It is a fashionable theory. The trouble is everyone makes too many assumptions (often based on nothing more than computer modelling) which then become ...[text shortened]... officials knee-jerking to introduce 'corrective' legislation.

So what was your question?

Oh well, I guess we will have to disagree.


Why be so spiteful?

Originally posted by SpastiGov
No, it was ASSUMED that CFCs were the cause of ozone depletion. It has never been proved and there is still plenty of debate. So the jury is still out. The same goes for anthropogenic global warming theory. It is a fashionable theory. The trouble is everyone makes too many assumptions (often based on nothing more than computer modelling) which then become ...[text shortened]... officials knee-jerking to introduce 'corrective' legislation.

So what was your question?

Scientists just keep getting lucky huh?